Pennsylvania Statute Law 1920: Article 14: Criminal Law |
14 Pa. Stat. §§ 7700-7783 (1920) |
|
|
Pennsylvania laws concerning the criminal punishment for cruelty to animals from 1921. The laws cover such topics as transportation of an animal to the powers of an agent from any anti-Cruelty society. |
Statute |
ID - Rabies - 500. DOGS AND CATS |
|
ID ADC 02.04.21.500 |
Idaho Admin. Code r. 02.04.21.500 |
All dogs and cats imported into the state of Idaho must be accompanied by a CVI. Dogs and cats twelve (12) weeks of age or older shall be vaccinated for rabies. |
Administrative |
Map of Beagle Freedom Laws |
|
|
|
This map contains the 15 state laws commonly called "Beagle Freedom Laws" as of January 2024. These laws mandate that retired research dogs be released for adoption when they are no longer needed for research purposes. Typically, the laws facilitate relationships between research facilities and non-profit animal rescues or other animal adoption organizations to allow those organizations to offer the retired dogs to members of the public. Iowa became the most recent state to enact such a law. |
State map |
CA - Initiatives - Proposition 4 (trapping) |
Proposition 4 (1998) |
|
|
This state initiative measure was proposed in 1998 and prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps. It passed with 57.5% of the vote. |
Statute |
WI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
W. S. A. 951.01 - 18; W.S.A. 944.18 |
WI ST. 951.01 - 18; WI ST 944.18 |
|
This section comprises the Wisconsin anti-cruelty section. Under the section, "animal" includes every living warm-blooded creature (except a human being), reptile, or amphibian. The section prohibits "mistreating animals," which is defined as treating any animal, whether belonging to the person or another, in a cruel manner. This section does not prohibit bona fide experiments carried on for scientific research or normal and accepted veterinary practices. This section also prohibits the instigation of dogfights, and has a unique provisions that prohibits the shooting of caged or staked animals. |
Statute |
Putnam County Humane Society v. Marjorie Duso d/b/a/ Oakwood Kennels, Putnam County Florida |
|
|
|
The Putnam County (Florida) Humane Society brought an action seeking permanent custody of 41 dogs from Marjorie Duso, the operator of a kennel. The PCHS is a not-for-profit corporation that is devoted to the prevention of cruelty to animals pursuant to Florida law. Under that authority, the PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The Putnam County Court granted the PCHS custody of the dogs (except for Ms. Duso’s personal pet dog, which the PCHS was given the right to check on at least once a month). Further, the court enjoined Ms. Duso from owning, possessing, or breeding dogs except those kept as personal pets.
|
Pleading |
CA - Circus - Article 5. Circus Cruelty Prevention Act |
West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2207 - 2210 |
CA FISH & G § 2207 - 2210 |
|
The California Circus Cruelty Prevention Act, effective in 2020, states that a person shall not sponsor, conduct, or operate a circus in this state that uses any animal other than a domestic dog, domestic cat, or domesticated horse, or exhibit or use any other animals than those animals. The term “circus” means a performance before a live audience in which entertainment consisting of a variety of acts, such as acrobats, aerialists, clowns, jugglers, or stunts, is the primary attraction or principal business, but excludes rodeos. |
Statute |
Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 4 |
|
|
|
Tabla de contenidos | | Editorial | | El Derecho Animal en 2015 Teresa Giménez-Candela | PDF PDF (EN) | |
Policy |
UT - Impound - (Repealed) § 77-24-1.5. Safekeeping by officer pending disposition--Records required |
U.C.A. 1953 § 77-24-1.5 (§§ 77-24-1 to 77-24-5. Repealed by Laws 2013, c. 394, § 40, eff. July 1, 2013) |
|
|
Sections 77-24-1 to 77-24-5. Repealed by Laws 2013, c. 394, § 40, eff. July 1, 2013 (Formerly: this Utah statute, amended in 2011, states that each peace officer shall hold all "property" in safe custody until it is received into evidence or disposed of as provided in this chapter. He or she must also maintain a record that identifies it. Note that the provisions related to specifically to animal impoundment/euthanasia were removed.) |
Statute |
KS - Roeland Park - Breed - 2-211 Pit Bulls |
ROELAND PARK, KS., CITY ORDINANCE § 2-211 |
|
|
On January 1, 2018, the prohibition on the keeping of more than one pit bull on any property in the City of Roeland Park, Kansas officially expired. Before this 2015 ordinance that made the possession of more than one pit bull unlawful, the city had a complete pit bull ban that prohibited the keeping, harboring, or owning a pit bull dog, including Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, or any dog that has the appearance and characteristics of being one of those breeds. Now, unless the city enacts another ordinance related to pit bulls, the ban has ended. |
Local Ordinance |