Rehabilitation, wildlife

Summary: In this case, plaintiffs are non-human primates and humans interested in their welfare. The primates were formerly part of a research program run at Ohio State University for cognition research (the OSU Chimpanzee Cognition Center). After funding ran out, OSU sold the chimpanzees to Primarily Primates Inc. (“PPI”), who held themselves out to be non-profit that acts a sanctuary for retiring animals. However, plaintiffs allege that the conditions in which the chimpanzees were housed were inadequate and proper care was not provided to the primates (several of the animals died in transit and at the facility). Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that would transfer the animals to a new sanctuary because defendants’ actions are unlawful under Texas laws. Plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order that would allow a team of independent caretakers and veterinarians to assess the current conditions at PPI and prevent them from accepting any new primates, among other things.

Summary:

A woman was convicted of unlawful taking or possession of game or wildlife for owning a domesticated squirrel.  The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction  They reasoned since the squirrel was domesticated in South Carolina, and South Carolina does not have any prohibition against the taking and domestication of squirrels, the trial court could not rely on the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting such.

Summary:

Wildlife rehabilitation permit applicant was denied a permit by the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. She requested an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of her application. On appeal, the court held that because wildlife rehabilitation permit applicants do not possess a private property interest in wildlife or in receiving a rehabilitation permit, the state may deny a permit based on its own discretion, so long as the decision to deny the permit is reasonably related to the state’s legitimate government interest. Therefore, even when an applicant possesses the proper credentials required to obtain a permit, the state may deny the permit in protecting the state’s legitimate government interest.

Summary:

Doyle is a physician who lives in Texas and runs a bird rehabilitation center where he breeds captive falcons, hoping to reintroduce them.  Here, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for violation of the Lacey Act making it unlawful for any person to possess and transport in interstate commerce any wildlife taken or transported in violation of any state law (Montana).  Although defendant obtained proper state permits to possess and transfer described falcons, defendant was aware that the falcons' origins had been misrepresented; therefore, defendant has sufficient knowledge under the statute.

Summary:

This article presents a brief summary of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. Wildlife rehabilitators care for orphaned and/or injured wildlife with the goal of returning animals back into their native habitat. Although a rehabilitator’s focus is on the care of wildlife, rehabilitators necessarily spend time complying with local, state, and federal laws, fundraising activities, coordinating volunteers, and educating the public about wildlife.

Summary:

This article presents an overview of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. The statutes and regulations of nine states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, New York, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas) are compared as to requirements for licensing. Legal issues that arise in the practice of rehabilitation are also discussed.

Summary:

This paper introduces the role of a wildlife rehabilitator, including the goals of rehabilitation. Section III discusses the permit and licensing requirements of wildlife rehabilitators, including demonstrating competency, preparedness, continuing education requirements, and permit renewals; Section IV addresses facility adequacy and standards of care. Section V discusses the types of wildlife which may be rehabilitated and procedures for non-rehabitable or non-releasable wildlife. Section VI addresses other compliance considerations which are unique to some of the nine states studied. Section VII discusses the non-permit related legal issues that affect wildlife rehabilitators.

Summary: 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.

Summary: The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the care of sick, injured, debilitated or orphaned wildlife, excluding big game animals and trophy game animals, by permitted wildlife rehabilitators and to provide criteria for the issuance of permits to such wildlife rehabilitators. In accordance with this regulation, wildlife rehabilitators issued permits pursuant to this regulation may acquire sick, injured, debilitated, or orphaned wildlife and provide necessary treatment in order that the wildlife may be returned to live in the wild independent of human aid and sustenance. As soon as it can be determined that sick or injured wildlife is not likely to recover within one-hundred eighty (180) days, the wildlife shall be euthanized; unless Department approval is given for extended care.

Summary: This chapter of Texas regulations provide the requirements to obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit. The qualifications to obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit are also outlined. General facilities standards and inspection requirements are provided.