|
CA - Mountain Lions - Chapter 10. Mountain Lions |
California statutes make mountain lions specially protected mammals. These sections make it unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof. Specific exceptions to these prohibitions include instances where a mountain lion is perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety or when it is perceived by to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species. |
|
CA - Permits - CHAPTER 3. MISCELLANEOUS. Permits for Restricted Species |
Permits are required for possession of restricted species, but the department does not issue permits for exotics pets. |
|
CA - Reptiles & Amphibians - Division 5. Protected Reptiles and Amphibians |
These sections are the California statutes that specifically protect certain reptiles and amphibians. The sections enumerate the protected species and strictly prohibit taking and possession, with a narrow exception that may be granted by permit to an educational or scientific institution or a public zoological garden. |
|
CA - Santa Cruz County - Santa Cruz County Code. Title 6. Animals. |
This comprises Santa Cruz County's animal-related ordinances. Santa Cruz County has a mandatory sterilization ordinance, which states that a dog or cat over the age of 6 months must be spayed or neutered unless such person holds an unaltered animal certification for the animal (excepting law enforcement dogs, service dogs, dogs or cats with health problems that prevent sterilization, herding dogs, or dogs or cats boarded in a business for training or resale). The code also has a section on feral cats, defined as felines that are wild by nature or no longer domesticated. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally provide food, water, or other forms of sustenance to a feral cat colony unless that person has registered with the county, and complies with the requirements (e.g., regularly trapping the cats for sterilization, testing trapped cats for feline leukemia, "ear tipping" for identification, rabies vaccination, and regularly feeding the colony even on holidays and weekends). Other provisions of note include a prohibition on "noisy animals" (one that habitually howls, yells, barks or makes other noise that unreasonably disturbs); a prohibition on the keeping of any "wild species" as defined by Section 2118 of the Cal. Fish & Game Code; and a leash/tether/grasp requirement when a dog is off its owner's premises.
|
|
CA - Sharks - § 2021. Shark fins; unlawful possession, sale, offer for sale, trading, or distribution; exceptions |
Under these California statutes, it is unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for people who have a license or permit. In addition, people and restaurants who have a shark fin as of January 1, 2012 may possess it until January 1, 2013. |
|
CA - Wild Animal - Chapter 2. Importation, Transportation, and Sheltering of Restricted Live Wild Animals. |
The California Legislature adopted this act based on a findings that wild animals are captured for importation and resold in California and that some populations of wild animals are being depleted, that many animals die in captivity or transit, and that some keepers of wild animals lack sufficient knowledge or facilities for the proper care of wild animals. It was the intention of the Legislature to regulate the importation, transportation, and possession of wild animals to protect the native wildlife and agricultural interests against damage from the existence at large of certain wild animals, and to protect the public health and safety in this state. The act defines "wild animal" and classifies them by species. Among other things, the act also includes inspection and permit provisions that govern the treatment of wild animals and the actions that may be taken where they are concerned. |
|
Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price |
This article explores the issues surrounding "canned hunts." Section I provides an introduction and overview; explores the ethical objections to canned hunts based on standards generally accepted by the sport hunting community; raises questions about the appropriate legal analogy that should be applied to canned hunts; and discusses the serious animal health and public health issues raised by canned hunts. Section II catalogs the relevant statutes and regulations of each state with an example of a model ordinance relating to the regulation of canned hunts.
|
|
Carrelli v. Dept. of Natural Resources |
Wildlife rehabilitation permit applicant was denied a permit by the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. She requested an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of her application. On appeal, the court held that because wildlife rehabilitation permit applicants do not possess a private property interest in wildlife or in receiving a rehabilitation permit, the state may deny a permit based on its own discretion, so long as the decision to deny the permit is reasonably related to the state’s legitimate government interest. Therefore, even when an applicant possesses the proper credentials required to obtain a permit, the state may deny the permit in protecting the state’s legitimate government interest.
|
|
China Case Studies: 2. Wolves Escape from a Zoo |
A short case study about the killing of wolves that escaped from a zoo in China.
|
|
City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle |
In this Illinois case, the Plaintiff, City of Rolling Meadows, brought an action against defendant for keeping an undomesticated animal, a monkey, in her home in violation of a city ordinance. The lower court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. At issue on appeal is the construction and application to be given the phrase “other than domesticated house pets” as set forth in the ordinance in question. The court was required to adopt the common and approved usage of the term 'domesticated.' The court concluded that the evidence presented established as a matter of law that Yondi is a domesticated animal. Thus, the trial court erred in finding defendant in violation of ordinance 4-28 because the monkey was a domesticated house pet.
|
