Results
Displaying 111 - 120 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Importation - Chapter 3. Importation of Wild Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121775 - 121870 | CA HLTH & S § 121775 - 121870 | This California set of law relates to the importation of "wild animals" (defined as any animal of the class Aves (birds) or class Mammalia (mammals) that either is not normally domesticated in this state or not native to this state). The violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor. The department may issue a permit to import a wild animal provided that a determination is made that public health or safety will not be endangered.< | Statute | |
| FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. | 68 FL ADC 68A-9.006 | Rule 68A-9.006, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law) | V.A.M.S. 252.002 - 252.333 | MO ST 252.002 - 252.333 |
This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes. |
Statute | |
| IN - Exotic Pets - Article 9. Fish and Wildlife. Rule 3. Mammals. 312 IAC 9-3-18.5 Exotic mammals. | 312 IN ADC 9-3-18.5 | 312 IAC 9-3-18.5 | This regulation lists certain exotic mammals that may not be taken (harmed, harassed, or killed) and establishes restrictions on the possession and sale of those exotic mammals. | Administrative | |
| TN - Wildlife - Part 2. Wildlife Regulation and Protection | T. C. A. § 70-4-201 - 211 | TN ST § 70-4-201 - 211 | These Tennessee statutes make it unlawful to barter, sell, transfer, or to purchase any wildlife without a hunting or fishing license. The unlawful importation, possession, or sale of skunks or red foxes is a Class C misdemeanor. The statutes also impose requirements on transport and storage of other wildlife. | Statute | |
| NY - Exotic - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0917 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0917 | This New York laws begin by stating that wild game and other wildlife may only be possessed if lawfully taken in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Law and the accompanying regulations. Skunk, bobcat, mink, raccoon and muskrat may be bought and sold alive during their respective open seasons. No live wolf, coyote, coydog, fox, skunk, venomous reptile or raccoon shall be possessed or transported, except under a license or permit issued by the department. Every such license or permit shall contain a prominent notice warning the licensee or permittee of his or her duty to exercise due care in safeguarding the public from attack; failure to do so is a crime under section three hundred seventy of the agriculture and markets law. | Statute | |
| VT - Primates - Rule 300. Animal Welfare Regulations. | VT ADC 2-4-300:1.1 - .88 | Vt. Admin. Code 2-4-300:1.1 to 3.88 | These Vermont regulations provide animal welfare standards for all licensees, including recordkeeping requirements, holding periods, and inspection provisions. Subpart D then outlines the specifications for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of nonhuman primates. Facility requirements, feeding, watering, veterinary care, and transportation requirements are described, among other things. | Administrative | |
| PA - Exotic Pets - Subchapter D. Permits Relating to Wildlife; Chapter 147. Special Permits. Subchapter N. Exotic Wildlife Posse | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2961 - 2965; 58 Pa. Code § 147.261 - 262 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2961- 2965; 58 PA ADC §§ 147.261 - 262 | These Pennsylvania statutes represent the state's exotic pet laws. "Exotic wildlife" includes all bears, coyotes, lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, cheetahs, cougars, wolves and any crossbreed of these animals. The commission may issue a permit to a person to act as an exotic wildlife dealer. No permit shall be granted by the commission until it is satisfied that the provisions for housing and caring for the exotic wildlife and protection for the public are proper and adequate and in accordance with the standards which may be established by regulations. It is unlawful to release any exotic wildlife into the wild, fail to exercise due care in safeguarding the public, or recklessly engage in conduct that places another person in danger of attack from exotic wildlife. | Statute | |
| In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo | 785 F.Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio, 1991) |
This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA. Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery | 152 A.D.3d 73, 54 N.Y.S.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) | 2017 WL 2471600 (N.Y. App. Div. June 8, 2017) | The Petitioners, including the Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc . filed two petitions for habeas corpus relief on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, two adult male chimpanzees. The petitions stated that chimpanzees are intelligent, have the ability to be trained by humans to be obedient to rules, and to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities. Therefore, chimpanzees should be afforded some of the same fundamental rights as humans which include entitlement to habeas relief. The Respondents, included Tommy’s owners, Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc. and its officers, as well as Kiko’s owners, the Primate Sanctuary, Inc. and its officers and directors. The Supreme Court, New York County, declined to extend habeas corpus relief to the chimpanzees. The Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed and held that:(1) the petitions were successive habeas proceedings which were not warranted or supported by any changed circumstances; (2) human-like characteristics of chimpanzees did not render them “persons” for purposes of habeas corpus relief; and (3) even if habeas relief was potentially available to chimpanzees, writ of habeas corpus did not lie on behalf of two chimpanzees at issue. | Case |