Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Endangered Species - Article 2. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation | C. R. S. A. § 33-2-101 - 108 | CO ST § 33-2-101 to 108 | These Colorado statutes provide the State's intent to protect endangered, threatened, or rare species and defines the terms associated with the statute. It also has a provision specific to the reintroduction of the bonytail and black-footed ferret. Under the management program, Colorado law provides for the acquisition of habitat for species listed as well as other protective measures. | Statute | ||||||||
| Malawi National Parks and Wildlife Act | No 11 of 1992 |
This law represented a major redraft of the old British game law. It protects endangered species and parks. It also sets out the general game law. Notably it also requires the use of environmental impact statements. |
Statute | |||||||||
| Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Locke | 626 F.3d 1040 (C.A.9 (Or.),2010) | 2010 WL 4723195 (C.A.9 (Or.)) |
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) authorized several states to kill California sea lions under section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allows the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds. Plaintiffs filed action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants. The Court held that NMFS 1) did not adequately explain its finding that sea lions were having a “significant negative impact” on the decline or recovery of listed salmonid populations; and 2) NMFS did not adequately explain why a California sea lion predation rate of 1 percent would have a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of these salmonid populations. Therefore, the agency's action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” under the Administrative Procedure Act. |
Case | ||||||||
| Luper v. City of Wasilla | 215 P.3d 342 (Alaska,2009) | 2009 WL 2902504 (Alaska) |
Plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Wasilla, Alaska's enforcement action over zoning ordinances. The facts stem from the City's denial of plaintiff's application for a use permit in 2005 to run an eighteen-dog kennel. Plaintiff argued on appeal that Wasilla's former three-dog limit infringed on her property rights in both her land and her dog. This court agreed with the lower court that the provision here bore a "fair and substantial relationship" the government purposes of controlling dog noise, reducing dog odor and pollution, and preventing loose dogs. Further, the court found that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the city clerk's statement that she only needed a kennel license to operate a hobby kennel. |
Case | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| Wales - Circus - Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Act 2020 | 2020 asc 2 | This Act prohibits the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Wales. | Statute | |||||||||
| In Re Jackie King | This is a petition for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Potter County Sheriff to revoke all certificates to Charles Azzopardi, doing business as Texas Wildlife Center, due to violations of the Dangerous Wild Animal Act. Also included are exhibits and affidavits. | Pleading | ||||||||||
| CA - Hunting - § 3511. Fully protected birds; permits or licenses; necessary scientific research; legal imports; | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3511 | CA FISH & G § 3511 | California law specifically states that no other statutes are to be construed to allow the taking of state protected birds, of which the golden eagle and bald eagle are listed, and any licenses issued to take protected birds are void unless issued for scientific or depredation purposes. | Statute | ||||||||
| New York Revised Statute 1881: Chapter 682: Section 26 | N.Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 682, § 26 (1881) | Section 26 of Chapter 682 from New York Revised Statutes 1881 concerns the treatment of animals by the owner or any other person. A person found harming such an animal would be guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |||||||||
| Stanko v. Maher | 419 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2005) | 2005 WL 1953514 (10th Cir.(Wyo.)) | A livestock owner and drover sued the Wyoming state brand inspector, alleging that inspector violated his state and federal constitutional rights in making warrantless seizure of five head of livestock, and that inspector abused his office in violation of state constitution. Plaintiff Rudy Stanko, proceeding pro se, appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Jim Maher. The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Maher, holding that the warrantless search of cattle did not violate Fourth Amendment and the inspector did not violate the Fourth Amendment by making warrantless seizure of cattle as estrays. Further, the procedure provided under Wyoming brand inspection statutes prior to seizure of cattle deemed to be estrays satisfied due process requirements. | Case |