Wildlife

Displaying 241 - 250 of 354
Titlesort descending Summary
Overview of Whaling In 2010, Australia sued Japan at the International Court of Justice in an effort to force Japan to end its whaling program in the Antarctic. Though commercial whaling was banned in the 1980s, Japan claimed that its program was for scientific purposes and therefore legal. The ICJ sided with Australia, but its ruling left open the possibility that Japan could resume whaling in the future.
Overview of Wildlife Services This overview describes the role and function of Wildlife Services within the USDA. It briefly outlines the creation of the agency as the body that administers the Animal Damage Act of 1931. The document then outlines the methods of control of livestock, including lethal and non-lethal methods. Concern over two particular methods of wildlife control - "denning" and use of M-44 cyanide capsules - are included and how animal welfare organizations have responded to the controversy. Finally, the paper concludes with a description of the progress several counties in California have made to control damage by wildlife without resorting to WS policy and control methods.
PA - Permits - Chapter 29. Special Licenses and Permits. Subchapter A. General Provisions. This chapter of Pennsylvania laws allows the commission to issue permits to take wildlife. Among the permit categories include endangered or threatened species permits, wildlife menagerie, wildlife (exotic) dealer, and wildlife (exotic) possession permits. It is unlawful to exercise any of the privileges granted by a permit issued under this title without first securing the required permit.
Pedersen v. Benson


In the matter of

Pedersen v. Benson

, an importer had a permit to import five giraffes from Kenya, three of which were sold and released to public zoos after the requisite quarantine period.  The other two were bought by ‘Africa USA,’ but not released.  One of them had a heart attack and died.  Plaintiff’s filed suit to have the other one they purchased released.  The permits, issued by APHIS, were issued under the further understanding that all the giraffes would be consigned to an approved zoological park (Africa USA is a privately-owned zoo).  The Court found no basis to uphold the government’s claim that a government officer may impose an ad hoc system of licensure upon any citizen, or upon any one group, i.e. private zoos, as opposed to another.  Here, the importation was specifically permitted for all five animals, and any one animal was just as much a potential carrier of hoof and mouth disease as this particular giraffe.  Therefore, this matter was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 
Peru - Biodiversity - Resolución Legislativa 26181, 1992
Peru - CITES - Decreto Ley 21080, 1975
Peru - Wildlife - LEY 9147, 1949
RECONCILING POLAR BEAR PROTECTION UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS
RECONCILING THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT WITH EXPANDING WIND ENERGY TO KEEP BIG WHEELS TURNING AND ENDANGERED BIRDS FLYING
Recovery of the Gray Wolf under the ESA

Pages