Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Circus - Chapter 2152. Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 2152.001 - 202 (Repealed 2015) | TX OCC § 2152.001 - 202 | Note chapter repealed: Repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 1 (S.B. 219), § 5.318(14), eff. April 2, 2015. This set of Texas laws concerns the regulation of carnivals, circuses, and zoos. However, circuses are specifically exempted from regulation if they are licensed by the USDA and if the circus provides proof of (mandatory) inspection at least once a year. "Circus" is defined as a commercial variety show featuring animal acts for public entertainment. In Texas, the Texas Board of Health must adopt standards for the operation of circuses, carnivals, and zoos that promote humane conditions for animals and protect the public health and safety. A person may not operate a circus, carnival, or zoo unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter for the circus, carnival, or zoo. A person who knowingly operates a circus without a license under this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| CO - Pet Shop - Article 80. Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act | C. R. S. A. § 35-80-101 - 117 | CO ST § 35-80-101 to 117 | This Colorado Act regulates pet animal facilities (i.e., shelters, large kennels, and breeders). The Act covers licensing of the facilities and those activities deemed unlawful, such as selling a kitten or puppy under the age of 8 weeks and refusing a lawful inspection. | Statute | |
| WI - Importation - Wildlife, Chapter 10. Animal Diseases and Movement. | Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.85 | WI ADC s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.87 | In this set of Wisconsin regulations, "wild animal" does not include a domestic animal identified in s. ATCP 10.02 (livestock, poultry, and other domestic animals). The majority of the regulations here concern disease detection, inoculation, and prevention in domestic herds. However, a person who imports an animal must comply with importing requirements including obtaining a permit under ATCP 10.07. Importation of specific species (dog, cats, exotic ruminants, camelids, elephants, etc.) are covered in 10.80 - 10.86. | Administrative | |
| CA - Crimes - § 597. Cruelty to animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597 | CA PENAL § 597 | This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section. | Statute | |
| MS - Endangered Species - Chapter 5. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 | MS ST §§ 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 | These Mississippi statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions for the Act, the legislative findings, and the associated regulations of the Act. Violations under the Act may incur up to a $1,000 fine and/or one-year term of imprisonment as well as equipment confiscation. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife | MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| US - Chimpanzees - § 283m. Sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees (CHIMP Act) | 42 U.S.C.A. § 283m | This Act provides a system of sanctuaries to provide for the lifetime care of chimpanzees not needed for research that have been used, or were bred or purchased for use, in research conducted or supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, or other agencies of the Federal Government. The Act lists, among other things, requirements for the sanctuaries, criteria for "acceptable" chimpanzees, restrictions on further research of these chimpanzees, and establishment of contracts to entities providing care in the system. | Statute | ||
| NM - Exotic Pets - 19.35.7. Importation of Live Nondomestic Animals Birds and Fish | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.7.1 - 23 | NM ADC 19.35.7.1 - 23 | This regulation covers persons who desire to bring wildlife species into the state of New Mexico. It may include the general public, pet importers, holders of Class A park licenses, department permitees and others. The stated objective is, "[t]o provide consistent criteria for the importation of live non-domesticated animals into New Mexico and to protect native wildlife against the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases, undesirable species and address human health and safety issues." | Administrative | |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 527 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 4329474 (D.D.C.) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. This Order was Superseded by In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health , 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008). |
Case | |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. | H R S § 183D-1 - 66 | HI ST § 183D-1 - § 183D-66 | These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. | Statute |