Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for the Topeka Shiner | 2005 WL 676950 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AI20 |
This rule is a correction to a previous final rule designating critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner ( Notropis Topeka ), published in the Federal Register on July, 24, 2004 (69 FR 44736). In the previous final rule, the FWS designated as critical habitat 1,356 kilometers of stream in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. They excluded from designation all previously proposed critical habitat in Kansas, Missouri, and South Dakota, and excluded the Fort Riley Military Installation in Kansas from critical habitat designation . |
Administrative | |
| Chile - Sterilization - Decreto 2, 2015 | Decreto 2, 2015 | This Decreto lays out the regulations for the reproductive control of pets. Its purpose is to control the population of companion animals through the sterilization of these species. | Statute | ||
| TX - Exotic pets - Subchapter A. Regulation of Keeping of Wild Animals | V. T. C. A., Local Government Code § 240.001 - 004 | TX LOCAL GOVT § 240.001 - 004 | In this subchapter, wild animal is defined as a nondomestic animal that the commissioners court of a county determines is dangerous and is in need of control in that county. The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or regulate the keeping of a wild animal in the county. A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if the person violates an order adopted under this subchapter and the order defines the violation as an offense. | Statute | |
| NV - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | N. R. S. 118.105; 426.097; 426.099; 426.510, 426.515; 426.695; 426.790;426.800; 426.805; 426.810; 426.820; 484B.290; 613.330; 651.075; 704.145; and 706.366 | NV ST 118.105; 426.097; 426.099; 426.510, 426.515; 426.695; 426.790; 426.800; 426.805; 426.810; 426.820; 484B.290; 613.330; 651.075; 704.145; and 706.366 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| CA - Santa Cruz County - Santa Cruz County Code. Title 6. Animals. | Title 6. Sections 6.04 to 6.24.090 |
This comprises Santa Cruz County's animal-related ordinances. Santa Cruz County has a mandatory sterilization ordinance, which states that a dog or cat over the age of 6 months must be spayed or neutered unless such person holds an unaltered animal certification for the animal (excepting law enforcement dogs, service dogs, dogs or cats with health problems that prevent sterilization, herding dogs, or dogs or cats boarded in a business for training or resale). The code also has a section on feral cats, defined as felines that are wild by nature or no longer domesticated. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally provide food, water, or other forms of sustenance to a feral cat colony unless that person has registered with the county, and complies with the requirements (e.g., regularly trapping the cats for sterilization, testing trapped cats for feline leukemia, "ear tipping" for identification, rabies vaccination, and regularly feeding the colony even on holidays and weekends). Other provisions of note include a prohibition on "noisy animals" (one that habitually howls, yells, barks or makes other noise that unreasonably disturbs); a prohibition on the keeping of any "wild species" as defined by Section 2118 of the Cal. Fish & Game Code; and a leash/tether/grasp requirement when a dog is off its owner's premises. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Kondaurov v. Kerdasha | 629 S.E.2d 181 (Va. 2006) | 271 Va. 646 (2006) |
In Kondaurov v. Kerdasha , the Virginia Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-motorist could not recover damages for emotional or mental anguish she suffered either because of her concern for injuries sustained by her dog, who was riding in motorist's car at time of accident. Here, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to be compensated in damages for any emotional distress she suffered as a consequence of the physical impact she sustained in the accident. However, the court noted that Virginia still views pets as personal property, and plaintiffs cannot recover emotional distress damages resulting from negligently inflicted injury to personal property. |
Case | |
| CA - Sales - § 1670.10. Sale of dogs and cats; retail installment contracts prohibited; remedies | West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 1670.10 | This law, effective 2018, prohibits the transfer of ownership of dogs and cats through retail installment contracts. This is a contract where transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat. These contracts on or after January 1, 2018 are void as against public policy in the state | Statute | ||
| Buffalo Field Campaign v. Zinke | 289 F.Supp.3d 103 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2018) | 2018 WL 646887 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2018) | Plaintiffs Buffalo Field Campaign and other environmental groups petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") to add the Yellowstone bison population to the federal endangered species list. After the Service made a threshold “90–day” determination that Buffalo Field's petition failed to present sufficient scientific evidence that listing the bison may be warranted, Buffalo Field brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Service's determination was arbitrary and capricious. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Service applied an improper standard when evaluating Buffalo Field's petition, granted Buffalo Field's motion for summary judgment, denied the Service's cross-motion, and remanded the case for the agency to conduct a new 90–day finding using the proper standard. In particular, the court observed that the Service "simply picked a side in an ongoing debate in the scientific community," thereby in inappropriately heightening the standard of evaluation for a 90-day petition. Because of that, the court agreed with the Service that remand is the appropriate remedy as opposed to to directing the Service to begin a 12-month review. | Case | |
| RI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 1. Cruelty to Animals) | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1-1 - 43; Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1.2-1 - 5; Gen.Laws 1956, § 11-10-1 | RI ST § 4-1-1 - 43; RI ST § 4-1.2-1 - 5; RI ST § 11-10-1 | These Rhode Island statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The cruelty law provides that whoever overdrives, overloads, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, or cruelly beats, mutilates or kills any animal is subject to imprisonment up to 11 months, or a fine of $50.00 - $500, or both. The intentional cruelty provision expands the penalty to 2 years possible imprisonment or a fine of $1,000, or both. | Statute | |
| MT - Bear - Chapter 5. Wildlife Protection. Part 3. Grizzly Bear | MCA 87-5-301 to 87-5-303 | MT ST 87-5-301 to 87-5-303 | These Montana statutes state that state policy is to manage grizzly bears to avoid conflicts with humans and livestock, and control distribution by trapping and lethal measures. The commission may regulate the hunting of grizzlies and establish requirements for their transportation, exportation, and importation. | Statute |