Results

Displaying 6261 - 6270 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
CO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws C. R. S. A. § 35-43-126; § 13-21-124; § 24-80-910.5; § 25-4-601 to 615; § 30-15-101 to 105; § 33-3-106; § 33-4-101.3; § 33-6-128; § 35-42.5-101; § 35-50-112 CO ST § 35-43-126; § 13-21-124; § 24-80-910.5; § 25-4-601 to 615; § 30-15-101 to 105; § 33-3-106; § 33-4-101.3; § 33-6-128; § 35-42.5-101; § 35-50-112 These Colorado statutes represent the state's dog laws. There are provisions regarding civil actions against dog owners for dog bites, rabies control, animal control and licensing, and pertinent wildlife regulations, such as a general ban on harassing wildlife and destroying dens or nests. However, there is an exception making it permissible to take wildlife when it is causing excessive damage to property. Statute
Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 925 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1991)

USDA had suspended a kennel owner’s license for 90 days and imposed a fine on the owner for violating AWA regulations.   These violations included delivering dogs for transportation in commerce, that were under eight weeks old, failing to hold dogs for at least five days after acquiring them, and refusing APHIS inspections.   Owner claimed that such sanctions were excessive.   However, the court found that there was willful violation of the AWA, since inspections were refused.   Also, ignorance is not considered a defense, and although the owners claimed they did not know the age of the eight-week old puppies, they could have found out.   Thus, the sanction was appropriate.

Case
Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 3

Vol. 5 Núm. 3 (2014)

 

Tabla de contenidos

 

Editorial

 

Tradición y cultura crítica. A propósito del Toro de la Vega

 Policy
WV - Exotic Pets - Article 34. Dangerous Wild Animals Act W. Va. Code, § 19-34-1 to 9 WV ST § 19-34-1 to 9 The State of West Virginia found the possession of dangerous wild animals to present a serious public health and safety concern. Because of this, the state prohibits a person from possessing a dangerous wild animal unless the animal was owned prior to June 1, 2015 and the owner obtained a permit. Under this statute, a “Dangerous wild animal” means a mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or aquatic animal, including a hybrid that is dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment due to its inherent nature and capability to do significant harm. Statute
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board 891 F.Supp.2d 1212 (D.Kan. 2012) 2012 WL 3834740 (D.Kan. 2012)

Upon being informed by the Kansas State Fair Board (KSFB) that it must shield a video depicting graphic images of animals being slaughtered, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sought a preliminary injunction in order to show the video at the Kansas State Fair. PETA argued the shield was unconstitutional. The KSFB sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, that PETA lacked Article Three Standing, and that the defendant was not a section 1983 person. Both motions were denied by the district court.

Case
GA - Horse Meat - Article 4. Advertisement and Sale of Meat Generally. Ga. Code Ann., § 26-2-150 to 161 GA ST § 26-2-150 to 161 As stated in the legislative intent, the General Assembly declares that purchasers and consumers have a right to expect and demand honesty and fair practices in the sale of meat for human consumption. It is the purpose of this Code to ensure that honest, fair, and ethical practices are followed in the advertising and sale of meat for human consumption. With regard to horsemeat, the Code prohibits the slaughter a horse in this state for the purpose of selling or offering for sale for human consumption or for other than human consumption the horse meat derived from such slaughtered animal unless certain conditions are met. Further, no horse meat shall be sold or offered for sale in this state for human consumption unless at the place of sale there shall be posted in a conspicuous location a sign bearing the words "HORSE MEAT FOR SALE." Statute
CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. Taking and Possessing in General West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2000 - 2024 CA FISH & G § 2000 - 2024 These sections make it unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided in this code. Some of the restrictions in the code refer to taking after season, offering a prize or inducement to take game, setting a bounty for an animal, using sniper scopes, artificial lights, or trap guns. Section 2009 also makes it a crime willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, or fishing. Statute
UT - Domestic Violence - § 78B-7-105. Forms for petitions, civil protective orders, and civil stalking injunctions U.C.A. 1953 § 78B-7-105 UT ST § 78B-7-105 In 2022, Utah amended its law related to civil protection orders to include household animals. The amendments require that forms for a civil protective order must include "a space to indicate whether an order under Subsection 78B-7-603(2)(k) or (l) regarding a household animal is requested" under subsection (2)(c)(iv). Statute
Colombia - Research animals - LEY 2047, 2021 LEY 2047, 2021 This law prohibits the experimentation, import, manufacture, and commercialization of cosmetic products tested on animals in the entire Colombian territory. Statute
IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER 52 Agric. Dec. 155 (1993) 1993 WL 151162 (U.S.D.A.)

Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute.

Case

Pages