Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Wildlife possession - Chapter 6. Educational & Scientific Collection Permit Rule | Code Me. R. 09-137 Ch. 6, § 6.01 - 13 | ME ADC 09-137 Ch. 6, § 6.01 - 13 | This section establishes the rules in Maine for educational and scientific collection permits. A scientific collection permit is required by any person who wishes to take, transport or possess wild birds or animals and their parts or products for scientific research or educational purposes at any time of the year; and/or before any person may lawfully salvage, otherwise acquire, transport or possess wild birds and animals for any purpose not specifically covered under any other permit or license. | Administrative | |
| NM - Endangered Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 17-2-37 to 17-2-46 | NM ST § 17-2-37 to 17-2-46 | These statutes comprise the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act. Included in the provisions are definitions related to the statute, legislative policies, and regulations for listing or delisting species. Violation of the Act constitutes a misdemeanor and can incur a penalty from $50 - 1,000 depending on the categorization of the species taken. | Statute | |
| FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-30. Enforcement and Penalties | Rule 5C-30.001 - 004, F.A.C. | Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-30.001 - 004 | This set of statutes establishes the procedures for the inspection and quarantine of imported animals and sets penalties for violations of the state's animal import laws. | Administrative | |
| TX - Endangered Species - Chapter 68. Endangered Species | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 68.001 - 021 | TX PARKS & WILD § 68.001 - 021 | Texas defines endangered species as those listed on the federal ESA List as well as those designated in the state. No person may capture, trap, take, or kill, or attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill, endangered fish or wildlife nor may he or she possess, sell, distribute, or offer or advertise for sale those species (unless allowed as described in the subchapter). Notably, this chapter excepts from its provisions coyotes, cougars, bobcats, prairie dogs, and red foxes (with no mention as to what occurs in the event they become endangered). Violation of the provisions results in a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor for the first offense, a Class B misdemeanor for the second offense, and a Class A misdemeanor for subsequent offenses. | 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 | |
| New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center | 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 4919871 (D.D.C., 2016) | New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS. | Case | |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | Wash. Admin. Code 16-54-010 - 180 | WAC 16-54-010 to 180 | This set of regulations is the Washington Department of Agriculture's import requirements for various types of domestic, companion, wild, and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| MI - Research - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code. | M.C.L.A. 333.2671 - 2678 | MI ST 333.2671 - 2678 | This set of Michigan laws proclaims that "[t]he public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases." It also creates an animal research advisory board which may regulate and establish standards pursuant to section 2678 controlling the humane use of animals. Further, the department, its representative, or a member of the animal research advisory board may inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes for the purpose of investigation of compliance with board standards. A person shall not keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the department. | Statute | |
| Sarah, Keeli, Ivy, Sheba, Darrell, Harper, Emma, Rain, Ulysses, Henry Melvyn Richardson, Stephany Harris, and Klaree Boose, plai | In this case, plaintiffs are non-human primates and humans interested in their welfare. The primates were formerly part of a research program run at Ohio State University for cognition research (the OSU Chimpanzee Cognition Center). After funding ran out, OSU sold the chimpanzees to Primarily Primates Inc. (“PPI”), who held themselves out to be non-profit that acts a sanctuary for retiring animals. However, plaintiffs allege that the conditions in which the chimpanzees were housed were inadequate and proper care was not provided to the primates (several of the animals died in transit and at the facility). Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that would transfer the animals to a new sanctuary because defendants’ actions are unlawful under Texas laws. Plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order that would allow a team of independent caretakers and veterinarians to assess the current conditions at PPI and prevent them from accepting any new primates, among other things. | Pleading | |||
| AFADA habeas corpus Cecilia | 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 |