Great Apes

Displaying 311 - 320 of 369
Titlesort descending Summary
SD - Endangered Species - Chapter 34A-8. Endangered and Threatened Species These South Dakota statutes provide the definitions and regulations related to endangered and threatened species in the state. Under statute, state agencies shall establish and conduct control programs at state expense on private lands that are encroached upon by prairie dogs from contiguous public lands. It is a misdemeanor to take, possess, transport, import, export, process, sell or offer for sale, buy or offer to buy (nor may a common or contract carrier transport or receive for shipment) a listed species as defined by statute.
SD - Exotic Pets - Chapter 12:68:18 Nondomestic Animal Control Any person desiring to import nondomestic mammals into South Dakota for release to the wild to become free roaming nondomestic mammals must obtain an entry permit and obtain a certificate of veterinary inspection issued by a licensed veterinarian in the state of origin. Also, a permit is required to possess in South Dakota any nondomestic mammal, or any of its hybrids, of those of the order Carnivora, all nondomestic members of the Felidae, Canidae, Ursidae, Mustelidae, and Hyaenidae families; of the order Artiodactyla, all nondomestic members; of the order Perissodactyla, all nondomestic members of the order Tapiridae and Rhinocerotidae; of the order Proboscidea, African and Asian elephants; and of the order Primates. Permit costs range anywhere from $10 - 100. The regulations also list procedures for escapes, recordkeeping, and inspection.
SD - Exotic Pets - Chapter 40-3. State Animal Industry Board (captive wildlife provisions) These South Dakota statutes establish the Animal Industry Board, which promulgate rules to allow nondomestic mammals that are safe to the public and to the free-roaming animals of the state to be imported or possessed. The Board regulates the breeding, raising, marketing, and transportation of any captive nondomestic mammals. The Board may also develop and implement programs to identify animals and premises involved to further animal health and food safety.
SuiÁa
impetraram este HABEAS CORPUS REPRESSIVO, em favor da chimpanzÈ "SuiÁa" (nome cientifico anthropopithecus troglodytes), macaca que se encontra enjaulada no Parque Zoobot‚nico Get˙lio Vargas (Jardim ZoolÛgico de Salvador), situado na Av. Ademar de Barros
Suica - Habeas Corpus


First case to consider that a chimpanzee might be a legal person to come before the court under a petition for Habeas Corpus.

Table of Biological Facts on Great Apes
Table of State Great Ape Possession Laws
The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees, Comments from Jane Goodall, Dr. Roger Fouts, Steven Wise and David Favre


On September 30, 2002, Harvard Law School hosted a legal symposium sponsored by the Chimpanzee Collaboratory’s Legal Committee. The symposium featured speakers with expertise on chimpanzees, as well as legal scholars and lawyers who discussed the possibility of obtaining legal rights for chimpanzees and other great apes. This symposium sought to advance the argument that chimpanzees are entitled to some degree of legal status, and the speakers presented a range of views about how far such legal rights should extend. These remarks reflect the connection between the growing scientific understanding of chimpanzees and the advances in related legal doctrines.
The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl


This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals.
The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged.

Pages