|
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. |
|
Chalmers v. Diwell |
Defendant was an exporter of pet birds. He kept birds at a premises in the course of his business. Usually the birds remained on the premises for less than 48 hours before continuing their journey to their purchasers but on occasion birds had remained on the premises for up to 12 days. A magistrates' court acquitted him of keeping a pet shop without a licence (contrary to Pet Animals Act 1951, s.1). Prosecutor appealed. Result: appeal allowed. Held: even though the premises was being used as no more than a holding center, the defendant was carrying on from that premises a business of selling pets and the premises therefore required a pet shop license.
|
|
Chile - Animal Welfare- Animal Protection Act (in Spanish) |
Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years. Labs, zoos, circuses, and other establishments that keep animals for exhibition and entertainment are allowed, so long as they have the adequate facilities according to the species and adequate safety for people. Animal experimentation in schools is allowed under this law. Rodeo, rein-back and equestrian sports are excepted from provisions of this law.
|
|
CO - Wildlife trade - Illegal sale of wildlife; penalties |
Colorado statute addressing illegal sale of wildlife, including bears.
|
|
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species |
CITES is a mature international treaty which, as of the Fall of 2002, has over 150 countries as members. The purpose of the treaty is to control the international movement of listed wild plants and animals, alive or dead, whole or parts there of ("specimens" of species) in such a manner as to be assured that the pressures of international trade do not contribute to the endangerment of the listed species. States must issue permits for international movement of listed species.
|
|
DE - Sharks - § 928A. Trade in shark fins; penalty |
This Delaware statute prohibits people from possessing, selling, trading, or distributing a shark fin unless a person possesses a license to do so from the State. The statute also lists the penalty for violations. |
|
Decreto 666, 1997 |
|
|
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth |
Environmental groups challenge implementations of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act ("IDCPA") which amended the MMPA and revised the criteria for banning tuna imports.
|
|
Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed.
|
