|Canada - British Columbia - Division 1 -- Regulation of Animals||R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, s. 702.1 - 707.1(10)||
This set of British Columbia, Canada laws addresses animal control. The provisions give the animal control board the authority to regulate loose animals and licensing of dogs.
|MN - Minneapolis - Title 4: Animals and Fowl (Chapter 76 - Stables) and Title 13 - LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 303. HORSE AND CARRIAGE LIVERY SERVICES)||Minneapolis, Minnesota Code of Ordinances §§76.10 - 76.90, 303.10-303.160||
In these Minneapolis, Minnesota ordinances, a stable or assembly/transfer facility is used exclusively for the purposes of keeping horses used in a licensed horse and carriage livery service. Any horse kept in a stable or an assembly/transfer facility must be registered with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and must meet the standards of a veterinary examination and certification. Requirements for the construction and operations of a stable or assembly/transfer facility are also provided, as are the provisions for the operations of a horse and carriage livery service.
|U.S. v. Martinelli||240 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Cal. 1965)||
Court held the 1962 version of the BGEPA mandates a jury trial where defendant requests one, despite the fact it constitutes a "petty offense." For further discussion of criminal prosecutions under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.
|Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service||342 F.Supp.3d 968 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018)||2018 WL 4538622 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018)||Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act, seeking protection for the Pacific fisher (a medium-sized brown mammal in the weasel family found only in North America). All parties moved for summary judgment. The CBD was the party that submitted the original petition to list this distinct population segment as endangered in 2000 (after various petitions were filed since 1990 with no action). In 2014, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the "Service") publicly proposed to list the Pacific fisher as threatened and sought public comment. In April 2016, the Service withdrew the proposed listing, finding that: populations will persist in the future; wildfires will have beneficial consequences; there "may be" breeding and interchange with other populations; and there were only a small number of confirmed deaths due to toxicosis from anticoagulant rodenticides. Plaintiffs now challenge that listing reversal as arbitrary and capricious, and seek an order requiring the Service to publish a new rule within 90 days based on “the best scientific and commercial data available." This court first examined the effect of anticoagulant rodenticides on the Pacific fisher. The court found the Service's assessment of the increase of the emerging threat from toxicosis was arbitrary and capricious, and that the Service "cherry picked" the Gabriel study to say that the study was uncertain. As to population trends, the court found that the Service based its conclusion on limited and inconclusive trend data and ignored the studies' conclusions. In fact, the court stated, "[h]ere, the absence of conclusive evidence of Pacific fisher persistence does not stand alone. The Service does not dispute that the Pacific fisher population has declined dramatically." In the end, the court granted plaintiff CBD motion for summary judgment and denied defendant Service's motion. The court directed the Service to prepare a new rule by March 22, 2019 (which denied plaintiff's motion for a 90-day rule and also denied the Service's request to "brief the timeline in order to evaluate staffing and budget constraints").||Case|
|VA - Disaster - § 44-146.18. Department of Emergency Services continued as Department of Emergency Management;||VA Code Ann. § 44-146.18||VA ST § 44-146.18||
In Virginia, the State Department of Emergency Management must develop an emergency response plan to address the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals in the event of a disaster (subsection (B)(19)).
|OK - Research - Chapter 13. Use of Unclaimed Animals for Scientific Investigation and Education.||4 Okl. St. Ann. § 391 - 402||OK ST T. 4 § 391 - 402||
These Oklahoma statutes provide the rules for scientific or medical research facilities that use animals obtained from animal shelters or dog pounds. Among the provisions are licensing procedures, inspection requirements, municipal ordinance requirements relating to duration that animals must first be impounded, and a provision specifying that anyone who fails to undertake the duties required by the act is subject to a misdemeanor. Notably, a municipality must provide that an owner of an animal who voluntarily delivers it to a public pound has the right to specify that it not be used for scientific research; it shall be the duty of the pound superintendent to tag such animal properly and to make certain that such animal is not delivered to an institution for scientific purposes. However, institution is immune from liability resulting from an improper delivery to such an institution.
|Animal Law Review Vol 12 Table of Contents||
|Peoria County v. Capitelli||494 N.E.2d 155 (Ill.App. 3 Dist.,1986)||144 Ill.App.3d 14, 98 Ill.Dec. 228 (1986)||
This Illinois case concerns the appeal of a conviction for allowing a cat to run at large in violation of an ordinance enacted by the plaintiff, Peoria County. The defendant contends on appeal that the county as a non-home-rule unit of government lacked the authority to enact the ordinance. The court disagreed, finding the counties were given the express power to establish animal pounds and to dispose of stray animals pursuant to the provisions of the Impounding and Disposition of Stray Animals Act which concerns pet dogs and cats, and the Illinois Animal Control Act, which deals with stray animal control, rabies protection, liability for animal bites and related topics. More interesting is the dissent's position, which finds that the statute makes no mention of the power to regulate cats. Moreover, there can be no logical implication of authority to regulate cats running-at-large from the delegation of authority to regulate dogs running-at-large.
|Joy Road Area Forest and Watershed Association v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection||47 Cal.Rptr.3d 846 (2006)||142 Cal.App.4th 656 (2006)||
The California Department of Forestry approved a developer's Timber Harvest Plan of cutting trees down to build a housing development. The court found that The California Department of Forestry abused its discretion by approving the Timber Harvest Plan because it had not given the public sufficient information about the plan, including the impact on the Northern Spotted Owl before approving it, and because the Timber Harvest Plan did not adequately address the issue of how the plan would affect water quality in the area.
|Ley Nº 23.899, 1990||Ley Nº 23.899||Ley 23.899, 1990 creates the National Service of Animal Health, and establishes its purposes, responsibilities and organization. According to this law, The National Service of Animal Health executes governmental policy on animal health. The main purpose of NSAH is to prevent, control and eradicate animal diseases and animal diseases transmissible to humans, to exercise hygienic-sanitary control of all products of animal origin, taking into account the advances in health technology and the most modern procedures for its control and the control of the products destined to the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of animal diseases. This entity is formed by an executive structure; a board of directors and provincial or regional commissions. The National Service of Animal is an entity of public private law with National scope, that maintains its relations with the national government through the Undersecretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing of the Nation.||Statute|