Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period | 1995 WL 121178 (F.R.) |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the comment period on the bald eagle reclassification proposal for thirty days. On July 12, 1994, the Service proposed reclassifying the bald eagles of the lower 48 States as threatened, except those already listed as threatened and those of the Southwestern Recovery Region and Mexico. The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region were proposed to remain listed as endangered. The Service also proposed classifying bald eagles in Mexico as endangered; they are not currently listed as endangered or threatened. Specific public comment was solicited on the status of bald eagles in the Southwest and Mexico and the distinctness of those eagles as a separate population. New information indicates that the Southwestern and Mexican bald eagles may not warrant a classification as endangered. The Service is making available for public review and comment information recently received about bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region. |
Administrative | ||
| OK - Initiative - State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | This petition makes it a felony to instigate or encourage cockfighting, possess or train birds for cockfighting, or maintain a facility for cockfighting in the state of Oklahoma. The ballot proposal also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly be a spectator at a cockfight. It passed in 2002 with 56% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| Olier v. Bailey | 164 So. 3d 982 (Miss. 2015) | 2015 WL 1611772 (Miss. 2015) | Plaintiff was attacked and chased by a domestic goose in Defendant’s yard. As Plaintiff attempted to flee, she fell and broke her arm. Plaintiff sued Defendant in the County Court of Jackson County under a theory of premises liability and, alternatively, under the dangerous-propensity rule. The trial court granted summary judgment because it found that Plaintiff was a licensee on Defendant's property and that Defendant did not breach her duty of care toward Plaintiff. It also denied relief under the dangerous-propensity rule because there was no evidence that the particular goose that bit Plaintiff ever had exhibited dangerous propensities prior to the incident. Plaintiff appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, which affirmed. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that, while Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, pursue her claim under her theory of general premises liability, she can proceed under the dangerous-propensity theory because the court found an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant was on notice of her geese's alleged dangerous propensity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. | Case | |
| News Archives | This page provides archives of the news items that appeared on the website's front page. The month and year of the news story is listed. | Basic page | |||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 776 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Mont., 2011) | 2011 WL 1345670 (D.Mont.) |
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's 2009 Final Rule unlawfully delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Rule was vacated. The Court held that it had no authority to decide that it would be more equitable to ignore Congress' instruction on how an endangered species must be protected so that the wolves could be taken under the states' management plans. In addition, the Court held that it was inappropriate for the Court to approve a settlement at the expense of the Non–Settling Litigants' legal interests. |
Case | |
| Mogensen v. Welch | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2023) | 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D.Va., 2023) | Plaintiffs owned and operated a zoo containing about 95 animals. Following complaints about suspected abuse and neglect of these animals, defendant executed a search warrant of the zoo. The search led to the seizure of many of these animals, including a tiger in such poor health that it needed to be euthanized. Following the seizure of these animals, plaintiffs filed a motion to argue that their due process rights were violated because a civil forfeiture hearing must be held no more than ten business days after the state seized the animals, and plaintiffs argue that ten days is too little time to prepare for the hearing. To succeed on the claim, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which they were unable to do because plaintiffs still have the right to appeal if the hearing does not go in their favor. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| KS - Ulysses - Breed - ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS | ULYSSES, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-301 - 2-302 |
In Ulysses, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions. Pit bull dogs registered with the city as of July 19, 1989 may be kept subject to certain requirements, such as use of a leash and muzzle if outside, confinement, “Beware of Dog” signs, $50,000 insurance, and identification photographs. It is prohibited to sell or give a pit bull away except in limited circumstances. All pit bull puppies born in the city must be removed within six weeks of birth. Failure to comply may result in seizure of the dog, a fine of $200 to $1,000, and imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| MA - Pet Sales Age Restriction - Chapter 129. Livestock Disease Control | M.G.L.A. 129 § 39G; § 43 | MA ST 129 § 39G; § 43 | This statute provides that any dog or cat brought or shipped into the commonwealth shall be accompanied by an official health certificate issued by an accredited veterinarian, a copy of which shall be sent to the commissioner of agricultural resources. Further, a commercial establishment, pet shop, firm or corporation shall not import into the commonwealth, for sale or resale in the commonwealth, a cat or dog less than 8 weeks of age. | Statute | |
| Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service | 409 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y.2006) |
The Natural Resources Defense Council sought material from the National Marine Fisheries Service about an incident of mass stranding of whales under the Freedom of Information Act because the Council thought it had to do with navy sonar use. The Service did not want to release the materials, saying they were protected from disclosure because they were discussions of agency decision-making. The court required disclosure of most of the materials because purely factual matters are not protected from disclosure. |
Case | ||
| 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 |