Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | ||
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case | ||
| OK - Cruelty - Animal Facilities Protection Act/Consolidated Cruelty Laws | 21 Okl. St. Ann. 1680 - 1700; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 886 | OK ST T. 21 1680 - 1700; OK ST T. 21 § 886 | These Oklahoma statutes comprise the Animal Protection Act. The main thrust of the act is the prohibition of animal cruelty and animal fighting. Included in the provisions are the definitions (including the statutory definition of "animal") and the prohibited acts related to animal facilities. The statute further provides that no one shall intentionally damage the enterprise conducted at an animal facility (including releasing animals there with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility). Violation incurs a felony with a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to seven years or both. | Statute | |
| AL - Wildlife, Captive - Article 11. Possession of Wildlife for Public Exhibition Purposes. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-320 - 328 | AL ST § 9-11-320 to 328 | This set of Alabama laws relates to the possession of captive wildlife. The Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources may issue an annual permit to possess wildlife for public exhibition to a person qualified by education or experience in the care and treatment of wildlife at at a cost of $25.00. Violation of any provision of the article results in a fine of not more than $500.00, imprisonment for not more than three months, or both. Notably, the provisions of the article do not apply to any municipal, county, state or other publicly owned zoo or wildlife exhibit, privately owned traveling zoo or circus or pet shop. | Statute | |
| IA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | I. C. A. § 717B.1 - 717E3 | IA ST § 717B.1 - 717E.3 | Under Title XVI of Iowa's criminal code, there are several chapters that outlaw forms of animal cruelty and animal fighting. The main animal cruelty provisions are contained in chapter 717B (Injuries to Animals other than Livestock). This chapter defines "animal" as any nonhuman vertebrate. However, it excludes livestock, game, fur-bearing animal, fish, reptile, or amphibian unless a person owns, confines, or controls the game, fur-bearing animal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, and any nongame considered a "nuisance." There are separate prohibitions against animal abuse, animal neglect, animal torture, abandonment of a cat or dog, and injury to a police service dog. Under both the animal abuse and animal torture sections, a first offense results in an aggravated misdemeanor. However, animal torture requires a mandatory psychological evaluation and graduates subsequent convictions to felony status. Exclusions under the various sections include veterinary care, hunting, animal husbandry, and scientific research, among others. Other criminal chapters include chapters 717C.1 (Bestiality), 717D (Animal Contest Events), and 717E (Pets as Prizes). | Statute | |
| DE - Exotic Animals - Chapter 903. Exotic Animal Regulations | 3 DE ADC 903-1.0 - 14 | 3 Del. Admin. Code 903-1.0 to 14 | These regulations govern the permitting process, possession, sale, rehabilitation and exhibition of exotic animals, i.e., live wild mammals, hybrids of wild mammals, and live reptiles not native to or generally found in the State of Delaware. The State Veterinarian or her or his designee shall have the authority to administer these regulations and shall be solely responsible for making the determinations required herein. | Administrative | |
| OK - Importation - Subchapter 25. Wildlife Classified as Domesticated and Exempt | OK ADC 800:25-25-1 - 3 | OAC 800:25-25-1 - 3 | The purpose of this Subchapter is to establish a list of wildlife that are to be considered domesticated and, therefore, exempt from licensing and permit requirements of the Department. | Administrative | |
| NY - Exotic - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0501 to 11-0540 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0501 to 11-0540 | This set of New York statutes provides some of the state's fish and wildlife laws. Among the provisions include a prohibition against interference with wildlife, restriction on the possession and importation of certain wildlife such as wolves, wolfdogs, coyotes, coydogs, foxes, skunks, and venomous reptiles, and laws that allows individuals to take destructive wildlife. No person shall knowingly possess, harbor, sell, barter, transfer, exchange or import any wild animal for use as a pet in New York state, except that any person who possessed a wild animal for use as a pet at the time that this section went effect may retain possession of such animal for the remainder of its life. | Statute | |
| FL - Agriculture & Consumer Services - Department Duties and Enforcement | West's F. S. A. § 585.001 - 585.008 | FL ST § 585.001 - 585.008 | This set of laws explains the powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services in enforcing the Animal Industry laws (Chapter 585). Any person or officer that is charged with a duty under the Animal Industry laws may be compelled to perform the same by mandamus, injunction, or other court-ordered remedy. Department employees are authorized to enter any premises in the state for the purposes of carrying out their duties under the Animal Industry laws and it is illegal for any person to interfere with the discharge of those duties. | Statute | |
| MD - Exotic pets - Subtitle 6. Crimes Relating to Animals. | MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-621 | MD CRIM LAW § 10-621 | Under this Maryland law, a person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter, possess, breed, or exchange the following species of animals: foxes, skunks, raccoons, bears, caimans, alligators, crocodiles, wild cats, wolves, nonhuman primates, and venomous snakes. Animal sanctuaries, AWA licensed facilities, those holding valid permits from the Department of Natural Resources, and veterinarians are exempted. This section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of an animal listed above on or before May 31, 2006, from continuing to possess that animal if the person provided written notification to the local animal control authority on or before August 1, 2006. Violation results in a fine and seizure of the animal(s). | Statute |