Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6021
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
IL - Dog Fighting - Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-1 IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-1

The following statute comprises Illinois' dogfighting law.  Under the law, it is a felony to promote or instigate a fight, or to train or sell a dog for dogfighting purposes.  Further, no person may solicit a minor to violate this Section. Providing equipment or aiding in providing equipment for a fight is also a felony.  Knowingly attending a dogfight is a Class 4 felony for a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (g) of this Section is a Class 3 felony.

Statute
CA - Farm Animal Cruelty - Chapter 13.8. Farm Animal Cruelty. § 25991. Definitions. West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990 - 25994 CA HLTH & S § 25990 - 25994

This section provides the definitions, exception,s and enforcement provisions for the Chapter 13.8, Farm Animal Cruelty. The section was added after voters approved Initiative Measure (Prop. 2) in 2008. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Statute
U.S. v. Proceeds from Sale of Approximately 15,538 Panulirus Argus Lobster Tails 834 F. Supp. 385 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

This case arose out of the seizure of some 15,538 lobster tails of the species Panulirus argus, more commonly known as "spiny lobster," imported into the United States by the Claimant Lista Enterprises Seafood, Inc. from the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British territory in the Caribbean.  The court held the government had probable cause to seize the lobster tails based on the weight criteria established under Turks and Caicos law.  Under the Lacey Act, anyone who "knowingly" imports fish or wildlife taken in violation of foreign law may be assessed a penalty of $10,000 per violation, where "knowingly" refers to situations where the violator knew or should have known that the wildlife was taken in violation of law.

Case
CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings

The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES.

Treaty
FL - Veterinary - Veterinary Medical Practice. West's F. S. A. § 474.201 - 221 FL ST § 474.201 - 221

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
AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. A. R. S. § 9-219 (repealed 2017) AZ ST § 9-219 This Arizona statute provides that the board of trustees of a city may p ass ordinances not inconsistent or in conflict with the laws of this state.  More specifically, this statute provides that the board may restrain , under penalties, the running at large of cattle or other animals, and provide rules for impounding them, and provide for taxing dogs and penalties for the nonpayment of such taxes, or the killing of dogs running at large in the corporate limits.  However, before exercising these powers, the board shall cause a resolution of intention to be recorded in minutes and then published in some daily or weekly newspaper at least two Statute
Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n 99 S.Ct. 3055 (1979) 443 U.S. 658 (1979)

The United States initiated an action seeking an interpretation of Indian fishing rights under treaties with Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest.  The Court held that the language of the treaties securing a "right of taking fish . . . in common with all citizens of the Territory" was not intended merely to guarantee the Indians access to usual and accustomed fishing sites and an "equal opportunity" for individual Indians, along with non-Indians, to try to catch fish, but instead secures to the Indian tribes a right to harvest a share of each run of anadromous fish that passes through tribal fishing areas.  Thus, an equitable measure of the common right to take fish should initially divide the harvestable portion of each run that passes through a "usual and accustomed" place into approximately equal treaty and nontreaty shares, and should then reduce the treaty share if tribal needs may be satisfied by a lesser amount.  The Court also held that any state-law prohibition against compliance with the District Court's decree cannot survive the command of the Supremacy Clause, and the State Game and Fisheries Departments, as parties to this litigation, may be ordered to prepare a set of rules that will implement the court's interpretation of the parties' rights even if state law withholds from them the power to do so.

Case
US - Endangered Species Act - Subpart H - Experimental Populations 69 FR 4557 50 C.F.R. § 17.80 - 86

These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations relate to "experimental populations," an introduced and/or designated population that has been so designated in accordance with the procedures of this subpart but only when, and at such times as the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.  The Secretary may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species' current natural range (but within its probable historic range, absent a finding by the Director in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed).  Any population determined by the Secretary to be an experimental population shall be treated as if it were listed as a threatened species for purposes of establishing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act with respect to such population.

Administrative
CO - Exotic - Article 81. Hybrid Animals C. R. S. A. § 35-81-101 to 102 CO ST § 35-81-101 to 102

This Colorado statute authorized the commissioner of the department of agriculture to appoint and convene an advisory group to study the behavior of hybrid canids (wolf hybrids) and felines, including a review of any incidents involving property damage and personal injury caused by such animals. The department was to present its findings and proposals for legislation in January of 1998.

Statute
UK - Cruelty - Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 1988 c.31

For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 is an act to protect horses, asses and mules against cruel tethering. This means in such conditions or such a manner to cause that animal unnecessary suffering.

Statute

Pages