Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC - Exotic Pets - § 8-1808. Prohibited conduct. | DC CODE § 8-1808 | DC ST § 8-1808 | This DC law outlines things an owner or custodian is prohibited from doing with regard to his or her animal. Among them is that an owner or custodian shall not allow his or her animal to go at large. An owner or custodian shall not leave his or her animal outdoors without human accompaniment or adequate shelter for more than 15 minutes during periods of extreme weather, unless the age, condition, and type of each animal allows the animal to withstand extreme weather (excluding cats). The law also states that a person shall not separate a puppy or a kitten from its mother until the puppy or kitten is at least 6 weeks of age. Certain animals are prohibited from being possessed or sold in the District, which are outlined in subsection (j). | Statute | |
| FL - Exotic Pets - 68-5.008. Amnesty for Persons Relinquishing Non-native Pets. | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68-5.008 | Rule 68-5.008, F.A.C. | This rule provides amnesty to non-native pet owners who voluntarily relinquish their illegal animals to state or county wildlife agencies or during Commission-sponsored amnesty events. | Administrative | |
| ME - Endangered Species - Subchapter 3. Endangered Species; Management and Research. | 12 M. R. S. A. § 12801 - 12810 | ME ST T. 12 § 12801 - 12810 | Maine revised its endangered species law in 2019. "Take" means the he act or omission that results in the death of any endangered or threatened species. There are two types of offenses based on whether the conduct is negligent or intentional. Negligent acts concerning an endangered species result in a Class E crime with a fine of $1,000 which may not be suspended. Intentional acts concerning an endangered species result in a Class D crime with a fine of $2,000 which may not be suspended. Each type of taking lists what is prohibited with regard to endangered species, including hunting, possessing, and feeding/baiting. Section 12810 also covers offenses against delisted species (of which the bald eagle is specifically listed). | Statute | |
| AL - Importation - Chapter 80-3-6. Livestock Sanitary Rules | AL ADC 80-3-6-..22, .23, and .24 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 80-3-6-.22, .23, and .24 | These selected regulations concern import, transport, or exhibition of wild, semi-wild, and exotic animals, and the import of dogs and cats. | Administrative | |
| NY - Dangerous animal - § 209-cc. Notification of presence of wild animals and dangerous dogs | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 209-cc | NY GEN MUN § 209-cc | New York state law requires anyone in possession of dangerous dogs and dangerous wild animals (which include non-human primates, non-domesticated dogs and cats, bears, venomous, constrictors and python snakes, and certain crocodiles) to report the presence of that animal to the clerk of the city, town, or village in which the animal resides. The report must be filed by April 1st every year and must list all of the physical locations where the animal may be kept. The clerk must then notify all local police, fire, and emergency medical service departments of the presence of that animal. Any person who fails to report the presence may be fined up to $250 dollars for the first offense and $1,000 dollars for each subsequent offense. Zoos and other U.S. Department of Agriculture-licensed exhibitors are exempt from the reporting requirement. | Statute | |
| ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO | ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO” | Argentina’s Juzgado No. 4 on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires held on October 21, 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. The court ruled that “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life." In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra. | Case | ||
| WY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W.S.1977 § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | WY ST § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | This compilation of laws contains Wyoming's anti-cruelty provisions that were amended in 2021. Under the new laws, a person commits cruelty to animals if the person knowingly overrides an animal or drives an animal when overloaded; intentionally or knowingly, unnecessarily injures or beats an animal; or knowingly carries an animal in a manner that poses undue risk of injury or death. Additionally, a person has the charge or custody of any animal under circumstances that manifest "extreme indifference" to the animal's safety, health or life, and fails to provide it with listed necessities, abandons the animal, fails to provide the animal with appropriate care in the case of immediate and obvious serious injury or illness also commits cruelty to animals. Other prohibitions include animal fighting, shooting or poisoning livestock or domestic animals on property where the animal is authorized to be. A first offense of cruelty to animals or of a violation of W.S. 6-3-1003 is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a fine of not more than $750.00, or both, with enhanced penalties for subsequent convictions. Felony cruelty to animals occurs when a person commits cruelty to animals as defined in W.S. 6-3-1002(a)(v) through (ix), that results in the death or required euthanasia of the animal; or (ii) knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering, beats with cruelty, tortures, torments or mutilates an animal. Such acts incur permanent forfeiture of the animal at issue and imprisonment for not more than two years and/or a fine of up to $5,000. With either misdemeanor or felony convictions, the court may order forfeiture of the animals involved, payment of reasonable costs of animal impoundment, and restraints on future ownership of animals. A bestiality law was also enacted in 2021 that prohibits actors from engaging in sexual acts with animals. Violation is a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000. | Statute | |
| Habeas Corpus para Chimpanzé - Íntegra (portuguese) | Heron J. de Santana e Luciano R. Santana ajuizar ação nos termos do art. 5 °, LXVIII, Constituição do Brasil. E, art. 647, Código de Processo Penal. Os peticionários buscar a Grande Writ em nome de Suíça, Chimpanzé (nome científico Pan Troglodytes), que é um prisioneiro no Zoológico de Getúlio Vargas, para alívio de ato ilegal e abusivo perpetrado por o diretor da Secretaria de Governo para a Biodiversidade, Meio Ambiente e da Água Recursos. Este é o primeiro caso de considerar que um chimpanzé pode ser uma pessoa jurídica de vir perante o tribunal no âmbito de um pedido de Habeas Corpus. | Pleading | |||
| 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 |