Displaying 11 - 20 of 23
Titlesort descending Summary
Chile - Hunting - Ley 19473, 1996 This law regulates the hunting, capture, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife animals, with exception of those species whose preservation is regulated by the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Chile - Marine mammals - Ley 20293 The cetacean law prohibits the killing, hunting, capturing, harassing, keeping, possessing, transporting, disembarking, preparing, or carrying out any transformation process, as well as the commercialization or storage of any species of cetacean that inhabits or crosses the maritime areas of national sovereignty and jurisdiction in Chile.
Chile - Research animals - Ley No. 21.646 (2024)
Chile - Slaughter - Decreto 28, 2013 This "Decreto" or executive order contains the regulations for the protection of animals that are used for meat, leather, feathers, and other byproducts by imposing the use of rational methods to avoid unnecessary suffering during technical procedures and slaughter. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 29, and 30, 2013. Animals must be stunned by the use of adequate methods that minimize their suffering before slaughter, and the animal must remain insensible until death. Article 24 exempts ritual slaughter.
Chile - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control."
Chile - Sterilization - Decreto 2, 2015 This Decreto lays out the regulations for the reproductive control of pets. Its purpose is to control the population of companion animals through the sterilization of these species.
Chile - Transport, animals - Decreto 30
Chile - Wildlife - Decreto 531, 1967
Corte Suprema Rol N°50.969-22
D. Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar y otros con Ilustre Municipalidad de Viña del Mar The ‘Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar’ and the owners of ‘Coches Victoria’ filed a complaint or ‘acción de protección’ against Viña del Mar and its Mayor, arguing that municipal decree Nº 11.349, 2014 and the ordinance for the transportation of Passengers in Victoria carriages in Viña del Mar were arbitrary an illegal. The plaintiffs requested the modification of many clauses of the ordinance such as those related to the restriction of schedules and routes, the social evaluation of carriage owners, the requirement of specific technical characteristics for carriages, and the limitation on the number of carriages that a person could own. The Plaintiffs argued that the clauses affected the general interest of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs and their families such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination in the economy, the right to physical and emotional integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to property. The city argued that the statute of limitations had already expired, and that additionally, it had the authority to regulate transportation. Furthermore, the city stated that the ordinance was enacted with the purpose of improving passenger safety and the well-being of the horses. The court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its authority to regulate transportation and finding that the ordinance did not violate any of the constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the ordinance was upheld.