Results
Displaying 5871 - 5880 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Service animal - § 9-957. Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program | MD Code, State Government, § 9-957 | This 2017 law establishes the Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program. A purpose of the Program is to refer eligible veterans who inquire about participation in the Program to one or more nonprofit training entities. The Department shall select at least one qualified nonprofit training entity to implement a training protocol that will teach each Program participant methodologies, strategies, and techniques for partnering with service dogs or support dogs. This entity will also help select and facilitate training of service or support dogs. The Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program Fund is also established to fund the Program. | Statute | |
| Canada - New Brunswick Statutes - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-12, s. 0.1 - 32(2) | This set of laws establishes the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. Under the Act, the Minister may appoint an officer, agent or employee of the society or any other person to be an animal protection officer who shall attend to the enforcement of this Act. Where an animal has been seized under this Act, the animal protection officer shall within 3 business days notify the owner or make reasonable attempts to identify and notify the owner. A person who has ownership, possession or the care and control of an animal shall provide the animal with food, water, shelter and care in accordance with the regulations. | Statute | |
| RI - Assistance Animals - Consolidated Assistance Animal Laws | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | RI ST § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance/service animal laws. | Statute |
| MT - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 30. Protection of Farm Animals and Research Facilities | MCA 81-30-101 to 81-30- 105 | MT ST 81-30-101 to 81-30- 105 | This chapter comprises Montana's Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act." Unlawful acts include exercising control over a facility without consent, damaging or destroying the property of an animal facility, entering an animal facility with the intent to commit a prohibited act, entering an animal facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal defamation, and entering an animal facility if the person knows entry is forbidden. A person who has been damaged by reason of a violation of 81-30-103 may bring against the person who caused the damage an action in the district court to recover an amount equal to three times all actual and consequential damages; and court costs and reasonable attorney fees. | Statute |
| CO - Fort Lupton - Breed - Sec. 7-241 Pit bulls prohibited | FORT LUPTON, CO., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 7-241 - 7-243 |
It is unlawful to own, keep, possess, maintain, harbor or transport any pit bull in or through Fort Lupton, Colorado, with certain exceptions for licensed vets and animal shelters. Dogs that have already been licensed may remain, as long as the owner is 21 years of age, shows proof of rabies vaccination and liability insurance of $100,000, keeps the dog properly confined, and posts “PIT BULL DOG" signs. Failure to comply with all of the terms shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and disposal. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Hill v. Missouri Department of Conservation | 550 S.W.3d 463 (Mo.2018) | 2018 WL 3235854 (Mo.2018) | This case concerns the regulatory authority of the Missouri Conservation Commission ("Commission"), which has authority over the control, management, restoration, conservation, and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state. The respondents in this case operate different selective breeding and private hunting facilities that rely on captive bred deer and elk (“cervids”). Respondent Hill co-owns the Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch which is a large hunting preserve and white-tailed deer breeding operation. Respondent Broadway owns a hunting preserve which offers three-day guided hunts of a variety of animals, including elk. Broadway also has a deer breeding operation. Respondent Grace owns a breeding facility for white-tailed deer, sika, and red deer. The respondents cannot operate their hunting preserves and captive breeding facilities without permits from the Missouri Department of Conservation, which all respondents have. Cervids can be infected with a fatal neurodegenerative disease known as chronic wasting disease (CWD). The first detection of the disease in Missouri was at Heartland Wildlife Ranches, which was eventually purchased by Respondent Broadway and renamed Winter Quarters Wildlife Ranch. Due to this, the Missouri Conservation Commission set up surveillance within 25 miles of the facility. From 2010 to 2013 the Commission found 10 free-ranging deer infected with CWD out of the 14,000 tested in the surveillance zone. Over the next three years the Commission detected CWD in 14 free-ranging deer, several of which were found near closed or currently operating captive cervid facilities. Attempting to eradicate CWD, the Commission proposed a series of regulatory amendments that were to take effect in January of 2015. The amendments were aimed at the captive cervid industry. The regulations relevant to this case banned the importation of cervids, imposed more rigorous fencing requirements, and imposed more rigorous recordkeeping and veterinary inspection requirements. Respondents brought an action suing the Appellants (the Missouri Conservation Commission) to prevent these regulations from going into effect. At trial, the circuit court declared that the regulations were invalid and enjoined the Commission from enforcing them. On appeal, the Commission raised three arguments. First, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred because Respondents’ cervids are “game” and “wildlife resources of the state” and, therefore, can be regulated by the Commission under the Missouri Constitution. Second, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred because the Commission’s authority to promulgate the regulations does not implicate or infringe on the Respondents’ rights to farm. Third, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred by enjoining the Commission’s enforcement of the new regulations against all people in Missouri, rather than only against the Respondents. The Respondents contend that captive cervids are not wildlife or game even though they are wild by nature because they are too domesticated and, therefore, akin to livestock. The Court rejects this contention and looks at the plain meaning of the terms “game” and “wildlife” and concludes that both terms plainly include all species that are wild by nature. The terms are not ambiguous. The Court points out that it would be unreasonable to hold that the Commission has constitutional authority to regulate individual cervids that are born free and still free-roaming but take away that authority when an individual cervid is considered domesticated. “The Court will not give a law a construction which would render it unreasonable when it is susceptible to a reasonable one.” Furthermore, historically, the term “game” was broad enough to embrace all kinds of deer whether tame or wild. Captive cervids are therefore considered “game” and “wildlife” and the Commission has authority under the Missouri Constitution to regulate Respondents’ captive cervids. Respondent’ second contention is that they own the captive cervids and, therefore, the cervids are not resources of the state. The Court rejects this contention. The Commission has always regulated deer and elk owned by private parties. The Court holds that the phrase “resources of the state” unambiguously refers to resources within the entire geographical boundaries of the state. Therefore, Respondents’ cervids are considered resources of the state. The Court agrees with the Commission’s second contention that the regulations did not infringe on Respondents’ right to farm. Respondents failed to show that they are engaged in farming and ranching practices and, therefore, cannot invoke the guarantee of the Missouri Constitution. The Court did not reach the Commission’s third contention. Ultimately the Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Respondents and entered judgment in favor of Appellants on both counts. | Case |
| Park Pet Shop, Inc. v. City of Chicago | 872 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) | 2017 WL 4173707 (7th Cir. Sept. 21, 2017) | Local pet stores and breeders brought an action against the validity of a city ordinance limiting the sources from which they may obtain dogs, cats, and rabbits for resale. They stake their claim on the grounds that the ordinance goes beyond Chicago’s home-rule powers under the Illinois Constitution and violates the implied limits on the state power imposed by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Petitioners appeal the district court’s dismissal of case for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Illinois Constitution allows Chicago to regulate animal control and welfare concurrently with the state so long as no state statute specifically limits the municipality. Further, the court reject the argument that the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim. | Case |
| Animal Law Volume 15 Part 1 Index |
|
Policy | ||
| NY - Fur - Title 11. Trapping | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-1101 to 11-1109 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-1101 to 11-1109 | This set of New York laws sets forth the state's trapping laws. Among the laws includes a ban on traps of the leg-gripping type having teeth in the jaws; traps that operate such that wildlife is suspended when caught; and noose-type snares. No person shall set or use a body gripping type trap with a dimension of more than 7 1/2 inches except as provided by state rules for for trapping beaver or otter during the open season. Traps must bear the name and residence address or the assigned identification number of the operator at all times. Traps must be visited once every 24 hours except in the Northern Zone where it's once every 48 hours. | Statute |
| MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.41901 - 41905 | MI ST 324.41901 - 41905 | These sections describe the powers of the Department of Natural Resources to regulate and even to close areas to hunting. | Statute |