Results

Displaying 361 - 369 of 369
Title Authorsort descending Citation Summary Type
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 Virginia Great Ape Laws Rebecca F. Wisch Animal Legal & Historical Center

This discussion analyzes the laws relevant to the possession of great apes in Virginia. The paper examines categories of individuals who possess great apes including persons using them as pets, exhibitors, zoos, sanctuaries, and research facilities.

Article
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
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
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
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

Pages