Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Buena Vi | 2005 WL 123168 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT66 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designated critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) (referred to here as the shrew) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 84 acres (ac) (34 hectares (ha)) occur within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is located in the Central Valley floor of Kern County, California. |
Administrative | |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 15 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Animal & Natural Resource LawVol. |
Policy | |||
| U.S. v. Tierney (Unpublished) | 38 Fed. Appx. 424 (9th Cir. 2002) (unpub.) | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4635 |
The district court did not err by denying the defendant's proposed entrapment instruction and that Nev. Admin. Code 504.471 is not unconstitutionally vague. He did not present evidence to support his position on either element. Rather than indicating government inducement or lack of predisposition, the evidence showed that the government merely provided the defendant with an opportunity to sell what he was already ready and willing to sell. The court also found the meaning of "wildlife" under Nevada law was not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case | |
| State v. Sego | 2006 WL 3734664 (Del.Com.Pl. 2006) (unpublished) |
Fifteen horses were seized by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) because the animals were in poor condition. The SPCA sent bills to the owners for feeding, upkeep, and veterinary care, but the owners did not pay the bills. After 30 days of nonpayment, the SPCA became the owners of the horses, and the prior owners were not entitled to get the horses back. |
Case | ||
| AU - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) | Animal Welfare Act 2002 |
The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect animals from cruelty and to safeguard the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes. The Australian Code of Practice is incorporated into the legislation as the standard for animal care and use in scientific establishments. |
Statute | ||
| HI - Maui County - Title 22: Agricultural Parks (Chapter 22.04A: Kula Agricultural Park) | Maui County Code §§ 22.04A.010 - 22.04A.130 |
The purpose of these Maui County, Hawaii ordinances is to promote the development of diversified agriculture by providing appropriately-sized agricultural lots at reasonable rent and long-term tenure in the Kula Agricultural Park. In order to carry out this purpose, the ordinances contain provisions on how a bona fide farmer, a new farmer, or a displaced farmer may obtain such a lot. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILDLIFE IN NEED AND WILDLIFE IN DEED, INC. | 476 F. Supp. 3d 765 (S.D. Ind. 2020) | 2020 WL 4448481 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2020) | Wildlife in Need and Wildlife in Deed, Inc. ("WIN") is a zoo located in Charlestown, Indiana owned by Timothy Stark and Melissa Lane that houses exotic and endangered animals, including Big Cats like lions, tigers, and hybrids. WIN exhibits Big Cats to the public through hands-on encounters called “Tiger Baby Playtime” so Stark routinely declaws Big Cat cubs in his possession so he can handle them easier, not for any medical reason. Stark admitted to declawing "about a dozen cubs" in 2016 alone. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA") filed this lawsuit against Stark and Lane and their WIN zoo alleging that the defendants harassed and wounded Big Cats in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, this case asks whether certain animal exhibitors have "taken" various species of Big Cats by declawing them and prematurely separating them from their mothers to use in hands-on, public interactions. By granting PETA's motion for Partial Summary Judgment, this court concludes that such conduct constitutes a "taking" and thus violates the ESA. The court noted that PETA's motion for preliminary injunction was granted in 2017, restraining defendant from declawing any Big Cats absent a medical necessity supported by a veterinarian's opinion. Then, on February 12, 2018, the court preliminarily enjoined the WIN Defendants from declawing their Big Cats, prematurely separating Big Cat Cubs from their mothers, and using Cubs in Tiger Baby Playtime. The court previously concluded that declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA at the preliminary injunction stage, and now found "there is no good reason to disturb that conclusion." Thus, the court again concludes the WIN Defendants' declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA: it “harasses” Big Cats by creating a likelihood of significantly disrupting normal behavioral patterns; it “harms” Big Cats by actually injuring them; and it “wounds” Big Cats by inflicting a physical injury. In addition to granting the permanent injunction, the court also directed PETA to file a motion to appoint a special master and identify a reputable wildlife sanctuary for the animals housed at WIN. | Case | |
| Facility Dogs/Courthouse Support Dogs | As of 2024, twenty (20) states have laws that allow the use of facility/courthouse dogs in some legal proceedings. | State map | |||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco | 758 F.Supp.2d 945 (N.D.Cal., 2010) | 2010 WL 5288188 (N.D.Cal.) |
In this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the court found that Defendants did not violate the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in failing to list the ribbon seal as threatened or endangered due to shrinking sea ice habitat essential to the species’ survival. Defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the impact of Russia’s commercial harvest on the ribbon seal was low, that 2050 was the “foreseeable future” due to uncertainty about global warming and ocean acidification farther into the future, or its choice of scientific and commercial data to use. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
|
Case | |
| WV - Hunting - § 20-2-2a. Interference with hunters, trappers and fishermen | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-2a | WV ST § 20-2-2a | This law reflects West Virginia's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person may not willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, fishing or trapping. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or imprisonment for 10 - 100 days, or both. Subsequent violations within two years of any prior violation result in a fine of up to $1000 and imprisonment for up to one year, or both. A violator is also liable to the person for damages. | Statute |