|Re Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
|(2008) 106 ALD 123
| AATA 717
The Minister for the Environment declared the New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2007-2011 to be an approved wildlife trade management plan within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth). The Tribunal considered aspects of the plan including: ecological sustainability; conservation of biodiversity; humane treatment; response to environmental impact; precautionary principles; ethical research; and state legislation. The plan was ultimately approved by the Tribunal with a caveat that it include a trigger to suspend the 'harvest' if population levels dropped by 30% or over.
|Oshannessy v Heagney
| NSWSC 482
The case focuses primarily on the procedural requirements for stating a case. However, there is also discussion concerning what are the appropriate steps that a motor vehicle driver, who has hit and injured an animal with their vehicle, must take. In this case, the trial judge found that a refusal to stop and inspect the animal did not constitute a failure to take reasonable steps to alleviate that animal's pain.
|AU - Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA)
|Conservation and Land Management Act 1984
An Act to make better provision for the use, protection and management of certain public lands and waters and the flora and fauna thereof, to establish authorities to be responsible therefor, and for incidental or connected purposes.
|Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Commerical Purposes
|The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies. It has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering.
|AU - Parks - National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA)
|National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
An Act to provide for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment; to provide for the conservation of wildlife in a natural environment; and for other purposes.
|Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y
|2014 WL 3579639 (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2014)
|After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion.
|Australia - Anti Cruelty - POCTAA General Regulations 1996
|POCTAA Regs cl
|This Regulation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) 1979. The regulations may prescribe guidelines relating to the welfare of species of farm or companion animals. Compliance or failure to comply with guidelines prescribed by regulation under this section is admissible as evidence in proceedings relating to compliance or failure to comply with POCTAA or the regulations.
|Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service
| NSWSC 457
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting.
|RSPCA v O'Loughlan
| SASC 113
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
|Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser
|(1991) 1 VR 51
|(1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-027
Animal Liberation were injuncted from publishing words claiming animal cruelty in a circus or demonstrating against that circus. They were also found guilty of nuisance resulting from their demonstration outside that circus. On appeal, the injunctions were overturned although the finding of nuisance was upheld.