|
IN - Wild Animal - Chapter 25. Importation Permit |
In Indiana, a person needs a permit to import live fish or any living wild animal into the state for release. A permit may be granted only upon proof that the animals are free of a communicable disease, will not become a nuisance, and will not cause damage to a native wild or domestic species. |
|
IN - Wild Animal - Chapter 28. Permit to Take, Kill, or Capture Wild Animal Damaging Property |
A person whose property is being damaged by a protected wild animal may be issued a free permit to take, kill, or capture the wild animal. The director prescribes how the animal is taken, when the permit expires, and the disposition of the animal. The director may deny a permit if the wild animal is not causing the damage or the person would abuse the privileges. |
|
IN - Wild Animal - Rule 11. Wild Animal Possession Permits. |
This chapter of regulations provides the rules and requirements for possession of wild animals in Indiana. |
|
IN - Wild Animals - Chapter 26. Wild Animal Permit |
This set of laws deals with Wild Animal Permits in Indiana. Section 3 allows the Director to adopt rules that require permits to possess wild animals protected by laws or rules. The director may also adopt a rule that requires a permit to possess a wild animal that may be harmful or dangerous to plants or animals. Permits under this chapter may be suspended by the director and animal may be seized if the animal is in a position to harm another animal or the life or health of the animal is in peril. This chapter does not apply to licensed commercial animal dealers, zoological parks, circuses, or carnivals. |
|
In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo |
This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA. Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA.
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. Salazar |
In this case, the Plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals, Craig C. Downer, and Terri Farley, attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction that would stop the defendants, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and representatives of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (“the Bureau”), from implementing a plan to capture or gather approximately 2,700 wild horses located in western Nevada (“gather plan”).
The plaintiffs contended that the gather plan had to be set aside pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., because the Bureau did not have the statutory authority to carry out the gather plan, and because the plan did not comply with the terms of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (“Wild Horse Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs request for an injunction.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Interior |
Plaintiff animal non-profits filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction to stop the government from rounding up, destroying, and auctioning off wild horses and burros in the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area. Plaintiffs alleged that the government's actions violated the Wild Free–Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the initial phase of the plan sought to be enjoined (the roundup) had taken place. The court held that the interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction was moot because the roundup had already taken place.
|
