Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KS - Endangered Species - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation | K. S. A. § 32-957 - 963 | KS ST § 32-957 - 963 | These Kansas statutes set forth the state's endangered and threatened species provisions. Included are the related definitions and the rules for listing species. A permit is required for any form of possession or taking of a listed species. | Statute | |
| US - Whales - Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Resident Killer Whales | FR Doc. 04-27929 |
We, the NMFS, have completed an update on the status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on the review of the best available scientific and commercial information, including new data, published papers, and workshop reports available since the review in 2002, we are proposing to list the Southern Resident killer whales as threatened because these killer whales constitute a distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA and are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this time, but are requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this proposed rule. |
Administrative | ||
| CO - Humane Slaughter - Article 33. Custom Processing of Meat Animals. | C. R. S. A. § 35-33-101 to 407 | CO ST § 35-33-101 to 407 | This Colorado section includes both the meat processing laws and the humane slaughter provisions. It covers livestock, which are defined as cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules, goats, and any other animal which may be used in and for the preparation of meat or meat products. No processor shall shackle, hoist, or otherwise bring livestock into position for slaughter or shall slaughter livestock except by humane methods as defined by regulation; the use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax is not permitted. Additionally, poultry shall be slaughtered in accordance with "good commercial practices" and in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding. Any person who violates any provision is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $750 per violation for each day of violation and commits a class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. One Afghan Urial Ovis Orientalis | 964 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1992) |
Claimant appeals the order granting summary judgment to the government in a order of forfeiture under the Lacey Act for the hide and parts of a sheep killed in Pakistan and exported to the U.S. Claimant argues that because there is no national Pakistani law enacted for the protection of wildlife, no Pakistani law interferes with his right to remove the respondent sheep from Pakistan based upon the provincial permit. The court disagreed, noting the Pakistan Constitution honors provincial law to the extent that it does not conflict with national law and Pakistani law prohibits the export of "wild animal skins and garments made from such skins, products or derivatives of such skins." The Court held that the Government established probable cause for the forfeiture, and Claimant did not demonstrate that any genuine issue of material fact exists which would preclude the award of summary judgment. |
Case | ||
| Stout v. U.S. Forest Service | 2011 WL 867775 (2011) |
Plaintiff ranch owners grazed cattle within the Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Territory (WHT), an area in which the threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead was present. The Forest Service approved a wild horse management plan in the area, but failed to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine whether the plan was likely to affect the threatened species, and whether formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was necessary. The Forest Service’s failure to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was arbitrary and capricious, and was ordered to consult with NMFS on its plan. |
Case | ||
| Puppies 'N Love, v. City of Phoenix | 116 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2015) | 2015 WL 4532586 (D. Ariz., 2015) | Defendant City of Phoenix passed an ordinance that prohibited pet stores from selling dogs or cats obtained from persons or companies that bred animals; pet stores could only sell animals obtained from animal shelters or rescue organizations. Puppies 'N Love operated a pet store in Phoenix that sold purebred dogs obtained from out-of-state breeders. Puppies 'N Love and its owners sued the City, claiming primarily that the Ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by closing the Phoenix market to out-of-state breeders and giving an economic advantage to local breeders. All parties, including Intervenor Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Intervenor’s and the city’s motions, but denied Puppies ‘N Love’s motion, thereby upholding the ordinance. | Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter | 44 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (D. Idaho 2014) | 2014 WL 4388158 (D. Idaho, 2014) | In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| GA - Wildlife, transportation - Article 3. Transportation | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-90 to 94 | GA ST § 27-3-90 to 94 | This GA statute pertains to transporting wildlife. It is unlawful to transport any wildlife taken in this state without a license or permit. It is unlawful to transport wildlife by a carrier unless the person files with the carrier a written statement giving his name and address and the number of wildlife to be transported and specifying that he lawfully took the wildlife. It is unlawful to transport any wildlife (or parts) for propagation or scientific purposes without a valid scientific collecting permit. | Statute | |
| CA - Trapping - Chapter 2. Fur-Bearing Mammals Article 1. Trapping Provisions | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4000 - 4012 | CA FISH & G § 4000 - 4012 | These provisions regulate the fur trade. Fur-bearing mammals may be taken only with a trap, a firearm, bow and arrow, poison (with permit), or with the use of dogs. It is illegal to trap without a license and certain types of traps are not allowed. Fur dealers must have a license, with exceptions. Fur dealers are required to maintain complete records and are prohibited from purchasing raw furs from any person who does not hold a valid trapping license, fur dealer license, or fur agent license. | Statute | |
| Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co. | 50 F.3d 781 (C.A.9 (Or.),1995) | 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,706 (1995) |
In this case, an environmental group filed a citizen suit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) seeking an injunction to prevent modification of the habitat of a pair of spotted owls by defendant-logging company. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered summary judgment for the logging company. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The Court found the issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly interpreted the ESA to foreclose citizen suits that only allege a future injury to a protected species. The Court held that the ESA's language, purpose, and structure authorize citizens to seek an injunction against an imminent threat of harm to a protected species. The proposed clear-cutting logging activity was imminent and reasonably certain to injure the owl pair by significantly impairing their essential behavioral patterns.
|
Case |