Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 369
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1518. Endangered Species. R.C. § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99 OH ST § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99 These Ohio statutes protect both endangered plants and animals as defined by the State of Ohio as well as those species listed on the federal ESA list. Taking of an endangered or threatened animal species constitutes a misdemeanor and the person is required upon pleading guilty to the offense, in addition to any fine, term of imprisonment, seizure, and forfeiture imposed, to make restitution for the minimum value of the wild animal illegally held, taken, or possessed. Notably, if the aggregate value of the animal(s) taken exceeds $1,000, a person is guilty of a felony. Statute
WI - Importation - Wildlife, Chapter 10. Animal Diseases and Movement. Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.85 WI ADC s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.87 In this set of Wisconsin regulations, "wild animal" does not include a domestic animal identified in s. ATCP 10.02 (livestock, poultry, and other domestic animals). The majority of the regulations here concern disease detection, inoculation, and prevention in domestic herds. However, a person who imports an animal must comply with importing requirements including obtaining a permit under ATCP 10.07. Importation of specific species (dog, cats, exotic ruminants, camelids, elephants, etc.) are covered in 10.80 - 10.86. Administrative
KY - Endangered Species - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. KRS § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 KY ST § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 Under Kentucky law, no person shall import, transport, possess for resale or sell any endangered species of wildlife. The term "endangered species" means any species of wildlife seriously threatened with worldwide extinction or in danger of being extirpated from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Violation of the Act may result in fines or possible imprisonment depending on the statutory section violated, and license sanctions may also result. Statute
MS - Endangered Species - Chapter 5. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act Miss. Code Ann. § 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 MS ST §§ 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 These Mississippi statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions for the Act, the legislative findings, and the associated regulations of the Act. Violations under the Act may incur up to a $1,000 fine and/or one-year term of imprisonment as well as equipment confiscation. Statute
NJ - Endangered - Chapter 2A. Wildlife Generally NJSA 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 NJ ST 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 These statutes comprise the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act. The definitions used in the Act are described as well as the rules for listing species, the powers and duties of the supervising department, and the designation of funding.  Under the statute, violation of the Act incurs a civil penalty of $250-5,000. In 2014, provisions were added for the prohibition on import, sale, or purchase of ivory products. In 2018, a law was added that prohibits a person from using a wild or exotic animal in a traveling animal act. Statute
CA - Crimes - § 597. Cruelty to animals West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597 CA PENAL § 597 This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section. Statute
CA - Research animals - Group 5. Care of Laboratory Animals Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1150 -1159 17 CCR §§ 1150 -1159 This set of regulations establishes certification requirements for research facilities that use live animals in experiments, sets minimum standards of care for research animals, and addresses the requirements for filing complaints with the Department of Public Health. Administrative
MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. Statute
VT - Exotic pet, wildlife - § 4709. Importation, stocking wild animals 10 V.S.A. § 4709 VT ST T. 10 § 4709 This Vermont law provides that a person may not bring into the state or possess any live wild bird or animal of any kind, unless the person obtains from the commissioner a permit to do so. Applicants shall pay a permit fee of $100.00. Statute
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health 527 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C., 2007) 2007 WL 4329474 (D.D.C.)

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. This Order was Superseded by In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health , 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008).

Case

Pages