Results
Displaying 6581 - 6590 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil's ban on live cattle exports | 5000325-94.2017.4.03.6135 | This is the case in which a court in Brazil banned live cattle exports from all Brazilian ports based on animal welfare concerns. It is the result of a lawsuit filed by the NGO "Foro Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Animales," who requested that this type of animal transport to be banned. In 2018, the court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting live cattle exports. However, this injunction was invalidated by a superior tribunal. In her opinion, the judge stated that "animals are not things. They are sentient living beings—individuals who feel hunger, thirst, pain, cold, anguish, and fear. " In its holding, the judge compares the treatment of animals to the treatment suffered by humans during the slave trade, stating that non-human animals suffer the same treatment in the name of commercial development. Furthermore, the judge concluded that the necessary methods to guarantee the health and well-being of animals in this type of transport were not being adopted and urged for the harmonization between the interests of human animals (economic interest or interest in providing food for the population) with the ethics that must preside over their relations with non-human animals, encouraging the country to be at the forefront in abolishing inappropriate handling and eradicating all types of cruelty against animals. Even though this is a landmark decision, it is important to mention that this is not a final decision constituting legal precedent, and a higher court can invalidate it if it is appealed. | Case | ||||||||
| Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt | 987 F.Supp. 1349 (D. Wyoming 1997) | 46 ERC 1516 (D. Wyoming 1997) |
The Wyoming Farm Bureau, amateur researchers, and environmental groups appealed an agency to introduce experimental population of gray wolves in a national park and central Idaho. After ruling on the various standing issues, the court held that the ESA section allowing experimental population to be maintained only when it is "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental populations includes overlap even with individual members of nonexperimental species. However, the defendants' treatment of all wolves found within boundaries of designated experimental population areas as nonessential experimental animals was contrary to law as provided in their own regulations. Therefore, the court ordered that Defendants' Final Rules establishing a nonessential experimental population of gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, central Idaho and southwestern Montana was unlawful. Further, that by virtue of the plan being set aside, defendants must remove reintroduced non-native wolves and their offspring from the Yellowstone and central Idaho experimental population areas. This decision was reversed in 199 F.3d 1224. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| CA - Hunting - Article 1. Methods of Taking (including trapping methods) | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3000 - 3012 | CA FISH & G § 3000 - 3012 | These sections pertain to hunting in California. A hunting license is required, and certain hunting methods are prohibited, such as night hunting, hunting while intoxicated, shooting at an animal from a vehicle, Internet hunting, the use of body-gripping or metal-jawed traps, the use of certain poisons and lead bullets, and the use of bird or mammal calls. | Statute | |||||||
| US - Importation - Subpart F. Wildlife Declarations | 50 C.F.R. § 14.61 to .64 | Except as otherwise provided by the regulations of this subpart, importers or their agents must file with the Service a completed Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3-177), signed by the importer or the importer's agent, upon the importation of any wildlife at the place where Service clearance under section 14.52 is requested. | Administrative | ||||||||
| MI - Habitat Protection - Wilderness, Wild, and Natural Areas (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) | M.C.L.A. 324.35101 - 35111 | MI ST 324.35101 - 35111 | These sections define, identify, and set guidelines for the protection of wilderness, wild, and/or natural areas. | Statute | |||||||
| MS - Veterinary - Chapter 39. Veterinarians. | Miss. Code Ann. § 73-39-51 to 73-39- 95 | MS ST § 73-39-51 to 73-39- 95 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |||||||
| FL - Veterinary - Veterinary Medical Practice. | West's F. S. A. § 474.201 - 221 | FL ST § 474.201 - 221 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |||||||
| MA - Police animals - 9A Emergency treatment of police dogs | M.G.L.A. 111C § 9A | MA ST 111C § 9A | This 2022 Massachusetts law mandates that EMS personnel provide emergency treatment to a police dog injured in the line of duty and transport such police dog by ambulance to a veterinary care facility equipped to provide emergency treatment to dogs. EMS personnel shall not transport an injured police dog if providing such transport would inhibit their ability to provide emergency medical attention or transport to a person requiring such services. The law also outlines training for EMS personnel in treating police dogs. | Statute | |||||||
| Dancy v. State | 287 So. 3d 931 (Miss. 2020) | 2020 WL 240457 (Miss. Jan. 16 , 2020) | The Justice Court of Union County found Michael Dancy guilty of three counts of animal cruelty and ordered the permanent forfeiture of Dancy’s six horses, four cats, and three dogs. Dancy appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the animals be permanently forfeited and found Dancy guilty. The circuit court also ordered Dancy to pay $39,225 for care and boarding costs for the horses. Dancy subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Essentially, Dancy failed to provide adequate shelter, food, and water for the animals. The Court found that the circuit court properly released the animals to an animal protection organization. The Court also found that the reimbursement order was permissible. Two of Dancy’s three convictions were for violations of the same statute regarding simple cruelty, one for his four cats and one for his three dogs. The Court held that, according to the statute's plain language, Dancy’s cruelty to a combination of dogs and cats occurring at the same time "shall constitute a single offense." Thus, the State cannot punish Dancy twice for the same offense without violating his right against double jeopardy. For that reason, the court vacated Dancy’s second conviction of simple cruelty. The court affirmed the permanent forfeiture and reimbursement order and his other cruelty conviction. | Case |