|MT - Hunting - Chapter 3. Restrictions and Regulations||MCA 87-6-215||MT ST 87-6-215 (formerly MT ST 87-3-142)||This law represents Montana's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another, which includes disturbing a wild animal by engaging in actions or the placement of objects/substances to prevent its taking. This section does not prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment.||Statute|
|OH - Nongame - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Special Hunting Area; Nongame Birds; Scientific Permits.||R.C. § 1533.06 - 1533.09||OH ST § 1533.06 - 1533.09||This Ohio statute prohibits the injuring, killing, pursuing, possessing, or exposing to commerce of all nongame birds. The statute further prohibits the killing or possession at any time of bald or golden eagles, except for the educational or zoological possession by government affiliated agencies. Notably, each possession or taking of a bird or bird part constitutes a separate offense.||Statute|
|WI - Juneau - Breed - 6.04.090 Pit bulls and other dangerous animals.||JUNEAU, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.04.090 (1998)||
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Juneau, Wisconsin, with an exception for pit bulls registered on the day the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of $50,000 liability insurance for personal injury caused by a pit bull.
|Settle v. Commonwealth||55 Va.App. 212, 685 S.E.2d 182 (Va.,2009)||2009 WL 4030930 (Va.App.)||
The defendant-appellant, Charles E. Settle, Jr., was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by owner of companion animals and one count of dog at large under a county ordinance, after Fauquier County Sherriff's officers were dispatched to his home on multiple occasions over the course of one calendar year in response to animal noise and health and safety complaints from his neighbors. Consequently, all of the affected dogs were seized from Settle and relocated to local animal shelters. The trial court also declared three of the animals to be dangerous dogs pursuant to another county ordinance. The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that: (1) because the forfeiture of dogs was a civil matter the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was not the proper forum to decide the case; (2) that Settle failed to join the County as an indispensible party in the notice of appeal from conviction for the county ordinance violation; and (3) that the evidence was sufficient to identify Settle as the owner of the neglected companion animals.
|MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016)||Question 3||Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.||Statute|
|CA - Wild Animal - Chapter 2. Importation, Transportation, and Sheltering of Restricted Live Wild Animals.||West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2116 - 2203||CA FISH & G § 2116 - 2203||
The California Legislature adopted this act based on a findings that wild animals are captured for importation and resold in California and that some populations of wild animals are being depleted, that many animals die in captivity or transit, and that some keepers of wild animals lack sufficient knowledge or facilities for the proper care of wild animals. It was the intention of the Legislature to regulate the importation, transportation, and possession of wild animals to protect the native wildlife and agricultural interests against damage from the existence at large of certain wild animals, and to protect the public health and safety in this state. The act defines "wild animal" and classifies them by species. Among other things, the act also includes inspection and permit provisions that govern the treatment of wild animals and the actions that may be taken where they are concerned.
|AU - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act (ACT Primary Act)||Animal Welfare Act 1992||The Australian Capital Territory enacted this Act 'for the promotion of animal welfare and for related purposes'. The Act is enforced by the RSPCA ACT and generally covers domestic animals.||Statute|
|MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.||M.C.L.A. 324.40112||MI ST 324.40112||This law makes it a crime to interfere or obstruct someone in the lawful taking of animals.||Statute|
|AL - Irondale - Breed - Sec. 3-90 - Pit Bulls||IRONDALE, AL., CODE OF ORDINANCES, § 3-90, 3-91||
In Irondale, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. However, pit bull dogs registered on the date of publication may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements. These requirements include proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of “Beware of Dog” signs, the taking of identification photographs, and the maintenance of liability insurance ($50,000). Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the dog, a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The city also bans Presa Canario dogs.
|OK - Police and Dogs - § 36.1. Police dog handlers--Civil liability||22 Okl.St.Ann. § 36.1||OK ST T. 22 § 36.1||This Oklahoma statute deals with the civil liability of police dog handlers. Under the statute, a police dog handler who uses a dog in the line of duty in accordance with the policies and standards established by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer, will not be civilly liable for any damages arising from the use of the dog. The police dog handler may only be liable for exceptions listed in the Governmental Tort Claims Act.||Statute|