Results
Displaying 6551 - 6560 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Map of Private Exotic Pet Ownership Laws | The above map details states that ban, partially ban, require licensure, or provide miscellaneous regulations on private ownership of wild or exotic animals. Currently, 20 states have what can be called "comprehensive bans." These bans typically classify wild cats, large non-domesticated carnivores, reptiles, and non-human primates as "dangerous animals" or otherwise prohibit private ownership of these species. These laws may outright ban the ownership of wild or exotic animals as pets or only allow those animals to be kept under certain licenses not including pet or private possession (i.e., for educational or scientific purposes). Thirteen (13) states have partial bans on exotic pets, which means that these states ban specific, listed animals by statute, but not all non-traditional, non-domestic animals (for example, these states may allow ownership of small primates). Fourteen (14) states permit private ownership of exotic animals under a licensure or permit scheme. People seeking licenses may have to register with the state, prove satisfactory conditions for the keeping of such animals, pay a fee, and maintain liability insurance. The remaining three (3) states do not have a statutory or regulatory scheme that directly addresses or controls the private ownership of exotic pets, but may regulate some aspect of ownership. These states may require health certificates or import permits for such animals. For more discussion on exotic pet laws, see our Topical Introduction. | State map | |||
| GA - Dogfighting - Article 2. Gambling and Related Offenses. | Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-37 | GA ST § 16-12-37 | Georgia's dogfighting statute states that any person who owns, possesses, trains, transports, or sells any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in fighting with another dog, wagers money or anything of value on the result of such dogfighting, knowingly permits dogfighting on his or her premises, knowingly promotes or advertises an exhibition of fighting commits the offense of dogfighting. Violation of the law is a felony, with a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 or a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 in addition to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years. On a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine of not less than $15,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who is knowingly present only as a spectator at any place for the fighting of dogs shall, upon a first conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. | Statute | |
| CA - Hunting - Article 2.5. Hunter's Safety. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3049 - 3055.1 | CA FISH & G § 3049 -3055.1 | The Legislature of California in these sections finds and declares that individuals who engage in hunting should possess an adequate understanding of hunter safety practices, principles of conservation, and sportsmanship. In order to achieve these goals, hunters must procure a license and complete a course in hunter safety. | Statute | |
| PETA's Investigation of Caucaseco Scientific Research Center in Cali, Colombia | Developments and relevant legal materials concerning PETA's investigation into the irregularities and welfare conditions of primates used by the NIH-funded Caucaseco Scientific Research Center, A Colombian institution dedicated to scientific research for the development of a malaria vaccine. | Policy | |||
| D. Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar y otros con Ilustre Municipalidad de Viña del Mar | 491-2015 | The ‘Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar’ and the owners of ‘Coches Victoria’ filed a complaint or ‘acción de protección’ against Viña del Mar and its Mayor, arguing that municipal decree Nº 11.349, 2014 and the ordinance for the transportation of Passengers in Victoria carriages in Viña del Mar were arbitrary an illegal. The plaintiffs requested the modification of many clauses of the ordinance such as those related to the restriction of schedules and routes, the social evaluation of carriage owners, the requirement of specific technical characteristics for carriages, and the limitation on the number of carriages that a person could own. The Plaintiffs argued that the clauses affected the general interest of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs and their families such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination in the economy, the right to physical and emotional integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to property. The city argued that the statute of limitations had already expired, and that additionally, it had the authority to regulate transportation. Furthermore, the city stated that the ordinance was enacted with the purpose of improving passenger safety and the well-being of the horses. The court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its authority to regulate transportation and finding that the ordinance did not violate any of the constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the ordinance was upheld. | Case | ||
| NV - Leash Law - Chapter 503. Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures | N.R.S. 503.631, 636 | NV ST 503.631, 636 | This Nevada statute makes it illegal to permit such dog to run at large if such dog is actively tracking, pursuing, harassing, attacking or killing any wildlife in a state-owned wildlife management area. | Statute | |
| CT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | C. G. S. A. § 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73b | CT ST §§ 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73b |
This Connecticut section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal , or fails to give an animal in his or her custody proper care, among other things shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony. Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal is also guilty of a Class D felony. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section as a Class D felony. Connecticut has a cruelty to poultry law that provides that any crate or other container used for the purpose of transporting, shipping or holding for sale any live poultry must be in a sanitary condition with sufficient ventilation and warmth to prevent unnecessary suffering. Other provisions include laws against dyeing chicks and rabbits, docking horses' tails, and the use of animals, birds, or reptiles to solicit money. |
Statute | |
| US - AWA - 1970 Amendments to AWA, House Report No. 91-1651 | House Report No. 91-1651 |
By 1970 it was apparent that changes in the law would be required if the goal of humane treatment of animals was to be realized. There were four areas of significant change to the AWA in the 1970 amendments (definition of animal, expansion of who is subject to AWA, laboratory practices, and enforcement). |
Statute | ||
| Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC | 35 N.Y.3d 541, 159 N.E.3d 228 (2020) | No. 28, 134 N.Y.S.3d 312, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 05975, 2020 WL 6163313 (N.Y., Oct. 22, 2020) | This is an action for negligence and premises-liability brought by a plaintiff, who was attacked by another patron's dog in the waiting room of defendant veterinary clinic. Plaintiff alleges defendant had a duty to provide a safe waiting area, which was breached by allowing the aggressive dog to attack her. Defendants allege that it had no knowledge of the dog's prior aggressive tendencies, and moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted defendants motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The court found that a lack of notice of the dog's vicious propensities does not alleviate defendant's liability to provide a safe waiting area, and modified the lower court's granting of summary judgment. | Case | |
| IN - Rabies - Rule 5. Rabies Immunization | 345 IAC 1-5-1 to 3 | These regulations contain Indiana's rabies provisions. | Administrative |