Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Beavers - 77.32.585. Release of wild beavers | West's RCWA 77.32.585 | WA ST 77.32.585 | This Washington law states that the department shall permit the release of wild beavers on public and private lands with agreement from the property owner under specified conditions. | Statute | |
| PA - Dog - § 550. General immunity from noise | 3 P.S. § 550 | PA ST 3 P.S. § 550 | This Pennsylvania statute provides that all owners and operators of dog training and special retriever training areas licensed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission shall be exempt and immune from any civil action or criminal prosecution in any manner relating to noise provided they were and remain in compliance with any applicable noise control laws or ordinances at the time the permit for establishment of the training area was authorized. | Statute | |
| Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment & Conservation | [2007] NSWSC 221 |
The applicants sought to restrain a proposed aerial shooting of pigs and goats on interlocutory basis pending the outcome of a suit claiming the aerial shooting would constitute cruelty. It was found that the applicants did not have a 'special interest' and as such did not have standing to bring the injunction. The application was dismissed. |
Case | ||
| US - Assistance animals, housing - Part 8. Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap | 24 C.F.R. § 8.1 to .6 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C 794), to the end that no otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. | Administrative | ||
| Ecuador - Farm animals - Organic Code of agricultural health | Ley Organica de Sanidad Agropecuaria de Ecuador | The organic code of agricultural health of 2017 has as its primary objective to 1) prevent the entry, dissemination, and establishment of pests and diseases; promote animal welfare; and 2) control and eradicate pests and diseases that affect plants and animals and that could represent a phytosanitary and animal health risk. This law creates the Regulatory agency for Phytosanitary and Zoosanitary Control. This agency is responsible for regulating and controlling animal health and welfare, plant health, and food to maintain and improve the adequate conditions of agricultural production. | Statute | ||
| TX - Wildlife, wolves - Subchapter B. Nongame Animals | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 63.101 - 104 | TX PARKS & WILD § 63.101 - 104 | Under these Texas statutes, no person may hunt, sell, buy or possess a live or dead bat, with exceptions. A violation is a Class C misdemeanor. It is a felony to possess, transport, receive, or release a live wolf in Texas (with exceptions). It is a class B misdemeanor to sell a living armadillo in Texas (with exceptions). | Statute | |
| NV - Domestic Violence - Chapter 33. Injunctions. Orders for Protection Against Domestic Violence. | N. R. S. 33.018, 33.030 | NV ST 33.018, 33.030 | In Nevada, a knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other such as injuring or killing an animal, is included in their definition of Domestic Violence. A victim can then get a Protection Order and enjoin the adverse party from physically injuring, threatening to injure or taking possession of any animal that is owned or kept by the applicant or minor child, either directly or through an agent. | Statute | |
| Lamare v. North Country Animal League | 743 A.2d 598 (Vt. 1999) |
Owners of a licensed dog that escaped while not wearing its tags filed an action against a local animal shelter that ultimately released the dog to others for adoption. The court held that the town's actions fully complied with its animal control ordinance and that its ordinance provided ample notice to plaintiffs consistent with state law and due process requirements. |
Case | ||
| Australia - Anti Cruelty - New South Wales Regulations |
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 are authorative in the state of New South Wales. |
Administrative | |||
| Amparo en Revisión 163/2018 - Mexico | AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 163/2018 | This decision concerns the review of a writ of Amparo filed in 2016, which looks at the constitutionality of cockfighting and whether it should be considered a cultural practice. The President of the Mexican Commission for Cockfighting Promotion and Efraín Rábago Echegoyen filed a writ of Amparo with a District Court of Veracruz, Mexico, against the governor and Congress of the state of the same state. Plaintiff argued that a newly enacted state decree banning cockfighting infringed upon fundamental rights, including the right to culture, right to property, freedom of work, and the right to equality and non-discrimination. Despite the Plaintiff’s arguments, the District Court affirmed the decree’s constitutionality, which amended Veracruz’s animal protection law. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought a review of the Amparo with the Supreme Court of Justice, which accepted the case and conducted a de novo review. In affirming the lower court decision, the judge used the proportionality test around the alleged violation of rights to culture, property, and freedom of work. The judge found that the defendant’s arguments had no legal basis. Regarding the right to culture, after an exhaustive analysis of the meaning of this right, the Supreme Court stated that cockfighting did not constitute a violation of this right. The court recognized that this practice was a cultural tradition. However, the question was whether such cultural manifestation was protected under the Constitution. In the case of cockfighting, the cultural expression did not directly affect humans, but rather the animals used and, to the high court, cockfighting was not covered by the right to participate in a cultural life. The court stated that culture is not admirable because it is traditional, but when it carries values and rights that are compatible with human dignity and mutual respect with other humans and nature. This means that the right to culture is not absolute, and, in fact, it is limited. Therefore, “any practice that involves the abuse and unnecessary suffering of animals cannot be considered a cultural expression protected by the Constitution. Regarding the right to property and the right to work, the court stated that these constitutional rights were not absolute and that their scope was limited by public interest. The right to work, in particular, was limited to the legality of the activity, the rights of third parties, and the rights of society in general. In weighing these rights, the court concluded that animal protection was a legitimate reason to limit fundamental rights, in particular, of the plaintiffs in this case because animal welfare is a purpose that is compatible with the purpose of a constitutional democracy. In other words, even though animals are not subjects of rights, their well-being is a legitimate limitation to some human rights. Cockfighting is a practice that inflicts severe physical harm on these birds, typically culminating in the death of at least one of the animals. Due to the nature of this practice, the court deemed that prohibition was the appropriate measure to safeguard the welfare of these animals. | Case |