Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 12 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| NJ - Borough of Magnolia - Title 6 - ANIMALS (CHAPTER 95. - ANIMALS) | Code of the Borough of Magnolia §§ 6.95-1 to 6.95-10 |
In Borough of Magnolia, New Jersey, any person desiring to operate a pet shop or kennel must obtain a license and must operate the establishment within the borough's business district. Thus, this ordinance contains provisions on applying for, renewing, and revoking a license. This ordinance also establishes animal care standards for pet shops and kennels, as well as requires that all dogs kept or maintained within these establishments wear a tag. Additionally, this ordinance also prohibits dogs kept in a kennel or a pet shop from going off the site’s premises except under certain circumstances. Anyone convicted of violating these provisions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, a period of community service not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof. |
Local Ordinance | |||||||||
| Colombia - Wildlife - Ley 2111 | Ley 2111 | Ley 2111, 2021, is the law for environmental crimes. The focus is to protect the national ecosystems and the nation’s natural patrimony. This law creates new crimes and strengthens existing ones concerning national wildlife by imposing up to 12 years (60-135 months) of prison and monetary fines of 40,000 minimum wages for illegal trafficking. More specifically, with regards to wildlife, the law punishes “those who traffic, acquire, export or trade without authorization from the competent authority or in violation of existing regulations, specimens, products or parts of aquatic, wild fauna or exotic wild species.” The new crimes created under this law are deforestation, its promotion and financing; wildlife trafficking; the financing of the invasion of areas of special ecological importance; and the financing and illegal appropriation of vacant lands belonging to the nation. The sanctions for the crimes of damage to natural resources and ecocide, illegal hunting and fishing, the illegal use of renewable natural resources, and environmental contamination were strengthened. | Statute | |||||||||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 9 |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (Brazilian Animal Rights Review)Only in Original PortugueseTable of Contents for Volumes 1- 8
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| Zimmerman v. Robertson | 854 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1993) | 259 Mont. 105 (1993) |
Defendant-veterinarian was contracted to castrate plaintiff’s horse. Post-surgical care resulted in a fatal infection of the horse. The court found that, indeed, expert testimony is required in malpractice cases, as negligence cannot be inferred from the existence of a loss. The court disagreed with plaintiff that defendant’s own "admissions" in his testimony at trial provided sufficient evidence of deviation from the standard of care to withstand a directed verdict by defendant. As to plaintiff’s argument regarding a lack of informed consent, the court noted that a medical malpractice claim premised on a theory of lack of informed consent is a separate cause of action rather than an "element" in an otherwise specifically alleged claim of professional negligence. |
Case | ||||||||
| FL - Liens, veterinary - 713.655. Liens for professional services of veterinarians | West's F. S. A. § 713.655 | FL ST § 713.655 | This section comprises Florida's veterinary lien law. A lien exists in favor of any veterinarian who renders professional services to an animal at the request of the owner of the animal, the owner's agent, or a bailee, lessee, or custodian of the animal, for the unpaid portion of the fees for such professional services. The lien remains valid and enforceable for a period of 1 year from the date the professional services were rendered, and such lien is to be enforced in the manner provided for the enforcement of other liens on personal property in this state. | Statute | ||||||||
| Australia - Animal Welfare - (Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed) Code of Welfare 2003 | Code of Welfare No. 1 | This code applies to all persons responsible for the welfare of broiler chickens in controlled environment broiler production systems. The pre-hatched chick that is in the last half of development is also covered by this code. In controlled environment broiler production systems, broiler chickens are kept in enclosed housing and are reliant on human management for all their daily requirements. The rearing of broiler chickens, if it is to be done well, requires both experience and the observance of high standards. Unless that work is done well, the welfare of the birds cannot be adequately protected. This code is intended to encourage all those responsible for its implementation to adopt the highest standard of husbandry, care and handling, to equal or exceed the minimum standards. | Administrative | |||||||||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE GOA, DAMAN AND DIU PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1978 | 13 of 1978 | This provision, specific to the regions of Goa, Daman and Diu, prohibits the slaughter of cows. However, it does not prohibit the import of cow meat into these regions. Only cows that are suffering or are the subject of medical research may be slaughtered. In these cases, prior permission to slaughter the cow must be obtained by a veterinary officer or officer of the Animal Husbandry Department. Beef may not be sold in these regions. The government or local authority must maintain institutions for the care of 'uneconomic' cows. Offences under this Act are cognizable (offender can be arrested without a warrant) and non-bailable (bail is not a matter of right). | Statute | |||||||||
| WA - Cathlamet - Breed - Chapter 6.10 
PIT BULL DOGS | CATHLAMET, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 6.10.010 - 6.10.030 (1991) |
It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog in Cathlamet, Washington, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of this chapter. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Any pit bull dog found to be the subject of a violation may be confiscated and even destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |||||||||
| Ridley v. Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. | 932 N.W.2d 576 (S.D., 2019) | 2019 S.D. 48 | Plaintiff Ridley was walking at a campground where she was attacked and injured by a pit bull type dog belonging to Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. (SEPR) and in the care of Susan Tribble-Zacher and Harry Podhradsky. At the time, the dog was tethered to a tree near the Zacher and Podhradsky campsite. SEPR functions as a pit bull fostering organization that takes pit bulls from situations of abuse and neglect and places them with foster providers until a permanent home can be found. The lower court granted both Zacher's and Podhradsky's motions for summary judgment, which Ridley appeals in this instant case. On appeal, Ridley claims the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the evidence by viewing the facts in a light most favorable to SEPR instead of plaintiff. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis that the injury to Ridley was not foreseeable. The court rejected Ridley's argument that pit bull type dogs have inherently dangerous breed tendencies and, as a result, the attack was foreseeable and the keepers should be held to a higher standard of care. The court noted that South Dakota law does not support any "breed-specific standard of care," and that every dog is presumed tame so that the burden is on a plaintiff to prove otherwise. The dog who attacked Ridley had no prior history of aggression toward humans to make the attack on Ridley foreseeable. In addition, the fact that Zacher and Podhradsky may have violated a policy by SEPR to keep the dog in a two-week "shutdown period," where the dog would not travel outside the home, did not make it foreseeable that the dog would attack Ridley. Thus, the defendants did not breach their duty of reasonable care toward Ridley. The motions for summary judgment were affirmed. | Case |