|
SC - Hunting - Article 13. Fox and Coyote Hunting Enclosures |
Under these South Carolina statutes, it is unlawful to buy, sell, transfer, possess, or release a live coyote or fox except as permitted. Foxes and coyotes obtained to stock hunting enclosures may be obtained only by the enclosure owner or operator from a South Carolina licensed trapper. A violation of any provision is a misdemeanor; the first offense is punishable by a fine of $50-500, and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. |
|
SC - Exotic Pets - § 47-5-50. Prohibition on sale of wild carnivores as pets; sale of domesticated ferrets. |
This South Carolina law provides that no carnivores, which normally are not domesticated, may be sold as pets in this State. A carnivore kept by an individual must not be allowed to run at large and then returned to confinement. A normally wild animal indigenous to this State, if held captive for a period of time, may be released to the wild. This section does not apply to domesticated ferrets. Each business that sells ferrets must also display a notice about the potential danger of unprovoked attacks against humans. |
|
SC - Exotic pets - Chapter 2. Large Wild Cats, Non-Native Bears and Great Apes |
This South Carolina chapter, effective January 1, 2018, makes it unlawful for a person to possess, keep, purchase, have custody or control of, breed, or sell within this State a large wild cat, non-native bear, or great ape, including transactions conducted via the Internet. A person in possession of such animal before January 1, 2018 who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession if he or she complies with seven conditions listed under Section 47-2-30. Authorities may confiscate large wild cats, non-native bears, or great apes held in violation of this chapter. Cities or counties may also adopt more restrictive ordinances than this chapter. A person who violates this chapter must be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days for a first offense, and must be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days for a second offense. Exempted entities include certain non-profit animal protection organizations, university research labs holding Class R registration under the AWA, any person who possesses a valid USDA Class A, B, or C license in good standing, and circuses that are incorporated and hold a Class C license under the AWA that are temporarily in this State, among others. |
|
SC - Exotic Pets - Chapter 16. Importation of Wildlife. |
This South Carolina law states that it is unlawful for a person to import, possess, or transport for the purpose of release or to introduce or bring into this State the following live wildlife: a furbearer which includes but is not limited to, red and gray fox, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, mink, skunk, otter, bobcat, weasel, and beaver; a member of the family Cervidae, a nondomestic member of the families Suidae (pigs), Tayassuidae (peccaries), Bovidae (bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep), coyote, bear, or turkey (genus Meleagris); or a non-native species of fish, crustacean, mollusk, or invertebrate. A permit may be granted only after the investigations and inspections of the wildlife have been made as the department considers necessary and the department approves the possession, transportation, or importation into the State. Sec. 50-11-1765 provides that it is unlawful to sell live wolves or to ship, import, or possess live wolves into this State without a permit. |
|
SC - Endangered Species - Chapter 123 Department of Natural Resources |
These South Carolina regulations list the non-game wildlife on the state's List of Endangered Wildlife Species, as well as the animals that are considered threatened and "in need of management." If an animal is listed as threatened or endangered, a permit must be obtained in certain situations to avoid penalty for "taking" a listed species. Furthermore, these regulations also set out provisions for hunting alligators and selling alligator meat and hide; for obtaining vultures, kites, hawks, eagles, ospreys, falcons, and owls for the practice of falconry; and for protecting sea turtles by regulating the nets on shrimping trawls. |
|
Robledo, Leandro Nicolás y otros s/ resistencia o desobediencia a la autoridad |
|
|
RI - Exotic Pets - Chapter 18. Importation of Wild Animals |
This chapter of Rhode Island laws proclaims that its intent is to provide safeguards for the protection of persons in the state from disease hazards associated with imported wild animals. Under the chapter, no person shall import into, receive, or possess in this state without first obtaining a permit from the department, animals of the following orders, families, and genera: primates, carnivores, amphibia, reptilia, canidae, and insecta. Personal pets under a special permit are exempted from the importation permit requirement. A permit may be granted by the department to import a wild animal as a personal pet, if a written affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is completed at the time of entry at the site of first arrival. This chapter also requires that certain species undergo quarantine for specified periods of time. Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100), and the loss of any specimen referred to in this chapter. |
|
Rhoades v. City of Battle Ground |
Exotic pet owners challenged on equal protection grounds an ordinance that banned exotic pets, yet allowed dangerous dogs under certain conditions. The court, in upholding the ordinance, found a rational relationship between the regulation and the public interest in preventing exotic pet attacks.
|
|
Rhoades v. City of Battle Ground |
In this case, exotic animal owners appeal a summary judgment order dismissing their various constitutional challenges to a City of Battle Ground ordinance that prohibits ownership of such animals within city limits. Specifically, the owners contended that the ordinance violated their right to equal protection under the constitution because it treats those who keep exotic pets within the City differently from those who keep dangerous dogs. The court held that it was within the city's police power authority to enact these laws if they were supported by a rational relationship. In fact, the court found that the local legislative body may draw a different conclusion from the Washington Supreme Court in areas of public safety and the exercise of the local government's police powers provided it does not conflict with the general laws of the state. (
Note
: publication of case ordered Feb. 7, 2003 in 115 Wash.App. 752,
63 P.3d 142
).
|
|
Renzo v. Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture |
A tiger habitat developer sued the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (Department) under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) for breach of ordinary care in refusing to grant exotic animal possession and propagation permits and for intentional interference with developer's prospective economic advantage. The Court held that the time period under which the developer had to file notice of its claim began to run when the Department sent its letter stating that a possession permit would be conditioned upon the tigers’ sterilization. This letter put developer on notice that he would not receive a possession permit without sterilizing the tigers, and therefore, had knowledge that he would not be granted a propagation permit.
|
