Results
Displaying 121 - 130 of 369
| Title | 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 | |
| MO - Exotic pet - 578.023. Keeping a dangerous wild animal, penalty | V. A. M. S. 578.023 | MO ST 578.023 | This Missouri law states that no person may keep any lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, hyena, wolf, bear, nonhuman primate, coyote, any deadly, dangerous, or poisonous reptile, or any deadly or dangerous reptile over eight feet long, in any place other than a properly maintained zoological park, circus, scientific, or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge, unless such person has registered such animals with the local law enforcement agency in the county in which the animal is kept. Violation is a class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| NH - Exotic Pets - Chapter Fis 800. The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife. | NH ADC FIS 802.01 - .05 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 802.01 - .05 | These New Hampshire regulations state the different permitee categories under Chapter 800 of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Regulations. These regulations also indicate the penalties for making false statements, when annual permits expire, and who is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| WA - Exotic Pet - Chapter 16.30. Dangerous Wild Animals | West's RCWA 16.30.005 - 900 | WA ST 16.30.005 - 900 | This Washington chapter passed in 2007 regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. By definition, a potentially dangerous wild animal includes, among others, lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, wolves, (but excluding wolf-hybrids), bears, hyenas, non-human primates, elephants, rhinoceroses, certain reptiles, and venomous snakes. A person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, or have custody or control of a potentially dangerous wild animal. A person in legal possession of a potentially dangerous wild animal prior to July 22, 2007, and who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession of the animal for the remainder of the animal's life. | Statute | |
| People ex rel. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery | 2014 WL 6802767 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 4, 2014) | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08531 | This case is an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment denying petitioner's application for an order to show cause to commence a CPLR article 70 proceeding. At issue is the legal status of a chimpanzee named Tommy who is being kept on respondents' property. Petitioners filed a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 on the ground that Tommy was being unlawfully detained by respondents. They offered support via affidavits of experts that chimpanzee have the requisite characteristics sufficient for a court to consider them "persons" to obtain personal autonomy and freedom from unlawful detention. The Court of Appeals here is presented with the novel question on whether a chimpanzee is a legal person entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus. In rejecting this designation, the Court relied on the fact that chimpanzees cannot bear any legal responsibilities or social duties. As such, the Court found it "inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights . . . that have been afforded to human beings." | Case | |
| IL - Exotic pets - 5/48-10. Dangerous animals | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-10 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-10 | This Illinois law states that no person shall have a right of property in, keep, harbor, care for, act as custodian of or maintain in his or her possession any dangerous animal or primate except at a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, college or university, scientific institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, hound running area, or animal refuge in an escape-proof enclosure. A "dangerous animal" is defined as a lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, hyena, wolf or coyote.This Section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of a primate before January 1, 2011, from continuing to possess that primate if the person registers the animal by providing written notification to the local animal control administrator on or before April 1, 2011. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation. | TN ADC 1660-01-15-.01, .02 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-15-.01 to .02 | These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee. | Administrative | |
| ME - Fish and Wildlife - Chapter 7. Regulations for Wildlife in Captivity | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | This set of Maine regulations concerns the keeping of captive wildlife. A permit is generally required for importation, possession, propagation, rehabilitation, and exhibition of wildlife in the state. Wildlife held in captivity must be confined, contained, controlled, and sheltered in such a way as to protect it, and to protect property of others and the health and safety of the public. Section 7.11 provides the conditions and restrictions under the permit. Section 7.12 states that no primate shall be permitted unless the applicant/permit holder demonstrates a physical aide legitimate need for physical aide from a primate, and the animal in question is specifically trained for such purposes ( or the applicant must be providing foster care or training for the primate under direction or supervision of a recognized authority for same). | 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 |