Results

The following comprises Fort Worth, Texas' animal-related ordinances. A person commits an offense if the person owns, keeps, harbors, or has custody of any female dog or cat over 6 months or of any male dog or cat over 8 months of age that is unaltered unless such person has a valid intact pet permit. Another section makes it unlawful to interfere with an animal care and control officer while engaged in the performance of his or her duties. The city outlines sanitation standards for animals kept by owners and limits the number of dogs and cats one may keep to 3 of each species. In addition, the city declares that a person who keeps a dangerous animal (as defined) other than a dog as commits a public nuisance, and outlines specific registration and enclosure requirements for dangerous animals. A subsequent section describes the dangerous dog provisions. In addition to registration, licensing, rabies vaccination, and impoundment provisions, the city has some interesting ordinances related to the keeping of miniature swine, unlawful acts of docking and cropping, and the procedure for picking up of dead animals by the city.

In 1999, President Clinton ordered the Forest Service ("FS") to initiate a nationwide plan to protect inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas in national forests, which eventually became termed the "Roadless Rule" (after extensive study was conducted in the 1970's).  The Kootenai Tribe, several livestock and recreational groups, and other plaintiffs filed suit contending that the Roadless Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), claiming the rule would prevent access to national forests for proper purposes (e.g., fighting wildfires and threats from insects or disease).  On appeal of the grant of preliminary injunction, the Court held the Forest Service complied with the APA and NEPA in implementing the roadless rule, the court noted the extensive public notification process as well as the impact statements, which considered a full range of reasonable alternatives.  The court held that the district court erred in finding a strong likelihood that the Forest Service violated NEPA, as there was only minimal showing of irreparable harm ("restrictions on human intervention are not usually irreparable in the sense required for injunctive relief"). 

The primary issue addressed by the court was whether a dolphin, named Kama, had standing under the MMPA. The court found the MMPA does not authorize suits brought by animals; it only authorizes suits brought by persons. The court would not impute to Congress or the President the intention to provide standing to a marine mammal without a clear statement in the statute.