is there a law that protects me and my family from any animal other than a dog, like a wild animal?
the law makes a critical distinction between domesticated and wild animals. domesticated animals are those, such as dogs, that are subject to being trained and are often kept as pets. wild animals, on the other hand, are those that are in a state of nature. some animals, such as lions and bears, may be trained, but remain dangerous.â  the responsibility of an owner for the injuries caused by anâ animal under his or her control depends upon what type of animal it is. there are laws thatâ impose liability, regardless of fault, upon peopleâ who harbor animals known to be dangerous, especially if they are not a domesticated animal.
favorite animal? the act of defending humans from an animal that can attack them, like sharks, is similar to the behavior of mothers protecting their offspring. many disabled swimmers or divers claim that were held and transported to the surface with the aid of a dolphin, action used with other cetaceans. No, since they did not write the law for you. What you need to look for is a Grandfather Clause that lets those who had it legally, get to keep it legally.   

  

Edit: No, TD, it is so the police can see the driver. I cannot speak for MD law. However, The agreement, as you state it, requires a return if you cannot keep it. sounds like a new adoption, and a fee required for same, but not from you. 


They seem to be claiming that the $500 donation should not have been returned, and that you owe that money to them. As for attorney fees, those are usually not recoverable unless stated in a contract.


You need to contact a reputable, Animal Lawyer, or one that handles contract cases.


Michael Rotsten, Esq. the behaviour of most of the people was good towards the animals. i have alot of evacuee neighbors and i cant stand them.....dang leeches. haven't you noticed that hunting and fishing is something that transcends politics and religion and everything? even vp cheney enjoys hunting, and bagging an occassional lawyer. people from all walks of life enjoy hunting and fishing, republicans, democrats, mormons, catholics, baptists, you name it. when you think about all the wars that are fought over religion or politics and the number of people who are killed in the name of religion or politics i sometimes think we should have a religion of hunting where we simply hunt and enjoy life and let everybody else do the the same. nothing to fight over or kill each other over. You should consult an attorney experienced with guardianships, if there is already a guardianship in place.


If not, then the money is yours and it is yours to do with as you like. Without knowing a lot more about your situation, there isn't much that an attorney can advise to help you protect your assets. nature conservancy
ocean conservancy
world wildlife
defenders of wildlife
earth justice
environmental defense fund
national parks conservation association

check the zoos in your area too or any breeding programs for rescued or endangered animals.

there are a lot of them. look up environmental groups as a search. if you do it by your area you may find local groups you might be able to contact.

check out charitynavigator for a list as well as info on the different groups and their rating for what they supposedly do and how the money they get is used.
usually they have info on their sites and yes they ask you to join but you don't have to many offer email newsletters. 

it is great to work online sometimes and better when you can help realtime to make a difference. the jim crow laws were state and local laws in the united states enacted between 1876 and 1965. they mandated de jure segregation in all public facilities, with a "separate but equal" status for black americans and members of other non-white racial groups.

some examples of jim crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms and restaurants for whites and blacks. the u.s. military was also segregated. these jim crow laws were separate from the 1800-66 black codes, which had also restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of african americans. state-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court of the united states in 1954 in brown v. board of education. generally, the remaining jim crow laws were overruled by the civil rights act of 1964[1] and the voting rights act of 1965.

in addition to the problems that southerners encountered in learning free labor management after the end of slavery, black americans represented the confederacy's civil war defeat: "with white supremacy challenged throughout the south, many whites sought to protect their former status by threatening african americans who exercised their new rights."[8] white democrats used their power to segregate public spaces and facilities in law and reestablish dominance over blacks in the south.

one rationale for the systematic exclusion of black americans from southern public society was that it was for their own protection. an early 20th century scholar suggested that having allowed blacks in white schools would mean "constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion", which might lead to "a morbid race consciousness".[9] this perspective took anti-black sentiment for granted, because bigotry was widespread in the south.