Results
Displaying 311 - 320 of 368
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Exotic Pets - Chapter 609. Animal Control; Exotic Animals; Dealers. | O. R. S. § 609.205 - 355 | OR ST § 609.205 - 355 | These Oregon laws concern the regulation of exotic pets in the state. An "exotic animal" for purposes of the section means a member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic cat), any nonhuman primate, any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic dog), any bear except the black bear, and any member of the order Crocodylia. A person may not keep an exotic animal in this state unless the person possesses a valid State Department of Agriculture permit for that animal issued prior to the effective date of this 2009 Act. | Statute | |
| CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales | CT ADC § 22-344-32 - 94 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 22-344-32 - § 22-344-94 | This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. | Administrative | |
| SuiÁa | impetraram este HABEAS CORPUS REPRESSIVO, em favor da chimpanzÈ "SuiÁa" (nome cientifico anthropopithecus troglodytes), macaca que se encontra enjaulada no Parque Zoobot‚nico Get˙lio Vargas (Jardim ZoolÛgico de Salvador), situado na Av. Ademar de Barros | 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 | |
| IA - Dangerous Wild Animals - Chapter 77. Dangerous Wild Animals | IA ADC 21-77.1 - 14 | Iowa Admin. Code r. 21-77.1 - 14 | This set of rules defines a "dangerous wild animal" and prohibits the importation, possession, ownership, and breeding of those animals. Certain listed individuals and entities are exempt from the ban. Also, a person who owned or possessed a dangerous wild animal on July 1, 2007 may continue to own or possess that animal if the person complies with the legal requirements outlined in this Chapter. | Administrative | |
| WI - Endangered Species - 29.604. Endangered and threatened species protected | W. S. A. 29.604, 29.977, 29.983 | WI ST 29.604, 29.977, 29.983 | This Wisconsin statute embodies the legislative view that certain wild animals and wild plants are endangered or threatened and are entitled to preservation and protection as a matter of general state concern. Violation of the Act with regard to protected animal species may result in a $500-2,000 for a taking, and a $2,000-5,000 fine with 9 months imprisonment for an intentional taking. Both incur the suspension of hunting license privileges. Incidental takings may be allowed through permit if steps are taken to establish and file a "conservation plan." | Statute | |
| AR - Endangered Species - 002.00.1-05.27. Endangered Species Protected | AR ADC 002.01.1-05.27 | Ark. Admin. Code 002.01.1-05.27 | This Arkansas regulation states that it is illegal to import, transport, sell, purchase, take or possess any endangered species of wildlife or parts thereof except as provided. | Administrative | |
| Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy and Kiko v. | 31 N.Y.3d 1054, 100 N.E.3d 846 (2018) | 2018 WL 2107087 (Mem), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 03309 | The petitioner, Nonhuman Rights Project brought this appeal on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, who are two captive chimpanzees. The chimpanzees had been confined by their owners in small cages within a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area, respectively. Petitioner sought leave to appeal from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed two judgments of the Supreme Court declining to sign orders to show cause to grant the chimpanzees habeas relief. The lower courts based their denial of habeas corpus for the chimpanzees on the dictionary definition for "person." The term “person” tends to lean towards an entity that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human. The Appellate Division also reasoned that chimpanzees are not considered people because they lack the capacity to bear legal duties or to be held legally accountable for their actions. As a counter, the Petitioner argued that the same can be said for human infants or comatose human adults, yet no one would say that it is improper to seek a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of one of them. The Appellate Division therefore based their denial on the fact that chimpanzees are not a member of the human species. In the instant action, Court of Appeals of New York denied the motion for leave to appeal. In the concurring opinion, Judge Fahey states that the better approach is not to ask whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether it has the same rights and duties as a human being, but whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. The concurring opinion also found that the Appellate Division erred by misreading the case it relied on and holding that a habeas corpus challenge cannot be used to seek transfer; a habeas corpus challenge can be used to seek a transfer to another facility. Although Judge Fahey recognizes that Chimpanzees share at least 96% of their DNA with humans and are autonomous, intelligent creatures, he concurred with the Appellate Division’s decision to deny leave to appeal. However, he ultimately questioned whether the Court was right to deny leave in the first instance. | Case | |
| VA - Endangered Species - Article 6. Endangered Species. | Va. Code Ann. §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | VA ST §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | The taking, transportation, possession, sale, or offer for sale within the Commonwealth of any fish or wildlife appearing on any list of threatened or endangered species published by the United States Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205), or any modifications or amendments thereto, is prohibited except as provided in § 29.1-568. Interestingly, the state mandates that anyone who keeps a non-native or exotic reptile must keep the reptile so as to prevent it from running-at-large or escaping. Violation of this provision is a Class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| CA - Permits - CHAPTER 3. MISCELLANEOUS. Permits for Restricted Species | 14 CA ADC s 671.1 - 671.6 | 14 CCR § 671.1 - 671.6 | Permits are required for possession of restricted species, but the department does not issue permits for exotics pets. | Administrative |