Results
Displaying 351 - 360 of 369
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of Pennsylvania Great Ape Laws | Elizabeth Love Marcero | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in Pennsylvania. While the state of Pennsylvania controls possession and importation of “exotic wildlife” by law, the definition of “exotic wildlife” is vague as to whether it includes great apes. Instead, Pennsylvania regulates the possession of great apes by administrative regulation and reference to the federal endangered species list. In addition, Pennsylvania’s administrative code addresses the commercial use of great apes in menageries with a USDA Class C Exhibitor permit.Like other states, Pennsylvania does not define great apes as “endangered” under its own endangered species law. It does, however, define endangered and threatened species to include federally listed endangered and threatened species under its accompanying regulation. Finally, great apes are covered under the state’s anti-cruelty law. | Article |
| SAVING APES WITH THE LAWS OF MEN: GREAT APE PROTECTION IN A PROPERTY-BASED ANIMAL LAW SYSTEM | Alexandra B. Rhodes | 20 Animal L. 191 (2013) | This Note evaluates the methods advocates have taken toward furthering great ape protection in the United States (U.S.). Many animal advocates argue that abolishing animals’ property status is essential to establishing effective protections; nonetheless, it will take time for our society to accept the concept of legal personhood for animals. Therefore, this Note suggests that for the time being, great ape protection should be framed in a human context, to protect animals within the existing, property-based animal law system. In general, this Note provides background on the property status of animals in the U.S., specifically analyzes the legal status of great apes domestically and abroad, and suggests how advocates may most efficiently work toward great ape protection today. | Article |
| A Step at a Time: New Zealands Progress Towards Hominid Rights | Rowan Taylor | 7 Animal L. 35 (2001) |
Mr. Taylor writes about the Great Ape Project's campaign to win fundamental rights for all hominids with New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act. While the Act was a significant step in the struggle for hominids' rights, larger steps, including a Nonhuman Hominid Protection Bill, will soon follow. |
Article |
| The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees, Comments from Jane Goodall, Dr. Roger Fouts, Steven Wise and David Favre | various - conference proceedings | 9 Animal L. 1 (2002) |
On September 30, 2002, Harvard Law School hosted a legal symposium sponsored by the Chimpanzee Collaboratory’s Legal Committee. The symposium featured speakers with expertise on chimpanzees, as well as legal scholars and lawyers who discussed the possibility of obtaining legal rights for chimpanzees and other great apes. This symposium sought to advance the argument that chimpanzees are entitled to some degree of legal status, and the speakers presented a range of views about how far such legal rights should extend. These remarks reflect the connection between the growing scientific understanding of chimpanzees and the advances in related legal doctrines. |
Article |
| Detailed Discussion of West Virginia Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses West Virginia Great Ape law. West Virginia has no law that restricts or otherwise mentions great apes. In fact, West Virginia does not even have a state endangered species provision providing additional state protection for endangered or threatened species. The only law to address great apes because it covers all animals is the state’s anti-cruelty provision. The law does except the humane use of animals or activities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, and the law’s accompanying regulations. This would include scientific research and animal exhibitors licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Wyoming Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Wyoming Great Ape law. Wyoming has no law that restricts or otherwise mentions great apes. In fact, Wyoming does not even have a state endangered species provision providing additional state protection for endangered or threatened species. The only possible reference that could include great apes is the definition for “exotic species” under the general fish and game code definitions. However, there are no accompanying restrictions on possession or importation of those exotic species. The state’s cruelty law is broad enough to include great apes. There are no exceptions under the cruelty for scientific research or testing. | Article |
| Table of State Great Ape Possession Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This table shows state laws related to the possession of great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans). The table separates possessors of great apes into five general categories: |
Topic Table |
| 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 |