Results
Displaying 121 - 130 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Permits - CHAPTER 3. MISCELLANEOUS. Permits for Restricted Species | 14 CA ADC s 671.1 - 671.6 | 14 CCR § 671.1 - 671.6 | Permits are required for possession of restricted species, but the department does not issue permits for exotics pets. | Administrative | |
| WV - Exotic Pet - § 20-2-51. Permit for keeping pets; § 20-2-52. Permits for roadside menageries | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-51; W. Va. Code, § 20-2-52 | WV ST § 20-2-51; WV ST § 20-2-52 | This West Virginia statute provides that the state fish and game director may issue a permit to a person to keep and maintain in captivity as a pet, a wild animal acquired from a commercial dealer or during the legal open season. The fee is charged is two dollars. | Statute | |
| New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center | 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 4919871 (D.D.C., 2016) | New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS. | Case | |
| MI - Research - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code. | M.C.L.A. 333.2671 - 2678 | MI ST 333.2671 - 2678 | This set of Michigan laws proclaims that "[t]he public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases." It also creates an animal research advisory board which may regulate and establish standards pursuant to section 2678 controlling the humane use of animals. Further, the department, its representative, or a member of the animal research advisory board may inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes for the purpose of investigation of compliance with board standards. A person shall not keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the department. | Statute | |
| AZ - Exotic Wildlife - Article 4. Live Wildlife | A.A.C. R12-4-401 to 430 | AZ ADC R12-4-401 to 430 | These Arizona regulations define “captive live wildlife” as live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild. The regulations provides that no individual shall import or export any live wildlife into or out of the state. An individual may take wildlife from the wild alive under a valid Arizona hunting or fishing license only if there is a Commission Order that prescribes a live bag and possession limit for that wildlife and the individual possesses the appropriate license. However, no person may possess restricted live wildlife without a valid permit. The statute also provides a comprehensive list of all mammals that are considered restricted live wildlife. An individual who holds a special license listed in R12-4-409(A) shall keep all wildlife in a facility according to the captivity standards prescribed under R12-4-428 or as otherwise required under this Article. A special license holder subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the minimum standards for humane treatment prescribed by this Section. | Administrative | |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY | This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). | Pleading | |||
| AFADA habeas corpus Cecilia | EXPTE. NRO. P-72.254/15 | “Abogados y Funcionarios de defensa Animal” (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Cecilia, a 30 year old chimpanzee that lived in the Mendoza Zoo alleging that the chimpanzee had been illegitimately and arbitrarily deprived of her right to ambulatory freedom and right to have a dignified life on the part of authorities of the Zoo of the City of Mendoza, Argentina. The court granted habeas corpus to Cecilia, ruling that Cecilia was a living being with rights and instructing defendants to immediately free her and to relocate her to the Great Ape Project Sanctuary in Brazil. Until this moment, only humans illegally detained had been granted this writ. | Case | ||
| DE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 11 Del.C. § 1325 - 1327;16 Del.C. § 3001F - 3009F; 16 Del.C. § 3031F - 3036F; 11 Del.C. § 775 | DE ST TI 11 § 1325 - 1327; DE ST TI 16 § 3001F- 3009F; DE ST TI 16 § 3031F - 3036F; DE ST TI 11 § 775 | These Delaware sections comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Delaware's anti-cruelty section provides that cruelty to animals is when a person intentionally or recklessly subjects any animal (excluding fish, crustacea or molluska) to cruel mistreatment, cruel neglect, or kills or injures any animal belonging to another person. Actively engaging in animal fighting activities is a class F felony while being a spectator at a fight is a class A misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes | A. R. S. § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 | AZ ST § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 | The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| MT - Endangered Species - Chapter 5. Wildlife Protection. | MCA 87-5-101 to 87-5-132 | MT ST 87-5-101 to 87-5-132 | These Montana statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions associated with the Act, and the legislative policy behind the Act. | Statute |