Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia - Slaughter - Decreto 1500, 2007 | Decreto 1500 de 2007 | This decreto establishes the technical rules that frame the system of inspections, supervision and controls over meat processed for human consumption. These health requirements must be met at every step of the chain, from primary production to marketplaces. Article 31, lays out the requirements for the antemortem and postmortem inspection of animals in slaughterhouses. Numeral 3 of this article establishes that slaughter methods must be humane. According to this article, animals must be slaughtered through non-cruel methods. Animals have to be appropriately stunned before being slaughtered. Slaughter must be done following correct techniques, avoiding unnecessary risks for the operator and suffering of the animal. The methods utilized must be authorized by the National Institute for Drug and Food Supervision (INVIMA). This article establishes ritual religions as the only exception to humane slaughter. This process must be supervised and approved by the Invima. | Statute | ||
| CA - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | West's Ann.Cal.Food & Agric.Code § 30501 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3508; 3960 - 3961; West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 38792; West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 25803; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3340 - 3342.5 | These statutes represent California's dog laws. Included are provisions on county control of dogs, licensing, killing and seizure of dogs, and laws regarding dangerous or vicious dogs. | Statute | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Transportation of Animals on Foreign Air Carriers | 2004 WL 724205 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 04-7738 |
There has been a regulation update where a decision has been made to regulate the transportation of animals in commerce to all foreign air carriers, to or from any point within the United States. If an animal is protected by the AWA, it will continue to be protected when being transported within or from the United States. This update essentially increases the level of protection that animals protected under the AWA will receive. |
Administrative | |
| Finland - Animal Welfare Act | (247/1996, amendments up to 1430/2006 included) | The objective of the Finnish Animal Welfare Act is to protect animals from distress, pain and suffering in the best possible way. Another objective is to promote the welfare and good treatment of animals. In meeting these objectives, the Act prohibits inflicting undue pain and distress on animals; what is considered undue pain and distress is discussed by decree. The act also contains special provisions concerning hunting, keeping wild animals in zoos, fishing, veterinary medication, animal breeding, artificial propagation of animals, animal testing on vertebrates, animal transportation, gene technology and nature conservation. | Statute | ||
| AU - Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT) | Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 |
The Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (Pest Act) creates a system to identify and control potential pest plants and animals in the ACT. It provides a strategic framework for pest management. The objects of the Pest Act are to protect the Australian Capital Territories land and aquatic resources from threats posed by pest plants and animals by identifying, declaring and then managing pest plants and animals. |
Statute | ||
| Hargrove v. State | 253 Ga. 450 (1984) | 253 Ga. 450 (1984) |
Defendants were convicted by the Mitchell Superior Court, Robert Culpepper, Jr., Senior Judge, of dogfighting and gambling and two of the defendants were convicted of commercial gambling, and they appealed. The Supreme Court, Clarke, J., held that: (1) the statute prohibiting dogfighting is not unconstitutionally vague, and does not violate equal protection; (2) penalty provided for violating the dogfighting statute does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment; (3) evidence was sufficient to support convictions; (4) dogfighting is not as a matter of law a lesser included offense of commercial gambling; and (5) dogfighting was not as a matter of fact a lesser included offense of commercial gambling.
|
Case | |
| US - Lacey Act - Lacey Act Implementation Plan; Definitions for Exempt and Regulated Articles | FR Doc. 2013-16463 |
In response to recent amendments to the Lacey Act, we are establishing definitions for the terms “common cultivar” and “common food crop” and several related terms. The amendments to the Act expanded its protections to a broader range of plant species, extended its reach to encompass products, including timber, that derive from illegally harvested plants, and require that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. Common cultivars and common food crops are among the categorical exclusions to the provisions of the Act. The Act does not define the terms “common cultivar” and “common food crop” but instead gives authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior to define these terms by regulation. Our definitions specify which plants and plant products will be excluded from the provisions of the Act, including the declaration requirement. |
Administrative | ||
| Navigating the Jungle |
|
Policy | |||
| AK - Bite - § 03.55.030. Dogs that annoy or bite animals or birds | AS § 03.55.030 | AK ST § 03.55.030 | This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it. | Statute | |
| MD - Veterinarian Issues - Reporting Animal Cruelty | MD ADC 15.14.15.01 to MD ADC 15.14.15.9999 | COMAR 15.14.15.01 to COMAR 15.14.15.9999 | These regulations state that if a veterinarian suspects animal cruelty, the veterinarian should do the following: (1) Note the condition of the animal upon presentation in the animal's treatment record; (2) Note the basis for suspecting cruelty in the animal's treatment record; and (3) Promptly report the suspected instance of cruelty, including animal fighting, to the appropriate local law enforcement or county animal control agency. A veterinarian who reports, in good faith, a suspected incident of animal cruelty is immune from any civil liability that results from this report. | Administrative |
