Results
Displaying 261 - 270 of 368
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND - Wildlife, possession/rehabilitation - Article 48.1-09. Nontraditional Livestock. | N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | NDAC 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | This section of North Dakota regulations concerns non-traditional livestock: any nondomestic species held in confinement or which is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture. The regulations describe three categories of animals: category 1 - those species generally considered domestic, or not inherently dangerous (such as turkeys, geese, ranch mink, and ducks); category 2 - certain protected species or those species that may pose health risks to humans or animals or may be environmentally hazardous (such as all deer, zebras, and nondomestic cats not listed in category 3); and category 3 - those species determined by the board to pose special concerns, including species which are inherently dangerous or environmentally hazardous (such as nondomestic swine, big cats, bears, wolves, venomous reptiles, primates, and non-domestic sheep and goats). Additionally, a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity. There are specific licensing requirements for category 2 and 3 species. The owner shall obtain a license from the board before acquiring animals classified as nontraditional livestock category 2 and category 3 species. A license or permit may not be granted by the board until it is satisfied that the provisions for housing and caring for such nontraditional livestock and for protecting the public are proper and adequate and in accordance with the standards prescribed by the board. | Administrative | ||
| 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 | ||||
| TX - Exotic pets - Subchapter A. Regulation of Keeping of Wild Animals | V. T. C. A., Local Government Code § 240.001 - 004 | TX LOCAL GOVT § 240.001 - 004 | In this subchapter, wild animal is defined as a nondomestic animal that the commissioners court of a county determines is dangerous and is in need of control in that county. The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or regulate the keeping of a wild animal in the county. A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if the person violates an order adopted under this subchapter and the order defines the violation as an offense. | Statute | ||
| GA - Exotic pets, wildlife - Chapter 5. Wild Animals | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-5-1 to 12 | GA ST § 27-5-1 to 12 | These Georgia wildlife provisions embody the General Assembly's finding that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare by strictly regulating in this state the importation, transportation, sale, transfer, and possession of certain wild animals. Animals such as kangaroos, certain non-human primates, wolves, bears, big cats, hippopotamus, and crocodile, among others, are considered to be inherently dangerous to human beings and are subject to the license or permit and insurance requirements outlined in the laws. The section also details specifications for the humane handling, care, confinement and transportation of certain wild animals. | Statute | ||
| 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 | ||
| Detailed Discussion of Mississippi Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Apes law in Mississippi. Mississippi law directly regulates Great Apes by a law that bans the importation and possession of certain wild animals deemed "inherently dangerous." In addition, the state also addresses Great Apes in its general anti-cruelty law as well as its endangered species provisions. | Article | ||
| Detailed Discussion of New Jersey Great Ape Laws | Amy Breyer and Rebecca Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in New Jersey. While New Jersey does not expressly forbid possession of great apes, personal possession is effectively banned by state regulations dealing with endangered and “potentially dangerous” species. Further, the state Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act bars the taking, possession, transportation and sale of endangered species. Great Apes are not specifically named, but rather are included by reference to the federal endangered species list. The ban on possession of endangered apes is buttressed by a companion regulation that states “no permit shall be issued for the possession of any species designated as endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. . .” Great apes are also covered under the state’s anti-cruelty laws. Unlike many other states, there are no general exemptions for research or other activities. | Article |