|
Endangered Species Act Split-Listing Chart for Chimpanzees |
|
|
Great Apes |
|
|
Great Apes and Chimpanzees |
|
|
Habeas Corpus para Chimpanzé - Íntegra (portuguese) |
|
|
IN - Exotic Pets - Article 9. Fish and Wildlife. Rule 3. Mammals. 312 IAC 9-3-18.5 Exotic mammals. |
This regulation lists certain exotic mammals that may not be taken (harmed, harassed, or killed) and establishes restrictions on the possession and sale of those exotic mammals. |
|
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility.
This Order was Superseded by
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health
, 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008).
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University |
A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.
|
|
Krasno v. Mnookin |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, holding that the interactive comment threads on the University's social media posts constituted limited public forums under First Amendment jurisprudence, and that the University's "off-topic" comment restriction was neither reasonable nor viewpoint-neutral as applied to plaintiff Madeline Krasno's animal rights advocacy. Krasno, a former employee at the University's primate research facility, had repeatedly posted comments criticizing the school's animal testing practices, which the University systematically suppressed while allowing other unrelated comments to remain visible. The University admitted to hiding even an on-topic comment about animal testing in response to a post about veterinary care, while maintaining keyword filters that specifically targeted terms associated with animal rights criticism. The court found that Krasno had standing to bring her as-applied challenge and that the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity permitted her claims for prospective injunctive relief against the University's ongoing use of keyword filters, though sovereign immunity barred claims related to past moderation actions. Applying forum analysis, the court determined the comment threads were not government speech but rather limited public forums where restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, and it held the University's vague "off-topic" rule failed this standard by disproportionately targeting terms associated with anti-animal-testing viewpoints and lacking objective criteria for moderation decisions. The dissent, authored by Judge Easterbrook, argued the comment threads constituted government speech akin to a curated alumni magazine, entitling the University to editorial control without First Amendment scrutiny. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Krasno. |
|
KS - Exotic Pets - 115-20-3 Exotic Wildlife; Possession, Sale and Requirements. |
This regulation covers the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. |
|
LA - Captive Wildlife - §115. Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadrupeds and Non-Human Primates |
This Louisiana regulation states that the possession of certain potentially dangerous quadrupeds, big exotic cats, and non-human primates poses significant hazards to public safety and health, is detrimental to the welfare of the animals, and may have negative impacts on conservation and recovery of some threatened and endangered species. As a result, except as provided, it is unlawful to import into, possess, purchase or sell within the state of Louisiana, by any means whatsoever including but not limited to transactions conducted via the internet, any of the following species: cougar or mountain lion (Felis concolor); black bear (Ursus americanus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); polar bear (Ursus maritimus); red wolf (Canis rufus); gray wolf (Canis lupus); wolf dog hybrid (Canis lupus or Canis rufus x Canis familiarus); all non-human primates. While the prohibition against wolf-dog hybrids expired January 1, 1997, the regulation cautions persons that local ordinances or other state regulations may prohibit possession of these animals. |
