Results

Displaying 51 - 60 of 6754
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
US - Marine Mammals - Petition to Designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River Stock of Beluga Whales under the MMPA Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute Under § 1383 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute hereby petition the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, through the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to designate Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the Sea of Okhotsk as a “depleted” stock. As described herein, the best scientific information available indicates that these beluga whales constitute a stock that is well below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) and, under the MMPA, qualify for such designation. The evidence also suggests that the stock continues to decline and faces a number of risk factors, providing additional impetus for such designation. Administrative
Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 3

Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law

Journal of Animal Law Vol. VIII (2007)

The table of contents is provided below.

Policy
In the Matter of Kerlin 376 A.2d 939 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1977)

Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office).  In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed. 

Case
IN - Cattle Slaughter - ORISSA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1960 5 of 1961 This law, specific to the eastern Indian state of Orissa, prohibits the slaughter of cows. Bulls and bullocks may also not be slaughtered unless a certificate is obtained from a competent authority indicating that the bull or bullock is over fourteen years old. Cows, bulls and bullocks may be slaughtered if they have contagious or infectious diseases, or for experimentation in the interest of medical research. The government may establish institutions for the care of uneconomic cows. Statute
England/Wales - Wild Animals - Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 2019 CHAPTER 24 Comes into force January 2020: An Act banning the use of wild animals in traveling circuses in England and Wales. Statute
Hopson v. Kreps 622 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1980)

Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action.

Case
WA - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 16.50. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. West's RCWA 16.50.100 - 900 WA ST 16.50.100 - 900 The Washington humane slaughter laws begin with a statement that it is declared to be the policy of the state of Washington to require that the slaughter of all livestock, and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter, shall be carried out only by humane methods. Humane methods are defined are those methods whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or methods in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. "Livestock" is limited under the statute to cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goats. Note that the director may, by administrative order, exempt a person from compliance with this chapter for a period of not to exceed six months if he finds that an earlier compliance would cause such person undue hardship. Violation of the act constitutes a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or confinement in the county jail for not more than ninety days. Statute
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations 2000 WL 1214 (F.R.) FR Doc. 99-33632

This interim final rule allows the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations fully complying with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). It also allows U.S. vessels to set their purse seines on dolphins in the ETP. The standard for the use of "dolphin-safe" labels for tuna products also is changed.

Administrative
Conservancy v. USFWS 677 F.3d 1073 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) 2012 WL 1319857 (C.A.11 (Fla.))

In this case, many environmental advocacy groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for a species, the Florida panther, which was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1967. The petition was denied. Claiming the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, the groups filed a citizens suit under the ESA in district court. At district, the group's complaints were dismissed and the groups subsequently lost on appeal.

Case
WI - Hewitt - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance HEWITT, WI., ORDINANCE NO. 18.01 § 5

In Hewitt, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pitbull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered by the date the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept subject to certain conditions, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting "Beware of Dog" signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance.

Local Ordinance

Pages