|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|WV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes||W. Va. Code, § 7-10-1 to 5; W. Va. Code, § 61-8-19 to 23; W. Va. Code, § 19-33-1 - 5||WV ST § 7-10-1 to 5; WV ST § 61-8-19 to 23; WV ST § 19-33-1 - 5||These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. If any person cruelly mistreats, abandons or withholds proper sustenance, including food, water, shelter or medical treatment, necessary to sustain normal health and fitness or to end suffering or abandons any animal to die, or uses, trains or possesses any domesticated animal for the purpose of seizing, detaining or maltreating any other domesticated animal, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any person intentionally tortures or maliciously kills an animal, or causes, procures or authorizes any other person to torture or maliciously kill an animal, he or she is guilty of a felony. The provisions of this section do not apply to lawful acts of hunting, fishing, trapping or animal training or farm livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife kept in private or licensed game farms if kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife or game farm production and management. The section also prohibits animal fighting, making it a felony if the animal is a dog or other fur-bearing animal ("canine, feline, porcine, bovine, or equine species whether wild or domesticated"), and a misdemeanor if not (i.e., cockfighting).||Statute|
|WV - Exotic Pet - § 20-2-51. Permit for keeping pets; § 20-2-52. Permits for roadside menageries||W. Va. Code, § 20-2-51; W. Va. Code, § 20-2-52||WV ST § 20-2-51; WV ST § 20-2-52||This West Virginia statute provides that the state fish and game director may issue a permit to a person to keep and maintain in captivity as a pet, a wild animal acquired from a commercial dealer or during the legal open season. The fee is charged is two dollars.||Statute|
|WV - Scientific research - § 20-2-50. Permit to hunt, kill, etc., wildlife for scientific or propagation purposes||W. Va. Code, § 20-2-50||WV ST § 20-2-50||Under this West Virginia law, the director may issue a permit to a person to hunt, kill, take, capture or maintain in captivity wildlife exclusively for scientific purposes, but not for any commercial purposes.||Statute|
|WY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes||W. S. 1977 § 6-3-203||WY ST § 6-3-203||Under the general anti-cruelty part of the law, a person commits misdemeanor cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly overrides an animal or drives an animal when overloaded; unnecessarily or cruelly beats or injures an animal, or carries an animal in a manner that poses undue risk of injury or death. The neglect component provides that person who has charge and custody of any animal and unnecessarily fails to provide it with the proper food, drink or protection from the weather, or cruelly abandons the animal, or fails to provide the animal with appropriate medical care is also guilty of cruelty. Felony cruelty involves acts like animal fighting offenses and shooting, poisoning, or intentionally killing or seriously injuring livestock or domesticated animals. If a person convicted of a violation of this section is also the owner of the animal, the court may require the person to forfeit ownership of the animal to the county in which the person is convicted. Wyoming amended its cruelty law in early 2011 to include the new offense of "household pet animal cruelty" described in subpart (p).||Statute|
|WY - Rehabilitation - Chapter 45. Wildlife Rehabilitation||WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24||WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24||
The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the care of sick, injured, debilitated or orphaned wildlife, excluding big game animals and trophy game animals, by permitted wildlife rehabilitators and to provide criteria for the issuance of permits to such wildlife rehabilitators. In accordance with this regulation, wildlife rehabilitators issued permits pursuant to this regulation may acquire sick, injured, debilitated, or orphaned wildlife and provide necessary treatment in order that the wildlife may be returned to live in the wild independent of human aid and sustenance. As soon as it can be determined that sick or injured wildlife is not likely to recover within one-hundred eighty (180) days, the wildlife shall be euthanized; unless Department approval is given for extended care.
|WY - Scientific permits - Chapter 33. Regulation Governing Issuance of Scientific Research, Educational or Special Purpose Permi||WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1 - 8||WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1- 6||
The purpose of this regulation is to govern and regulate the issuance of permits to take, capture, handle, and transport Wyoming wildlife for scientific research, educational or special purposes. Such permits may be issued to persons, educational institutions, or governmental entities when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines the scientific research, educational, or special purposes are beneficial to wildlife, the department or the public.
|WY - Wildlife, exotic hybrid - Chapter 1. Game and Fish Administration.||W. S. 1977 §§ 23-1-101 to 109||WY ST §§ 23-1-101 to 109||This section of Wyoming statutes states that all wildlife in the state is considered the property of the state. It further provides that there is no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals. Exotic species means any wild animals, including amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or birds not found in a wild, free or unconfined status in Wyoming. This section also contains the management laws for delisted gray wolves that were repealed in 2012.||Statute|
|ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION||Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019)||In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate.||Case|
|“ASOCIACIÓN DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS C/ GCBA S/ AMPARO”||Orangutana Sandra-Sentencia de Cámara- Sala I del Fuero Contencioso Administrativo y Tributario CABA||Courtroom I of the Chamber of Appeals in Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires ruled that the technical reports presented by the experts for the improvement of the orangutan Sandra’s living conditions showed enough evidence to conclude that it was not in the best interest of the orangutan to transfer her to a sanctuary or to transfer her to her natural habitat. Thus, the court accepted and ordered a series of measures in order to guarantee her welfare conditions.||Case|
|“PRESENTACIÓN EFECTUADA POR A.F.A.D.A RESPECTO DEL CHIMPANCÉ “CECILIA”- SUJETO NO HUMANO”||EXPTE. NRO. P-72.254/15||“Abogados y Funcionarios de defensa Animal” (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Cecilia, a 30 year old chimpanzee that lived in the Mendoza Zoo alleging that the chimpanzee had been illegitimately and arbitrarily deprived of her right to ambulatory freedom and right to have a dignified life on the part of authorities of the Zoo of the City of Mendoza, Argentina. The court granted habeas corpus to Cecilia, ruling that Cecilia was a living being with rights and instructing defendants to immediately free her and to relocate her to the Great Ape Project Sanctuary in Brazil. Until this moment, only humans illegally detained had been granted this writ.||Case|