Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Hetzel | 385 F.Supp. 1311 (D. Mo. 1974) |
Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve. He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function. The court reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent. The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent. For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| State v. Fockler | 480 P.3d 960 (Or.App., 2021) | 308 Or.App. 765 (Or.App., 2021) | Defendant appeals his conviction of animal abuse in the second degree (ORS 167.315). Neighbors witnessed him throwing his dog to the ground and called police. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he previously threw a cat to the ground 13-years prior to the current incident and submission of this evidence created unfair prejudice. The prosecution contended that this evidence was admitted for a noncharacter/nonpropsensity purpose under OEC 404(3) to establish defendant's subjective awareness of the risk of throwing pets the ground. On appeal, this court noted that animal abuse in the second degree requires the state to prove that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” At trial, the state introduced evidence that, in 2003, defendant threw a cat of his apartment window causing injury to the cat because it had defecated on the apartment floor. Defendant argued that there was an insufficient connection between the cat throwing incident and the current charge, and that the probative value of the evidence was at "best minimalistic." However, this court found that the cat throwing evidence was offered for a nonpropensity purpose of knowledge where it was reasonable to infer that defendant had a subjective awareness of the risks in throwing a pet to the ground. Therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the evidence was relevant for the noncharacter purpose of establishing knowledge under OEC 404(3). The appellate court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence after hearing both sides and weighing the appropriate factors. Affirmed. | Case | |
| OR - Initiatives - Oregon Initiative 97 (Bans Body-Gripping Animal Traps) | Initiative 97 (2000) (failed) | This 2000 Oregon initiative would have eliminated the use of steel-jawed, leghold or other body-gripping traps and poisons. It was defeated by voters, 58.5% to 41.2%. | Statute | ||
| Web site support - Styles | Basic page | ||||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (Brazilian Animal Rights Review) |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (Brazilian Animal Rights Review)Each vol. is available as full text .pdfOnly in Original Portugese
|
Policy | |||
| State v. Bonilla | 28 A.3d 1005 (Conn.App.,2011) | 131 Conn.App. 388 (2011) |
The issue before the court in this case is whether defendant's felony conviction for being a spectator at a cockfight (contrary to General Statutes § 53–247(c)) violates defendant's constitutional rights to assemble and associate, and his equal protection rights. In rejecting defendant's arguments, the court noted first that the right to assemble does not encompass the right to assemble for an unlawful purpose. Further, the right to associate was not infringed because "[a]ttending a cockfight as a spectator is neither a form of 'intimate association' nor a form of 'expressive association' as recognized by our courts or the United States Supreme Court . . ." As to defendant's claim of violation of equal protection, the court found that the aim of § 53–247(c)(4), criminalizing being a spectator at a cockfighting event, is rationally related to the legislative goal of preventing such fights from being staged. |
Case | |
| US - Endangered Species - 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Mariana Fruit Bat (Pteropus mariannus m | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH55 |
This final rule downgrades the Mariana fruit bat from endangered to threatened throughout its range in the Mariana archipelago, which is subject to US jurisdiction. The reason for the down grade is the FWS initially made a mistake in the taxonomy of the Mariana fruit bat. When the FWS listed the bat as endangered on Guam in 1984, it believed that the bat was a species only endemic to Guam. Since that time, the FWS has discovered that the bat is endemic to the entire Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Territory of Guam, thus there is actually a larger number of bats with a wider distribution. Yet, threats to the Mariana fruit bat still remain, so its listing as threatened is still warranted. Additionally, it is more convenient for the FWS to update the listing of the Mariana fruit bat to threatened in the entire Mariana archipelago, than to keep the species in the Guam as endangered and hold the remainder of the archipelago as threatened. |
Administrative | ||
| Rabies Vaccination and Exemption Laws for Dogs | This map describes state rabies vaccination laws with those states that allow owners to seek an exemption (opt-out) from vaccination requirements. To date (2023), only 16 states have laws or regulations that allow owners to seek a medical exemption from having their dogs vaccinated for rabies. One state (Hawaii) has no laws or regulations that require vaccination on a statewide basis. Nine states only require rabies vaccinations for IMPORTED animals above a certain age (usually 3 months old). The remaining majority (25 states) require vaccination of dogs against the rabies virus by a certain age, with booster shots at certain intervals (Georgia REQUIRES counties to implement laws and also requires imported dogs to be vaccinated: https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/ga-rabies-40-13-2-19-pets). THIS MAP DOES NOT EXAMINE RABIES LAWS AT THE LOCAL (CITY OR COUNTY) LEVEL. MOST CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL OR SEPARATE RABIES VACCINATION REQUIREMENT. Readers should search their municipal codes or contact their city or county clerk's office to learn about local rabies laws. | State map | |||
| OK - Commercial Breeder Act Regulations - Chapter 55. Commercial Pet Breeders | OK ADC 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-9-1 | Okla. Admin. Code 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-9-1 | Pursuant to the authority granted in the Oklahoma Commercial Breeders Act, these Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry regulations out line the licensing procedures, the standards of care, the transportation, and the record keeping provisions Oklahoma commercial breeders must follow. | Administrative | |
| WA - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's RCWA 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222; 224; 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 70.84.010 - 900 | WA ST 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222, 224, 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 0.84.010 - 900 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |