Results
Displaying 51 - 60 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Wildlife, exotic hybrid - Chapter 1. Game and Fish Administration. | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | WY ST §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | This section of Wyoming statutes states that all wildlife in the state is considered the property of the state. It further provides that there is no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals. Exotic species means any wild animals, including amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or birds not found in a wild, free or unconfined status in Wyoming. This section also contains the management laws for delisted gray wolves that were repealed in 2012. | Statute | |
| TN - Exotic Pet - Part 4. Exotic Animals. | T. C. A. §§ 70-4-401 - 418 | TN ST §§ 70-4-401 - 418 | This Tennessee chapter relates to the private possession of wildlife. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, import, export, buy, sell, barter, propagate or transfer any wildlife, whether indigenous to this state or not, except as provided by this part and rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee wildlife resources commission pursuant to this part. Additionally, no person shall possess Class I (all species inherently dangerous to humans such as wolves, bears, lions and poisonous snakes) or Class II (native species that are not listed in other classes) wildlife without having documentary evidence showing the name and address of the supplier of such wildlife and date of acquisition. In order to obtain a permit to possess Class I wildlife, a person must be 21, have at least 2 years of experience handling such animals (or take an approved written exam), have a full-time resident caretaker, and must have a plan for the quick and safe recapture of the wildlife, among other provisions. The annual permits and fees for personal possession of Class I wildlife are $150/animal or $1,000/facility. | Statute | |
| CA - Crimes - § 597. Cruelty to animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597 | CA PENAL § 597 | This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife | MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| US - Chimpanzees - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Chimpanzee and Pygmy Chimpanzee | 1990 WL 325467 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AB23 |
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reclassifies wild populations of the chimpanzee and all populations of the pygmy chimpanzee from threatened to endangered status. Both species have declined through such problems as massive habitat destruction, excessive hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and international controls. This rule will enhance the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for these species. Captive populations of the chimpanzee will continue to be classified as threatened, and individuals of that species in the United States will continue to be covered by a special regulation allowing activities otherwise prohibited. |
Administrative | |
| NE - Exotic Wildlife - 008 Keeping Wildlife in Captivity | 163 NE ADC Ch. 4, § 008 | Neb. Admin. R. & Regs. Tit. 163, Ch. 4, § 008 | This Nebraska regulation lists species that are unlawful to keep unless a person is issued a Captive Wildlife Permit, a Controlled Shooting Area Permit, a Rehabilitation Permit or a Scientific Collectors Permit, issued by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission or under a captive cervine permit issued by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Captive Wildlife Permits shall not be issued for wild birds or wild mammals which have been taken or removed from the wild. Provisions for public auctions that deal in captive wild bird or mammals are described in 008.004. Importation and exportation of wildlife are also detailed in this rule. | Administrative | |
| US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates | 9 C.F.R. § 3.75 to .92 | This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards. | Administrative | ||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Welfare Institute; Valerie Buchanan; Jane Garrison; Nancy Megna, plaintiffs-appellants v. Ann | In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy. On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part. | Pleading | |||
| 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 | ||
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. | H R S § 183D-1 - 66 | HI ST § 183D-1 - § 183D-66 | These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. | Statute |