Exotic Pets
Displaying 11 - 20 of 268
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Animal Underworld: Inside America's Black Market for Rare and Exotic Species |
|
| AR - Exotic Pets - Subchapter 4. Ownership and Breeding of Wolves and Wolf-Dog Hybrids | This chapter of Arkansas laws concerns the regulation of wolves and wolf-dog hybrids kept as companion animals. Under the law, a "wolf-dog hybrid” means any animal which is publicly acknowledged by its owner as being the offspring of a wolf and domestic dog; however, no animal may be judged to be a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid based strictly on its appearance. The specific rabies vaccination requirements for wolf-dog hybrids are detailed as well as confinement requirements (i.e, specific fence dimensions). If a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid bites a person or injures or destroys another animal while out of its confined area, the person responsible for the adequate confinement of the animal upon conviction shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. |
| AR - Exotic Pets, Large Carnivores - Subchapter 5. Ownership and Possession of Large Carnivores | This Arkansas subchapter concerns the ownership and possession of large carnivores. Under the law, a large carnivore is defined as a bear, lion, or tiger. A person may possess a large carnivore only if he or she was in possession of the large carnivore on or before August 12, 2005 and the person applies for and is granted a permit for personal possession for each large carnivore not more than one hundred eighty (180) days after August 12, 2005. Except for these "grandfathered" possessors and other entities (zoos, USDA permittees, veterinary hospitals, etc.) it is illegal for anyone to own, possess, breed, or transfer ownership of a large carnivore.< |
| AR - Health - 125.00.12. Arkansas Health Requirements Governing the Entry of Livestock, Poultry, and Exotic Animals | Under Section 125.00.12, it is illegal to import any animal that is affected with, or has been recently exposed to, any infectious or communicable disease. An entry permit from the Livestock and Poultry Commission and certificate of veterinary health is required to import all zoo, wild, and/or exotic animals. Prior to entry the agency requires certain disease tests appropriate to the species at issue. |
| AR - Primates - Subchapter 6. Nonhuman Primates | This 2013 Act prohibits the importing, possession, selling, or breeding of apes, baboons, and macques. It is unlawful under the act for a person to allow a member of the public to come into direct contact with a primate. Further, a person cannot tether a primate outdoors or allow a primate to run at-large. The section does not apply to accredited AZA institutions, AWA regulated research facilities, wildlife sanctuaries, temporary holding facilities, licensed veterinarians providing treatment, law enforcement officers, circuses holding AWA Class C licenses as provided, and those temporarily in the state. The act has a grandfathering provision that allows a person at least 18 years of age to continue to possess the restricted primate if within 180 days after the effective date of the act the person registers the animal per § 20-19-605 and follows other listed requirements. |
| ARFF, Inc. v. Siegel |
|
| AZ - Exotic Wildlife - Article 4. Live Wildlife | These Arizona regulations define “captive live wildlife” as live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild. The regulations provides that no individual shall import or export any live wildlife into or out of the state. An individual may take wildlife from the wild alive under a valid Arizona hunting or fishing license only if there is a Commission Order that prescribes a live bag and possession limit for that wildlife and the individual possesses the appropriate license. However, no person may possess restricted live wildlife without a valid permit. The statute also provides a comprehensive list of all mammals that are considered restricted live wildlife. An individual who holds a special license listed in R12-4-409(A) shall keep all wildlife in a facility according to the captivity standards prescribed under R12-4-428 or as otherwise required under this Article. A special license holder subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the minimum standards for humane treatment prescribed by this Section. |
| AZ - Phoenix - Chapter 8 - ANIMALS. |
|
| Barnes v. City of Anderson |
|
| Baughman v. City of Elkhart, TX | Plaintiff Tammy Baughman filed a complaint on May 31, 2017 seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her Fourteenth amendment rights; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that she was discriminated against; the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), alleging a failure to make reasonable accommodations; and 42 U.S.C. § 3613. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled due to a failed back surgery. She also has fibromyalgia, depression, and other health issues. Plaintiff has a seven pound ring tail lemur that she claims is an emotional support animal that improves her quality of life. Plaintiff's lemur bit a mail carrier on December 5, 2012 which left lacerations on the carrier's hand and wrist. Plaintiff then moved to Elkhart, Texas in December 2014 where her lemur bit another person on June 25, 2015. In both instances the lemur was quarantined for 30 days and then returned to Plaintiff. The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance on October 5, 2015 that bans all non-human primates from the city. Plaintiff claims she requested an accommodation form the City to keep her lemur as an emotional support animal, but her request was denied. The defendants, which include the mayor and city council members, claim the plaintiff never requested an accommodation. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants "showed deliberate indifference in refusing to give [her] a hearing and defend her lemur,' which violates the FHAA and ADA. On February 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. Defendants claim that Plaintiff's lemur was involved in two documented attacks in Houston County, Texas and a third in Elkhart. Defendants assert that Plaintiff runs a retail resale shop out of her home and that in the third attack on June 25, 2015, the lemur jumped on a customer in plaintiff's store. Defendants assert that the ordinance was enacted as a legitimate exercise of the City's legislative power and police power. The District court concluded that the defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their conduct because the act of voting in favor of an ordinance is an undeniable legislative action. As for Plaintiff's 1983 claim, the District Court concluded that she had not shown a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether her due process rights were violated nor does she have a basis for a procedural due process claim. The ordinance is rationally related to the City's legitimate interest in the safety and welfare of its citizens. The ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, the District Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not shown that the reasonable accommodation that she requested - an exemption from the animal control ordinance - did not place an undue burden on the City of Elkhart. No facts were provided by the Plaintiff that would show that her interest in keeping her lemur outweighs the interest of the City in protecting its citizens. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, in order to succeed on an ADA claim, there must be some evidence that set the animal apart from an ordinary pet. The Plaintiff failed to show any evidence that her lemur is specifically trained to perform tasks that help her in her daily life. The District Court held that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. |