Results
Displaying 5941 - 5950 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL - Lost Property - Estrays and Lost Property Act | 765 I.L.C.S. 1020/0.01 - 36 | IL ST CH 765 § 1020/0.01 - 36 | These Illinois' statutes comprise the state's Estrays and Lost Property Act. | Statute | ||||||||
| Animal Law Volume 14 Part 1 Index |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| US - Sharks - Chapter 38. Fishery Conservation and Management | 16 U.S.C.A. § 1857 | The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 amended Sec. 1857 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The amendment effectively closed a loophole that allowed vessels to transport illegally obtained shark fins so long as no sharks were finned aboard the vessel. The act makes it illegal to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) at sea; to have custody, control, or possession of any such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; to transfer any such fin from one vessel to another vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin in such transfer, without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or to land any such fin that is not naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass without such fins naturally attached. Essentially, all sharks must be brought aboard with their fins attached. There is a rebuttable presumption under the Act that if any shark fin (including the tail) is found aboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, without being naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, such fin was transferred in violation of the Act. | Statute | |||||||||
| AL - Hunting - Article 8A. Interference with Legal Hunting or Fishing. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-270 - 275 | AL ST § 9-11-270 to 275 | This section of law reflects Alabama's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, no person shall willfully and knowingly prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with, or attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with any person who is legally hunting or fishing. Prohibited activities include creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus intended to affect the natural behavior of the wild animal being hunted or fish for the purpose of fishing, or affecting the condition or location of personal property intended for use in the hunting or fishing. Any person violating this article is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| U.S. v. Oliver | 255 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2001) |
Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |||||||||
| Map of Private Exotic Pet Ownership Laws | The above map details states that ban, partially ban, require licensure, or provide miscellaneous regulations on private ownership of wild or exotic animals. Currently, 20 states have what can be called "comprehensive bans." These bans typically classify wild cats, large non-domesticated carnivores, reptiles, and non-human primates as "dangerous animals" or otherwise prohibit private ownership of these species. These laws may outright ban the ownership of wild or exotic animals as pets or only allow those animals to be kept under certain licenses not including pet or private possession (i.e., for educational or scientific purposes). Thirteen (13) states have partial bans on exotic pets, which means that these states ban specific, listed animals by statute, but not all non-traditional, non-domestic animals (for example, these states may allow ownership of small primates). Fourteen (14) states permit private ownership of exotic animals under a licensure or permit scheme. People seeking licenses may have to register with the state, prove satisfactory conditions for the keeping of such animals, pay a fee, and maintain liability insurance. The remaining three (3) states do not have a statutory or regulatory scheme that directly addresses or controls the private ownership of exotic pets, but may regulate some aspect of ownership. These states may require health certificates or import permits for such animals. For more discussion on exotic pet laws, see our Topical Introduction. | State map | ||||||||||
| MI - Natural Resources -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Natural Resources and Environmental Pro | MCL 324.1101 -1102 | MI ST 324.1101 - MI ST 324.1102 | These sections describe the ability of courts and the Commission to review the Department of Natural Resources decisions and the ability for the public to circulate and sign petitions. | Statute | ||||||||
| State v. Witham | 876 A.2d 40 (Maine 2005) | 2005 WL 1523763 (Maine), 2005 ME 79 (2005) |
A man ran over his girlfriend's cat after having a fight with his girlfriend. The trial court found the man guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court, holding the aggravated cruelty to animals statute was not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case | ||||||||
| CR - Veterinary - General Law on the National Service of Animal Health (Law 8495) | No. 8495 |
The law that organizes the Veterinary Official Service of Costa Rica (SENASA), the government institution that is responsible for animal welfare and many other aspects related to animal production and the protection of human and animal health. |
Statute |