|
TX - Hunting - Subchapter F. Unlawful Controlled Killing of or Attempting to Injure Dangerous Wild Animals. |
This Texas statute provides that no person may kill or attempt to injure a dangerous wild animal that is in captivity in this state or released from captivity in this state for the purpose of being killed. |
|
TX - Hunting, canned - § 62.015. Hunting and Possession of Exotic Animals |
This Texas law provides that no person on a public road or on the right-of-way of a public road may hunt an exotic animal. In addition, no person may hunt on the land of another for an exotic animal without the express consent of the owner of the land to hunt for exotic animals. A person who violates this section commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor. |
|
TX- Dangerous Animals - G. Caging Requirements and Standards for Dangerous Wild Animals. |
This regulation establishes caging requirements and minimum standards of care for "dangerous wild animals," including: gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, lions, tigers, cheetahs, ocelots, cougars, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, lynxes, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, and all hybrids thereof. |
|
U.S. v. Bronx Reptiles, Inc. |
After defendant received a shipment of dead frogs, he was convicted of violating a portion of the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 42(c), which made it a misdemeanor to knowingly cause or permit any wild animal to be transported to the United States under inhumane or unhealthful conditions. Defendant appealed, and judgment was reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of not guilty. The government failed to meet its burden to prove not only that the defendant knowingly caused or permitted the transportation to the United States of a wild animal, but also that the defendant knew the conditions under which the frogs was transported were "inhumane or unhealthful."
|
|
U.S. v. Crutchfield |
The court reversed the district court's judgment of convictions against defendants for the illegal importation and the intent to sell iguanas in the United States because of prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that the prosecutor wasted valuable money in pursuing irrelevant testimony, and improperly questioned defendants and their witnesses after repeated warnings from the district court judge.
|
|
U.S. v. Guthrie |
The court affirmed the decision of the district court which convicted defendant of violations of the Lacey Act (Act) and the Endangered Species Act. The court held that the Act was not unconstitutional, that defendant was not permitted to collaterally challenge an agency regulation on the grounds of new scientific evidence, and that the Secretary of the Interior's finding that the turtle was a valid species was not arbitrary.
|
|
U.S. v. Molt |
The court affirmed a judgment of sentence entered following defendant's conditional plea of guilty to smuggling and to violating the Lacey Act. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's Speedy Trial Act motion where defendant incorrectly computed the number of excludable days. Therefore, the court concluded that more than 120 non-excludable days did not elapse between the indictment and the trial.
|
|
UK - Dangerous - Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 ("DWAA") |
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act ("DWAA") was originally enacted in 1976 and amended in 2010. The act ensures that individuals who keep wild animals do so in a way that minimizes the risk to the public. In particular, the act provides that no person may keep any dangerous wild animal except under the authority of a licence granted by a local authority. The local authority that holds the licence may enter the premises where the animal is being kept at all reasonable times to determine whether an offence has been committed in violation of the act. Zoos, circuses, and pet shops are exempt from the act. The act has an accompanying Schedule that specifies the kinds of dangerous wild animals for which a person must obtain a licence under the act.
|
|
US - Birds - Part 15. Wild Bird Conservation Act |
The regulations in this part implement the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916. Exotic bird means any live or dead member of the Class Aves that is not indigenous to the 50 States or the District of Columbia. This Act prohibits the importation of exotic birds into the U.S. except by permit. Permits authorizing the importation of exotic birds will be issued under the regulations for the following purposes only: scientific research; zoological breeding or display programs; cooperative breeding programs designed to promote the conservation and maintenance of the species in the wild; or personally owned pets accompanying persons returning to the United States after being out of the country for more than 1 year. The regulations further provide that no individual may import more than two exotic birds as pets in any year. |
|
US - Exotic Pets - Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing the Boa Constrictor, Four Python Species |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend its regulations to add Indian python (Python molurus, including Burmese python Python molurus bivittatus), reticulated python (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python reticulatus), Northern African python (Python sebae), Southern African python (Python natalensis), boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), DeSchauensee's anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), green anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) to the list of injurious reptiles. This listing would prohibit the importation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these nine constrictor snakes into the United States, except as specifically authorized.
|
