|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|DE - Sharks - § 928A. Trade in shark fins; penalty||7 Del.C. § 928A||DE ST TI 7 § 928A||This Delaware statute prohibits people from possessing, selling, trading, or distributing a shark fin unless a person possesses a license to do so from the State. The statute also lists the penalty for violations.||Statute|
|IA - Racing - 99D.1 to 99D.28. Pari-Mutuel Wagering||I.C.A. § 99D.1 - 99D.28||IA ST § 99D.1 - 99D.28||This act legalizes and only applies to pari-mutuel wagering on dog and horse races in the state of Iowa. The act creates a state racing and gaming commission which has full jurisdiction to investigate applicants, adopt standards, and regulate all horse and dog races governed by the act. Organizations that wish to conduct horse and dog racing must apply to the commission for a license and meet the requirements. Tracks that are licensed to race dogs are required to maintain a racing dog adoption program.||Statute|
|ME - Wildlife possession - Chapter 6. Educational & Scientific Collection Permit Rule||Code Me. R. 09-137 Ch. 6, § 6.01 - 13||ME ADC 09-137 Ch. 6, § 6.01 - 13||This section establishes the rules in Maine for educational and scientific collection permits. A scientific collection permit is required by any person who wishes to take, transport or possess wild birds or animals and their parts or products for scientific research or educational purposes at any time of the year; and/or before any person may lawfully salvage, otherwise acquire, transport or possess wild birds and animals for any purpose not specifically covered under any other permit or license.||Administrative|
|IN - Equine Activity Statute - Chapter 5. Equine Activities||I.C. 34-31-5-1 to 5||IN ST 34-31-5-1 to 5||
This Indiana statute states that an equine activity sponsor or equine professional is not liable for an injury to a participant or the death of a participant resulting from an inherent risk of equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs or warnings provided in contracts that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law.
|AL - Dog Fighting - Activities relating to fighting of dogs prohibited; violations; confiscation;||Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-29||AL ST § 3-1-29||
This Alabama statute constitutes the state's dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a class C felony for any person to own, possess, keep or train any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; for amusement or gain, to cause any dog to fight with another dog, or cause any dogs to injure each other; or to permit any of the above acts. The law also makes it a class C felony to knowingly be present or be a spectator at dogfights.
|In re Estate of Howard Brand, Late of Essex Junction, Vermont||
This Vermont case considers the effectiveness of a clause in a testator’s will that directs his executor to destroy any animals that he owns at the time of his death. The testator, Howard Brand, was believed to have owned four horses and one mule at the time of his death. An unincorporated association entitled, “The Coalition to Save Brand’s Horses” was formed in response to this unusual post-mortem request, and sought to intervene in the lawsuit. In a clear case of first impression in Vermont, the Chittenden County Court held that the clause as set forth in Brand’s last codicil mandating the destruction of his animals is void as contrary to public policy.
|Humane Society of U.S. v. Johanns||Slip Copy, 2007 WL 1120404 (D.D.C.)||
In this case, plaintiffs alleged that by creating a fee-for-service ante-mortem horse slaughter inspection system without first conducting any environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), has violated NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) implementing regulations, abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). At the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, horses were slaughtered at three different foreign-owned facilities in the United States to provide horse meat for human consumption abroad and for use in zoos and research facilities domestically. The instant case pertains to the web of legislation and regulations pertaining to the inspection of such horses prior to slaughter. Based on the Court's finding of a NEPA violation, the Court declared the Interim Final Rule to be in violation of the APA and NEPA, vacated the Interim Final Rule, permanently enjoined the FSIS from implementing the Interim Final Rule, and dismissed this case. This present action is defendant-intervenor Cavel International, Inc's Emergency Motion for a Stay of the Court's March 28, 2007 Order. The Court notes that as of the Court's March 28, 2007 Order, Cavel was the only facility still in operation processing horsemeat for human consumption. The Court finds that a stay of its March 28, 2007 Order would not be in the public interest, and particularly in light of Cavel's failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and adequately demonstrate irreparable injury, the Court finds that a balancing of the factors enumerated above supports denying Cavel's request for a stay.
|Ley 19473, 1996||Ley 19473, 1996||This law regulates the hunting, capture, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife animals, with exception of those species whose preservation is regulated by the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture.||Statute|
|US - Eagles - Golden Eagle Management Plan||1982 WL 133688 (F.R.)||FR Doc. 82-3479 (1982)||
This notice advises the public of the Fish and Wildlife Service's development of a golden eagle management plan and invites public comment. The plan is needed to : (1) identify golden eagle needs; and (2) guide Service management and research efforts for golden eagles. The intended effect of the plan is to protect and conserve golden eagle populations while facilitating balanced development of the Nation's natural resources and the resolution of eagle/man conflicts.
|GA - Alligators - Article 7. Feeding of Wild Alligators||Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-170||GA ST § 27-3-170||
This Georgia law makes it illegal to willfully feed or bait any wild alligator not in captivity. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $200 or confinement up to 30 days, or both.