Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WV - Dogs, deer - § 20-2-5j. Leashed dogs for tracking mortally wounded deer or bear | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-5j | WV ST § 20-2-5j | This West Virginia law enacted in 2020 provides that a person who is legally hunting and reasonably believes he or she has mortally wounded a deer or bear may use leashed dogs to track and locate the mortally wounded deer or bear. The hunter is also permitted to use a dog handler of leashed dogs to track and locate the mortally wounded deer or bear. The hunter or the dog handler shall maintain physical control of the leashed dogs at all times. | Statute | |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board | 891 F.Supp.2d 1212 (D.Kan. 2012) | 2012 WL 3834740 (D.Kan. 2012) |
Upon being informed by the Kansas State Fair Board (KSFB) that it must shield a video depicting graphic images of animals being slaughtered, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sought a preliminary injunction in order to show the video at the Kansas State Fair. PETA argued the shield was unconstitutional. The KSFB sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, that PETA lacked Article Three Standing, and that the defendant was not a section 1983 person. Both motions were denied by the district court. |
Case | |
| US - Livestock - Farm Sanctuary, et al v. Vilsack (Petition to Amend Rule) | Submitted by Farm Sanctuary, ASPCA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Compassion in World Farming, Compassion Over Killing, Farm Forward, and Mercy For Animals | The undersigned submit this petition to request that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) amend the ante-mortem inspection regulations to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) pigs.1 Specifically, Petitioners request that FSIS amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: "(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13." Read the regulation this petition challenges. | Administrative | ||
| CA - Hunting Bears - Chapter 9. Bear | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4750 - 4763 | CA FISH & G § 4750 - 4763 | These sections outline the requirements for taking a bear in California. It is unlawful, for example, to take any bear with a firearm, trap, or bow and arrow without first procuring a license tag authorizing the taking. These sections list the license requirements and other restrictions on the method of taking, including penalties for violations. | Statute | |
| IN - Cow Slaughter - THE GUJARAT ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1954 | LXXII of 1954 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Gujarat, prohibits the slaughter of cattle. A person transporting cattle from one region or the state to another is deemed to be transporting them for slaughter unless they are able to prove otherwise. Persons are prohibited from selling, storing, transporting or offering for sale beef or beef products. Animals other than cattle may be slaughtered, but may be slaughtered only after a certificate is issued by the Competent Authority. Offences under this Act are cognizable—this means that offenders may be arrested without a warrant. Offences under this Act carry with them imprisonment or fines. | Statute | ||
| IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER | 52 Agric. Dec. 155 (1993) | 1993 WL 151162 (U.S.D.A.) |
Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute. |
Case | |
| City of Cleveland v. Turner | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 3974089 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-3378 (2019) | Defendant was convicted by bench trial of one count of sexual conduct with an animal (bestiality) in violation of R.C. 959.21(B). He was sentenced to 90 days in jail (with credit for time served), a $750 fine, with five years of inactive community control that included no contact with animals and random home inspections by the Animal Protection League (APL). The evidence supporting his conviction came from explicit letters defendant wrote to his boyfriend (who was incarcerated at the time) that described acts of bestiality. Defendant was also a sex offender parolee at the time of the letter writing. The letter, which was intercepted by jail officials, recounted a sexual act defendant engaged in with a dog that was under his care. Other similarly explicit letters were entered as evidence. In addition to the letters, the dog's owner testified that she left her dog with defendant and, after picking up the dog, the dog's behavior markedly changed from friendly to anxious and afraid. In addition, the dog was skittish for many days after, licked her genitals excessively, and was uncomfortable with any person near her backside, including the veterinarian. On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred by admitting his extrajudicial statements without independent evidence of a crime. Specifically, defendant contends the city failed to establish the corpus delicti to permit introduction of his purported confession. The court noted that this was a case of first impression since there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. Relying on the Indiana case of Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841 (Ind.2017), this court found that while there was no direct evidence of a crime against the dog, the circumstantial evidence corroborates defendant's statements in his letter. The corpus delicti rule requires that the prosecution supply some evidence of a crime to admit the extrajudicial statements. Here, the city did that with the dog owner's testimony concerning the dog's altered behavior after being left alone with defendant. The court also found the evidence, while circumstantial, withstood a sufficiency of evidence challenge by defendant on appeal. On the issue of sentencing and random home inspections as a condition of his community control sanctions, the court found that the trial court did not have "reasonable grounds" to order warrantless searches of real property for a misdemeanor conviction. The finding of guilt for defendant's bestiality conviction was affirmed, but the condition of community control sanction regarding random home inspections was reversed and remanded. | Case | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. Hall | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2790404 (D.Idaho) |
Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project filed the instant action challenging the “90-Day Finding” issued by the Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service that denied protection of the Interior Mountain Quail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service determined that the Petition had failed to provide information demonstrating that the Interior Mountain Quail population is discrete under the ESA. The District Court stated that, in order to qualify as a DPS, a population must “be both discrete and significant.” The court found that the Service's conclusion appropriately determined that this discreteness standard was not met and it provided a rational basis for concluding the Petition had failed to provide evidence of a marked separation between the populations of the same taxon. |
Case | ||
| Australia | Policy | ||||
| US - AWA - Subpart F. Specifications for Warmblooded Animals Other Than | 9 C.F.R. § 3.125 to 142 | This subpart contains the Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Dogs, Cats, Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Nonhuman Primates, and Marine Mammals. | Administrative |