Summary: These Regulations prohibit the deliberate taking, injuring, killing, disturbing, possession, or trading of certain wild species (as scheduled) in Northern Ireland. It is also an offence to take the nests or eggs of wild birds.
Summary: This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals in Scotland, and makes amendments to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
Summary: This Act makes amendments to the protection of wildlife under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981, and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in respect of Scotland. Wild animal protection is extended to include reckless as well as intentional acts. The Act also makes it an offence to disturb or harass a dolphin, whale or basking shark, and amends the provisions for enforcement.
Summary: These Regulations consolidated the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and made minor modifications. Part 3, regulation 43 makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb certain wild animals or to trade in them. Regulation 45 prohibits the use of certain methods of capturing or killing wild animals.
Summary: An Act prohibiting and limiting actions involving wild animals, and the primary piece of legislation for wildlife protection in the UK. Prohibitions include taking, injuring, killing and disturbing. It is also an offence to disturb places used for shelter and protection. Provides protections for wild bird nests and eggs, as well as for animal species. Proof of intention is required for an offence under the Act.
Summary: An Act providing protection for wild mammals against certain acts of deliberate harm. “Wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Schedule 3, Section 13 of the 2006 Act). The following offences are specified in relation to any wild mammal: to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate. The offences require proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.
Summary: An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs.
Summary: Plaintiffs Buffalo Field Campaign and other environmental groups petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") to add the Yellowstone bison population to the federal endangered species list. After the Service made a threshold “90–day” determination that Buffalo Field's petition failed to present sufficient scientific evidence that listing the bison may be warranted, Buffalo Field brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Service's determination was arbitrary and capricious. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Service applied an improper standard when evaluating Buffalo Field's petition, granted Buffalo Field's motion for summary judgment, denied the Service's cross-motion, and remanded the case for the agency to conduct a new 90–day finding using the proper standard. In particular, the court observed that the Service "simply picked a side in an ongoing debate in the scientific community," thereby in inappropriately heightening the standard of evaluation for a 90-day petition. Because of that, the court agreed with the Service that remand is the appropriate remedy as opposed to to directing the Service to begin a 12-month review.
Summary: This is an unconstitutionality claim against Articles 1º, 2º and 3º of Ley 1638, 2013 that prohibit the use of native and exotic wild animals in circuses. Plaintiffs argued that these Articles violated numerous provisions of the Constitution, including the right to work, right to choose a profession, rights to culture and recreation, and a violation to the freedom private initiative of the owners of the circuses. In decision C-283, the court held that Congress has the power to prohibit certain cultural manifestations that involve animal cruelty. The Court stated that “culture needs to be permanently reevaluated so it can adapt to human evolution, to guarantee of rights and the fulfillment of duties. Especially when the purpose is to eliminate the traces of a marginalized society that has excluded certain individuals and collectives.” The court also stated that the duty to protect animals is not absolute, as its application can be limited by values, principles and constitutional norms in specific cases that are contradictory to the principales. The judge must analyze each case under a reasonableness test, in a way that cultural manifestations can work harmoniously with the rights, principles, and duties established in the legal system. The Court held Article 1 of Ley 1638, 2013 constitutional, and refrains from deciding on the constitutionality of Articles 2 and 3, for lack of evidence to render a decision.
Summary: The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary created for the purpose of protection of fundamental rights) acting as the legal guardian of her husband, who had spastic quadriplegia and mixed aphasia as a result of a severe cranioencephalic trauma, against Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas ‘CORPOCALDAS’. The Plaintiff argued that Corpocaldas had violated the rights to health and dignified life of her husband when the Defendant confiscated a parrot that was part of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation treatment. The Plaintiff sought immediate restitution of the parrot by the Defendant. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court to deny the Plaintiff’s petition. The court determined that the confiscation of the parrot by Corpocaldas was reasonable and according to the law, therefore there was not a violation of the rights of the Plaintiff. The court stated that as wild animals belong to the nation and they can only be reduced to property when the are obtained through legal hunting or from legal breeders. In this particular case, the Plaintiff obtained the parrot as a present from her cousin, and she did not present evidence of title. The court concluded that the bird belonged to the nation, and therefore the environmental authority had acted in accordance to its duties. The court stated that even though there was a narrow relationship between the rights to health and life with the right to environment, the protection of the environment did not only aim to the protection of humans. The court indicated that the environment should be protected whether or not it offered a benefit to the human species. The rest of the beings that are part of the environment are dignified beings that are not at the absolute and unlimited disposition of the human beings. Humans are just another element of nature, and not a superior entity that has the environment at their disposition. Therefore, the use of natural resources should not cause damage or deterioration that could threaten diversity and environmental integrity, the court stated in its reasoning.
