Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 253-20-JH/22 The case of Estrellita | 253-20-JH/22 | This is the unprecedented case of Estrellita, a woolly monkey, and the first animal with the status of subject of rights in Ecuador. Estrellita was illegally taken from her habitat as a baby and sold to a family that kept her as a pet for 18 years. The authorities became aware of Estrellita after an anonymous report stating that the Plaintiff was keeping a wild animal in their home. Estrellita was seized and relocated to a nearby zoo. The owner of Estrellita filed a habeas corpus requesting that Estrellita be returned to her, as she was a family member. Sadly, Estrellita died while under the care of the authorities. Despite the family's heartfelt plea, the court denied the habeas corpus, deciding that the best course of action was to keep Estrellita in the zoo - a decision that ultimately cost her life. The Constitutional Court decided to hear the case because it considered it had questions that needed to be answered. In a 7-2 court ruling, Ecuador's Constitutional Court held that animals are subjects of rights protected by the rights of nature. (In Ecuador, nature has been granted rights under the 2008 Constitution). The court found that both the Plaintiff and the authorities had violated Estrellita's rights to life and integrity by taking her from the wild and, in the government's case, by ignoring her needs when relocating her to the zoo. The court further held that the writ of habeas corpus could be appropriate in animal cases, depending on the circumstances. Another significant outcome of this decision is that the court instructed the Ministry of Environment and the Ombudsman to draft new legislation that materializes the parameters and criteria outlined in its decision. This legislation is essential in creating a legal framework to protect animals and ensure their rights are respected. | Case | ||
| US - Slaughter - Ante Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 309 | Progulmated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FIMA), Part 309 of the FIMA regulations covering livestock inspection state that alll livestock offered for slaughter in an official establishment shall be examined and inspected on the day of, and before, slaughter. Such ante-mortem inspection shall be made in pens on the premises of the establishment at which the livestock are offered for slaughter. If an establishment fails to present animals for ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.1, inspection program personnel will be unable to determine that carcasses are not adulterated during postmortem inspection, and therefore cannot permit the carcasses to be marked as inspected and passed. Livestock may also be determined to be non-ambulatory disabled, US suspect, or US Condemened. Read a petition that requests the Food Safety and Inspection Service 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. | Administrative | ||
| US - Fur, dog and cat fur products - Chapter 4. Tariff Act of 1930. | 19 U.S.C.A. § 1308 | This federal statute prohibits commerce in dog or cat fur. Specifically, the statute forbids import into, or export from, the United States of any dog or cat fur product; or the introduction into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product. The exception under the act is for the importation, exportation, or transportation, for noncommercial purposes, of a personal pet that is deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy. | Statute | ||
| AR - Ordinances - § 14-16-701. River and improvement district | A.C.A. § 14-16-701 | AR ST § 14-16-701 | This Arkansas statute provides that, upon the written request of the governing body of a suburban improvement district (as defined by statute), a county may by ordinance control and regulate dogs and cats within all or any part of the suburban improvement district. This statute does not elaborate on the confines of such ordinances, so it is assumed the subject matter is constrained only through preemption. | Statute | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior | 354 F.Supp.2d 1156(D. Or. 2005) | 2005 WL 221253 (D.Or.) |
Plaintiffs challenged the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) "downlisting" of the gray wolf from endangered to threatened status through publication of its Final Rule. The Final Rule delists the gray wolf in 14 southeastern states based on "listing error" because that region was not part of the gray wolf's historical range. The court held that the FWS's extension of boundaries of only DPSs in which gray wolf populations had achieved recovery goals to encompass wolf's entire historical range was arbitrary and capricious. FWS's downlisting of entire DPSs, without analyzing threats to the gray wolf outside of its current range, was inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and thus was arbitrary and capricious. |
Case | |
| Chiapas |
Chiapas is the only state in Mexico that has yet to establish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Chiapas has instead enacted the Wildlife Protection Law, which primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. |
Policy | |||
| CA - Dangerous - California Dangerous Dog Statutes | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31601 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 - 3342.5; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121685; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 398 - 399.5 | CA FOOD & AG § 31601 - 31683; CA CIVIL § 3342 - 3342.5; CA HLTH & S § 121685;CA PENAL § 398 - 399.5 | This is the California statute for the rules and regulations regarding dangerous and/or vicious dogs. It defines what constitutes a dangerous and/or vicious dog, what is to be done with said dog(s), and provides a model provision for municipalities to follow. The other set of provisions contains the relevant dog bite law. California has strict liability for dog bites such that liability is imposed regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Council Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production | 2007/43/EC |
Community measures regulate the management of holdings that rear chickens for meat production in order to improve animal welfare, particularly for chickens kept on intensive farms. |
Statute | ||
| Zuckerman v. Coastal Camps, Inc. | 716 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.Me., 2010) | 2010 WL 2301145 (D.Me.) |
This case arose after twelve-year old Samantha Zuckerman sustained injuries when she fell the pony she was riding during a horseback riding lesson at Camp Laurel in Mount Vernon, Maine. Samantha alleged that her instructors improperly saddled the pony, which caused her saddle to slip. In appealing the Magistrate's recommended decision, Camp Laurel again claims that it is immune from liability under Maine Equine Activities Act because a slipping saddle is a risk inherent to the sport of horseback riding. Camp Laurel contends that the faulty tack exception is limited to situations where the tack cracks, breaks, or frays and does not include an “improperly tightened girth” or an “inappropriate pony” or “faulty horse.” This Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the record raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning the “faulty” tack exception. The Court found that the negligence here was tied to an exception to the liability shield - faulty tack. |
Case | |
| Excerpt Criminal Code of the State of Coahuila - Mexico | CÓDIGO PENAL DE COAHUILA DE ZARAGOZA | Excerpt of Coahuila's Criminal Code concerning title ten "of the crimes against animals that affect the right to a life free from violence." The criminal code of the state of Coahuila establishes the duty to respect all vertebrate non-human animals that are not considered a "pest" according to the law. It establishes penalties ranging from one to three years plus monetary fines in addition to the confiscation of all animals under the care of the person found guilty of committing animal cruelty crimes These acts include: mistreating a working animal by the use of instruments that cause unnecessary pain and suffering; practicing animal vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically necessary to preserve human life or health; and mutilating any part of the body of a living animal or perform surgery on it, without providing anesthesia. Under the Criminal Code, activities such as zoophilia and animal fighting in public or private settings are also prohibited. Veterinarians, caretakers, and people involved in commercial activities involving animals may, in addition to the penalties established in this code, be subject to suspension or disqualification for a period of one to five years from employment, position, profession, trade, authorization, license, commercialization, or any circumstance under which the crime was committed. | Statute |