Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Morgenweck | 351 F.Supp.2d (D. Co. 2004) |
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service completed a review of an environmental group petition that requested the Yellowstone cutthroat trout be listed as an endangered species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service refused to list the fish as an endangered species and the environmental group brought an action to set aside the agency's findings. The District Court held in favor of the environmental group reasoning the agency's rejection of the petition was arbitrary and capricious and the review of the petition was not conducted properly. |
Case | ||
| PA - Dangerous - § 459-507-A. Construction of article (dangerous dogs) | 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | This Pennsylvania statute provides the construction of the dangerous dog chapter in the state. It outlines the exceptions under the dangerous dog law as well as the enforcement procedure for one who is attacked by such dog. It also specifically states that any provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. Further, a local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog. | Statute | |
| Adams v Reahy | [2007] NSWSC 1276 |
The first respondent claimed that despite their best efforts their dog was unable to gain weight and appeared emaciated. When proceedings were instituted, the first respondent was successful in being granted a permanent stay as the appellant, the RSPCA, failed to grant the first respondent access to the dog to determine its current state of health. On appeal, it was determined that a permanent stay was an inappropriate remedy and that the first respondent should be granted a temporary stay only until the dog could be examined. |
Case | ||
| Chile - Cruelty - LEY 21.020 | LEY 21.020 (1106037) | This law establishes the rights and responsibilities of those in possession of companion animals and establishes general duties such as adequate treatment, and meeting the needs of the animal according to their species. Some important aspects of this law include the prohibition of companion animal fighting when it is organized as an event, the training of animals to reinforce aggressive behavior, and the sacrifice of animals as a method of population control. It also prohibits the abandonment of animals and the selling of animals in the streets. It strengthens penalties for animal cruelty in the criminal code and Law No. N°20.380 (Animal protection statute), and imposes jail time and an absolute prohibition to possess animals for those found to commit animal cruelty. | Statute | ||
| TX - Hunting, canned - § 62.015. Hunting and Possession of Exotic Animals | V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.015 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.015 | This Texas law provides that no person on a public road or on the right-of-way of a public road may hunt an exotic animal. In addition, no person may hunt on the land of another for an exotic animal without the express consent of the owner of the land to hunt for exotic animals. A person who violates this section commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| US - Permits - Subpart A. Introduction. § 13.4 Emergency variation from requirements. | 67 FR 12824 | 50 C.F.R. § 13.4 | This regulation provides that the Director of the USFWS may approve variations from the permit requirements if an emergency exists and it does not hinder the administration of other regulations. | Administrative | |
| NV - Dog Ordinance - 244.359. Ordinance concerning control of animals | N. R. S. 244.359 | NV ST 244.359 | This Nevada statute provides that each board of county commissioners may enact and enforce an ordinance related to dogs including licensing, regulating or prohibiting the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals, establishing a pound, designating an animal as inherently dangerous and requiring the owner of such an animal to obtain a policy of liability insurance, among other things. | Statute | |
| WY - Rehabilitation - Chapter 45. Wildlife Rehabilitation | WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24 | WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24 | The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the care of sick, injured, debilitated or orphaned wildlife, excluding big game animals and trophy game animals, by permitted wildlife rehabilitators and to provide criteria for the issuance of permits to such wildlife rehabilitators. In accordance with this regulation, wildlife rehabilitators issued permits pursuant to this regulation may acquire sick, injured, debilitated, or orphaned wildlife and provide necessary treatment in order that the wildlife may be returned to live in the wild independent of human aid and sustenance. As soon as it can be determined that sick or injured wildlife is not likely to recover within one-hundred eighty (180) days, the wildlife shall be euthanized; unless Department approval is given for extended care. | Administrative | |
| Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v. Salazar | 606 F.3d 1160, (C.A.9 (Ariz.),2010) | 2010 WL 2220036; 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7030; 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8233 |
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association (Plaintiff) challenged Fish and Wildlife Service's (Defendant) designation of critical habitat for Mexican spotted owls under the Endangered Species Act. The issues were whether Defendant impermissibly included unoccupied areas as critical habitat, and whether Defendant impermissibly employed the baseline approach in its economic analysis. The Court held that 1) Defendant did not designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat because “occupied” areas included areas where the species was likely to be present, and 2) that Defendant properly applied the baseline approach because the economic impact of listing a species as endangered was not intended to be included in the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation. |
Case | |
| Morgan v. Kroupa | 702 A.2d 630 (Vt. 1997) | 167 Vt. 99 (1997) | Finder found Owner’s lost dog. Finder posted signs in order to locate Owner. More than a year later, the owner contacted Finder to take back the dog. However, Finder was permitted to keep the dog, since she had cared for the dog and made good efforts to locate the true owner. | Case |