Results
Displaying 5921 - 5930 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau , et. al. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, et. al. | 952 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2020) | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") designated 764,207 acres in New Mexico and Arizona as critical habitat for the jaguar pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The area was divided into six individual units. Units 5 and 6 were the ones at issue. Plaintiffs filed suit contending that the Service’s designation of Units 5 and 6 as critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The district court ruled in favor of the Service and this appeal followed. There was no concrete evidence that jaguars were present in Units 5 and 6 at any time before 1995. The Service’s reliance on sightings in 1995, 1996, and 2006 to support a conclusion of occupation in 1972 was not based on expert opinion. It was purely speculative. The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that the Service’s designation of Units 5 and 6 as occupied critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The Court further found that in order for an unoccupied area to be designated as a critical habitat, the Service must first find that the designation of the occupied areas is inadequate to ensure conservation of the species. The Service addressed all units together, finding that to the extent they were occupied, they were essential for the conservation of the species. The Court ultimately found that the Service did not follow its own regulations or give a rational explanation for failing to do so and as a result, its designation of Units 5 an 6 as critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The decision of the district court was reversed and remanded. | Case | ||
| WV - Exotic Pets - Article 34. Dangerous Wild Animals Act | W. Va. Code, § 19-34-1 to 9 | WV ST § 19-34-1 to 9 | The State of West Virginia found the possession of dangerous wild animals to present a serious public health and safety concern. Because of this, the state prohibits a person from possessing a dangerous wild animal unless the animal was owned prior to June 1, 2015 and the owner obtained a permit. Under this statute, a “Dangerous wild animal” means a mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or aquatic animal, including a hybrid that is dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment due to its inherent nature and capability to do significant harm. | Statute | |
| GA - Horse Meat - Article 4. Advertisement and Sale of Meat Generally. | Ga. Code Ann., § 26-2-150 to 161 | GA ST § 26-2-150 to 161 | As stated in the legislative intent, the General Assembly declares that purchasers and consumers have a right to expect and demand honesty and fair practices in the sale of meat for human consumption. It is the purpose of this Code to ensure that honest, fair, and ethical practices are followed in the advertising and sale of meat for human consumption. With regard to horsemeat, the Code prohibits the slaughter a horse in this state for the purpose of selling or offering for sale for human consumption or for other than human consumption the horse meat derived from such slaughtered animal unless certain conditions are met. Further, no horse meat shall be sold or offered for sale in this state for human consumption unless at the place of sale there shall be posted in a conspicuous location a sign bearing the words "HORSE MEAT FOR SALE." | Statute | |
| CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. Taking and Possessing in General | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2000 - 2024 | CA FISH & G § 2000 - 2024 | These sections make it unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided in this code. Some of the restrictions in the code refer to taking after season, offering a prize or inducement to take game, setting a bounty for an animal, using sniper scopes, artificial lights, or trap guns. Section 2009 also makes it a crime willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, or fishing. | Statute | |
| CA - Importation - Subchapter 3.2. Importation of Wild Animals | Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 30070 - 30086 | 17 CCR §§ 30070 - 30086 | This set of regulations establishes the import permit and quarantine requirements for wild and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| IN RE: E. LEE COX AND BECKY COX, D/B/A PIXY PALS KENNEL | 49 Agric. Dec. 115 (1990) | 1990 WL 320949 (U.S.D.A.) |
This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. ss 2131- 2156). On April 20, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Edwin S. Bernstein (ALJ) issued an initial Decision and Order suspending respondents' license for 90 days, and thereafter until respondents demonstrate compliance with the Act and regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $12,000, and directing respondents to cease and desist from failing to retain possession and control of all dogs until they are at least 8 weeks of age and have been weaned, failing to hold dogs for not less than 5 business days after acquisition, failing to keep and maintain proper records, and failing to allow inspection of respondents' facility and records. Dealers and other regulated persons are required to grant access to their records during ordinary business hours, without any advance notice from Department. |
Case | |
| State v. Crew | 281 N.C. App. 437, 868 S.E.2d 351, review denied, 890 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. 2023) | 2022-NCCOA-35, 2022 WL 151341 (N.C.App.,2022) | Defendant Daniel Crew appealed his convictions for dogfighting, felony cruelty to animals, misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and restraining dogs in a cruel manner. Crew also challenges the trial court's restitution orders totaling $70,000, which the trial court immediately converted to civil judgments. The arrest and conviction of defendant stemmed from an investigation at defendant's residence, where 30 pit bulls were recovered with injuries "similar to injuries a dog would sustain through dogfighting." In addition, publications and notes on preparing for a fight were found, as well as dogfighting training equipment such as a "jenny," staging area for fights, and weight scales for weighing dogs. The State charged Crew with fifteen counts of engaging in dogfighting, one count of allowing property to be used for dogfighting, five counts of felony cruelty to animals, twenty-five counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and sixteen counts of restraining dogs in a cruel manner. Ultimately, Crew was convicted by the jury of eleven counts of dogfighting, three counts of felony cruelty to animals, fourteen counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and two counts of restraining dogs in a cruel manner. The trial court imposed six consecutive active sentences of 10 to 21 months each along with several suspended sentences. The trial court also ordered Crew to pay Orange County Animal Services $10,000 in seven separate restitution orders that were then entered as civil judgments, totaling $70,000 in restitution (testimony at trial indicated that the cost to house the dogs alone was a "a littler over $80,000"). Defendant appealed his criminal judgment and petitioned for a writ of certiorari for the award of restitution entered as civil judgments. On appeal, this court rejected defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence of dogfighting. The police found training equipment, medication commonly used in dogfighting operations, and a dogfighting "pit" or training area as well as the notes preparing dogs to fight. A reasonable juror could have concluded that Crew intended to engage in dogfighting. However, as to the restitution order converted to civil judgments, the court found that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to immediately convert those restitution orders into civil judgments. The court found no error concerning the criminal convictions, but vacated the conversion of the restitution to civil judgments against defendant. | Case | |
| Great Apes and Chimpanzees | Policy | ||||
| DC - Disaster - Subchapter VI. Animal Emergency Preparedness. | DC CODE § 8-1861.01 | DC ST § 8-1861.01 | This DC law provides that the Mayor must establish an emergency preparedness plan for the protection, sheltering, and evacuation of domestic animals during and following a major disaster or emergency within 90 days of December 5, 2008. | Statute | |
| NY - Research, animal - Article 5. Laboratories. Title I. General Provisions: State Laboratories; Approved Laboratories. | McKinney's Public Health Law § 500 - 506 | NY PUB HEALTH § 500 - 506 | The group of statutes provides that the commissioner shall require laboratories and research facilities to treat all animals used in testing humanely, provide food and suitable housing, and that any experiments that inflict or involve pain shall be performed with anesthesia. Each research facility shall be inspected by the commissioner in order to ensure compliance with said rules. In addition, the statutes provide that alternative animal testing methods be utilized when the alternative has been scientifically validated and recommended by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and adopted by the appropriate federal agency. | Statute |