Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WV - Leash - § 5A-4-4. Unlawful to kill or molest animals, birds or fowls upon grounds of capitol; | W. Va. Code, § 5A-4-4 | WV ST § 5A-4-4 | This West Virginia statute aims at protecting the state capitol grounds and governor's mansion from disturbance. In doing so, it makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly allow a dog owned by him or her to be upon the grounds of the capitol buildings or governor's mansion unless such dog is under control by leash. Any person who knowingly allows a dog owned by him to be upon the grounds of the capitol buildings or governor's mansion while not under control by leash shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars. Other interesting provisions are included in this law. | Statute |
| SC - Hunting - § 50-11-852. Unlawful to molest or kill birds of prey; bald eagles; penalties. | Code 1976 § 50-11-852 | SC ST § 50-11-852 | This statute prohibits the killing of any bird of prey, resulting in a misdemeanor conviction. If the bird is a bald eagle, the individual faces a maximum fine of up to $1,000 and one year in jail in addition to the revocation of hunting privileges for five years. | Statute |
| Hatahley v. United States | 351 U.S. 173, 76 S.Ct. 745 (1956) | 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956) |
In the case of Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 (1956), a group of Navajo Indians living in Utah sued the government under the Federal Torts Claim Act, to recover the confiscation and destruction of horses and burros that were kept as pets and uniquely valued to the owners. The federal agents confiscated these animals and then sold them to a glue factory. The petitioners vehemently argued that these horses had unique and sentimental value to them, and served as a means of income to yield crops. Although the government agents argued that they were authorized to engage in this taking pursuant to the Utah Abandoned Horse Slaughter Act, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court awarded the petitioners a judgment of $100,000 based on the fair market value, consequential damages for deprivation of use, and “mental pain and suffering” of the petitioners. The decision was reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to assess damages with sufficient particularity. |
Case |
| Animal Law Index Volume 4 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 4 (1998)
INTRODUCTIONTHE CONFLICT BETWEEN SPECIES IN AN EVER MORE CROWDED WORLD |
Policy | ||
| The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 | The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 | Owners have two years to ensure all equines born before 30th June 2009 are chipped. Some wild and semi-wild equids are exempt. Non-compliant owners risk being fined. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Egg regulation, Number 557 | (EC) Number 557/2007 |
In May 2007, the Commission passed an egg regulation, Number 557, building upon the prior one (Number 1028) and delineating detailed marketing standards for eggs. The Regulation sets out rules, applicable to virtually all hen eggs sold in the EU, for the quality and weight grading, packaging, marking, storage, transport and presentation for retail sale of eggs, to ensure that they are marketed on an evenhanded, competitive basis. Though the regulation’s focus is primarily on egg marketing rather than animal welfare, it includes certain provisions that bear upon animal welfare. For instance, the regulation sets out detailed requirements for hen living conditions that must be met before eggs can qualify as “free range,” including open-air runs of low hen density.
|
Statute | |
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6527. How to obtain license | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6527 | VA ST § 3.2-6527 | This Virginia statute describes the process under which an individual may obtain a dog or cat license. Generally, it states that any person may obtain a dog license or cat license if required by an ordinance by making oral or written application to the treasurer of the county or city in which such person resides, accompanied by the amount of license tax and current certificate of vaccination as required by this article. | Statute |
| OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians. | R.C. § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | OH ST § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| Conservation Force v. Salazar | 715 F.Supp.2d 99 (D.D.C., 2010) | 2010 WL 2244122 (D.D.C.) |
Plaintiffs to this suit — organizations and individuals that support sustainable hunting of the Canadian Wood Bison — alleged that the Secretary of the Department of Interior violated several provisions of the ESA in his treatment of that species. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Secretary failed to: (1) make a twelve-month finding as to the status of the Canadian Wood Bison upon petition and (2) process Plaintiffs’ applications to import bison hunting trophies. In granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the court found that Plaintiffs’ intent to sue letter did not specify to the Secretary that they intended to challenge his subsequent failure to issue a twelve-month finding. Since Plaintiffs gave the Secretary inadequate opportunity to review his actions and take corrective measures, the claim was dismissed. Plaintiffs — four individuals who each successfully hunted a Wood Bison in Canada — sought declaratory judgment against the Service under the ESA for failure to process their applications to import bison trophies. The court also held that the request for declaratory judgment was moot where Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they ever intended to again apply for import permits. |
Case |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case |