Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER REGULATION, 1967 | 1 of 1967 | The law, specific to the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar prohibits the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks. Bulls and bullocks may be slaughtered only if they are over fifteen years of age or permanently unfit and unserviceable and on receipt of a certificate from a competent authority. Persons may not sell or transport beef products except for those beef products contained in sealed containers and imported into the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. | Statute | |||||||
| NM - Exotic Pets - § 77-18-1. Sale, purchase, trade and possession of certain animals regulated | NMSA 1978, § 77-18-1 | NM ST § 77-18-1 | This New Mexico law states that the sale, purchase, trade and possession with intent to keep as a pet of any subhuman primate, skunk, raccoon, fox or other sylvatic carnivore may be regulated by regulation of the health and environment department [department of health] for the protection of public health and safety. | Statute | ||||||
| Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell | 2014 WL 1364453 (Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.) | The Protect our Communities Foundation challenged the Bureau of Land Management's Record of Decision authorizing development of a utility-scale wind energy facility on public lands in San Diego County, arguing that BLM's approval of a right-of-way violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act. The Court found that BLM did consider several alternatives to the proposed Project, took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences, and did not improperly defer specification and analysis of mitigation measures. The Court also held that Federal agencies are not required to obtain a permit before acting in a regulatory capacity to authorize activity, such as development of a wind-energy facility, that may incidentally harm protected birds. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motions for summary judgment. | Case | |||||||
| VT - Fur - Chapter 173. Domestic Fur-Bearing Animals | 6 V.S.A. § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | VT ST T. 6 § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | Note: §§3071 to 3073. Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13, eff. June 17, 2015. Under these Vermont statutes, the owner of domestic fur-bearing animals enjoy the same property rights as any other domestic animal. No one may enter the enclosure of, or knowingly and wilfully kill, trap, or injure a fur-bearing animal without permission from the owner. A violation may result in a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment up to six months. | Statute | ||||||
| CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES | 207 Animal Protection Law |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only. |
Statute | |||||||
| SD - Marion - Breed - 9.0312 Vicious or Diseased Animals. | MARION, S.D., CITY ORDINANCES § 9.0312 (2002) |
In Marion, South Dakota, it is unlawful to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control any vicious animal, which includes Pit Bulls, Doberman Pincers, and Rottweilers. Police are authorized to impound any vicious dog or kill it without impounding it. A violation is a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | |||||||
| Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association v. Baldridge | 679 F. Supp. 37 (1987) |
Petitioners, Japanese fishing federation, fisherman's association, and environmental group, filed motions for a preliminary injunction against respondent Secretary of Commerce who entered a final decision that approved the federation for an incidental take permit under the MMPA and adopted regulations that authorized the taking of Dall's porpoise within the fishery conservation zone. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 10 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| TN - Hunting, Internet - Part 5. Computer-Assisted Hunting from Remote Locations | T. C. A. § 70-4-501 - 504 | TN ST § 70-4-501 - 504 | This set of Tennessee laws prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting or providing or operating facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting if the wildlife being hunted is located in this state. Computer-assisted remote hunting is defined as "the use of a computer or any other device, equipment or software, to control remotely the aiming and discharge of a rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow and arrow, cross-bow or any other implement to hunt wildlife." | Statute | ||||||
| Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 2807 - 2816 (1902) | The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society. | Statute |