Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Humane Slaughter - Maryland Wholesome Meat Act | MD Code, Agriculture, § 4-101 - 131 | MD AGRIC § 4-101 - 131 | This section comprises Maryland's "Wholesome Meat Act." Included are laws related to licensing of slaughtering establishments, labeling of meat, and the state's humane slaughter provisions. The humane slaughter provisions state that it is the policy of the State to prevent inhumane methods of livestock slaughter at an official establishment. Humane methods include those by which livestock are rendered insensible to pain, by a single blow or gunshot, or by an electrical, chemical, or other rapid and effective means, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter defined by statute is also considered humane if done in compliance with the act. Use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax during a slaughtering operation is considered inhumane. Note that "livestock" here explicitly excludes poultry or other fowl. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 for each violation. | Statute | |
| Crossroads Apartments Associates v. LeBoo | 152 Misc.2d 830 (N.Y. 1991) | Landlord brought an eviction proceeding against tenant with a history of mental illness for possession of a cat in his rental unit in violation of a no pets policy. Tenant alleged that he needed the cat to alleviate his "intense feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression, which are daily manifestations of his mental illness." The court held that in order to prove that the pet is necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling, he must prove "that he has an emotional and psychological dependence on the cat which requires him to keep the cat in the apartment." The court denied the housing authority's motion for summary judgment, stating that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the cat was necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling. | Case | ||
| US - Exotic Pets - Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing the Boa Constrictor, Four Python Species | 2010 WL 836553 (F.R.) |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend its regulations to add Indian python (Python molurus, including Burmese python Python molurus bivittatus), reticulated python (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python reticulatus), Northern African python (Python sebae), Southern African python (Python natalensis), boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), DeSchauensee's anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), green anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) to the list of injurious reptiles. This listing would prohibit the importation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these nine constrictor snakes into the United States, except as specifically authorized. |
Administrative | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 (Spring 2012)
|
Policy | |||
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart E - Similarity of Appearance | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 17.50 to .52 | This Subpart of the ESA regulations allows the designation of a species, which is not Endangered or Threatened but closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species, as a "de facto" Endangered or Threatened species if the director of the USFWS determines the listing is necessary. Factors that influence this decision include the degree of difficulty enforcement personnel would have in distinguishing the species from an Endangered or Threatened species (including those cases where the criteria for recognition of a species are based on geographical boundaries); the additional threat posed to the Endangered or Threatened species by the loss of control occasioned because of the similarity of appearance; and the probability that so designating a similar species will substantially facilitate enforcement and further the purposes and policy of the Act. | Administrative | |
| MS - Slaughter - Chapter 35. Meat Inspection | Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 | MS ST § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 |
These Mississippi statutes regulate meat products, animal slaughter, inspection and branding. Animals to be slaughtered must examined and slaughtered humanely, which means being “rendered insensible to pain... before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” Meat and meat products must be labeled “Mississippi inspected and passed.” Any violation of the provisions may result in imprisonment and/or a fine. |
Statute | |
| IL - Ordinances - 5/3. Appointment of administrator; | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/3 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/3 | This Illinois statute provides that the County Board Chairman with the consent of the County Board shall appoint an Administrator who may appoint as many Animal Control Wardens to aid him or her as authorized by the Board. The Board is authorized by ordinance to require the registration and microchipping of dogs and cats and shall impose an individual animal and litter registration fee. All persons selling dogs or cats or keeping registries of dogs or cats shall cooperate and provide information to the Administrator as required by the Board. | Statute | |
| People v. Zimberg | 33 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. 1948) | 321 Mich. 655 (Mich. 1948) |
Defendants were charged with having in their possession in the city of Detroit with intent to sell pikeperch (yellow pickerel) that were undersized, contrary to a Michigan statute. In response to defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the court noted that it is universally held in this country that wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; that an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit. Defendants also contended the statute violated equal protection. The court disagreed, finding the argument is without foundation in fact, as the statute makes no discrimination. |
Case | |
| WI - Domestic Violence - 813.12. Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions | Wis. Stat. Ann. § 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | W. S. A. 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | These Wisconsin statutes concern restraining orders or injunctions in domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and cases filed by "individuals as risk." In each of these laws, there are protections for “household pets,” defined as domestic animals that are not farm animals, as defined in s. 951.01(3), that are kept, owned, or cared for by the petitioner or by a family member or a household member of the petitioner. In both cases of domestic abuse and child abuse, a judge or circuit court commissioner shall issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet, to allow the petitioner or a family member or household member of the petitioner acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet, or any combination of these remedies requested in the petition. The domestic abuse and child abuse laws then outline the procedures for obtaining an injunction that includes those protections for domestic pets if requirements are met under the laws. In section 813.123, an "individual at risk," may also seek a TRO and injunction that orders the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet and allow the individual at risk or a guardian, guardian ad litem, family member, or household member of the individual at risk acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet. | Statute | |
| ME - Exotic Pets - Chapter 723. Facility Licenses. | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3931-B (§ 3931-B. Repealed. Laws 2011, c. 100, § 13, eff. May 19, 2011) | REPEALED: This Maine statute outlines the requirements that apply to wolf hybrid kennels. A person who operates a wolf hybrid kennel must register with the department. The offspring of a wolf hybrid must be permanently identified prior to transferring ownership or care of the animal. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section results in a civil violation with a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000. (For other exotic pet laws in Maine, see Chapter 730-A. Breeding, Sale and Transportation of Small Mammals). | Statute |