Results
Displaying 261 - 270 of 369
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| MS - Exotic Pets - Rule 32. Public Notice No. 3523.002; Dangerous Wildlife | MS ADC 40-2:8.3 | Miss. Admin. Code 40-2:8.3 | The following Mississippi regulations state that it is unlawful for any person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified as inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit or is exempt from holding a permit; these regulations, therefore, also indicate the requirements that must be met in order to obtain either a permit or an exemption. A violation of this act is a Class I violation and any person who has been convicted of a Class I violation shall be fined anywhere between $2,000.00 and $5,000.00, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail for 5 days. The person must also forfeit all hunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for a period of not less than 12 consecutive months from the date of conviction. Additionally, the regulations make provisions about how a wild animal shall be seized when these provisions have been violated. | Administrative | ||
| Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species, Sandra. AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection." | Case | |||
| NY - Wild Animals - § 11-0512. Possession, sale, barter, transfer, exchange and import | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0512 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0512 | This section provides that 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. Certain other entities are also excepted from this ban. | Statute | ||
| PA - Endangered Species - Chapter 104. Wild Resource Conservation | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2167; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2924; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 925; 32 P.S. §§ 5301 - 14 | This set of Pennsylvania laws comprises the state's endangered species provisions. Section 2167 makes it unlawful for any person to bring into or remove from this Commonwealth, or to possess, transport, capture or kill, or attempt, aid, abet or conspire to capture or kill, any wild bird or wild animal, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which are endangered or threatened species. It is the duty of every officer having authority to enforce this title to seize all wild birds or wild animals, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which have been declared endangered or threatened. Any commerce in endangered species is also prohibited. For a first violation, a person may have his or her hunting privileges revoked for 7 years. A second violation during that period may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt for 10 years. A third violation brings the forfeiture to 15 years. | Statute | |||
| 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 | ||
| Detailed Discussion of Massachusetts Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Massachusetts Great Ape law. Although Massachusetts does not have a law that specifically addresses Great Apes, several state laws cover them as protected endangered species. Its Endangered Species Act (MA ST 131A § 1 - 7) bans just about all activities related to the acquisition, possession, transport and sale of an endangered species. The Act's definition of “endangered species” specifically includes animals covered under federal law, encompassing Great Apes. The article argues that compared to other states, Massachusetts has perhaps slightly better than average laws with respect to the ownership and possession of Great Apes. The Commonwealth does not have any specific standards for keeping Great Apes in captivity, however it does reference federal standards in both its endangered species law as well as its exotic animal ban. It also does not contain the broad exception for research that many other state cruelty laws do. | Article | ||
| Detailed Discussion of Minnesota Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Apes law in Minnesota. While there is no direct law governing who may own a great ape in Minnesota, there are, however, laws in various parts of the Minnesota code that have some limited application to great apes. On the upside, the state's anti-cruelty law applies to all animals, and there is a law specifically protecting companion animals which applies to apes kept for that purpose. On the other hand, the structure of the state's endangered species law - that it neither references apes nor the federal endangered list - makes it a particularly lacklustre protection. Moreover, the state's affirmative decision to address the ownership and possession of Great Apes as a "regulated" animal, along with a number of exceptions and exemptions to the general ban against possessing such animals, is a window into how the state views these animals. | Article | ||
| Detailed Discussion of Nebraska Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Nebraska, like many other states, addresses the question of who may possess a Great Ape by reference to federal law. Nebraska's Nongame Endangered Species Conservation Act states that it is "unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship nongame wildlife in need of conservation...." As with other states, Nebraska also has exceptions to the ban against possessing endangered species under its provisions concerning possession of captive wildlife. Great Apes do fall under the definition of "animal" in Section 28-1008, and are thus covered by the general ban against cruelty. The statute, however, carves out an exception for research facilities that meet federal standards. | Article | ||
| Detailed Discussion of Maryland Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Maryland Great Ape law. Maryland regulates possession of Great Apes both expressly via state law as well as indirectly via reference to federal law. At the state level, it bans the importation, sale and transfer of dangerous animals through its anti-cruelty law. (MD CRIM LAW § 10-621) Maryland does not define the term “dangerous animal,” but section (b) lists all non-human primates as one of eight categories of animal that “[a] person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter, possess, breed, or exchange….” Although Maryland does have several laws that either reference Great Apes specifically or reference federal laws meant to protect Great Apes, many exceptions have been carved out of these protections. As such, Maryland's laws regulating possession and usage of Great Apes is mediocre compared to other states at best. | Article |