Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multilateral Conservation of Polar Bears Agreement done at Oslo November 15, 1973 |
This 1973 agreement between the governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, USSR, and the United States recognizes the responsibilities of the circumpolar countries for coordination of actions to protect polar bears. The agreement commits the signatories to manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices; prohibits hunting, killing, and capturing bears except for limited purposes and by limited methods, and commits all parties to protect the ecosystems of polar bears, especially denning and feeding areas and migration corridors. The agreement was signed by the United States on November 15, 1973, ratified on September 30, 1976, and entered into force in this country on November 1, 1976. |
Treaty | ||
| Index for Animal Law Volume 7 |
Animal Law, Volume 7 (2001)Introduction
1 |
Policy | ||
| People v. Bergen | 883 P.2d 532 (Col. Ct. App. Div. III 1994) |
Defendant, a journalist, attempted to film a dogfight for an investigative story on dogfighting following the passage of a Denver ordinance forbidding the ownership of bull terriers (pitbulls). Defendant videotaped two separate fights and dogs "training" by running on treadmills. After the story aired, public outcry lead to a police investigation as to the source of the dogfighting footage, which lead to the arrest of the defendant and her cameramen for dogfighting and perjury.
|
Case | |
| NM - Pigs, feral - § 77-18-6. Feral hogs; prohibition; penalty | NMSA 1978, § 77-18-6 | NM ST § 77-18-6 | This New Mexico law prohibits the importation, transportation, holding for breeding, releasing, or selling of a sell a live feral hog or the operation of a commercial feral hog hunting enterprise. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term of less than one year or both. | Statute |
| Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service | 113 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1997) | 44 ERC 201728, Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 020 | Newton County Wildlife Association sued the United States Forest Service seeking judicial review of four timber sales in the Ozark National Forest. The Wildlife Association filed sequential motions to preliminarily enjoin the sales as violative of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The district court1 separately denied each motion, and the Wildlife Association separately appealed those orders. The Court held that because the Forest Service may limit WSRA plans to lands lying within designated river segments, failure to timely prepare the Plans cannot be a basis for enjoining timber sales on lands lying outside any designated area. With respect to the MBTA, the Court held that "it would stretch this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of reason to construe it as an absolute criminal prohibition on conduct, such as timber harvesting, that indirectly results in the death of migratory birds." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. | Case |
| VT - Domestic Violence - § 1103. Requests for relief. | 15 V.S.A. § 1103 | VT ST T. 15 § 1103 | Any family or household member may seek relief from abuse by another family or household member on behalf of him- or herself or his or her children by filing a complaint under this chapter. Included among the relief that the court can grant is an order concerning the possession, care, and control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held as a pet by either party or a minor child residing in the household in section (c)(2)(G). | Statute |
| TN - Nashville - Title 8 - ANIMALS | Title 8 - ANIMALS |
These are the animal ordinances for the Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. These laws include dog laws (including vicious dogs), wildlife and animal control regulations. |
Local Ordinance | |
| In the Matters of: Kyle C. Mueller, et al | 1991 WL 288705 (N.O.A.A.) | 6 O.R.W. 345 (1991) |
The question in this case was whether respondents, members of a marine mammal conservation group, violated the MMPA by interfering with the authorized capture of six dolphins. As result of this case, which was a civil penalty proceeding, only one of the respondents was found guilty of taking under the MMPA. The court found that the respondent's actions, although taken with noble intentions, endangered the lives of the dolphins, was improper, and dangerous. He was assessed a fine in the amount of $2,000. |
Case |
| TX - Ordinances - § 1.08. Preemption | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 1.08 | TX PENAL § 1.08 | This law provides for preemption of state criminal laws over the laws enacted by governmental subdivisions or agencies. | Statute |
| Ivey v. Hamlin (Unpublished) | 2002 WL 1254444 (Tenn.Ct.App.)(Not reproted in S.W.3rd) |
This is an action for damages for the deliberate killing of a dog by a Deputy Sheriff that was alleging terrorizing the neighborhood. In finding for defendant-officer, the court noted that the consensus among the courts is that a vicious dog is a public nuisance and that governments and their agents have broad power to protect the public from these animals. The court thus found the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances and had a qualified immunity defense. |
Case |