Great Apes
Displaying 171 - 180 of 368
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| MS - Exotic pet - Chapter 8. Importation, Sale and Possession of Inherently Dangerous Wild Animals. | This Mississippi chapter states that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety and welfare by strictly regulating the importation, sale, transfer and possession of those wild animals inherently dangerous to humans. Several species are listed under this section as inherently dangerous to humans, including non-human primates, wolves, bears, hyenas, big cats, and hippopotamus, among others. It is unlawful for a person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit. Those persons who were in possession of such animals on or before May 1, 1997 were able to continue possession provided that they complied with the permit process. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant must have provided proof of liability insurance in the amount of $100,000.00 for each wild animal up to a maximum of $1,000,000.00. |
| MS - Endangered Species - Chapter 5. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | These Mississippi statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions for the Act, the legislative findings, and the associated regulations of the Act. Violations under the Act may incur up to a $1,000 fine and/or one-year term of imprisonment as well as equipment confiscation. |
| MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law) |
This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes. |
| MO - Exotic pet - 578.023. Keeping a dangerous wild animal, penalty | This Missouri law states that no person may keep any lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, hyena, wolf, bear, nonhuman primate, coyote, any deadly, dangerous, or poisonous reptile, or any deadly or dangerous reptile over eight feet long, in any place other than a properly maintained zoological park, circus, scientific, or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge, unless such person has registered such animals with the local law enforcement agency in the county in which the animal is kept. Violation is a class C misdemeanor. |
| MO - Endangered Species - Chapter 252. Department of Conservation--Fish and Game. | This Missouri statute provides that the importation, transportation, or sale of any endangered species of fish or wildlife, or hides or other parts thereof, or the sale or possession with intent to sell any article made in whole or in part from the skin, hide or other parts of any endangered species of fish or wildlife is prohibited. Violation of the statute constitutes a Class B misdemeanor. |
| MN - Exotic pet - 346.155. Possessing regulated animals | This Minnesota law defines "regulated animal" to mean all members of the Felidae family except the domestic cat, bears, and all non-human primates. Unless a person possessed a regulated animal on or before January 1, 2005, and came into compliance with AWA regulations, possession of the above-mentioned regulated animals is unlawful. A person who lawfully possessed a regulated animal before that date, must comply with registration, microchipping, fee, and inspection requirements. |
| MN - Exhibition - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. | In Minnesota, a person may not possess wildlife in captivity for public exhibition purposes without a permit. The commissioner may issue a permit to an applicant qualified by education or experience in the care and treatment of wildlife. A permit shall include a condition that allows an enforcement officer to enter and inspect the facilities where the wildlife covered by the permit are held in captivity. A violation may result in the attorney general bringing an abatement action. |
| MN - Endangered Species - Natural Resources (Ch. 83A-84). Chapter 84. Department of Natural Resources | This statute protects endangered and threatened species in Minnesota, as defined in the statute. Under the law, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered species of wild animal or plant, or sell or possess with intent to sell an article made with any part of the skin, hide, or parts of an endangered species of wild animal or plant. Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor. |
| MN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things. |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. |