Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Western Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf From th 2003 WL 1697399 (F.R.) RIN 1018-AJ04

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to remove the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and western United States where it is presently listed. If this proposal is finalized, the gray wolf would be delisted in the Western Gray Wolf DPS, existing special regulations established under section 4(d) of the Act for the Western DPS would be abolished, the nonessential experimental designations for reintroduced gray wolves would be removed, and future management of this species would be conducted by the appropriate State and tribal wildlife agencies.

Administrative
WA - Endangered Species - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code West's RCWA 77.15.120, 130, 135, 410, 420, 425, 430 WA ST 77.15.120, 130, 135, 410, 420, 425, 430 Under Washington endangered species provisions, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the second degree if person hunts for, fishes for, possesses, maliciously harasses, or kills fish or wildlife, or possesses or intentionally destroys the nests or eggs of fish or wildlife; the fish or wildlife is designated by the commission as endangered; and the taking of the fish or wildlife or the destruction of the nests or eggs has not been authorized. Additionally, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree if the person has been previously convicted under the above provision within a five-year time period. Once convicted of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree (a class C felony), any licenses or tags used in connection with the crime are revoked and the person's privileges to hunt, fish, trap, or obtain licenses under this title are suspended for two years. Statute
NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs EDENTON, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 90.43

In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs,  takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog.

Local Ordinance
Banks v. Adair 251 S.E.2d 88 (Ga.App., 1978) 148 Ga.App. 254 (Ga.App., 1978)
In this Georgia dog bite case, plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the verdict was properly directed for defendant where there was no evidence that established the defendant's knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite or injure humans.
Case
OR - Vehicle, unattended animal - 30.813. Entrance into motor vehicle to remove unattended child or domestic animal; O. R. S. § 30.813 OR ST § 30.813 This Oregon law enacted in 2017 gives immunity from civil or criminal liability to a person who enters a motor vehicle, by force or otherwise, to remove a child or domestic animal if he or she follows steps listed in the law. The person must first determine the vehicle is locked and there is no reasonable method for the animal or child to exit the vehicle. That person must also have a good faith and reasonable belief based on the circumstances that entry is necessary due to imminent harm. Additionally, that person must notify law enforcement/emergency services before or soon as is reasonably practicable, use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle, and remain with the child or animal until responders arrive. Statute
VA - Horse Transport - Chapter 160. Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Horses (repealed 2016) 2 VA ADC 5-160-10 to 90 2 VAC 5-160-10 to 90 [Note: these regulations were repealed in 2016 and are provided for historical context only.] These previous Virginia regulations address the transportation of loads of more than six horses being transported to a commercial slaughter facility in a vehicle. Vehicles that have more than one tier holding horses are allowed only if the tier is designed, constructed, and maintained to withstand the weight of the horses held by it. Administrative
TX - Counseling - § 54.0407. Cruelty to Animals: Counseling Required. V. T. C. A., Family Code § 54.0407 TX FAMILY § 54.0407 For juveniles convicted under the Texas criminal animal cruelty statute (found at Tex. Penal Code § 42.09), psychological counseling is required. Statute
Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 2000)

Plaintiff, a licensed horse exercise rider sued the operator of a horse racing facility after he had been injured when he was thrown off a horse that he had been exercising, when the horse became spooked by a kite on the Defendant’s premises.   The court determined that the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) did not offer protection of immunity to the Defendant because the exercising was found to be an activity in preparation for a horse race and the EALA does not apply to “horse race meetings.”   However, the Plaintiff had previously signed a release, which covered “all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises,” therefore, the Defendant was released from liability of negligence.

Case
CT - Education - § 10-18d. Animal dissection. Students to be excused from participation or observation C. G. S. A. § 10-18d CT ST § 10-18d This Connecticut law states that a local or regional school district shall excuse any student from participating in, or observing, the dissection of any animal as part of classroom instruction, provided the parent or guardian of such student has requested, in writing, that such student be excused from such participation or observation. A student excused under this law shall be required to complete an alternate assignment to be determined by the local or regional school district. Statute
Allen v. Camp 70 So. 290 (Ala.App. 1915) 14 Ala.App. 341 (1915)

Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing.

Case

Pages