Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Breeder - Chapter 802. Dog or Cat Breeders. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 802.001 - 251 | Under the Texas Dog or Cat Breeders Act, a person may not act as a dog or cat breeder without a license. Facilities must be inspected at least once every 18-months, and inspectors must notify the law enforcement if they discover evidence of animal cruelty or neglect. This Act also establishes a dog or cat breeder training and enforcement account that can be used for promoting consumer awareness of this chapter, and supporting education, training, and enforcement efforts. | Statute | ||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Mont.,2010) | 2010 WL 3084194 (D.Mont.,) |
In February of 2008, Defendant, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the "Service"), issued a final ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf species, removing the ESA’s protections throughout the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment ("DPS"), except in Wyoming. Twelve parties challenged the final ruling, arguing, foremost, that the decision violates the ESA by only partially protecting a listed population. The United States District Court for the District of Montana issued two findings: (1) the ESA does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part; and (2) the legislative history of the ESA does not support the Service’s interpretation of the phrase "significant portion of its range," but instead supports the long-standing view that the ESA does not allow a distinct population to be subdivided. Accordingly, the Service’s ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf was vacated as invalid and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted. |
Case | |
| NV - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 202. Crimes Against Public Health and Safety. | N. R. S. 202.500 | NV ST 202.500 | This Nevada statute defines a "dangerous dog," as a dog, that without provocation, on two separate occasions within 18 months, behaved menacingly to a degree that would lead a reasonable person to defend him or herself against substantial bodily harm, when the dog is either off the premises of its owner or keeper or not confined in a cage or pen. A dog then becomes "vicious" when, without being provoked, it killed or inflicted substantial bodily harm upon a human being. If substantial bodily harm results from an attack by a dog known to be vicious, its owner or keeper is guilty of a category D felony. Under the statute, a dog may not be declared dangerous if it attacks as a defensive act against a person who was committing or attempting to commit a crime or who provoked the dog. | Statute | |
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley 2352, 2002 | Ley 2352, 2002 | Approved and adopted the "CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS" signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, into the Bolivian legal system. | Statute | ||
| CO - Commerce City - Breed - Chapter 4 - ANIMAL CODE. ARTICLE I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | COMMERCE CITY, CO., REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 4-1000 - 4-1005 (2011) |
Commerce City defines a pit bull or pit bull terrier as any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.) or United Kennel Club (U.K.C.) for any of the above breeds. Commerce City has banned pit bulls with the exception of pit bulls who were in the city prior to November 2005. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Rupert v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 957 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1992) |
Appellant was the pastor of an all-race Native American church that required the use of eagle feathers during certain worship who challenged the BGEPA after being denied a permit to obtain eagle feathers because he was not a member of a recognized Indian tribe. Under an equal protection analysis, the court found the limitation on the use of eagle parts to Native Americans is rationally related to the government's interest in preserving the eagle population as well as the special religious and cultural interests of Native Americans. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| ND - Exotic Pets - Category 3 Species. 48.1-09-06-01. Housing, handling, health, and importation | ND ADC 48.1-09-06-01 | NDAC 48.1-09-06-01 | This North Dakota regulation provides specific rules for Category 3 species of non-traditional livestock. These species include: wild suidae (hogs and pigs); large felids (cats) and hybrids; bears; wolves and wolf-hybrids; venomous reptiles; primates, and nondomestic sheep/goats and their hybrids. Among the provisions include regulations for housing and confinement, importation requirements, and vaccinations. | Administrative | |
| WRIGHT v. CLARK | 50 Vt. 130 (1877) | 50 Vt. 130, 28 Am.Rep. 496 (1877) |
Defendant shot plaintiff’s hunting dog, and plaintiff sued for trespass. The dog was shot while in pursuit of a fox. Defendant shot at the fox, but accidentally hit the dog. The court held that, because the shooting was a voluntary act, he was liable for exemplary damages for “intentionally or wantonly” shooting the dog. |
Case | |
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | ||
| Haviland v. Butz | 543 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976) | 543 F.2d 169, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 615, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 22 |
This case addresses whether the Secretary of Agriculture intended to include “animal acts” under the AWA. Animal acts are any performance of animals where such animals are trained to perform some behavior or action or are part of a show, performance, or exhibition. Defendant presented an animal act with dogs and ponies to paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. Defendant asserted that he did not “exhibit” animals simply by showing dogs and ponies and argued that the Secretary unconstitutionally added “animal acts” to the AWA. The court held that the inclusion of “animal acts” was authorized as“[t]he words ‘includes’ and ‘such as’ [in the AWA] point convincingly to the conclusion that the listing of types of exhibitions in the statutory text was intended to be but partial and illustrative.” |
Case |