|Title||Author||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|AR - Health - 125.00.12. Arkansas Health Requirements Governing the Entry of Livestock, Poultry, and Exotic Animals||AR ADC 125 00 001||Ark. Admin. Code 125.00.12||Under Section 125.00.12, it is illegal to import any animal that is affected with, or has been recently exposed to, any infectious or communicable disease. An entry permit from the Livestock and Poultry Commission and certificate of veterinary health is required to import all zoo, wild, and/or exotic animals. Prior to entry the agency requires certain disease tests appropriate to the species at issue.||Administrative|
|AR - Primates - Subchapter 6. Nonhuman Primates||A.C.A. § 20-19-601 - 610||AR ST § 20-19-601 - 610||
This new 2013 Act prohibits the importing, possession, selling, or breeding of apes, baboons, and macques. It is unlawful under the act for a person to allow a member of the public to come into direct contact with a primate. Further, a person cannot tether a primate outdoors or allow a primate to run at-large. The section does not apply to accredited AZA institutions, AWA regulated research facilities, wildlife sanctuaries, temporary holding facilities, licensed veterinarians providing treatment, law enforcement officers, circuses holding AWA Class C licenses as provided, and those temporarily in the state. The act has a grandfathering provision that allows a person at least 18 years of age to continue to possess the restricted primate if within 180 days after the effective date of the act the person registers the animal per § 20-19-605 and follows other listed requirements.
|AR - Wildlife, captive - Chapter 09.00. Captive Wildlife/Hunting Resort Regulations||AR ADC 002 00 001 - 16, AR ADC 002.00.1-09.01 - 16||Ark. Admin. Code 002.00.1-09.01 to 16||These Arkansas regulations provide the rules for possession of captive wildlife. It is unlawful to possess, hold captive, confine or enclose any live wildlife, whether native or non-native, migratory or imported, unless otherwise specified in the chapter. Exceptions include members of American Zoo and Aquarium Association, bona fide scientific research that significantly benefits wildlife (with a permit), USDA licensed AWA exhibitors, and others. The regulations also state that "[i]t is unlawful to keep non-native wildlife under inhumane or unhealthy conditions." The release and hunting of captive wildlife is also prohibited, subject to certain exceptions.||Administrative|
|ARE CHIMPANZEES ENTITLED TO FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RIGHTS?||Dr. Jane Goodall and Steven M. Wise||3 Animal L. 61 (1997)||A presentation to the Senior Lawyers division of the American Bar Association in Orlando, Florida on August 2, 1996.||Article|
|Article 70 of CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Hercules and Leo v. Stanley||49 Misc. 3d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)||2015 WL 4612340 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2015)||Petitioner brought this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 and under the common law for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Hercules and Leo, two chimpanzees in the custody of respondent State University of New York at Stony Brook. It sought an order directing respondents to demonstrate the basis for detaining Hercules and Leo, and an order directing their release and transfer to a sanctuary in Florida. Respondents opposed the petition and cross moved to change venue. While the Supreme Court of New York County found that neither CPLR 7002(b)(3) nor CPLR 7004(c) required a change of venue to Suffolk County; that the petitioner had standing to bring the case; and that prior proceedings did not bar this case from being heard, the substance of the petition required a finding as to whether a chimpanzee was a legal person entitled to bring a writ of habeas corpus. Since the Court found it was bound by the Third Department in People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery, which ruled that chimpanzees were not “legal persons” entitled to the rights and protections afforded by a writ of habeas corpus, it denied the habeas corpus petition and dismissed the proceeding.||Case|
|ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO||ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO”||Argentina’s Juzgado No. 4 on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires held on October 21, 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. The court ruled that “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life." In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra.||Case|
|AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes||A. R. S. § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 09; § 13-1411||AZ ST § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 09; § 13-1411||
The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor.
|AZ - Exotic Wildlife - Article 4. Live Wildlife||A.A.C. R12-4-401 to 430||AZ ADC R12-4-401 to 430||These Arizona regulations define “captive live wildlife” as live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild. The regulations provides that no individual shall import or export any live wildlife into or out of the state. An individual may take wildlife from the wild alive under a valid Arizona hunting or fishing license only if there is a Commission Order that prescribes a live bag and possession limit for that wildlife and the individual possesses the appropriate license. However, no person may possess restricted live wildlife without a valid permit. The statute also provides a comprehensive list of all mammals that are considered restricted live wildlife. An individual who holds a special license listed in R12-4-409(A) shall keep all wildlife in a facility according to the captivity standards prescribed under R12-4-428 or as otherwise required under this Article. A special license holder subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the minimum standards for humane treatment prescribed by this Section.||Administrative|
|Baugh v. Beatty||205 P.2d 671 (Cal.App.2.Dist.)||91 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal.App.2.Dist.)||
This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals ferae naturae, of known savage and vicious nature.
|BIOLOGICAL CONTINUITY AND GREAT APE RIGHTS||Mark A. Krause||2 Animal L. 171 (1996)||This article was adapted from remarks from Mark A. Krause at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals.||Article|