Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA - Ecoterrorism - Article 2. Georgia Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-11-30 to 35 | GA ST § 4-11-30 to 35 | This article is known as the Georgia Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the consent of the owner, the person acquires or otherwise exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility, animal, or property and to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Other prohibited actions also include gaining entry where a person knows entry is forbidden. In the definition of "consent," the act states that the term does not include assent that is induced by force, threat, false pretenses or fraud. It also excludes assent given by a person that the actor knows is not authorized by the owner, or given by a person who the actor knows is unable to make reasonable decisions (e.g., because of youth, intoxication, or mental disease or defect). Violations that involve exercising control over a facility are felonies; those that involve illegal entry or damage less than $500 are misdemeanors. | Statute | |
| CA - Hunting - Chapter 4. Deer. Article 2. License Tags | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4330 - 4341 | CA FISH & G § 4330 - 4341 | These provisions relate to the license requirements for deer hunting for both residents and nonresidents of California. For example, the holder of a deer tag license shall carry the tag while hunting deer, and upon the killing of any deer, shall immediately fill out the tag and permanently mark the date of the kill. The deer tag shall be immediately attached to the antlers of antlered deer or to the ear of any other deer and kept attached during the open season and for 15 days thereafter. | Statute | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Western Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf From th | 2003 WL 1697399 (F.R.) | RIN 1018-AJ04 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to remove the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and western United States where it is presently listed. If this proposal is finalized, the gray wolf would be delisted in the Western Gray Wolf DPS, existing special regulations established under section 4(d) of the Act for the Western DPS would be abolished, the nonessential experimental designations for reintroduced gray wolves would be removed, and future management of this species would be conducted by the appropriate State and tribal wildlife agencies. |
Administrative | |
| IN RE: PET PARADISE, INC. | 51 Agric. Dec. 1047 (1992) | 1992 WL 240852 (U.S.D.A.) | Where complaint advised respondent of exact matters at issue, there is no basis for dismissing any allegations of complaint merely because they failed to specify subsections of regulations or standards involved in some of alleged violations. Formalities of court pleading are not applicable in administrative proceedings. Findings of fact need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A violation is willful if the person intentionally does an act which is prohibited or acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements. | Case | |
| Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez | 488 F.3d 1020 (C.A.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 1574607 (C.A.D.C.) |
This federal appeal concerns regulations issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2004 for leatherback sea turtles. The leatherbacks experience mortality due to long-line fishing in the pelagic ocean after they become entangled or hooked on the lines. In 2001, the Service issued an RFA - reasonable and prudent alternative - to long-line fishing operations in the pelagic ocean off the coast of New Jersey where operators could replace the industry-wide standard J-hook with circle hooks which would reduce mortality. Oceana claim is that the Fisheries Service acted arbitrarily when it predicted that the measures it was putting in place would result in a 13.1 percent mortality rate by 2007 for leatherbacks caught in longlines. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the Service's judgment was not arbitrary or capricious when it predicted that fishing operators could achieve a 13.1 post-release mortality rate. |
Case | |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case | ||
| DC - Wildlife Control - Chapter 22 Wildlife Protection | DC CODE § 8-2201 - 2212 | DC ST § 8-2201 to 8-2212 | The following D.C. statutes provide the legal requirements for wildlife control service providers, which are defined as operators of businesses which involve the charging of a fee for services in wildlife control. Specifically, these statutes provide provisions about capturing target animals and non-target animals, as well as indicating how often a wildlife control service providers must check their traps. | Statute | |
| US - Companion Animals - Federal Pet Theft Prevention Act (§ 2158. Protection of pets. ) | 7 USC 2158 | This section of the AWA prohibits shelters from selling found pets within a period of five days to any random-source organization. The purpose of the Act is to prevent animals from being stolen and purchased from humane societies in order to use the animals for scientific testing or illegal purposes (such as fighting, etc.). | Statute | ||
| Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 708 F.3d 1099 (C.A.9 (Wash.),2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2117, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2467, 2013 WL 673712 (C.A.9 (Wash.),2013) |
Several whalers brought suit against Paul Watson and the Sea Shepard Society—of Animal Planet fame—under the Alien Tort Statute for acts that amounted to piracy and that violated international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas. Though the district court denied the whalers a preliminary injunction and dismissed the whalers' piracy claim, the Ninth Circuit found in favor for the whalers. The case was reversed and instructed to be transferred to another district judge; Circuit Judge Smith dissented on the instruction to transfer. |
Case | |
| Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles | 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) | 194 Cal.App.4th 1219 (2011); 2011 WL 1601919 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) |
Dog owners mounted a constitutional challenge to a Los Angeles municipal ordinance that required all dogs and cats within the city to be sterilized. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance did not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, free speech rights. or equal protection rights. The court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague, was not outside of the city's police powers, did not vest unfettered discretion in city officials, did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint or an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the law did not violate individual liberties under the California Constitution. |
Case |