Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - PPIA Regulations - Operating, Ante and Post Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 381 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act regulations detail the provisions for operating a poultry slaughterhouse, and for ante and post mortem inspection. | Administrative | ||
| US - MBTA - Senate Bill 2547 An Act to Amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) | 2004 Senate Bill 2547 |
This Act, now known as the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA), revamps the MBTA by excluding species of birds that are "non-native" to the United States. Under the bill, a bird species shall not be treated as native to the United States if the species occurs in the United States solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction after the date of adoption of the treaty in 1918. As a result, some 94 species of birds currently protected under the treaty would lose their protected status. |
Statute | ||
| US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.29 Review procedures. | 54 FR 38149, Sept. 14, 1989 | 50 C.F.R. § 13.29 | This regulation outlines the procedure to seek administrative review of the denial for a permit to possess or otherwise take wildlife or plants. | Administrative | |
| AR - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code | A.C.A. § 17-101-101 - 320 | AR ST § 17-101-101 to 320 | 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 | |
| ID - Rabies - 500. DOGS AND CATS | ID ADC 02.04.21.500 | Idaho Admin. Code r. 02.04.21.500 | All dogs and cats imported into the state of Idaho must be accompanied by a CVI. Dogs and cats twelve (12) weeks of age or older shall be vaccinated for rabies. | Administrative | |
| Map of Beagle Freedom Laws | This map contains the 15 state laws commonly called "Beagle Freedom Laws" as of January 2024. These laws mandate that retired research dogs be released for adoption when they are no longer needed for research purposes. Typically, the laws facilitate relationships between research facilities and non-profit animal rescues or other animal adoption organizations to allow those organizations to offer the retired dogs to members of the public. Iowa became the most recent state to enact such a law. | State map | |||
| IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc. | 799 F.2d 934 (1986) |
Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act. |
Case | ||
| CA - Disaster - § 8608. California Animal Response Emergency System (CARES) program; | West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 8588.5, § 8608 | CA GOVT § 8588.5, § 8608 | The California Emergency Management Agency is directed to approve, adopt, and incorporate the California Animal Response Emergency System (CARES) program into the standardized emergency management system. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing | Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 |
This Regulation aims at enhancing protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing by establishing standard operating procedures, training of personnel, the use of new equipment, etc. Moreover, the objective pursued by this Regulation is to provide a level playing field within the internal market for all operators. |
Statute | ||
| U.S. v. McDougall | 25 F.Supp.2d 85 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) |
Defendants Goodfriend and Benney, commercial fishermen licensed pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), are charged with catching and failing to return substantial quantities of eel and walleye from Lake Ontario and New York waters in violation of New York law that prohibits commerce in these fish because of health and conservation concerns. Aware of the ban prohibiting the sale of eel and walleye taken from these waters, Goodfriend and Benney subsequently sold the eel and walleye to a host of fish wholesalers and retailers, located within and outside New York. Defendant truck driver's alleged filing of false Canadian customs forms relating to eel and walleye he was transporting from the U.S. to his Canadian employer were violations of the Lacey Act, regardless of whether these acts violated Canadian law. |
Case |