Rehabilitation, wildlife
Displaying 21 - 30 of 33
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Looking for a Nexus Between Trust Compassion, and Regulation: Colorados Search for Standards of Care for Private, Non-Profit Wildlife Sanctuaries | In 2004, the Colorado legislature amended its wildlife statutes, formally recognizing the existence of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Opponents to the 2004 amendments and CDOW staff have repeatedly expressed concerns that private sanctuaries should not be authorized in the absence of regulations and enforcement mechanisms sufficient to protect the animals and the people who come into contact with them. In implementing the sanctuary statute, CDOW has followed a familiar pattern, relying on the accreditation program of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA) to provide the basis of its regulations. In doing so, CDOW has failed to understand that the AZA standards are wholly inappropriate for sanctuaries; they are inadequate to protect the safety of animals and humans; and they are overly burdensome and even diametrically opposed to the status and goals of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries. Instead, CDOW could have acknowledged the stringent, comprehensive, extensive standards promulgated by The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS), which are carefully tailored to the operations of sanctuaries. This article considers the plight of Colorado wildlife sanctuaries, which is by no means peculiar to the state of Colorado, and carefully examines the standards promulgated by the AZA and by TAOS. The article concludes that the TAOS accreditation program would have provided a significantly better basis for sanctuary regulation, and that by failing to take advantage of this, CDOW has missed an important opportunity to create a nexus between trust, compassion, and regulation. |
| KS - Rehabilitation - 32-953. Rehabilitation permit | This Kansas law states that a rehabilitation permit is required to perform wildlife rehabilitation services. |
| IN - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 312 IAC 9-10-9 Wild animal rehabilitation permit | This Indiana regulation sets for the requirements to obtain a permit to possess wild animals for rehabilitation. |
| GA - Wildlife rehabilitation - Chapter 2. Licenses, Permits, and Stamps Generally | This Georgia law makes it unlawful for any person to keep sick or injured wildlife without first obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit from the state department. |
| GA - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 391-4-9-.03. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits | This Georgia regulation describes the requirements to become a wildlife rehabilitator. Rehabilitation means the action or process of restoring wildlife to a condition of health and shall include maintaining a state of health in young wildlife to an age of independence. A permit is issued only when an applicant meets requirements such as training and demonstration of competency on a written exam, among other things. |
| FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. | This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. |
| 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. |
| Detailed Discussion of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws |
|
| Commonwealth v. Gosselin |
|
| CO - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 14. Wildlife Rehabilitation. | This set of Colorado rules concerns wildlife rehabilitation licensing. Requirements for wildlife holding enclosures are outlined. The care, treatment, and disposition of wildlife requirements are detailed as well as provisions for releasing wildlife. |