Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 13 V.S.A. § 351 - 400; 20 V.S.A. § 2365b; 24 V.S.A. § 1943 | VT ST T. 13 § 351 - 400; VT ST T. 20 § 2365b; VT ST T. 24 § 1943 | This Vermont statutory section contains the amended anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Animal cruelty, as defined by § 352, occurs when a person overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, or deprives an animal which a person owns or possesses of adequate food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, or necessary medical attention. It is also animal cruelty if one owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting. The section excludes scientific research activities, hunting, farming, and veterinary activities among others. | Statute |
| CR - Fighting - Prohíbe Espectáculos e Importar Animales Pelea (Pit Bull, Peces Beta) | 11571-G |
(Text of Decree in Spanish). Prohibir en todo el territorio nacional la organización, promoción y realización de todo acto cuyo objetivo sea total o parcialmente la pelea entre animales, como por ejemplo perros APTB (American pit bul terrier), peces siameses (Beta) y cualquier otro tipo de animal normalmente reconocido como apto para pelear. |
Statute | |
| OR - Dundee - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.08 KEEPING OF CHICKENS) | Dundee Municipal Code §§ 6.08.010 - 6.08.040 |
In Dundee, Oregon, chickens are permitted within the city only in conformance with the following ordinances. For instance, a single-family dwelling may keep up to six chickens, and the offspring under the age of four months of these chickens, on the lot or parcel on which the dwelling resides; roosters. however, are not allowed. Additionally, these ordinances prohibit residents from slaughtering chickens within the city unless certain conidtions are met. Penalties for violations are also provided. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. LeVasseur | 613 P.2d 1328 (1980) |
The trial court convicted defendant of first degree theft after he freed dolphins from a university laboratory. The court affirmed the conviction on appeal. It reasoned that the choice of evils defense was unavailable to defendant because the definition of "another" under Hawaii statute clearly did not include dolphins. |
Case | |
| Wales - Dogs - The Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015 | 2015 No. 1990 (W. 300) | Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. | Statute | |
| TN - Licenses - § 68-8-107. Seizure; adoption; destruction. | T. C. A. § 68-8-107 | TN ST § 68-8-107 | This Tennessee statute mandates that any dog found running at large may be seized by any peace officer and placed in an animal shelter in counties or cities where an animal shelter or pound is available. If the dog or cat is wearing a rabies vaccination tag or other identification, all reasonable effort shall be made to locate and notify the owners who shall be required to appear within five (5) days and redeem the animal by paying a pound fee as set by the city or county legislative body. | Statute |
| Recent Animal Law Amendments and Cases |
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Policy | ||
| Eastep v. Veterinary Medical Examining Bd. | 539 P.2d 1144 (Or.App. 1975) | 22 Or.App. 457 (1975) |
Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon. The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent. |
Case |
| State v. Hammond | 569 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2018) | Defendant Hammond appeals his conviction for misdemeanor animal abuse in violation of § 578.012. The facts underlying the conviction stem from defendant’s conduct with a horse. In 2016, police were dispatched to a horse that was "down" on a road. The officer observed multiple injuries on the horse's hooves, fetlocks, and lower legs. Its hooves were severely abraded, which was confirmed by subsequent veterinary examination. Another officer observed markings on the road indicative of a "blood trail" from defendant's residence to the location of the horse. According to this officer, defendant told him that he had been "doing farrier stuff to his horses and this particular horse had broke away from them five times and broke a couple of lead lines, burned some people’s hands, and that he was going to teach the horse a lesson." Ultimately, the officers were able to get the horse to stand and loaded into a trailer. It later died at the animal clinic to where it was taken. Defendant was charged with felony animal abuse and a jury trial was held. The jury convicted defendant of the lesser-included misdemeanor animal abuse. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow his counsel to read Missouri's right-to-farm amendment when it instructed the jury on the amendment. The court noted that, similar to a prior case evoking the right-to-farm amendment, the amendment itself was not intended to nullify or curtail longstanding laws. The prohibition against animal cruelty existed in some form in the Missouri code for 145 years. Further, the court disagreed with defendant's contention that his prosecution criminalized a legitimate farming practice. The jury convicted defendant based on a finding that, when he pulled the horse behind his truck, his conscious object was to cause injury or suffering to the horse. While defendant contends that his was employing a legitimate, established farming technique to "train" the horse, the jury rejected his claim. Defendant's claim on appeal that the animal abuse law could then be used to prosecute farmers for other legitimate farming activities (i.e., branding, castration, use of whips, etc.) was also rejected. The court found that the conscious object of such activities is not to inflect pain or suffering, but to achieve another goal. The pain is "incidental to the farmer's legitimate objectives." The jury found this not to be the case with defendant. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to allow Hammond to read the right-to-farm amendment to the jury, and when it refused to instruct the jury on the amendment’s terms. Affirmed. | Case | |
| Anti-cruelty laws that restrain future ownership of animals | This map surveys state laws that allow sentencing courts to restrict future ownership or possession of animals by those convicted of animal cruelty, commonly called "Possession Bans." To date (2024), it appears that 39 states have such laws. Generally, these laws apply only to felony convictions except for a couple states. With some state laws like Indiana, Missouri, and Texas, the possession ban covers only the animals who were subject to the cruelty and any other animals possessed by defendant at the time of the offense. Kansas' law makes those convicted of dogfighting who own dogs within five years of conviction a separate crime. Uniquely, Kentucky's laws restrain ownership if the crime involved sexual assault of an animal or if the animal at issue was an equine. The law does not prevent ownership of future animals. Most laws do address the issue of future animals, though. The most common number of years under which ownership of animals is enjoined by the court is five (5) years. However, California allows ten (10) years for a felony conviction and Delaware expands this to fifteen (15) years. Several states including Maine, Michigan, and Washington enable courts to impose permanent relinquishment of the ability to own or possess animals. The majority of states allow the sentencing court to affix a “reasonable” term of restricted ownership. Some states describe this as a term the judge feels “necessary” or “appropriate.” A few states even limit the ability of the defendant to work with animals in current or future jobs for certain convictions. These laws are distinguished from pre-conviction forfeiture laws that authorize law enforcement or humane officers to impound animals subject to suspected cruel treatment during the pendency of the proceedings. | State map |