Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA - Endangered Species - Chapter 104. Wild Resource Conservation | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2167; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2924; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 925; 32 P.S. §§ 5301 - 14 | This set of Pennsylvania laws comprises the state's endangered species provisions. Section 2167 makes it unlawful for any person to bring into or remove from this Commonwealth, or to possess, transport, capture or kill, or attempt, aid, abet or conspire to capture or kill, any wild bird or wild animal, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which are endangered or threatened species. It is the duty of every officer having authority to enforce this title to seize all wild birds or wild animals, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which have been declared endangered or threatened. Any commerce in endangered species is also prohibited. For a first violation, a person may have his or her hunting privileges revoked for 7 years. A second violation during that period may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt for 10 years. A third violation brings the forfeiture to 15 years. | Statute | ||
| FL - Exotic Pets - Chapter 68A-6. Wildlife as Personal Pets | 68 FL ADC 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.0072 | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.018 | Under these Florida administrative provisions, three separate classes of captive wildlife were created. Class I, the most regulated class, includes large primates, big cats, bears, elephants, and large reptiles among others. The regulations state that Class I wildlife shall not be possessed for personal use (unless obtained before August 1, 1980 and permitted). The permit requirements to keep listed wildlife in captivity are outlined in Sec. 68A-6.0022. | Administrative | |
| CO - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes | C. R. S. A. § 18-9-201 - 209; § 35-42-101 - 115 | CO ST § 18-9-201 - 209; § 35-42-101 - 115 | This Colorado section contains the anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal. A person commits aggravated cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal. Cruelty to animals is a class 1 misdemeanor and aggravated cruelty or a second conviction of animal cruelty is class 6 felony. This section also prohibits animal fighting (not limited to certain species such as dogs or chickens). Violation of this law results in a class 5 felony. This section also makes it illegal to own a dangerous dog and "tamper" with livestock. | Statute | |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | |||
| NH - Endangered - Chapter 212-A. Endangered Species Conservation Act | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 212-A:1 to 212-A:16 | NH ST § 212-A:1 to 212-A:16 | These New Hampshire statutes outline the Endangered Species Conservation Act. The definitions of the terms used in the Act are described especially with regard to what constitutes endangered and threatened species. Violation of the Act is accomplished by taking a protected species and incurs a misdemeanor penalty. | Statute | |
| WA - Health - Chapter 16.36. Animal Health | West's RCWA 16.36.005 - 160 | WA ST 16.36.005 - 160 | These laws set forth the laws for importation and health requirements of certain imported animals. It also allows the director to establish inspection procedures for the transportation of animals. A section provides that it is unlawful for a person to bring an animal into Washington state without first securing a certificate of veterinary inspection, reviewed by the state veterinarian of the state of origin, verifying that the animal meets the Washington state animal health | Statute | |
| TN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 1660-01-18. Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife | TN ADC 1660-01-18-.01 to .06 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-18-.01 to .06 | These Tennessee regulations outline the requirements for importation and possession of captive wildlife. The species of wildlife for each class of wildlife are described. Facilities for Class I wildlife are provided, which include specific requirements for Class I Felidae or Ursidae. The Class I qualification test requirements are also stated. | Administrative | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman | 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2007) | 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6427 |
Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Animal Welfare Institute ("AWI"), and three individuals, challenged the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") 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 nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). The district court granted USDA's motion to dismiss, to which the ALDF timely appealed. Over a vigorous dissent, an appeals court panel reversed the district court's decision. After a sua sponte call, however, a majority of active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. Yet, before the rehearing occurred, the parties had reached a settlement and had agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice provided that the panel's opinion and judgment were vacated. The majority of the en banc panel agreed to vacate the panel's opinion and judgment with prejudice, but Judge Thomas filed the dissenting opinion. |
Case | |
| 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 | ||
| KS - Pet Sales - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-1701 to 1737 | KS ST 47-1701 to 1737 | The following statutes comprise Kansas' Pet Animal Act. The Act outlines the requirements for pet shop operator licensing and animal dealers. | Statute |