|Tennessee Code 1858: Article VI: Killing Game, Poisoning Fish, Fire Hunting||Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1673-1676 (1858)||Tennessee laws from 1858 concerning the hunting of game, poisoning of fish, and the use of fire to hunt. The law establishes the punishment for the above mentioned offenses.||Statute|
|CT - Oxford - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 92: Right to Farm)||Code of Oxford §§ 92.01 - 92.06||
According to Oxford, Connecticut's Right to Farm ordinances, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-341, an agricultural or farming operation shall not be deemed a public or private nuisance due to odor emanating from livestock or manure, or due to water pollution caused by livestock. Under these ordinances, a landowner or agent who fails to disclose that a buyer or tenant is about to acquire or occupy property in a town where farming activities occur shall be fined $100. These ordinances also contain exceptions to the nuisance provision, as well as provide a resolution process for any person who seeks to complain about a farm’s operations.
|Switzerland - Cruelty - Federal Act and Ordinance on Animal Cruelty||Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981||
The following is one of two pieces of Swiss legislation concerning animal welfare. It is highly comprehensive and covers all aspects of animal welfare including but not limited to scientific research, farming, treatment of pets, national and international animal sales. This Act clearly states that no one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear. Regulations on Animal Welfare based on the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection. This piece of legislation is comprehensive, including laws on animal husbandry, animal research, companion animals, breeding, transport and slaughter.
|Lee v. Cook||
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages.
|Jippes v. van Landbouw||Case C-189/01(ECJ)||
Jippes, an ECJ case from 2001, involved a legal dispute over the hoof and mouth pandemic ravaging Europe at the time. To stem spread of the disease, the EU passed a community directive banning the use of preventative vaccinations and mandating compulsory slaughter. The plaintiff—or “applicant,” as plaintiffs are referred to in Europe—owned a variety of farm animals, and, loathe to kill them, argued that European law embraced a general principle that animals were shielded from physical pain and suffering. Such a principle, the applicant argued, could only be overridden when absolutely necessary; and the compulsory slaughter directive was in direct conflict with this principle. The ECJ, however, rejected the applicant’s argument, holding that the Animal Welfare Protocol of 1997 did not delineate any new important animal-friendly principles in European law, but merely codified old ones.
|OK - Wildlife - § 5-601. Wildlife breeders' sale and transportation of wildlife; tags for selling; invoices; records||29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-601 - 502||OK ST T. 29 § 5-601||This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements.||Statute|
|CA - Education - Chapter 2.3. Pupils' Rights to Refrain from the Harmful or Destructive Use of Animals||West's Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 32255 - 32255.6||CA EDUC § 32255 - 32255.6||This California chapter of laws concerns students refraining from engaging in animal dissection in education institutions. Under Section 32255.1, any pupil (defined as under age 18) with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, shall notify his or her teacher regarding this objection. If the pupil refrains from such participation, he or she and the teacher may work to develop an alternate education project. The pupil shall not be discriminated against based upon his or her decision to exercise his or her rights pursuant to this chapter. A pupil's objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section shall be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian.||Statute|
|WI - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||W. S. A. 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 440.45; 951.01, 951.097, 951.18||WI ST 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 440.45; 951.01, 951.097, 951.18||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws.||Statute|
|KS - Ulysses - Breed - ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS||ULYSSES, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-301 - 2-302||
In Ulysses, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions. Pit bull dogs registered with the city as of July 19, 1989 may be kept subject to certain requirements, such as use of a leash and muzzle if outside, confinement, “Beware of Dog” signs, $50,000 insurance, and identification photographs. It is prohibited to sell or give a pit bull away except in limited circumstances. All pit bull puppies born in the city must be removed within six weeks of birth. Failure to comply may result in seizure of the dog, a fine of $200 to $1,000, and imprisonment up to 30 days.
|LEY 21.020||1106037||This law establishes the rights and responsibilities of those in possession of companion animals.||Statute|