Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecuador - Dog control - Acuerdo Nº 0116 | Interministerial Agreement for the Responsible Ownership of Dogs | This regulation has been in effect since 2009, and it seeks to regulate the responsible ownership of dogs. It focuses on those breeds that are not recommended as pets because they are considered dangerous. This is with the purpose of protecting the health and life of the citizens (Article 1). This regulation establishes the standards of welfare for the keeping of dogs, duties, and obligations of owners and keepers. It regulates the breeding and commercialization of dogs, population control, dogs as companion animals, dangerous dogs, working dogs, and service dogs. | Statute | ||
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law | SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380 | This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws. | Statute | ||
| OH - Lakewood - Breed - 506.03 PIT BULL DOGS OR CANARY DOGS | LAKEWOOD, OH., ORDINANCES § 506.03 (2008) |
No person may keep, harbor or own pit bull dogs or canary dogs in Lakewood, Ohio, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date. A dog may be allowed to stay provided it has a microchip for identification, has been sterilized, the owner has liability insurance of $100,000, and the dog is properly confined or secured. Failure to comply could result in the removal or impoundment of the dog. The owner may also be charged with a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| US - PPIA and FMIA Regulations - Rules of Practice | 9 C.F.R. 500.1 - 500.8 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act and Federal Meat Inspection act regulations detail the provisions for when the Food Safety and Inspection Service can take regulatory control. | Administrative | ||
| US - Eagles - Eagle Transportation Permits for American Indians and Public Institutions | 1999 WL 719395 (F.R.) |
This final rule revises the general eagle permit restrictions applicable to American Indians and public institutions. This final regulation provides for the issuance of eagle permits for transportation of lawfully possessed eagle parts into or out of the United States only when the eagle parts have a religious purpose, or when a public institution transports eagle parts for scientific or exhibition purposes. In these cases, we will require that the eagle parts be returned to the country of origin. We make this revision to address concerns expressed by American Indians and public institutions who have sought our permission to allow international travel of lawfully possessed eagle parts or items containing eagle parts. We have carefully considered the needs of science and education, the religious protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and the recommendations made by those responding to the proposed rule providing for Eagle Transportation Permits for American Indians and Public Institutions published Thursday, June 16, 1994 (Federal Register (59 FR 30892)). |
Administrative | ||
| Pedroni, Matías Andrés c/ Capello Marina Alejandra s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia | Poder Judicial de la Nación, Juzgado Civil 7, Fallo 23536/2021 | This case involves a divorced couple that shared two dogs, Burke and Roma. The divorced couple had an arrangement where they shared custody of the dogs. After a domestic violence accusation filed by Marina Alejandra Capello (the respondent) that resulted in a restraining order, Matías Andrés Pedroni (the petitioner) was no longer allowed to see the dogs. The petitioner filed an injunction asking the judge to grant visitation rights (provisional communication regime in Argentina) so he could see the dogs. The petitioner argued that the capricious decision not to let him see the dogs caused him pain, anguish, and concern because Roma and Burke were his family. The judge concluded that from a non-anthropocentric speciest view, Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family created by the parties and that the love for the dogs did not end with the divorce. On the contrary, it had transcended the relationship of the couple. Therefore, neither party could be forced to forget about their relationship with their dogs, severing the solid emotional bond based on years of living together. | Case | ||
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 4 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. IV (2008)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| Willoughby v. Board of Veterinary Examiners | 483 P.2d 498 (N.M. 1971) | 82 N.M. 443 (1971) |
Donald Wayne Willoughby, D.V.M., successfully appealed the suspension of his license for 180 days at the district court level. In an appeal by the Board of Veterinary Examiners, the Supreme Court found the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence based on an examination of the entire record. The Court stated that the trial judge substituted his own judgment in reversing the decision of the Board, rather than basing his reversal upon any of the grounds set forth in the statute. While the Court affirmed the order of revocation, it held that there no language within the Uniform Licensing Act that gives the Board the power to place the appellee on probation after the period for which his license has been suspended. |
Case | |
| US - Dogs at Large - Subpart D. Impoundment Procedures. § 28.43 Destruction of dogs and cats. | 41 FR 9171 | 50 C.F.R. § 28.43 | This federal rule states that dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and observed by an authorized official in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. | Administrative | |
| WA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 16.52) | West's RCWA 16.52.010 - 360 | WA ST 16.52.010 - 360 | This section of statutes contains Washington's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the section, "animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian. Sections 16.52.205 and 16.52.207 are the primary anti-cruelty provisions that categorize cruelty in either the first or second degree. A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree (a class C felony) when he or she intentionally inflicts substantial pain on, causes physical injury to, or kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal. A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree (a misdemeanor) if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal. An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence fails to provide the animal with necessary food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, ventilation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure, or if he or she abandons the animal. | Statute |