Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.4. Selling or giving away live animals on any street, highway, | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.4 | CA PENAL § 597.4 | This California statute makes is unlawful (with exceptions) to sell or give away, as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. The first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine up to $250. However, if the animal suffers, is injured, or its life or health is endangered, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) | Wildlife Act 1975 |
The purposes of this Act are to establish procedures in order to promote: the protection and conservation of wildlife; the prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct; the sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and to prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife |
Statute | ||
| US - Petitions - AWI Consolidated Petitions | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute | The following is a list of petitions submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other advocacy groups to United States agencies. These petitions seek changes to rule-making for various animal welfare issues and also seek designations under the federal Endangered Species Act. The provided links for each action give a summary and links to the actual filed petitions. The petitions are listed with the most recent one filed at the top of the page. | Administrative | ||
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations | FR Doc. 04-24008 (2004) |
NMFS proposes regulations to implement resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and by the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). These regulations would prohibit activities that undermine the effective implementation and enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), and International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). This proposed rule would enlarge the class of vessels required to pay observer fees. The procedure to categorize tuna purse seine vessels as ``active'' in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) and the deadline for submitting vessel permit applications would change. Procedures are proposed for managing the capacity of the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating in the ETP through maintenance of a Vessel Register, the definitive list of vessels authorized to purse seine for tuna in the ETP. This proposed rule is intended to contribute to the long-term conservation of dolphin and tuna stocks and to ensure that the domestic tuna tracking and verification program remains consistent with international standards. |
Administrative | ||
| Ramapo v. Hi-Tor Animal Care Center, Inc. | Judgment 10050423 (2010) | This court was asked to determine whether a dog shoul be declared dangerous pursuant to section 108 (24) (a) of the Agriculture and Markets Law. The case is unusual in one aspect as the respondent is an animal shelter and the alleged victim is an animal control officer from another township. The Justice Court found the shelter dog was not 'Dangerous' pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Interestingly, the court found the reasonable person standard in the statute to be problematic and in need of legislative amendment restoring in appropriate language the consideration of evidence of vicious propensity. | Case | ||
| IN - Exotic animals, contact - Chapter 26.5. Specified Animals | I.C. 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | IN ST 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | This set of Indiana laws was enacted in 2022. A person that owns or possesses a specified animal may not allow a member of the public to (1) come into direct contact with; or (2) enter into a proximity that allows for or permits direct contact with the specified animal, regardless of the age of the specified animal. Essentially, public contact with certain animals that include lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, and mountain lions (or their hybrids) is prohibited. | Statute | |
| AK - Dogs - Title 3. Agriculture and Animals. Chapter 55. Dogs. | AS § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | AK ST § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock. It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ." Notably, "[a]ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large." This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs. | Statute | |
| Ronald Hane and Laurie Simerson, plaintiffs v. Maurice James and Mary James, defendants |
This is a copy of a Washington arbitration award that awarded general and special damages. |
Pleading | |||
| Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids | 559 N.W.2d 444 | 1997 Minn. App. LEXIS 203 | Sauk Rapids, Minnesota passed a city ordinance limiting the number of dogs that could be kept in a residential home. The appellants were dog owners, breeders, and Ms. Holt, who also rescued Newfoundland dogs help find new homes for them. The lower court held that the ordinances were unconstitutional, but the city appealed and on appeal the court reversed the finding. Minnesota law granted the municipality the authority to regulate public and private property, including regulating the keeping of dogs on residential property. City Hall received many complaints concerning dogs, so the Sauk Rapids ordinance was introduced by the mayor to address issues with dog odor and noise. Because limiting the number of dogs can reduce odor and noise, the court found that there was a rational relationship between the ordinance and reducing the problems associated with the dogs. The dog owners failed to show that the ordinance was unreasonable. The constitutionality was upheld because the ordinance was rationally related to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community as affected by dogs. | Case | |
| IN - Cow Slaughter - THE HARYANA GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN AND GAUMSAMVARDHAN ACT, 2015 | 20 of 2015 | The Act, specific to the North Indian state of Haryana, prohibits cow slaughter. A cow may be slaughtered only under certain conditions, and a person slaughtering a cow under these conditions must obtain a certificate from a registered veterinary practitioner. Cows cannot be exported for slaughter. Persons may not sell, store, keep or transport beef or beef products. The Act provides for the creation of a scheme or project for the conservation of indigenous breeds of cow. The Government must establish and maintain institutions to look after infirm, stray and 'uneconomic' cows. An offence under this Act carried with it imprisonment and fines. | Statute |