Possession of Wild Animal
Displaying 291 - 300 of 354
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
|
| The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule | This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged. |
| TN - Dangerous Animals - § 39-17-101. Dangerous snakes or reptiles; handling | This Tennessee law makes it an offense for a person to display, exhibit, handle, or use a poisonous or dangerous snake or reptile in a manner that endangers the life or health of any person. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. |
| TN - Exotic Pet - Part 4. Exotic Animals. | This Tennessee chapter relates to the private possession of wildlife. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, import, export, buy, sell, barter, propagate or transfer any wildlife, whether indigenous to this state or not, except as provided by this part and rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee wildlife resources commission pursuant to this part. Additionally, no person shall possess Class I (all species inherently dangerous to humans such as wolves, bears, lions and poisonous snakes) or Class II (native species that are not listed in other classes) wildlife without having documentary evidence showing the name and address of the supplier of such wildlife and date of acquisition. In order to obtain a permit to possess Class I wildlife, a person must be 21, have at least 2 years of experience handling such animals (or take an approved written exam), have a full-time resident caretaker, and must have a plan for the quick and safe recapture of the wildlife, among other provisions. The annual permits and fees for personal possession of Class I wildlife are $150/animal or $1,000/facility. |
| TN - Nashville - Title 8 - ANIMALS |
|
| TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation. | These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee. |
| TN - Wildlife - Part 2. Wildlife Regulation and Protection | These Tennessee statutes make it unlawful to barter, sell, transfer, or to purchase any wildlife without a hunting or fishing license. The unlawful importation, possession, or sale of skunks or red foxes is a Class C misdemeanor. The statutes also impose requirements on transport and storage of other wildlife. |
| TN - Wildlife, commercial use - 1660-01-17-.01. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USE. | This Tennessee regulation describes the commercial use of wildlife. Under the regulation, the commercial use of any State or Federally endangered species is prohibited. The commercial use of State and Federally threatened species and those species deemed in need of management are permitted only when such species are legally taken for the purpose of sale in the State of origin as provided in T.C.A. 70-8-109. |
| TN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 1660-01-18. Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife | These Tennessee regulations outline the requirements for importation and possession of captive wildlife. The species of wildlife for each class of wildlife are described. Facilities for Class I wildlife are provided, which include specific requirements for Class I Felidae or Ursidae. The Class I qualification test requirements are also stated. |
| Tranchita v. Dep't of Nat. Res. | Plaintiff Tomi Tranchita alleged that she cared for four abused and abandoned coyotes for 13 years. The coyotes were housed within a fully fenced-in backyard, ate appropriate food, and received medical care from a veterinarian. The Plaintiff possessed a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Class C exhibitor’s license which imposed restrictions on the licensee such as unannounced annual inspections by a veterinarian or specially trained animal expert. Plaintiff alleged that she had never been cited for any USDA violations and had passed all inspections. Plaintiff also held an Illinois state permit as a fur-bearing mammal breeder from 2011 to 2016, however, this permit lapsed after Plaintiff failed to pay the annual fee. On April 24, 2019, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) executed a search warrant on Plaintiff’s premises. The coyotes were seized during this raid. Plaintiff was told that if she did not sign a relinquishment form that the coyotes would be euthanized or confined to a small space that would end up killing them. IDNR cited Plaintiff for lacking proper permits and for several criminal violations of the Wildlife code. Three of the four coyotes ended up dying from what was believed to be distemper. Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims under the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Plaintiff also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief arguing that the coyote’s lives were at risk if they were not returned. Plaintiff alleged that she had a protected property interest in the coyotes pursuant to her federal exhibitor license. The trial court found that Plaintiff did not have a protected property interest in the coyotes because she did not possess the proper Illinois permit at the time of the seizure. The trial court subsequently denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff then appealed. The Court looked to state law to determine whether Plaintiff had a property interest in the coyotes. Under the Illinois Wildlife Code, a fur-bearing mammal breeder permit is necessary in order to possess or raise a coyote. Plaintiff was in violation of Illinois law the moment her permit lapsed in 2016. This made the coyotes contraband since they were possessed in violation of Illinois’ Wildlife Code. No person is permitted to assert legal ownership or a right to possession of property that is contraband. Plaintiff argued that her federal exhibitor’s license recognized a right of property in her coyotes, however, the Court found that the mere possession of a federal exhibitor’s license does not automatically vest a property right in the permit holder. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgement of the trial court. |