Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate 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 |
| 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 |
| Night monkeys in a cage is soiled with feces | Slideshow Images | |||
| Colombia - Cruelty - Ley 1955 | Ley 1955 | “The National Development Plan for 2018-2022,” in article 324, instructs the national government to draft the national policy and guidelines for the protection and welfare of farm animals, stray animals, and animals subject to cruelty, among others. It instructs the government to define strategies, programs, and to propose laws for animal protection on issues such as responsible ownership, sterilization campaigns, the creation of welfare centers, rehabilitation and integral assistance to domestic and wild animals, the progressive substitution of vehicles of animal traction, and the strengthening of investigation and prosecution procedures for crimes against animals with the purpose of eradicating all forms of animal violence, cruelty, illegal traffic, and trade. | Statute | |
| ND - Initiatives - Constitutional Measure 1 (right to hunt) | Constitutional Measure 1 (2000) | This amendment would provide that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents' heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good. It passed in 2000 (77% of votes). | Statute | |
| 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 |