Results
Displaying 361 - 369 of 369
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of South Dakota Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in South Dakota. Generally, in South Dakota, it is unlawful to possess a great ape in the state of South Dakota under the state’s endangered species law. Violation of that chapter is a misdemeanor.In the event that the endangered species law is bridged, South Dakota requires possessors of “captive nondomestic mammals” to obtain a permit. Additionally, great apes are generally protected from intentional abuse and neglect under the state’s anti-cruelty law. The law excludes properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations performed by personnel following guidelines established by the National Institute of Health and the United States Department of Agriculture | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of West Virginia Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses West Virginia Great Ape law. West Virginia has no law that restricts or otherwise mentions great apes. In fact, West Virginia does not even have a state endangered species provision providing additional state protection for endangered or threatened species. The only law to address great apes because it covers all animals is the state’s anti-cruelty provision. The law does except the humane use of animals or activities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, and the law’s accompanying regulations. This would include scientific research and animal exhibitors licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Wyoming Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Wyoming Great Ape law. Wyoming has no law that restricts or otherwise mentions great apes. In fact, Wyoming does not even have a state endangered species provision providing additional state protection for endangered or threatened species. The only possible reference that could include great apes is the definition for “exotic species” under the general fish and game code definitions. However, there are no accompanying restrictions on possession or importation of those exotic species. The state’s cruelty law is broad enough to include great apes. There are no exceptions under the cruelty for scientific research or testing. | Article |
| Table of State Great Ape Possession Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This table shows state laws related to the possession of great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans). The table separates possessors of great apes into five general categories: |
Topic Table |
| Detailed Discussion of Virginia Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This discussion analyzes the laws relevant to the possession of great apes in Virginia. The paper examines categories of individuals who possess great apes including persons using them as pets, exhibitors, zoos, sanctuaries, and research facilities. |
Article |
| LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | Steven M. Wise | 17 Animal L. 1 (2010) |
The author gives an overview of the progress of the Nonhuman Rights Project. |
Article |
| How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe | Steven M. Wise | 1 Animal L. 15 (1995) | The first in a series of articles by the author whose overall purpose is to explain why legal rights need not be restricted to human beings and why a handful of rights that protect fundamental interests of human beings should also protect the fundamental interests of such nonhuman animals as chimpanzees and bonobos. The second article in this series traces the development of the common law as it concerns the relationships between human and nonhuman animals from its beginnings in the Mesopotamian "law code" of the third and second millennia, B.C. until today. | Article |
| LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS | Steven M. Wise | 2 Animal L. 179 (1996) | This article was adapted from remarks from Steven M. Wise 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 |
| The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule | Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017 | This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged. | Article |