Results
Displaying 361 - 369 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Exotic Pets - Chapter 68A-6. Wildlife as Personal Pets | 68 FL ADC 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.0072 | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.018 | Under these Florida administrative provisions, three separate classes of captive wildlife were created. Class I, the most regulated class, includes large primates, big cats, bears, elephants, and large reptiles among others. The regulations state that Class I wildlife shall not be possessed for personal use (unless obtained before August 1, 1980 and permitted). The permit requirements to keep listed wildlife in captivity are outlined in Sec. 68A-6.0022. | Administrative | |
| TN - Endangered Species - Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 | T. C. A. § 70-8-101 to 112 | TN ST § 70-8-101 to 112 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 and includes the legislative intent, definitions, and factors relevant to endangered species investigations. By statute, it is unlawful for any person to take, attempt to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife. Violation constitutes a Class B misdemeanor and incurs warrantless searches and seizure of the wildlife taken and the instrumentalities used in the taking. | Statute | |
| AR - Endangered Species - 002.00.1-05.27. Endangered Species Protected | AR ADC 002.00.1-05.27 | Ark. Admin. Code 002.00.1-05.27 | This Arkansas regulation states that it is illegal to import, transport, sell, purchase, take or possess any endangered species of wildlife or parts thereof except as provided. | Administrative | |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | |||
| MA - Captive Wildlife - 2.12: Artificial Propagation of Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians | 321 MA ADC 2.12 | 321 CMR 2.12 | Massachusetts law prohibits possession of wild animals without a license. Licenses are only given out for limited reasons, none of which include the keeping of animals as pets. The classes for which licenses may be granted are propagator's licenses, public stocking licenses, dealer's licenses, possessor's licenses, and dog training licenses. | Administrative | |
| ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate. | Case | ||
| WI - Exotic pets - Chapter 169. Captive Wildlife | W. S. A. 169.01 - 46 | WI ST 169.01 - 46 | The Wisconsin wildlife laws require a license to take a wild animal from the wild or to import one into the state. A license is also required to exhibit, breed, rehabilitate, hunt, and/or purchase wild animals. Violations can result in fines, forfeiture, and/or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| CA - Circus - § 25989.1. Notice to animal control services agency of performances to be conducted | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25989.1 | CA HLTH & S § 25989.1 | This California section provides that any traveling circus or carnival must notify entity that provides animal control services for a city, county, or city and county in which the traveling circus or carnival intends to perform of its intent to perform within that jurisdiction at least 14 days prior to the first performance in that city, county, or city and county. Violation results in a fine of $500 - 2,000 for a first violation, and $1,500 - 5,000 for any subsequent violation. | Statute | |
| MT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | MCA 45-8-209 - 211; 45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | MT ST 45-8-209 to 45-8-211;45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | This section comprises Montana's anti-cruelty and dogfighting laws. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment or neglect; fails to provide an animal in the person's custody with food and water of sufficient quantity or minimum protection for the animal from adverse weather conditions; or, in cases of immediate, obvious, serious illness or injury, fails to provide licensed veterinary or other appropriate medical care. Animal abandonment of a "helpless animal" or abandoning any animal on any highway, railroad, or in any other place where it may suffer is also considered cruelty. A first conviction results in a possible $1,000/1 year imprisonment with graduating penalty enhancements for subsequent convictions. This section does not prohibit a person humanely destroying an animal for just cause or the use of commonly accepted agricultural and livestock practices on livestock (among other things). Section 217 defines aggravated cruelty as either knowingly or purposely killing or inflicting cruelty to an animal with the purpose of terrifying, torturing, or mutilating the animal, or inflicting cruelty to animals on a collection, kennel, or herd of 10 or more animals. | Statute |