Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Conservation - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act | 16 USC 661 - 667e | The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) of 1934 authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. In addition, this Act authorizes the preparation of plans to protect wildlife resources, the completion of wildlife surveys on public lands, and the acceptance by the Federal agencies of funds or lands for related purposes provided that land donations received the consent of the State in which they are located. | Statute | |
| Ranwez v. Roberts | 601 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. 2004) | 268 Ga.App. 80 (Ga. 2004) |
Plaintiff brought claims against her tenant neighbor and the property owner after she was viciously attacked by her tenant neighbor's four pit bulls. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the property owner was an out-of -possession landlord. |
Case |
| Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman | 313 F.3d 1904 (9th Cir. 2002) | 55 ERC 2051, 54 Fed.R.Serv.3d 526, 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,915, |
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"). |
Case |
| VA - Education - § 22.1-200.01. Alternatives to animal dissection | VA Code Ann. § 22.1-200.01 | VA ST § 22.1-200.01 | This Virginia law states that local school divisions shall provide students with alternatives to animal dissection techniques. The Board of Education shall establish guidelines to be implemented by local school divisions regarding such alternative dissection techniques. In addition, those guidelines must provide notification to students and parents of the option to decline participation in animal dissection. | Statute |
| Associated Dog Clubs of New YorkState, Inc. v. Vilsack | 75 F.Supp.3d 83(D.D.C. 2014) | With the increase of sales over the Internet, the Department of Agriculture, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), issued a new rule that redefined “retail pet store” to include online pet stores. Several breeders argued that the agency exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the new rule. The Secretary for the Department of Agriculture moved for summary judgment. Since APHIS acted within its authority in promulgating the rule and otherwise complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Court granted summary judgment for the agency. | Case | |
| CA - Cruelty, exemptions - § 599c. Construction of title; game laws; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599c | CA PENAL § 599c | This statute makes it clear that the title is not meant to interfere with “game laws” or the right to destroy venomous reptiles or other dangerous animal. Neither is there an intent to interfere with laws regarding the destruction of certain birds, interfere with the right to kill animals used for food or with scientific experiments. | Statute |
| U.S. v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets | 689 F.Supp. 1106 (S.D.Fla., 1988) | 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,101 (1988) |
Plaintiff U.S. sought to forfeit the Defendant parakeets on the ground that they were imported in violation of Peruvian law and consequently, in violation of the Lacey Act. The court held that, if even the "innocent owner" defense was available under the Lacey Act (which the court held it is not under the forfeiture provision of the statute), the claimant importer never attempted to independently confirm or verify that the parakeet species in question (brotogeris versicolorus) could be lawfully imported from Peru. Thus, the court held the forfeiture valid where the U.S. established by probable cause to believe the Lacey Act was violated where the testimony at trial established that Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 934-73-AG prohibits from anywhere in the national territory the exportation of wild live animals coming from the forest or jungle region. |
Case |
| Reams v. Irvin | 561 F.3d 1258 (C.A.11 (Ga.),2009) | 2009 WL 579222 (C.A.11 (Ga.)); 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1607 |
On Plaintiff’s civil rights § 1983 action against Defendant, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, based on the impoundment of forty-six horses and three donkeys from Plaintiff’s property following an investigation into potential violations of the Georgia Humane Care for Equines Act (the “Act”), Plaintiff appealed the District Court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to be heard prior to the seizure of her equines, adequate notice of Plaintiff’s right to and procedure for requesting a hearing, and adequate post-deprivation process. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the risk of erroneous deprivation in this case was minimal in light of the State’s compliance with the standards and procedures for inspection and impoundment prescribed by the Act, that the statutory notice of the right to contest the impoundment was reasonably calculated to provide Plaintiff with notice of her right to a hearing, and that the Act provided adequate power to review and to remedy violations of due process. |
Case |
| Peru - Cruelty - Ley 30407, 2015 | Ley 30407, 2015 | Ley 30407, is the statute of animal protection and welfare. It sets the guidelines for the protection of vertebrate domestic and wild animals kept in captivity and against abuse and cruelty caused directly or indirectly by humans. This law also promotes respect for the life and well-being of animals through education as well as the participation in the promotion of animal protection of entities of the public and private sector. Some of the topics that this law regulates include: responsibilities of society and the government towards animals; protection, possession and handling of animals; animal research and experimentation; and euthanasia of companion animals and wildlife kept in captivity. Ley 30407 has 36 articles in 8 chapters. As a result of its promulgation, the previous animal welfare act, together with Article 450-A of the criminal code, were repealed. Bullfighting, cockfighting and other activities declared of cultural character by authorized authority are considered exceptions to this law. | Statute | |
| CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings |
The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES. |
Treaty |