|AR - Domestic Violence - Chapter 15. Domestic Abuse||
Upon a finding of domestic abuse, a court may "[d]irect the care, custody, or control of any pet. owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party residing in the household" in an order for protection filed by a petitioner. Arkansas also defines emotional abuse to include harming a spouse's pet in its Spousal Safety Plan Act; emotional abuse, if committed by a spouse against hir or her spouse, also constitutes spousal abuse.
|AR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws||
These Arkansas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions including licensing laws, rabies control, and mandatory sterilization laws. Also contained is the state's Wolf-Hybrid statutory section.
|AR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Laws||
This section contains the Arkansas anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly abandons any animal , subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, fails to supply an animal in his or her custody with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water, fails to provide an animal in his or her custody with adequate shelter, kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner, or carries an animal in or upon any motorized vehicle or boat in a cruel or inhumane manner. Aggravated cruelty to a cat, dog, or horse is a Class D felony if the offense involves the torture.
|AR - Breed - Wolf-Hybrid - § 20-19-406. Vaccinations--Rabies||
This Arkansas statute outlines the procedure for vaccination of wolf-hybrid dogs, including procedures for handling bites by these canines.
|AR - Assistance Animal - Arkansas Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||
The following statute comprises the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog law.
|Applbaum v. Golden Acres Farm and Ranch||
|Anzalone v. Kragness||
|ANSON v. DWIGHT||
|Animals in Film|
|Animals as More Than 'Mere Things,' but Still Property: A Call for Continuing Evolution of the Animal Welfare Paradigm||Abstract: Survival of the animal welfare paradigm (as contrasted with a rights-based paradigm creating legal standing for at least some animals) depends on keeping pace with appropriate societal evolution favoring stronger protections for animals. Although evolution of animal welfare protection will take many forms, this Article specifically addresses models for evolving conceptualizations of animals’ property status within the context of animal welfare. For example, in 2015 France amended its Civil Code to change its description of companion animals and some other animals from movable property to “living beings gifted with sensitivity,” while maintaining their status as property. This Article will evaluate various possible approaches courts and legislatures might adopt to highlight the distinctiveness of animals’ property status as compared to inanimate property. Although risks are inherent, finding thoughtful ways to improve or elaborate on some of our courts’ and legislatures’ animals-as-property characterizations may encourage more appropriate protections where needed under the welfare paradigm, and may help blunt arguments that animals are “mere things” under the welfare paradigm. Animals capable of pain or distress are significantly different than ordinary personal property, and more vigorously emphasizing their distinctiveness as a subset of personal property would further both animal welfare and human interests.|