Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - P.E.I. Statutes. Dog Act | R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. D-13 s.1 - 21 |
This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Dog Act. The Act provides that no owner of a dog shall allow his dog to run at large; any dog found at large shall be deemed to have been allowed to be at large by its owner. In addition, the owner of livestock or any enforcement officer authorized by the owner of livestock, may kill a dog that is killing or injuring the owner's livestock, except where the livestock is on property held under lease, license or permit by the owner of the dog. This Act also outlines licensing requirements for dogs as well as impoundment procedures. |
Statute | ||
| NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs | EDENTON, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 90.43 |
In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs, takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Range v. Brubaker | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 5248983 (N.D.Ind.) |
Plaintiff brought a civil rights action against Defendants employed by the City of South Bend, Indiana (the “City”), part of the allegations being that Defendants unlawfully failed to interview Plaintiff for a position on the Animal Control Commission (the “Commission”). During discovery, Defendants filed a, after Defendants had already disclosed the names of such individuals. The United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division granted Defendants’ motion for a protective order to bar the disclosure of the home addresses of the Commission’s volunteer members, finding that Defendants provided “a particular and specific demonstration of fact” such that Plaintiff’s discover of the Commission members’ addresses should be barred, and that the relative lack of relevance of the discovery sought did not outweigh the potential harm caused by disclosure of the Commission members’ addresses. |
Case | ||
| U.S. v. Hetzel | 385 F.Supp. 1311 (D. Mo. 1974) |
Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve. He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function. The court reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent. The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent. For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| Mackley v. State | 481 P.3d 639 (Wyo. 2021) | 2021 WY 33 (Wyo., 2021) | The Wyoming Supreme Court considers whether the jury was properly instructed on the charge of aggravated animal cruelty. The case stems from an incident where a dog escaped his owner and attacked the defendant's dogs at his front door. A local teenager grabbed the offending dog ("Rocky") and dragged him into the street as the dog fight carried on. The defendant responded by grabbing his gun and shooting Rocky as he was held by the teenager. A jury convicted defendant of both aggravated animal cruelty and reckless endangering. At the trial, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on both charges, arguing that the Wyoming Legislature has established that humanely destroying an animal is not animal cruelty and that the State did not provide evidence that he intentionally pointed a firearm at anyone, which defendant contends is necessary for the reckless endangering charge. On appeal here, the court first observed that defendant's challenge to a confusing or misleading jury instruction was waived because he negotiated with the prosecution to draft it. Further, the Supreme Court did not find an abuse of discretion where the district court refused defendant's additional instructions on the humane destruction of an animal in the jury instructions on the elements for the aggravated cruelty to animals charge. While defendant argued that the instructions should include subsection m from the statute, he only now on appeal contends that the subsection should have been given as a theory of defense. Thus, reviewing this argument for plain error, the Court found that defendant's theory that his killing was "humane" and thus excluded from the crime of aggravated cruelty was not supported by the language of the statute. In fact, such an interpretation not only goes against the plain language, but "then any animal could be killed, under any circumstances, as long as it is killed quickly." Defendant presented no evidence that the dog he shot was suffering or distressed and needed euthanasia. The trial court did not commit error when it declined to instruct the jury on subsection m. As to the reckless endangering conviction, the court also affirmed this charge as defendant showed a conscious disregard for the substantial risk he placed the teenager in regardless of whether he pointed the gun at the victim. Affirmed. | Case | |
| OK - Initiative - State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | This petition makes it a felony to instigate or encourage cockfighting, possess or train birds for cockfighting, or maintain a facility for cockfighting in the state of Oklahoma. The ballot proposal also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly be a spectator at a cockfight. It passed in 2002 with 56% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| News Archives | This page provides archives of the news items that appeared on the website's front page. The month and year of the news story is listed. | Basic page | |||
| International Animal Welfare Promo |
|
Policy | |||
| Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc. | 614 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 2000) |
Plaintiff, a licensed horse exercise rider sued the operator of a horse racing facility after he had been injured when he was thrown off a horse that he had been exercising, when the horse became spooked by a kite on the Defendant’s premises. The court determined that the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) did not offer protection of immunity to the Defendant because the exercising was found to be an activity in preparation for a horse race and the EALA does not apply to “horse race meetings.” However, the Plaintiff had previously signed a release, which covered “all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises,” therefore, the Defendant was released from liability of negligence. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Part 2. Regulations. Subparts A to I | 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 to .134 | This set of the regulations sets out the requirements and process for licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors and research facilities. | Administrative |