Results

Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
SD - Veterinary - Chapter 36-12. Veterinarians. S D C L § 36-12-1 - 29 SD ST § 36-12-1 - 29 These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. Statute
NH - Eagle, Golden - Chapter 209. Game Birds; Pigeons. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 209:1 - 209:13 NH ST § 209:1 - 209:13 New Hampshire prohibits the hunting, capturing, killing, or possession of any bald or golden eagle or disturbing eagle nests and young. Statute
GA - Assistance Animal - Georgia's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws Ga. Code Ann., § 30-4-2 to 4; Ga. Code Ann., § 40-6-94; Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-120; Ga. Code Ann., § 16-11-107.1 GA ST § 30-4-2 to 4; GA ST § 40-6-94; GA ST § 16-12-120; GA ST § 16-11-107.1 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
CA - Hunting - Chapter 3. Nongame Mammals and Depredators West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4150 - 4158, 4180 - 4190 CA FISH & G § 4150 - 4158, 4180 - 4190 These sections regulate the taking and killing of nongame mammals and depredatory animals. Nongame and fur-bearing mammals that are injuring crops or other property may be taken at any time or in any manner in accordance with this code. In some cases, a permit is required. It is unlawful to use snares, hooks, or barbed wire to remove from the den, or fire to kill in the den, any immature predatory mammal. Predators that are relocated by the department must be tagged. Statute
U.S. v. Clucas 50 F.Supp. 609 (D.C. Va. 1943)

Defendant and several individuals went on a duck hunt in and were charged with exceeding the limit for migratory birds under Virginia law.  The game wardens testified that the defendant, Clucas, admitted in the presence of the other parties that they had killed more than the 'bag', meaning thereby that they had killed more than ten ducks allowed for each person.  The government held the position that the other individuals were hired for the reason of taking or killing the ducks.  The court held that in view of the fact that January 6, 1943, was not the first day of the season the possession of twenty-six ducks by the two defendants did not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Virginia regulation. The possession being legal, the burden of proof did not shift to the defendants. 

Case
Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to Our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife

Policy
U.S. v. Zak 486 F.Supp.2d 208 (D.Mass., 2007) 2007 WL 1427442 (D.Mass.)

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts under the MBTA after agents determined that he killed 250 great blue herons; he then went to trial on the remaining counts under the MBTA and BGEPA related to his killing of a juvenile bald eagle on his commercial fish growing operation. On appeal, defendant contended that he cannot be found guilty under the MBTA unless the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the bird he was shooting was protected and intentionally shot it with that knowledge (defendant stated that he shot a "big brown hawk'). The court disagreed, finding the overwhelming authority requires no such specific scienter on the part of the actor. With regard to defendant's contention that the government failed to prove the "knowingly" prong of the BGEPA, the court was equally unpersuaded. The evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly shot the eagle as it sat perched on the dead pine tree on the edge of his property, regardless of whether he knew the juvenile bird was an eagle or, as he said, “a big brown hawk.”

Case
OK - Exotic - § 7-801. Exotic wildlife--Penalties for releasing 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 7-801 OK ST T. 29 § 7-801 No exotic wildlife may be released into the wilds of Oklahoma without first obtaining written permission of the Director. Violation is a misdemeanor punishable of a fine of $100 to $2000, and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. Statute
MN - Domestic Violence - 518B.01. Chapter 518B. Domestic Abuse. M. S. A. § 518B.01 MN ST § 518B.01 This law reflects Minnesota's provision for restraining orders in cases of domestic abuse. An amendment in 2010 concerns the care and keeping of a companion animal owed by either petitioner or respondent, and has a provision to allow the court to prevent harm to such animal. As stated in the law in subsection 6(a)(14) and (15), the court may provide relief that includes an order to "(14) direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or respondent or a child of the petitioner or respondent; and (15) direct the respondent to refrain from physically abusing or injuring any pet or companion animal, without legal justification, known to be owned, possessed, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either party as an indirect means of intentionally threatening the safety of such person." Statute
DC - Animal Control - Subchapter III. Release of Animals. DC CODE § 8-1831.01 DC ST § 8-1831.01 This D.C. law states that no animal shall be released from custody of animal protection except for the purposes of adoption, redemption by the owner of the animal, or other suitable placement in the best interest of the animal. No animals shall be knowingly released from any entity charged with animal protection for the purposes of research, experimentation, testing, or medical instruction or demonstration. Violation is a misdemeanor. Statute

Pages