Results
Displaying 361 - 369 of 369
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of Montana Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Apes law in Montana. 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. While the state of Montana controls possession and importation of “exotic wildlife” by law, great apes are not specifically identified or addressed. Instead, Montana regulates the possession of great apes by administrative regulation and reference to the federal endangered species list. In the regulations, great apes are specifically defined as a "prohibited species " meaning they “may not be possessed, sold, purchased, exchanged, or transported in Montana, except as provided. . .”. In addition, Montana law addresses the commercial use of great apes in what it terms, “roadside menageries,” where animals are kept in captivity for the purpose of exhibition or attracting trade. Like other states, Montana does not define Great Apes as "endangered," either under its own endangered species law or accompanying regulation. It does, however, cover them by reference to federal law. Finally, great apes are covered under the state’s anti-cruelty law. However, the law contains a number of exempt categories including scientific research and teaching. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of South Carolina Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in South Carolina. In the state of South Carolina, there is no specific law that mentions great apes or contains an outright ban on private ownership of great apes. Any protection great apes receive in the state is due to their status as federally-protected endangered species. Regulations issued under the authority of the South Carolina Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act ban the possession of federally-listed endangered or threatened species except by scientific or conversation permit issued by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. This would exclude many uses of apes in the private sector. Great apes are generally protected from intentional abuse and neglect under the state’s anti-cruelty law. However, this law excludes certain activities permitted under Title 50 of the state’s fish and game code such as scientific collection and zoological purposes. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Utah Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in Utah.Utah does not have a law dealing with great apes, but addresses use and possession through regulations issued under the authority of the state’s Wildlife Resources Code. Additionally, only some great apes are protected under Utah’s anti-cruelty laws. The law prohibits both affirmative acts of cruelty such as torture or unjustified killing, and the failure to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody. Exceptions to the definition of “animal” exclude those animals owned or kept by a AZAA accredited zoological park or temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the USDA. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Wisconsin Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Wisconsin Great Ape law. Wisconsin does not have a specific law that prohibits the possession of apes or otherwise addresses their care. The state has a chapter on captive wildlife with a number of provisions related to the possession of captive live wild animals, which would generally include great apes.The state’s endangered species law also prohibits the taking, transport, and possession of endangered or threatened species, including federally-listed species. It is unclear based on a reading of the law whether it requires state permits for foreign endangered species. The law specifically exempts zoological societies or municipal zoos from its reach. Finally, apes are covered generally under the state’s anti-cruelty laws as warm-blooded, non-human animals. The law prohibits treating animals in a cruel manner, which includes causing unnecessary and excessive pain, suffering, or unjustifiable death. Additionally, all animals kept in captivity must have adequate food, water, and shelter. | Article |
| Great Apes | Rebecca F. Wisch |
Introduction to Legal Control Over Great Apes
|
Topical Introduction | |
| LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | Steven M. Wise | 17 Animal L. 1 (2010) |
The author gives an overview of the progress of the Nonhuman Rights Project. |
Article |
| How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe | Steven M. Wise | 1 Animal L. 15 (1995) | The first in a series of articles by the author whose overall purpose is to explain why legal rights need not be restricted to human beings and why a handful of rights that protect fundamental interests of human beings should also protect the fundamental interests of such nonhuman animals as chimpanzees and bonobos. The second article in this series traces the development of the common law as it concerns the relationships between human and nonhuman animals from its beginnings in the Mesopotamian "law code" of the third and second millennia, B.C. until today. | Article |
| LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS | Steven M. Wise | 2 Animal L. 179 (1996) | This article was adapted from remarks from Steven M. Wise at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals. | Article |
| The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule | Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017 | This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged. | Article |
