Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malawi National Parks and Wildlife Act | No 11 of 1992 |
This law represented a major redraft of the old British game law. It protects endangered species and parks. It also sets out the general game law. Notably it also requires the use of environmental impact statements. |
Statute | |||||||||
| Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Locke | 626 F.3d 1040 (C.A.9 (Or.),2010) | 2010 WL 4723195 (C.A.9 (Or.)) |
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) authorized several states to kill California sea lions under section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allows the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds. Plaintiffs filed action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants. The Court held that NMFS 1) did not adequately explain its finding that sea lions were having a “significant negative impact” on the decline or recovery of listed salmonid populations; and 2) NMFS did not adequately explain why a California sea lion predation rate of 1 percent would have a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of these salmonid populations. Therefore, the agency's action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” under the Administrative Procedure Act. |
Case | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| Wales - Circus - Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Act 2020 | 2020 asc 2 | This Act prohibits the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Wales. | Statute | |||||||||
| In Re Jackie King | This is a petition for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Potter County Sheriff to revoke all certificates to Charles Azzopardi, doing business as Texas Wildlife Center, due to violations of the Dangerous Wild Animal Act. Also included are exhibits and affidavits. | Pleading | ||||||||||
| CA - Hunting - § 3511. Fully protected birds; permits or licenses; necessary scientific research; legal imports; | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3511 | CA FISH & G § 3511 | California law specifically states that no other statutes are to be construed to allow the taking of state protected birds, of which the golden eagle and bald eagle are listed, and any licenses issued to take protected birds are void unless issued for scientific or depredation purposes. | Statute | ||||||||
| New York Revised Statute 1881: Chapter 682: Section 26 | N.Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 682, § 26 (1881) | Section 26 of Chapter 682 from New York Revised Statutes 1881 concerns the treatment of animals by the owner or any other person. A person found harming such an animal would be guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |||||||||
| Stanko v. Maher | 419 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2005) | 2005 WL 1953514 (10th Cir.(Wyo.)) | A livestock owner and drover sued the Wyoming state brand inspector, alleging that inspector violated his state and federal constitutional rights in making warrantless seizure of five head of livestock, and that inspector abused his office in violation of state constitution. Plaintiff Rudy Stanko, proceeding pro se, appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Jim Maher. The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Maher, holding that the warrantless search of cattle did not violate Fourth Amendment and the inspector did not violate the Fourth Amendment by making warrantless seizure of cattle as estrays. Further, the procedure provided under Wyoming brand inspection statutes prior to seizure of cattle deemed to be estrays satisfied due process requirements. | Case | ||||||||
| BO - Wildlife - Ley No. 1333 | Ley No. 1333 | This is the most important law regarding the protection of the environment and natural resources in Bolivia. It regulates human interaction with nature and promotes sustainable development to improve the quality of life of the population. Under this law, wildlife trafficking is punished with up to 6 years of imprisonment. | Statute | |||||||||
| Tranchita v. Dep't of Nat. Res. | 158 N.E.3d 1230 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2020) | 2020 IL App (1st) 191251 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2020) | Plaintiff Tomi Tranchita alleged that she cared for four abused and abandoned coyotes for 13 years. The coyotes were housed within a fully fenced-in backyard, ate appropriate food, and received medical care from a veterinarian. The Plaintiff possessed a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Class C exhibitor’s license which imposed restrictions on the licensee such as unannounced annual inspections by a veterinarian or specially trained animal expert. Plaintiff alleged that she had never been cited for any USDA violations and had passed all inspections. Plaintiff also held an Illinois state permit as a fur-bearing mammal breeder from 2011 to 2016, however, this permit lapsed after Plaintiff failed to pay the annual fee. On April 24, 2019, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) executed a search warrant on Plaintiff’s premises. The coyotes were seized during this raid. Plaintiff was told that if she did not sign a relinquishment form that the coyotes would be euthanized or confined to a small space that would end up killing them. IDNR cited Plaintiff for lacking proper permits and for several criminal violations of the Wildlife code. Three of the four coyotes ended up dying from what was believed to be distemper. Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims under the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Plaintiff also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief arguing that the coyote’s lives were at risk if they were not returned. Plaintiff alleged that she had a protected property interest in the coyotes pursuant to her federal exhibitor license. The trial court found that Plaintiff did not have a protected property interest in the coyotes because she did not possess the proper Illinois permit at the time of the seizure. The trial court subsequently denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff then appealed. The Court looked to state law to determine whether Plaintiff had a property interest in the coyotes. Under the Illinois Wildlife Code, a fur-bearing mammal breeder permit is necessary in order to possess or raise a coyote. Plaintiff was in violation of Illinois law the moment her permit lapsed in 2016. This made the coyotes contraband since they were possessed in violation of Illinois’ Wildlife Code. No person is permitted to assert legal ownership or a right to possession of property that is contraband. Plaintiff argued that her federal exhibitor’s license recognized a right of property in her coyotes, however, the Court found that the mere possession of a federal exhibitor’s license does not automatically vest a property right in the permit holder. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgement of the trial court. | Case |