Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA

In August 2012, the Animal Legal & Historical Center celebrated its 10th anniversary. Over the years, with the help of many individuals, we've added thousands of files that are accessed across the globe. We believe this site is the largest legal website devoted to animal issues in the world. Unsurprisingly, the website's most sought after materials relate to the many issues that dogs provide our society.

Our peak usage day (Monday) has well over 6,000 unique visitors. Yet unlike a physical library, we are unable to have casual conversations with our users. So to gain feedback, please share your comments at animallaw@law.msu.edu. Tell us about your use of the site. What could we add to the site? How could the site be easier to use? Any and all thoughts and comments are welcome. Since Michigan State University College of Law is very generous with its financial support of this site, your feedback helps ensure this site's growth and presence for the next ten years. Thank you!

Editorial staff

Professor David Favre
Editor-in-Chief

Rebecca Wisch
Associate Editor

Charlotte Walden 
Assistant Editor

John Ensminger
Contributing Editor

Jeane Marty
Technical Editor

Become a Fan on Facebook!

New for January to April 2014

News

Notice

Because the database software which hosts all our materials is no longer going to be supported by its owner, we will not be able to add new materials to this site while we transition to a new system. The existing site will remain available on the web as usual. This may take a few months as we reorganize. Thank you for your patience.

Federal legislators introduce four new amendments to the Endangered Species Act. H.R. 4315, 4316, 4317, and 4318 aim to create better transparency in the process of listing and studying endangered species. HR 4318 also limits the amount that can be charged in attorney fees for citizen suits. However, critics contend the bills focus more on listing new species rather than protecting habitat and give too much power to states in management.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that police can enter homes without a warrant to render emergency aid to animals. Massachusetts joins 13 other states that allow emergency aid to animals as an exception to the warrant requirement according to the Boston Herald. In 2013, Oregon's Court of Appeals ruled that that the emergency aid exception extends to nonhuman animals when law enforcement officers have an objectively reasonable belief that the search or seizure is necessary to render immediate aid or assistance to animals which are imminently threatened.

Australia will resume live exports of sheep and cattle to Egypt after an industry-wide hiatus. Live exports were stopped amid animal welfare concerns at Egyptian abattoirs. Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce stated that says Australia and Egypt have agreed to implement the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). Live export is the transport of live farm animals to other countries for slaughter, some of which have few animal welfare regulations. Learn more at our Topic Area.

On March 14th, South Dakota Governor Daugaard signed SB 46 into law. This now gives South Dakota a felony penalty under the state's animal cruelty law. Previously, SD was the only state left without a felony cruelty provision. Idaho enacted a felony provision in 2012 and North Dakota enacted one in 2013. Read the enrolled bill at http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2014/Bills/SB46ENR.pdf. What do your state anti-cruelty laws say? Find out by visiting our Map of State Cruelty Laws.

USDA-APHIS announces an on-line complaint form for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations. The AWA is a federal is a federal law that covers animals used in research, exhibition, transportation, and animals sold by dealers. The act establishes minimum standards of care for animals covered under the act. It also requires these animal dealers or exhibitors to be licensed and submit to periodic inspections by the USDA's Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services (APHIS). Some examples of animal owners that would fall under the AWA include large scale commercial dog breeders that sell to pet stores or other dog brokers, owners of traveling exotic animal exhibitions, and university animal research facilities. To view the on-line form, see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare. See our AWA Topic Area to learn more about the Act.

New in 2013! Want to know what laws were amended or added in 2012? Check out our new Table of 2012-2013 State Amendments. Looking for cases from last year? You can always find recent court cases by viewing our Archives page.

Check out the new searchable Bills/Legislation. Search for pending bills by State or by Topic in the left navigation.

Also check out the searchable Local Ordinances. Search for local codes by State or by Topic in the left navigation. Many codes are available under "Breed Specific Legislation." 

New Article! An International Treaty for Animal Welfare, by Professor David Favre, 18 Animal Law 237 (2012).

New Article! Facility Dog Accompanies Adult Witness during Testimony, John Ensminger, Animal Legal & Historical Center (2012).

Back to menu

Cases

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 6571845 (D.D.C. 2013). PETA brought a suit against the USDA for failing to enforce the AWA against bird abusers and for not promulgating regulations specific to the mistreatment of avians. In a motion to dismiss, the USDA argued (1) that PETA lacked standing and (2), even if PETA had standing, the organization had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While the district court found PETA had standing, it granted the USDA’s motion to dismiss because the AWA's enforcement provision strongly suggested that its implementation was committed to agency discretion by law and because section 2143 of the AWA did not require the USDA to issue avian-specific animal-welfare standards.
 
People v. Lohnes, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2013 WL 6670466 (N.Y. App. Div., 2013). After breaking into a barn and stabbing a horse to death, the defendant plead guilty to charges of aggravated cruelty to animals; burglary in the third degree; criminal mischief in the second degree; and overdriving, torturing and injuring animals. On appeal, the court found a horse could be considered a companion animal within New York's aggravated cruelty statute if the horse was not a farm animal raised for commercial or subsistence purposes and the horse was normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or the person who cared for it. The appeals court also vacated and remitted the sentence imposed on the aggravated cruelty charge because the defendant was entitled to know that the prison term was not the only consequence of entering a plea.

Travis v. Murray, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2013 WL 6246374 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013). A short, childless marriage ended in a custody battle over a dachshund after one spouse allegedly took the dog while the other spouse was away on a business trip. After reviewing the progression of the law in New York and in other states, the court decided to apply a “best for all concerned” standard and to give the parties a full, one-day hearing. The plaintiff’s motion to order the defendant to return the couple's dog and to be awarded “sole residential custody” of the dog was therefore granted.

Dog Case of the Month

Dog attacking and killing cat while held on leash not "objectively likely" result to sustain Florida felony animal cruelty conviction. Hamilton v. State, --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 6670841 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.). An 82-year-old defendant was convicted of a third-degree felony animal cruelty violation and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Defendant had his dog on leash and approached too close to a cat, whereupon the leashed dog began to attack the cat. The appellate court found that defendant's conduct did not rise to a criminal level, as it was "objectively unlikely" that a leashed dog walking with his owner would inflict such damage. The harm was not "obviously reasonably related" to defendant's act when construed under the view of lenity and section 828.12. Further, while the issue of sentencing was rendered moot by the reversal, the court found the consideration of a petition with approximately 3,000 signatures demanding the maximum sentence, "an affront to the very notion of due process of law . . ."
 

Back to menu

Articles

The welfare of greyhounds in Australian racing: has the industry run its course? Alexandra McEwan and Krishna Skandakumar, Australian Animal Protection Law Journal, Dec. 2011 (15 July 2013 version).

Policies to Promote Socialization and Welfare in Dog Breeding, Amy Morris, Project Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (2013) [reprinted with permission].

"No Animals Were Harmed . . .”: Protecting Chimpanzees From Cruelty Behind The Curtain, Lorraine L. Fischer, 27 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 405 (2005).

Protecting Equine Rescue From Being Put Out To Pasture: Whether Ranches Dedicated To Abused, Abandoned, And Aging Horses May Qualify For "Agricultural" Classifications Under Florida's Greenbelt Law, Michael T. Olexa, Katherine Smallwooda, and Joshua A. Cossey, 16 Drake J. Agric. L. 69 (2011).

Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute And Why The WTO Should Accept Trade Restrictions Justified By Nonintsrumental Moral Values, Robert Howse and Joanna Langille, 37 Yale J. Int'l L. 367 (2012).

The Paradox of Animal Hoarding and The Limits of Canadian Criminal Law, Kathryn M. Campbell, Animal Legal & Historical Center (2012).

Hear Me Roar: Should Universities Use Live Animals As Mascots? Jessica Baranko, 21 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 599 (2011).

 

Back to menu

International Materials:

Back to menu

Archives from Prior Months

News Archives

Case Archives

 

Highlights

Frequently Asked Questions

Look here for Emotional Support Animals and other common dog/animal law questions.

 

Maps and Comparative Tables of Laws

You can find collections of state laws by topic through maps or comparative tables of laws. The maps link to the text of the laws, while the tables present the information in organized columns. See the Map Page for available maps of state laws or select a topic below:
 

 See the Comparative Tables Page for comparative tables of state laws or select a topic below:

 

Topic Areas (2012 - 2013)


These topics were added in 2012 - 2013. To select from over 60 animal law topics, see the "Select by Topic" in the left navigation.

Podcast

Pod cast of common issues

Amazing but True Animal Laws

May is here and spring is in full swing. With spring, comes nesting season for many species of birds. While all states have laws protecting birds, some state laws protect only certain birds or birds nesting in unusual places. For example, California law states that anyone who kills, wounds, or traps any bird, or destroys any bird's nest (other than swallows' nests) within any public cemetery is guilty of misdemeanor. Oklahoma has a similar law that prohibits trapping or destroying birds or their nests in public cemeteries. Violation, however, is only a $5.00 fine. Finally, while Ohio law protects all nongame birds, some are excluded. In fact, "European starlings, English sparrows, and common pigeons, other than homing pigeons, may be killed at any time and their nests or eggs may be destroyed at any time." 

For more information on these interesting laws, be sure to check back monthly.