Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT - Fur - Chapter 173. Domestic Fur-Bearing Animals | 6 V.S.A. § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | VT ST T. 6 § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | Note: §§3071 to 3073. Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13, eff. June 17, 2015. Under these Vermont statutes, the owner of domestic fur-bearing animals enjoy the same property rights as any other domestic animal. No one may enter the enclosure of, or knowingly and wilfully kill, trap, or injure a fur-bearing animal without permission from the owner. A violation may result in a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment up to six months. | Statute | |||||||
| CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES | 207 Animal Protection Law |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only. |
Statute | ||||||||
| SD - Marion - Breed - 9.0312 Vicious or Diseased Animals. | MARION, S.D., CITY ORDINANCES § 9.0312 (2002) |
In Marion, South Dakota, it is unlawful to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control any vicious animal, which includes Pit Bulls, Doberman Pincers, and Rottweilers. Police are authorized to impound any vicious dog or kill it without impounding it. A violation is a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | ||||||||
| Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Herbert | 549 U.S. 1245 (2007) | 450 F.3d 1082 (S.Ct. 2007) |
Motion of Western Wildlife Conservancy, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 10 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| TN - Hunting, Internet - Part 5. Computer-Assisted Hunting from Remote Locations | T. C. A. § 70-4-501 - 504 | TN ST § 70-4-501 - 504 | This set of Tennessee laws prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting or providing or operating facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting if the wildlife being hunted is located in this state. Computer-assisted remote hunting is defined as "the use of a computer or any other device, equipment or software, to control remotely the aiming and discharge of a rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow and arrow, cross-bow or any other implement to hunt wildlife." | Statute | |||||||
| Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 2807 - 2816 (1902) | The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society. | Statute | ||||||||
| US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management | 2003 WL 22295159 | FR Doc. 03-25500 |
Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts. In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant management. In March 2003, a proposed rule was published to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative D. In August 2003, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30- day comment period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative D (establishment of a public resource depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order). It also provides responses to comments we received during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here. |
Administrative | |||||||
| City of Pierre v. Blackwell | 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001) | 2001 SD 127 |
In this South Dakota case, the owner of a dog declared by an animal control officer to be "dangerous" pursuant to Pierre City Ordinance § 10-3-111 challenged the conviction on the basis that the ordinances themselves were unconstitutional and that his constitutional right to procedural due process has been violated. The court held that the ordinances themselves were constitutional, noting the broad authority municipalities have to regulate pet ownership as a legitimate exercise of police power. The court reversed and remanded for determination on the factual issue of the dog's dangerousness. Specifically, if the City opts for a civil hearing, absent exigent circumstances, the owner of a dog is entitled to a due process hearing on the issue of dangerousness. |
Case | |||||||
| OK - Confinement - § 5-602. Confinement of wildlife to premises | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-602 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-602 | This Oklahoma statute provides that all furbearers, game mammals, game birds, game fish, and minnows are to be confined to the lands or waters described in the application. | Statute |