Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Endangered Species - Article 6. Endangered Species. | Va. Code Ann. §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | VA ST §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | The taking, transportation, possession, sale, or offer for sale within the Commonwealth of any fish or wildlife appearing on any list of threatened or endangered species published by the United States Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205), or any modifications or amendments thereto, is prohibited except as provided in § 29.1-568. Interestingly, the state mandates that anyone who keeps a non-native or exotic reptile must keep the reptile so as to prevent it from running-at-large or escaping. Violation of this provision is a Class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case | ||
| CA - Cruelty - Part 9. Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Corp. Code § 10400 - 10406 | CA CORP § 10400 - 10406 | This set of statutes outlines the rights and responsibilities of corporations that are formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | 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 | |
| ND - Endangered Species - Chapter 20.1-09. Propagation of Protected Birds and Animals | NDCC 20.1-01-021 - 02, NDCC 20.1-09-01 - 05 | ND ST 20.1-01-01 - 02, 20.1-09-01 - 05 | These North Dakota statutes provide a state definition for endangered species as well as laws relating to possession and propagation of protected animals. | 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 | |
| AK - Importation - Chapter 36. Animal Health | 18 AK ADC 36.001 - 990 | 18 AAC 36.001 - 990 | These Alaska regulations concern the importation requirements for animals. Health certificates and permits from the state veterinarian are required. | Administrative | |
| ALDF v. Glickman | 154 F.3d 426 (1998) |
Animal welfare group and individual plaintiffs brought action against, inter alia, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its regulations concerning treatment of nonhuman primates on grounds that they violated USDA's statutory mandate under Animal Welfare Act (AWA). |
Case | ||
| ID - Wildlife - Chapter 7. Captive Wildlife | I.C. § 36-701 to 716 | ID ST § 36-701 to 716 | This section comprises Idaho's captive wildlife provisions. Under the law, no person shall engage in any propagation or hold in captivity any species of big game animal found wild in this state, unless the person has been issued a license or permit by the director. All other species of mammals, birds or reptiles that are found in the wild in this state and are not species of special concern or threatened and endangered species, may be held in captivity without permit so long as the possessor retains proof that such wildlife was lawfully obtained. The laws concerning commercial wildlife farms are also included in this section. Additionally, there is also a section on the transition of wolves from federal to state management (36-715). | Statute | |
| KY - Endangered - 301 KAR 3:061. Endangered species of fish and wildlife | 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 3:061 | 301 KAR 3:061 | It is unlawful for any person to import, transport, possess, process, sell or offer for sale any endangered species of fish and wildlife, or parts thereof, except as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this administrative regulation. | Administrative |