|
AZ - Exotic Wildlife - Article 4. Live Wildlife |
These Arizona regulations define “captive live wildlife” as live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild. The regulations provides that no individual shall import or export any live wildlife into or out of the state. An individual may take wildlife from the wild alive under a valid Arizona hunting or fishing license only if there is a Commission Order that prescribes a live bag and possession limit for that wildlife and the individual possesses the appropriate license. However, no person may possess restricted live wildlife without a valid permit. The statute also provides a comprehensive list of all mammals that are considered restricted live wildlife. An individual who holds a special license listed in R12-4-409(A) shall keep all wildlife in a facility according to the captivity standards prescribed under R12-4-428 or as otherwise required under this Article. A special license holder subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the minimum standards for humane treatment prescribed by this Section. |
|
Baugh v. Beatty |
This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals
ferae naturae,
of known savage and vicious nature.
|
|
CA - Research animals - Group 5. Care of Laboratory Animals |
This set of regulations establishes certification requirements for research facilities that use live animals in experiments, sets minimum standards of care for research animals, and addresses the requirements for filing complaints with the Department of Public Health. |
|
Chimps, Inc., International Primate League, and Marguerite Gordon v. Primarily Primates, Inc. |
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Alabama Great Ape Laws |
This article discusses the state laws that govern the import, possession, use, and treatment of Great Apes in Alabama. Generally, there are very few state-level restrictions on activities involving those animals; however, Alabama does regulate the possession and treatment of apes by certain exhibitors. Also included are many local ordinances that have been enacted by counties and municipalities to restrict or regulate Great Apes within political subdivisions of the state.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Florida Great Ape Laws |
This article discusses the state laws that govern the import, possession, use, and treatment of Great Apes in Florida. In general, a state permit is required to import or possess apes. The state does not issue permits to keep apes as pets; however, individuals who possessed apes prior to the 1980 ban may be permitted to keep those apes for the remainder of the animals’ lives. The state does issue permits to import and possess apes for commercial or scientific uses to applicants who are qualified by age and experience and who have appropriate facilities. Permittees must comply with stringent legal requirements for the housing, care, maintenance, and use of apes. Also included within the article are local ordinances which have been enacted by counties and municipalities to restrict or regulate Great Apes within political subdivisions of the state.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Kentucky Great Ape Laws |
In Kentucky, all chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons are classified as “inherently dangerous” exotic wildlife by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (DFWR). The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Louisiana Great Ape Laws |
According to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (LWFC), the possession of certain nonhuman primates “poses significant hazards to public safety and health,” and “is detrimental to the welfare of the animals.” The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Maine Great Ape Laws |
The following article discusses Maine Great Ape law. While Maine does not ban the private possession of great apes, the state only issues licenses to keep apes to a select few. The state of Maine controls possession and importation of great apes under its exotic pet law and accompanying regulations.Private possession of great apes in the state is allowed but quite limited. However, state law and accompanying regulations clearly allow the use of apes and other wild animals in exhibitions, wildlife rehabilitation, and research facilities. While these regulations specifically address the caging requirements for great apes, enforcement and inspection provisions are vague. As is true with many states, there is not an overall law that directly addresses the possession of apes or the specific needs of apes in captivity. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Maryland Great Ape Laws |
The following article discusses Maryland Great Ape law. Maryland regulates possession of Great Apes both expressly via state law as well as indirectly via reference to federal law. At the state level, it bans the importation, sale and transfer of dangerous animals through its anti-cruelty law. (MD CRIM LAW § 10-621) Maryland does not define the term “dangerous animal,” but section (b) lists all non-human primates as one of eight categories of animal that “[a] person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter, possess, breed, or exchange….” Although Maryland does have several laws that either reference Great Apes specifically or reference federal laws meant to protect Great Apes, many exceptions have been carved out of these protections. As such, Maryland's laws regulating possession and usage of Great Apes is mediocre compared to other states at best. |
