Wildlife

Displaying 171 - 180 of 370
Titlesort descending Summary
Law 29763, 2015 - Peru This law protects citizens’ rights to access and enjoy Peru’s “natural heritage,'' being, principally, its forests and wildlife. It discusses the citizen’s civil duty to conserve Peru’s wild flora and fauna, which includes obeying the applicable legislation. The law also describes in detail several circumstances in which wildlife is encountered, how to interact with it, as well as regulations for conserving the national natural heritage, which is generally defined as the sum of all natural resources of an area.
Law 30203, 2014 - Peru This law requires the protection and conservation of the Andean Condor.
Ley 2404 de 2024 - Colombia El objeto de la presente ley es erradicar el sufrimiento innecesario producido a los ejemplares de fauna silvestre rescatada o decomisada por las autoridades ambientales, en los casos que requiera ser transportada para recibir tratamientos y rehabilitación con condiciones específicas, y con carácter de urgencia a centros especializados donde recibirán atención para garantizar su bienestar, así como el transporte para su posterior liberación o reubicación a un establecimiento según el concepto técnico emitido. Los animales silvestres deben ser tratados como seres sintientes a la hora de ser transportados vía aérea, terrestre o fluvial.”
Ley 29763, 2015 - Peru Esta ley protege los derechos de los ciudadanos a acceder y disfrutar del "patrimonio natural'' de Perú, que son, principalmente, sus bosques y su fauna silvestre. Trata la obligación civil del ciudadano de conservar la flora y fauna silvestres del Perú, que incluye el cumplimiento de la legislación aplicable. La ley también describe en detalle varias circunstancias en las que se encuentra la fauna silvestre, cómo interactuar con ella, así como las normas para conservar el patrimonio natural nacional, que generalmente se define como la suma de todos los recursos naturales de una zona.
Ley 30203, 2014 - Peru Esta ley exige la protección y conservación del cóndor andino.
Ley Ambiental de Protección a la Tierra en la Ciudad De México
Looking for a Nexus Between Trust Compassion, and Regulation: Colorados Search for Standards of Care for Private, Non-Profit Wildlife Sanctuaries In 2004, the Colorado legislature amended its wildlife statutes, formally recognizing the existence of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Opponents to the 2004 amendments and CDOW staff have repeatedly expressed concerns that private sanctuaries should not be authorized in the absence of regulations and enforcement mechanisms sufficient to protect the animals and the people who come into contact with them. In implementing the sanctuary statute, CDOW has followed a familiar pattern, relying on the accreditation program of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA) to provide the basis of its regulations. In doing so, CDOW has failed to understand that the AZA standards are wholly inappropriate for sanctuaries; they are inadequate to protect the safety of animals and humans; and they are overly burdensome and even diametrically opposed to the status and goals of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries. Instead, CDOW could have acknowledged the stringent, comprehensive, extensive standards promulgated by The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS), which are carefully tailored to the operations of sanctuaries. This article considers the plight of Colorado wildlife sanctuaries, which is by no means peculiar to the state of Colorado, and carefully examines the standards promulgated by the AZA and by TAOS. The article concludes that the TAOS accreditation program would have provided a significantly better basis for sanctuary regulation, and that by failing to take advantage of this, CDOW has missed an important opportunity to create a nexus between trust, compassion, and regulation.
Los Altos Boots v. Bonta This unpublished California case considers the application of the recently amended statute (Penal Code section 653o), which makes it "unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard" beginning January 1, 2022. The instant case concerns the importation of some caiman products. The businesses bringing the suit seek the enjoin the caiman prohibition while the lawsuit is pending. While the state contends that the plaintiffs lack standing because the claim is unripe, the court found the three-part standing test was satisfied. The court also found that the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction was justified where plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable economic harm if section 653o goes into effect on January 1st that cannot not be mitigated by damages, and the balance of harms favors plaintiffs. Specifically, the court found that section 653o will create a "clear conflict between that section and the Endangered Species Act" and plaintiffs have demonstrated a serious harm to their businesses. The court declined to "wade into a policy dispute "whether California's or the United States’ wildlife protections are superior." The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted. The defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 653o(c) and 653r in connection with the importation, possession, or sale of caiman bodies, parts, or products until the final disposition of this case.
McQuaker v. Goddard


A camel is not to be regarded as a wild animal by the common law as a camel 'is, in all countries, a domestic animal, an animal that has become trained to the uses of man, and a fortiori accustomed to association with man.' Whether an animal is to be regarded as wild or domestic is a question of law, and is to be judged according to the genus or class of which it belongs, not the characteristics of the individual animal.
MD - Endangered Species - Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act These Maryland statutes comprise the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Under the Act, any species designated under the federal Endangered Species Act is deemed an endangered species as are other species designated by the state secretary based on habitat and population factors. Violators of the Act shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both and equipment used in the taking of designated species may be seized.

Pages