Results
Displaying 6621 - 6630 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 22.584, 1982 | LEY N° 22.584 | Ley 22584 approves the "Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources” that was adopted at the Diplomatic Conference held in Canberra on May 20, 1980 and subscribed by Argentina on the September 11th of that year. | Statute | ||
| TN - Dangerous dog - § 44-17-120. Death or serious injury; destruction of dogs | T. C. A. § 44-17-120 | TN ST § 44-17-120 | This Tennessee statute provides that any dog which attacks a human and causes death or serious injury may be destroyed upon the order of the circuit court where the attack occurred. The owner shall be given notice that if he or she does not appear before the court within five days and show cause why the dog should not be destroyed, then the order shall issue and the dog shall be destroyed. This statute also allows certain counties to make ordinances to petition a general sessions court to provide for the disposition of dangerous dogs and/or dogs causing death or serious injury to humans or other animals. | Statute | |
| NJ - Hunting - Chapter 7A. Preventing Lawful Taking of Wildlife. | NJSA 23:7A-1 to 23:7A-3 | NJ ST 23:7A-1 to 23:7A-3 | This set of New Jersey laws comprises the state's hunter harassment provisions. No person may, for the purpose of hindering or preventing the lawful taking of wildlife. A person who violates this act shall be liable to a civil penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each offense. In addition to bringing a civil action for injunctive relief or any other relief provided by law, a person who is adversely affected by a violation of this act may bring a civil action for damages, including punitive damages and special damages, against the violator. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Slaughter - LEY 9, 1979, Health Code | LEY 9, 1979 | This law lays out the general rules that are the basis for “the provisions and regulations necessary to preserve, restore and improve sanitary conditions in relation to human health. It also contains the procedures and measures that must be adopted for the regulation, legalization and control of the discharges of waste and materials that affect or may affect the sanitary conditions of the Environment.” In its Article 307, Ley 9 establishes that the slaughter of animals for human consumption can only be done in authorized slaughterhouses. | Statute | ||
| OR - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 603. Meat Dealers and Slaughterers. Meat Dealers and Slaughterers, in General. | O. R. S. § 603.010 - 992 | OR ST § 603.010 - 992 | These Oregon laws comprise the state's slaughter laws. Among the provisions is the humane slaughter law, which requires that cattle, equines, sheep, or swine are slaughtered by by any method which renders the animal insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or by an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective; or by a method in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Violation of ORS 603.065 (the humane slaughter law) is a Class B misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| MO - Exotic pet - 578.023. Keeping a dangerous wild animal, penalty | V. A. M. S. 578.023 | MO ST 578.023 | This Missouri law states that no person may keep any lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, hyena, wolf, bear, nonhuman primate, coyote, any deadly, dangerous, or poisonous reptile, or any deadly or dangerous reptile over eight feet long, in any place other than a properly maintained zoological park, circus, scientific, or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge, unless such person has registered such animals with the local law enforcement agency in the county in which the animal is kept. Violation is a class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| DE - Exotic Animals - Chapter 903. Exotic Animal Regulations | 3 DE ADC 903-1.0 - 14 | 3 Del. Admin. Code 903-1.0 to 14 | These regulations govern the permitting process, possession, sale, rehabilitation and exhibition of exotic animals, i.e., live wild mammals, hybrids of wild mammals, and live reptiles not native to or generally found in the State of Delaware. The State Veterinarian or her or his designee shall have the authority to administer these regulations and shall be solely responsible for making the determinations required herein. | Administrative | |
| RI - Vehicle - § 31-26-3.1. Duty to stop in accidents resulting in death or injury to domesticated animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 31-26-3.1 | RI ST § 31-26-3.1 | This Rhode Island statute states that the driver of any vehicle knowingly involved in an accident resulting in death or injury to a domesticated animal, shall immediately stop the vehicle and remain at the scene of the accident until the driver renders all possible assistance to the injured animal. The driver shall immediately and by the quickest means known, give notice of the accident to the owner of the animal or to a nearby office of local or state police. Any person failing to stop or comply with the requirements of this section shall upon be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00). | Statute | |
| Kuehl v. Sellner | 2016 WL 3429679 (unpublished) (N.D. Iowa June 17, 2016) | Five Plaintiffs Tracey K. Kuehl, Lisa K. Kuehl, Kris A. Bell, Nancy A. Harvey, John T. Braumann, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint against Defendants Pamela Sellner, Tom Sellner, and Cricket Hollow Zoo, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by holding captive endangered species specifically the lemurs and tigers housed at Cricket Hollow Zoo. The United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division ordered the Defendants, to transfer the lemurs and tigers in their possession “to an appropriate facility which is licensed by the USDA and is capable of meeting the needs of the endangered species.” The Defendants proposed transporting the lemurs to Special Memories Zoo in Hortonville, Wisconsin, and transporting the tigers to the Exotic Feline Rescue Center in Centerpoint, Indiana. The Plaintiffs claimed that the proposed placements did not comply with the Court's Order and proposed that the lemurs be placed with the Prosimian Sanctuary in Jacksonville, Florida, and the tigers be transported to the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, Colorado. The Court held that the Special Memories Zoo was capable of meeting the lemurs' needs and should be transported there as the Defendant’s proposed. The court reasoned that even if the Court found Special Memories incapable of meeting the lemurs' needs, the Prosimian Sanctuary as proposed by the Plaintiff's was not licensed by the USDA. The Court also held that the endangered tigers should be transferred to the Exotic Feline Rescue Center as the Defendant’s proposed. The court reasoned that the center was capable of meeting of the needs of the tigers. Therefore the Court approved the Defendants' proposed placement of the lemurs and tigers. | Case | ||
| NM - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-12 | NM ST § 77-1-12 | This New Mexico statute provides that each municipality and each county shall make provision by ordinance for the seizure and disposition of dogs and cats running at large and not kept or claimed by any person on their premises provided that it does not conflict with state law. | Statute |