Navigation

This Arkansas subchapter concerns the ownership and possession of large carnivores. Under the law, a large carnivore is defined as a bear, lion, or tiger. A person may possess a large carnivore only if he or she was in possession of the large carnivore on or before August 12, 2005 and the person applies for and is granted a permit for personal possession for each large carnivore not more than one hundred eighty (180) days after August 12, 2005. Except for these "grandfathered" possessors and other entities (zoos, USDA permittees, veterinary hospitals, etc.) it is illegal for anyone to own, possess, breed, or transfer ownership of a large carnivore. (See also Link to Wolf-Dog Hybrid Law (AR ST § 20-19-401 - 408)).

This law provides that it is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal shall be euthanized.

California statutes make mountain lions specially protected mammals.  These sections make it unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof.  Specific exceptions to these prohibitions include instances where a mountain lion is perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety or when it is perceived by to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species. 

This Act prohibits the sale or barter of dog or cat fur or hair, and any products made therefrom, and prohibits the sale or barter of dog or cat flesh, and any products made therefrom for human consumption.

This section comprises Iowa's Lost Property Act.

These Kentucky statutes comprise the state's Dog Laws, which were amended significantly in 2005.  Included are all vaccination, licensing, animal control provisions, and the relevant dog bite statutes.  Under Section 258.235, any person may kill or seize any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding any livestock, or wounding or killing poultry, or attacking human beings, whether or not such dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this chapter. There shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise for killing, injuring from an attempt to kill, or for seizing the dog.  That same section also comprises the state's new strict liability law for dog bites.  Under Sec. 235(4), any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.

The Tabby cat shall be the official cat of the Massachusetts commonwealth.

The calico cat is the Maryland state cat.

In Nevada, a knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other such as injuring or killing an animal, is included in their definition of Domestic Violence. A victim can then get a Protection Order and enjoin the adverse party from physically injuring, threatening to injure or taking possession of any animal that is owned or kept by the applicant or minor child, either directly or through an agent.

Dogs, domestic animals and birds are considered personal property in Nevada.

In 2006, Pennsylvania became the 32nd state to adopt a pet trust law.  The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.

This Rhode Island bill created the term "guardian" to mean a person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal and who is responsible for an animal's safety and well-being.  In adopting this term, Rhode Island became the first state to recognize that an individual is the guardian of a companion animal (not merely owner).

This Tennessee statute outlines the broad police power counties have with respect to dog and cats.  It provides that counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, may license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals.

Chapter 823 enumerates the standards by which animal shelters shall comply.  It sets forth confinement requirements, permissible forms of euthanasia, and personnel requirements. 

This federal statute prohibits commerce in dog or cat fur.  Specifically, the statute forbids import into, or export from, the United States of any dog or cat fur product; or the introduction into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product.  The exception under the act is for the importation, exportation, or transportation, for noncommercial purposes, of a personal pet that is deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy.

This Virginia statute provides that any city, county or town which supports an animal shelter may by ordinance provide that no person who acquires an animal from a shelter shall be able to sell such animal within a period of six months from the time the animal is acquired from the shelter. Violation of such an ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor.

This Virginia statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to own a dog four months old or older in the state unless such dog is licensed.  With regard to cats, the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, prohibit any person from owning a cat four months or older within such locality unless such cat is licensed.

This Wisconsin statute provides that the board of commissioners in a county with a population of 500,000 or more may enact an ordinance requiring licenses for cats.

This controversial measure would have allowed hunters to hunt any cat that was found free roaming, meaning it did not exhibit a collar or other signs of domestic ownership.  At the Monday, April 11, 2005 meeting of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, those in favor of the feral cat hunting proposal approved the measure by a vote of 6,830 to 5,201.  This approval was then forwarded to the state Natural Resources Board for consideration.  Proponents of the measure suggest feral cats expose domestic animals to disease and endanger native songbirds.  Opponents of the measure counter that such a law would be cruel and archaic, putting domestic cats who have escaped from their homes at risk of death.  On May 25, 2005 at the Natural Resources Board regular spring meeting, a representative of the Congress indicated that the Executive Committee has declined to pursue the issue any further.  (See the official meeting minutes at page 5 at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/minutes/M05/0505%20minutes.pdf).  Feral cat advocates claimed a public relations victory, as the measure gained national and even international criticism.  (See Alley Cat Allies at http://www.alleycat.org/wi.html).  (For more on the procedural history of this measure, see the "Long Summary" under the "Statute Details" above).