Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation And/Or Release Of Certain Animals And | AL ADC 220-2-.26; AL ADC 220-2-.26 |
This Alabama regulation provides that no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals. |
Administrative | ||
| US - Livestock - Farm Sanctuary, et al v. Vilsack (Petition to Amend Rule) | Submitted by Farm Sanctuary, ASPCA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Compassion in World Farming, Compassion Over Killing, Farm Forward, and Mercy For Animals | The undersigned submit this petition to request that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) amend the ante-mortem inspection regulations to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) pigs.1 Specifically, Petitioners request that FSIS amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: "(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13." Read the regulation this petition challenges. | Administrative | ||
| US - Apes - Great Apes Conservation Act of 2000 | 16 USC 6301 - 6305 | The law assists in the conservation of great apes by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of countries within the range of great apes. Under the law, Great apes include the chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, orangutan, and gibbon. The law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, to award grants to entities that will promote the conservation of great apes in the wild. The authorization for appropriations is $5 million per year through 2005 with 3% or $80,000, whichever is greater, expended to administer the grants program. | Statute | ||
| AL - Impound - Destruction of impounded dogs and cats | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-7A-8 | AL ST 3-7A-8 | This Alabama statute provides that all dogs, cats, and ferrets which have been impounded for lack of rabies immunization, after due notice has been given to the owner as provided in Section 3-7A-7, may be humanely destroyed and disposed of when not redeemed by the owner within seven days. The owner may redeem the animal before destruction by paying the associated costs of vaccination (if no proof of prior vaccination) and impoundment. | Statute | |
| American Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus | 317 F.3d 334 (C.A.D.C.,2003) | 55 ERC 1904, 354 U.S.App.D.C. 432 |
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Fund for Animals, and Thomas Rider sued Ringling Bros. and its owner, Feld Entertainment, Inc., claiming that Asian elephants are an endangered species and that the circus mistreated its elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The only question was whether, as the district court ruled in dismissing their complaint, plaintiffs (including a former elephant handler) lack standing under Article III of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the former elephant handler demonstrated present or imminent injury and established redressability where the elephant handler alleged enough to show that his injuries will likely be redressed if he is successful on the merits. |
Case | |
| Winkler v. Colorado Dept. of Health | 564 P.2d 107 (Colo. 1977) | 193 Colo. 170 (1977) |
In 1974, the Colorado Department of Health adopted certain regulations, the conceded effect of which is to prohibit importation of pets for resale from states whose licensing laws and regulations for commercial pet dealers are not as stringent as those of Colorado. The regulations exempt from this prohibition persons who import pets not for resale and exclusively for breeding purposes or for personal use. After the regulations were upheld by the Denver district court, the plaintiffs, who are commercial pet importers, brought this appeal. The court found these arguments to be unpersuasive and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. |
Case | |
| Australia | Policy | ||||
| CA - Animal Defined - § 599b. Words and phrases; imputation of knowledge to corporation | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599b | CA PENAL § 599b |
This statute defines words, such as "animal," as they are used in Title 14, the Malicious Mischief section, of the California Penal Code. Title 14 is where all of the California Penal Code sections pertaining to animal cruelty are found. |
Statute | |
| CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES | 207 Animal Protection Law |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only. |
Statute | ||
| Kollman Ramos v. U.S. Dept. Of Agr. | 322 Fed.Appx. 814 (C.A.11) | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 922661 (C.A.11) |
Petitioner sought to have the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, set aside a Default Decision and Order of a United States Department of Agriculture Judicial Officer concluding that Petitioner had willfully violated multiple provisions of the AWA, including knowingly operating as a dealer without a license by delivering for transportation, or transporting, two lions for exhibition without a valid license to do so, causing injury to two lions that resulted in the death of one of the lions, and lying to investigators about Petitioner’s actions. The Court affirmed the Judicial Officer’s Decision and Order, finding, among other things, that the USDA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to admit or deny any material allegations in the complaint and was thus deemed to have admitted all allegations, the Judicial Officer did not abuse his discretion by revoking Petitioner’s AWA license on a finding of willfulness, and that that the Judicial Officer’s Decision and Order did not violate fundamental principles of fairness as embodied in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Animal Welfare Act, and the USDA’s rules. |
Case |