Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 824.001 - 004; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065; § 62.016 | TX HEALTH & S § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016 | These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws. | Statute |
| NV - Hunting, exotics - 504.295. Prohibited acts; regulations; licenses; inapplicability to alternative livestock | N. R. S. 504.295 | NV ST 504.295 | Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom. | Statute |
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Horen v. Commonwealth | 479 S.E. 2d 553 (Va. 1997) |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services | 320 F.Supp.3d 1137 (D. Idaho June 22, 2018) | 2018 WL 3097016 (D. Idaho June 22, 2018) | This action considers motions for summary judgment by both parties. At issue here is a plan by a branch of the USDA called Wildlife Services (WS), which is responsible for killing or removing predators and other animals that prey on wild game animals, threaten agricultural interests, or pose a danger to humans. The decision to kill the animals comes from requests from individuals or other state and federal agencies rather than a decision by WS. For this case, the facts center on an expanded operation to kill game animals and protected species in Idaho (mainly coyotes and ravens) known as PDM. As part of this process, WS prepared and circulated a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to other federal agencies, stakeholders, and the public seeking comment to the expanded plan. However, instead of taking the criticisms and suggestions from the EA and then undertaking a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), WS instead rejected most responses and labeled them as unconvincing or invalid. This led plaintiff to file suit against WS, arguing that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not preparing the EIS after comments to the EA. For example, the BLM, the Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), found that the EA was not an "objective analysis" and instead sounded "like a pre-decisional defense of lethal methods." These agencies warned WS that the predator control methods were "likely to be futile over the long-term" and did not consider cascading effects on both cyclic and non-cyclic prey populations. In analyzing the factors, this court found that WS failed to consider "several federal agencies with long experience and expertise in managing game animals and protected species" when proposing to expand the expanded PDM program. There was a lack of crucial data to support WS' assumptions in its modeling that was exacerbated by use of unreliable data, according to the court. In addition, the court found that WS failed to "explain away scientific challenges to the effectiveness of predator removal." Not only was the court troubled by the lack of reliable data used by WS, but the WS’ “unconvincing responses” to agencies that had substantial experience managing wildlife and land-use concerns demonstrated to the court that the PDM is controversial and the environmental impacts were uncertain. This in and of itself necessitated an EIS under NEPA. The court held that the lack of reliable data, the unconvincing responses from WS, combine to trigger three intensity factors that combine to require WS to prepare an EIS. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied (the motion by plaintiff to supplement the administrative record was deemed moot). | Case |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Perdue | --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 4320804 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29, 2017) | 2017 WL 4320804, (D.C. Cir. 2017) | The Secretary of Agriculture is directed by the Animal Welfare Act to promulgate regulations governing minimum animal housing and care standards and to issue licenses for animal exhibitionists only if they adhere to these standards. The Animal Legal Defense Fund sued the Department of Agriculture for renewing Tom and Pamela Sellner's Cricket Hollow Zoo in Iowa despite multiple violations of the animal welfare requirements set forth in the Act. In fact, the USDA had filed an administrative complaint against the Sellners and commenced a formal investigation in 2015 According to the court, the USDA has established a "bifurcated" approach to licensing, where initial applicants must comply with regulations and pass an agency compliance inspection, while license renewal applicants must only pay a fee and agree to continue to comply with regulations. After the District Court's dismissal of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part but remanded back to the District Court the question whether the USDA's reliance on self-certification was an arbitrary and capricious action with instructions to get further explanation from the agency. As stated by the court, "On remand, the agency must, at a minimum, explain how its reliance on the self-certification scheme in this allegedly “smoking gun” case did not constitute arbitrary and capricious action." | Case |
| RI - Farming - Chapter 1.1. Unlawful Confinement of a Covered Animal | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | RI ST § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | This Rhode Island chapter of laws was enacted to to prohibit the confinement of calves raised for veal and sows during gestation, subject to exceptions. It becomes effective June 19, 2013. | Statute |
| MT - Exotic pets - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | MT ST 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | This set of Montana laws covers both "roadside menagerie" (any place where one or more wild animals are kept in captivity for the evident purpose of exhibition or attracting trade, excluding an educational institution or a traveling theatrical exhibition or circus based outside of Montana) and "wild animal menagerie" (any place where one or more bears or large cats, including cougars, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, pumas, cheetahs, ocelots, and hybrids of those large cats are kept in captivity for use other than public exhibition). The latter definition seems to cover the keeping of those listed species as exotic pets. Under the section, it is unlawful for any person to operate a roadside menagerie or wild animal menagerie without a permit. The annual permit fee for five or less animals is $10. The annual permit fee for more than five animals is $25. | Statute |
| Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | 2002 SCC 76 | [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45 |
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act . |
Case |
| Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. | 80 P. 1061 (1905) | 46 Or. 505 (1905) |
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. |
Case |