Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) | 2010, c.N-5.2, s.395; 2018, c A-21.2, s.40. | Saskatchewan's The Municipalities Act, The Cities Act and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 provide the basic legislative framework for all of the province's municipalities, and give municipalities what is referred to as "Natural Persons Power." This term is commonly understood to mean that municipalities possess all of the same powers that a normal person would. Essentially, a municipality can take any action that a natural person or business could to carry out its purposes unless or until legislation prohibits an action or places limitations or conditions on an action. Northern municipalities have specific authority to declare any animal or class or classes of animal to be dangerous. Legislative provisions within The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 respecting dangerous dogs may meet local needs. | Statute | ||
| OH - Greenhills - Breed - 505.021 PIT BULL DOGS | GREENHILLS, OH., ORDINANCES § 505.021 (2011) |
No person may own, keep or harbor a pit bull dog in Greenhills, Ohio. A violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree. The dog may be destroyed or permanently removed from the Village. If convicted, the defendant will have to pay all expenses for the dog’s care, destruction, or removal. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| MO - Hunting, Internet - 3 CSR 10-7.410. Hunting Methods | 3 MO ADC 10-7.410 | 3 Mo. Code of State Regulations 10-7.410 | In paragraph (R) of this Missouri regulation, the state prohibits computer-assisted, remote hunting. "Except as otherwise permitted in this Code, wildlife may be taken only in the immediate physical presence of the taker and may not be taken by use of computer-assisted remote hunting devices. . ." | Administrative | |
| Dogs in Restaurant Patio Laws | State map | ||||
| Mississippi State University v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | 992 So.2d 595 (Miss., 2008) | 2008 WL 2927836 (Miss.) |
PETA, an animal rights group, sought disclosure of records pursuant to the Public Records Act from Mississippi State University regarding the IAMS's company care of animals used in research, which was conducted at university. After the lower court granted the request, the University and company appealed. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that substantive portions of company's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol forms were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court found that PETA failed to rebut the evidence presented by MSU and Iams that the data and information requested in the subject records constituted trade secrets and/or confidential commercial and financial information of a proprietary nature developed by MSU under contract with Iams. Therefore, the data and information requested by PETA is exempted from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act. |
Case | |
| US - Endangered Species - Part 81. Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 81.1 to .15 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations relate to agreements with the states, or signed documented statements of the actions to be taken by the State(s) and the Secretary in furthering the purposes of the Act. The Secretary is authorized by the Act to cooperate with any State which establishes and maintains an adequate and active program for the conservation of various endangered and threatened species. | Administrative | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 3 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VIII (2007)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| State v. Smith | 685 A.2d 73 (N.J.Super.L. 1996) | 295 N.J.Super. 399 (1996) |
This case involves the construction of a Hoboken, New Jersey dangerous dog ordinance in light of the state Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act. The owner's dog that was the subject of this case was ordered by the municipal court to be destroyed after it bit a person on the hand. In applying the relevant preemption test, the court found that the Act preempted any city ordinance purporting to cover same subject. As noted by the court, it was the procedural conflict that caused the most concern. Thus, because the procedural/jurisdictional defect in the ordinance was not cured, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. |
Case | |
| SD - Health - 12:68:06:09. Importation of cats and dogs. | S.D. Admin. R. 12:68:06:09 | SD ADC 12:68:06:09 | This South Dakota regulation states that no person may import into the state any dog or cat over three months of age without certification of a current rabies vaccination. Other health requirements for importation are detailed. | Administrative | |
| WildEarth Guardians v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service | 342 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (D. Mont. 2018) | 2018 WL 5313770 | In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (The Service) issued regulations implementing the CITES Program for certain Appendix II species that are in the United States which include bobcats, gray wolves, river otters, Canada lynx, and brown grizzly bears. Under the regulations, certain requirements must be met prior to the species exportation from the Unites States. The Service annually distributes export tags to approved states and tribes which are then distributed to trappers, hunters, and other individuals seeking to export furbearer species. The Service drafted an incidental take statement setting a cap on the amount of Canada lynx that are allowed to be killed or injured while bobcats are hunted. Plaintiffs brought this action claiming that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not adequately analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the CITES Program and by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is further alleged that the 2001 and 2012 Biological Opinions and Incidental Take Statement referenced and incorporated in the Environmental Assessment that the Service conducted is deficient under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Center for Biological Diversity filed a separate action raising similar NEPA claims. The two actions were consolidated into one and the WildEarth case was designated as the lead case. The Service and the intervenors challenged the Plaintiff's standing to bring their claims. The District Court found that the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims. As for the NEPA claims, the Court held that the only time an EIS is necessary is when a specific agency action alters the status quo. In this case, the Court found no identifiable agency action that would alter the status quo. The Service has administered the CITES Export Program since 1975 and it does not propose "any site-specific activity nor call for specific action directly impacting the physical environment." As for the EPA claims, in the Incidental Take Statement drafted by the Service, the authorized level of take is set as follows: "two (2) lynx may be killed and two (2) injured annually due to trapping over the 10-year term of th[e] biological opinion." The Plaintiffs argued that the use of the word "and" in the "Two and Two" standard was ambiguous. The District Court agreed and held that as currently worded, the "two and two" fails to set an adequate trigger for take because it is not clear whether one or both are necessary to exceed the trigger. The Plaintiffs also argue that the terms "annually" and "injury" are ambiguous. The District Court held that "annually" was ambiguous, however, it was not enough to independently make the statement arbitrary and capricious. The Court also held that the Service's use of the word "injury" was both overbroad and underinclusive. The Service's interpretation and use of the term is arbitrary and capricious in the context of this case. The Court found that the reporting requirements were arbitrary and capricious and that the take statement does not set forth reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of incidental taking on the species. The Service provides states and tribes with a brochure with information on lynx identification and other information every time bobcat tags are issued, however the brochures are not required to be given out by states and tribes, it is merely recommended. The District Court ultimately Denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to their NEPA claims and granted it as to their ESA claims. The incidental take statement was remanded to the Service for further review and clarification. | Case |