|Ag-gag Laws||Alicia Prygoski||
Brief Summary of Ag-gag Laws
|Against the Current: The Attempt to Keep Asian Carp Out of the Great Lakes||Drew YoungeDyke||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
In the man-made channels connecting the Mississippi, Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers to Lake Michigan lurk fish with the potential to dramatically and permanently alter the biomass of the Great Lakes. Asian carp have been found in the Chicago Area Waterway System, and the effort to keep this injurious species out of Lake Michigan has sparked a multi-state legal battle, resurrecting an 81-year old Supreme Court case and a new request that the System’s locks be closed. At stake is the $70 million shipping industry that relies on the locks, the $7 billion fishing industry that relies on the lakes and the invaluable ecosystem and natural resources that comprise world’s largest freshwater lake system.
|AGENDA: Biodiversity Protection: Implementation and Reform of the Endangered Species Act||University of Colorado Boulder Natural Resources Law Center||University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, "AGENDA: Biodiversity Protection: Implementation and Reform of the Endangered Species Act" (1996). Biodiversity Protection: Implementation and Reform of the Endangered Species Act (June 9-12).||In 1996, the Endangered Species Act was up for reauthorization, and with it, a variety of reform proposals were debated in the Biodiversity Protection Conference at the University of Colorado—Boulder. The following conference proceeding -- which included natural resource scholars, experts from the private and nonprofit sectors, and government officials--examined the rationale for biodiversity protection, the legal framework of the Endangered Species Act, and examples of implementation of the Act from across the West. Special attention was given to major issues raised by the Act that cut across all regions, including: consultations and recovery planning; habitat conservation plans; the ESA and water rights; the ESA and state programs; the ESA and tribal rights; economic impacts of the ESA; and ESA reform proposals.||Article|
|AGENDA: Who Governs the Public Lands: Washington? The West? The Community?||University of Colorado Boulder Natural Resources Law Center||University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, "AGENDA: Who Governs the Public Lands: Washington? The West? The Community?" (1994). Who Governs the Public Lands: Washington? The West? The Community? (September 28-30).||This second annual western lands conference explored federal initiatives about policy objectives and management approaches for public lands in the West, including the Colorado Grazing Roundtable and Rangeland '94, Option 9 and the Pacific Northwest forests, bypass flows and Colorado national forests, and wilderness protection in Utah. Speakers were from federal agencies; from states; from groups concerned with the use and protection of the public lands; and from academia.||Article|
|Agreement APHIS v. FEI||This agreement was entered into by APHIS and Feld Entertainment, Inc. (FEI). FEI is an exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act and was issued non-compliance reports after numerous inspections. In this agreement, FEI paid $270,000 to the US Treasurer and had to develop and implement annual training to all of its personnel who worked with animals. The agreement also contains provisions that APHIS would not take action against FEI if FEI followed the agreement.||Pleading|
|AK - Assistance Animal - Alaska's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||A. S. § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120||AK ST § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120||
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.
|AK - Bite - § 03.55.030. Dogs that annoy or bite animals or birds||AS § 03.55.030||AK ST § 03.55.030||
This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it.
|AK - Conversation - Chapter 05. Powers and Duties of Commissioners of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.||AS § 03.05.011, § 03.05.013, § 03.05.050, § 03.05.090, § 03.05.100||AK ST § 03.05.011, § 03.05.013, § 03.05.050, § 03.05.090, § 03.05.100||
This set of Alaska laws sets forth the powers of the commissioner of environmental conservation. Additionally, the commissioner of environmental conservation may employ or appoint a person to act as the state veterinarian to carry out and enforce the requirements of this title. The penalties for violation of provisions under this chapter are also described.
|AK - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes||AS § 03.55.100 - 190; AS § 11.61.140 - 145||AK ST § 03.55.100 - 190; AK ST § 11.61.140 - 145||
This section comprises Alaska's anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws, which were amended in 2010. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person: knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal; with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal; kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression chamber; intentionally kills or injures a pet or livestock by the use of poison; knowingly kills or injures an animal with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or terrorize another person; or knowingly engages in sexual conduct with an animal, films such activity, induces such activity, or intentionally permits this to occur on premises under the person's control. The court may also prohibit or limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of animals for up to 10 years for convictions under this section.
|AK - Divorce - § 25.24.160. Judgment||AS § 25.24.160||AK ST § 25.24.160||Alaska became the first state to allow judges to provide for “well-being” of pets in divorce actions. Governor Bill Walker signed HB 147 into law on October 2016, and becoming effective January 17, 2017. The law amends AS 25.24.160 contained in Chapter 24 on Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage. The amendment states: “[i]n a judgment in an action for divorce or action declaring a marriage void or at any time after judgment, the court may provide . . . (5) if an animal is owned, for the ownership or joint ownership of the animal, considering the well-being of the animal." Courts in most states have limited awarding pets in marriage dissolution based on traditional property classifications with only a few cases considering a pet's "best interests." This law is unique in that it gives the judge the authority to go beyond a traditional property paradigm for pets when dividing marital property.||Statute|