|MI - Trapping - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.||M.C.L.A. 324.42501 - 42507||MI ST 324.42501 - 42507||These sections describe the regulations for trapping for furs, hides and pelts. This includes the requirement for a fur dealer's license and for a monthly report of all pelts on hand.||Statute|
|GA - Endangered - Article 5. Protection of Endangered Wildlife||Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-130 to 133||GA ST §§ 27-3-130 to 133||
These statutes provide for the definition of "protected" species and outline the duties of the board responsible for enforcing Georgia's endangered species law. Included in the Board's duties are inventorying and designating listed species and promulgating regulations. Violation of these regulations results in a misdemeanor.
|Canada - Federal Cruelty to Animals||Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C46||This section of the criminal code is the national anti-cruelty law for Canada.||Statute|
|MI - Muskegon Heights - Breed - Pit Bull Ban||MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 14-1 - 14-9 (2006)||
In Muskegon Heights, Michigan, it is prohibited to own, keep, or harbor any dangerous animal, including pit bull, with exceptions for exhibition, veterinary treatment, security, etc, Pit bulls must be properly confined or kept on a leash and muzzle. the owner must post a "Beware of Dog" sign and keep liability insurance of $50,000. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor.
|Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service|| NSWSC 457||
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting.
|DE - Woodchuck - § 797. Woodchuck or groundhog not protected wildlife||7 Del.C. § 797||DE ST TI 7 § 797||This Delaware statute declares that the woodchuck or groundhog will not be considered protected wildlife.||Statute|
|Saulsbury v. Wilson||--- S.E.2d ----, 2019 WL 493695 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019)||This Georgia involves an interlocutory appeal arising from a dog bite lawsuit. In 2016, Plaintiff Saulsbury was walking her English Bulldog past Defendant Wilson's house when Wilson's pitbull dog escaped its crate in the open garage. A fight ensued between the dogs. Wilson then attempted to break up the fight and was allegedly bitten by Saulsbury's dog, suffering a broken arm in the process and necessitating a course of rabies shots. The Saulsburys then sued the Wilsons in magistrate court to recover hospital and veterinary expenses. Wilson counterclaimed for her injuries in excess $15,000, thus transferring the case to superior court. At this time, the Saulsburys moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals here reverses that denial. The court found that Wilson assumed the risk when she intervened in a dog fight with her bare hands. In particular, the court observed that assumption of risk serves as a complete defense to negligence. That finding was bolstered by the fact that Wilson had knowledge that her dog had previously bitten other persons and had admitted to breaking up previous dog fights with a stick. The court relied on previous case law showing that all animals, even domesticated animals, pose a risk as does the act of breaking up even human fights. The court was not persuaded by the fact that Saulsbury may have been in violation of various DeKalb County ordinances related to an owner's responsibility to control his or her animal. A plain reading of those ordinances does not impose a duty on the part of an owner to "dangerously insert herself into a dog fight." The court found the lower court erred in denying the Saulsbury's motion for summary judgment and reversed and remanded the case.||Case|
|KY - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources.||KRS § 150.425||KY ST § 150.425||This Kentucky law provides that, upon a resolution of the fiscal court that finds that beavers pose a threat to farmland, trees, or other property, the fiscal court may request a bounty on beaver. Each beaver tail presented to any conservation officer nets $10 (possibly offset by $1 for the cost of administering the bounty program).||Statute|
|CT - Assistance Animals - Connecticut Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||C. G. S. A. § 13b-119; § 46a-42; § 46a-44; § 46a-64; § 53-330a; § 22-345; § 22-364b; § 14-300; § 17a-22ee||CT ST § 13b-119; § 46a-42; § 46a-44; § 46a-64; § 53-330a; § 22-345; § 22-364b; § 14-300; § 17a-22ee||
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.
|Animal Law Index Volume 10||