|Donald HENDRICK and Concerned Citizens for True Horse Protection, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA), and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Aphis), Defendants.||Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2900526 (W.D.Ky.)||
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant United States Department of Agriculture's Motion to Dismiss. The Horse Protection Act (HPA) is federal legislation which outlaws the practice of “soring” (harm to the feet or limbs of horses in order to enhance the attractiveness of a light-stepped or high-stepping gait during horse-show performances), which is a particular concern for the breed of Tennessee Walking Horses. Plaintiffs seek to have the Court define “sore” and “scar” beyond the definitions provided in the regulations (specifically the “scar rule”). The court found, however, that any alleged or threatened injury based on the HPA or the Scar Rule has not yet occurred. Mere uncertainty about the HPA and Scar Rule alone does not create an injury in fact.
|Animal Welfare Institute v. Kreps||561 F.2d 1002 (1977)||183 U.S. App. D.C. 109 (1977)||
These appeals arise from a complaint filed in the District Court challenging a decision by the Government appellees to waive the moratorium imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) [FN1] so as to permit importation into the United States from South Africa of baby fur sealskins. We reverse, holding that appellants do have standing and that the Government's decision to waive the ban on importing baby fur sealskins violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
|KY - Initiatives - Right to Hunt||2012 Amendment||This measure proposes to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods. It passed by 84.5% of the vote.||Statute|
|WV - Dangerous - § 19-20-21. License fee for keeping vicious or dangerous dog.||W. Va. Code, § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 - 21||WV ST § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 to 21||These West Virginia statutes provide that any person who owns or harbors any dog, cat or other domesticated animal, whether licensed or unlicensed, which bites any person, shall confine and quarantine the animal for a period of ten days for rabies observation. The state apparently has a prohibition against owning a dangerous dog, such that no person shall own, keep or harbor any dog known by him to be vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons, whether or not such dog wears a tag or muzzle. However, another section provides that any person who keeps a dog which is generally considered to be vicious, for the purpose of protection, shall acquire a special license therefor from the county assessor and then keep the dog restrained/enclosed.||Statute|
|AK - Eagle Protection - Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve||AS § 41.21.610 - 630||AK ST § 41.21.610 - 630||
Alaska established the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve through the Park System to preserve the eagle in its natural habitat and provide educational and public viewing opportunities. The eagle is not listed as a threatened or endangered species in Alaska, but is legislatively protected in the Chilkat Preserve.
|Sheldon Park Tenants v. ACHA||The Allegheny Public Housing Authority decided to enforce it's "no pets" rule after years of unenforcement. This is a brief in arbitration. The tenants won. Includes a very interesting discussion of depression as a disability.||Pleading|
|People v. Flores||216 Cal. App. 4th 251, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), review denied (Aug. 21, 2013)||13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4775; 2013 WL 1944000 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.)||
Defendant Flores appeals his conviction under Penal Code section 399 for allowing a " mischievous animal" owned by him to cause serious injury to another person. In this case, defendant's pit bull dog, "Blue,"attacked defendant's almost 90-year old neighbor on his own property causing deep injuries to his leg. Blue had been previously involved in three other incidents where he either tried to attack other dogs or acted aggressively toward other humans. As a result of these incidents, Sonoma County officials issued defendant a issued a potentially dangerous animal warning. On appeal, defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that he acted without ordinary care in keeping his dog and that the victim-neighbor did not suffer a serious injury as defined by statute. The court found both of these arguments without merit. While defendant suggested that he acted with "ordinary care" by keeping the dog tethered and chained outside on the day of the incident, the court found the evidence showed Blue had broken free in the past and had "massive strength." Further, even though the potentially dangerous dog designation by the county did not mandate that Blue be kept inside or in a secure enclosure, the ordinance language provides this requirement. Leaving a dog with a history of unprovoked attacks chained next to a public sidewalk in a residential neighborhood supported the jury's conclusion that defendant did not act as reasonably careful person would in the same situation. As to the serious bodily injury claim, the court noted that although the law does not define the term, there was substantial medical evidence to support the jury's determination. Affirmed.
|U.S. v. Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P.||840 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1203 (D.N.D. 2012), appeal dismissed (Apr. 18, 2012)||The Government charged Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P.with “taking” (killing) two migratory birds found dead near one of its reserve pits. But, the Court found that the use of reserve pits in commercial oil development is legal, commercially-useful activity that stands outside the reach of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, the Court held that the oil and gas companies' use of reserve pits did not violate Migratory Bird Treaty Act's prohibition against taking of protected birds, since death or injury was not intentional, and grated the defendant's motion to dismiss.||Case|
|VA - Nuisance animals - § 29.1-517. Trapping and shooting of fur-bearing animals during closed season||VA Code Ann. § 29.1-517||VA ST § 29.1-517||This Virginia law states that a landowner may shoot fur-bearing animals upon his own land during closed season when these animals are causing damage to crops or property, or are posing a threat to human health or safety, or are otherwise causing a nuisance.||Statute|
|Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act||R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 1 - 19||
This set of laws comprises Ontario, Canada's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The object of the Society is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. The laws outline the requirements for formation and operation of the Society as well as the guidelines under which members can assist animals in distress. Section 15 provides the standards of care for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or sale. 2015 amendments include the prohibition on the sale, purchase, and breeding of orcas.