|
Dehart v. Town of Austin |
The breeder was in the business of buying, breeding, raising, and selling of exotic and wild animals. The town passed an ordinance making it unlawful to keep certain wild animals, and the breeder filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a local ordinance. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the town because: (1) the ordinance was not preempted by the Animal Welfare Act; (2) the ordinance was not an impermissible attempt to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; and (3) the town did not deprive him of his property interest in his federal and state licenses without due process.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Exotic Pet Laws |
This paper examines state and local statutes and regulations regarding private possession of captive wildlife, or exotic pets. It also discusses the policy and constitutional issues surrounding these regulations.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Exotic Pet Laws Update |
First, this paper details the various policy concerns that private exotic animal ownership presents to the public, the animals, and the environment. Next, this paper briefly lays out the few federal laws that apply and the effects they have on private exotic animal ownership. State laws are then analyzed under four regulatory schemes: bans on private wildlife possession, partial bans on certain wild or exotic animals, a licensing scheme for owning exotic or wild animals, and states with miscellaneous or no regulations, including an analysis of states that ban or regulate hybrids of domestic and exotic or wild animals. Then, a few local regulations are discussed, followed by the way these laws and regulations are enforced. Finally, trends over the last decade are discussed along with conclusions and possible recommendations for comprehensive protection. |
|
Detailed Discussion of International Trade in Wild-Caught Reptiles |
The international trade in wild-caught reptiles has been cause for increasing concern, especially over the last few years. Federal, state and foreign laws are seemingly broken everyday as hundreds of thousands of reptiles are imported and exported each, mostly for the pet trade. In addition to depleting our natural resources and threatening many species with extinction, the reptiles are treated inhumanely and can even pose a health risk to people and the environment.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Texas Animal Cruelty Laws |
This article provides an in-depth look at the intricacies of Texas animal cruelty laws. Both the criminal and civil statutes are discussed, as is relevant case law. Additionally, this article introduces a new Texas law governing the keeping of dangerous wild animals.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of the Exotic Pet Trade |
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws |
This paper introduces the role of a wildlife rehabilitator, including the goals of rehabilitation. Section III discusses the permit and licensing requirements of wildlife rehabilitators, including demonstrating competency, preparedness, continuing education requirements, and permit renewals; Section IV addresses facility adequacy and standards of care. Section V discusses the types of wildlife which may be rehabilitated and procedures for non-rehabitable or non-releasable wildlife. Section VI addresses other compliance considerations which are unique to some of the nine states studied. Section VII discusses the non-permit related legal issues that affect wildlife rehabilitators.
|
|
Ethical Management of Invasive Species The Burmese Python |
|
|
Evelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Ctr. Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation |
Petitioners, licensed wildlife rehabilitators with New York Wildlife Rehabilitation Licenses (WRL), challenged two statewide modifications to the WRL pertaining to white-tailed deer, which became effective in 2016. Petitioners contend these actions violated the state Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA). Additionally, they argue the modifications were irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and WRLs were improperly modified without a prior State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The first modification limits the time white-tailed fawns can be held for rehabilitation to a period of only April 15 to September 15 (absent prior written approval). The second modification limits the maximum holding period for an adult white-tailed deer (before release or euthanization) to 48-hours. This court did not find either modification was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In response to the challenges, the state, through a wildlife biologist, contends they are intended to prevent habituation and the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). The explanatory statements provided for the modifications support reasonable and rational interpretations of rehabilitation and do not violate the SAPA. The September 15th cut-off day for fawns was based on scientific research conducted by the state's "Big Game Team" that sought to address issues of disease as well as "a documented pattern of licensed wildlife rehabilitators in New York who have been reluctant to either euthanize or release white-tailed deer." As to the modification for adult deer, there was a rational basis since that time period allows the care of a temporarily stunned deer in need of a short rehabilitation period balanced against disease and habituation concerns. The court also found that the issuance of WRL is a ministerial action exemption from environmental review under SEQRA. The petitions in this consolidated action were denied in their entirety and the proceeding dismissed. |
|
Eyrich v. Earl |
In this New York, the neighbors of a five-year-old child who was mauled to death by a leopard that was at a circus held on school property filed suit against the operators of the circus seeking compensation for emotional damages. On defendants' appeal, this court held that defendants were strictly liable to plaintiffs. The court first began with the proposition that wild animals are presumed to have a dangerous propensity and the keepers of such have been held strictly liable. Using a products liability analogy, the court found that as a matter of public policy, it would be 'unthinkable' to refuse to insulate individuals who put a defective car on the road and 'then tell one injured by a wild beast that he has no claim against those who put that beast on the road.' The judgment was affirmed.
|
