Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Endangered - Part 365. Endangered Species Protection | M. C. L. A. 324.36501 - 07 | MI ST 324.36501 - 07 | The state of Michigan defines an endangered species as "any fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, other than a species of insecta determined by the department or the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to constitute a pest whose protection under this part would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans." Violation of the taking provision constitutes a misdemeanor punishable up to 90-days in jail and/or up to $1,0000 in fines. | Statute | |
| SD - Endangered Species - Chapter 34A-8. Endangered and Threatened Species | S D C L § 34A-8-1 - 13; 34A-8A-1 - 9 | SD ST 34A-8A-1 to 13; 34A-8-1 - 9 | These South Dakota statutes provide the definitions and regulations related to endangered and threatened species in the state. Under statute, state agencies shall establish and conduct control programs at state expense on private lands that are encroached upon by prairie dogs from contiguous public lands. It is a misdemeanor to take, possess, transport, import, export, process, sell or offer for sale, buy or offer to buy (nor may a common or contract carrier transport or receive for shipment) a listed species as defined by statute. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic Pets - Sub-chapter 22. Exotic Wildlife | Mont.Admin.R. 12.6.2201 - 2230 | MT ADC 12.6.2201 - 2230 | These Montana regulations provide the requirements for care and housing of exotic wildlife. The list of noncontrolled species and prohibited species is also provided. | Administrative | |
| TX - Ordinances - § 215.032. Exhibitions; Shows; Amusements | V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 215.032 | TX LOCAL GOVT § 215.032 | This statute authorizes municipalities to prohibit or regulate circuses, exhibitions, and menageries. | Statute | |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. |
Case | ||
| OH - Exotic - Chapter 935. Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes | R.C. § 935.01 - .99 | OH ST § 935.01 - .99 | On June 5, 2012, Ohio governor Kasich signed the "Dangerous Wild Animal Act" into law. Under this new section, no person shall possess a dangerous wild animal on or after January 1, 2014 unless he or she is authorized under an unexpired wildlife shelter/propagation permit or other exception. Dangerous wild animals include big cats, some smaller exotic cats, bears, elephants, hyenas, gray wolves, alligators, crocodiles and nonhuman primates other than lemurs. Except as provided, no person shall acquire, buy, sell, trade, or transfer possession or ownership of a dangerous wild animal on or after the effective date of this section. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |||
| 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 |