|
KY - Exotic Wildlife - 301 KAR 2:081 Transportation and holding of live native wildlife |
These regulations provide Kentucky's administrative rules for the possession of wild animals or exotic pets. Except as specified in Section 2 of this administrative regulation and subsection (2) of this section, a person shall not import or possess species such as an alligator snapping turtle, black bear, cougar, copperbelly watersnake, wild turkey, wolf, or any federally threatened or endangered species. Specific transportation and importation requirements are outlined in great detail. |
|
KY - Exotic Animals - Chapter 65. General Provisions Applicable to Counties, Cities |
This Kentucky statue authorizes counties and cities to regulate or prohibit the holding of inherently dangerous wildlife. For example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has identified some of the following animals as being dangerous: African buffalo, Hippopotamus, Hyenas, Old world badger, Lions, jaguars, leopards, or tigers, Clouded leopard, Cheetah, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Gorillas, Baboons, drills, or mandrills, Crocodiles, Alligators or caimans, certain snakes, Gila monsters or beaded lizards, Komodo dragon, Wolverine, Bears, Wolf, mountain lion. |
|
KY - Endangered Species - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. |
Under Kentucky law, no person shall import, transport, possess for resale or sell any endangered species of wildlife. The term "endangered species" means any species of wildlife seriously threatened with worldwide extinction or in danger of being extirpated from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Violation of the Act may result in fines or possible imprisonment depending on the statutory section violated, and license sanctions may also result. |
|
KY - Endangered - 301 KAR 3:061. Endangered species of fish and wildlife |
It is unlawful for any person to import, transport, possess, process, sell or offer for sale any endangered species of fish and wildlife, or parts thereof, except as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this administrative regulation. |
|
KY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Kentucky statutes represent the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Under the law, animal cruelty in the first-degree (a class D felony) occurs when a person causes four-legged animals to fight for pleasure or profit. Exclusions under this section include, among others, the killing of animals when hunting, fishing, or trapping; as incident to the processing as food or for other commercial purposes; or for veterinary, agricultural, spaying or neutering, or cosmetic purposes. |
|
KS - Pet Sales - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. |
The following statutes comprise Kansas' Pet Animal Act. The Act outlines the requirements for pet shop operator licensing and animal dealers. |
|
KS - Exotic Pets - 115-20-3 Exotic Wildlife; Possession, Sale and Requirements. |
This regulation covers the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. |
|
Incidents & Attacks Involving Captive Chimpanzees |
This article describes several incidents in which captive chimpanzees have escaped, attacked or threatened humans, or have been injured or killed as a result of such an incident.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University |
A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility.
|
