|WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I||West's RCWA 77.15.790, 792||WA ST 77.15.790, 792||These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.||Statute|
|WA - Wolf - Chapter 16.001. Wolf-Livestock Management||West's RCWA 16.76.005 - .030||WA ST 16.76.005 - .030||These statutes create the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant within the department of agriculture. Further, a four-member advisory board is established to advise the department on the expenditure of the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant funds. The board must help direct funding for the deployment of nonlethal deterrence resources, including human presence, and locally owned and deliberately located equipment and tools. In addition, the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management account is created as a nonappropriated account in the custody of the state treasurer.||Statute|
|WA - Yakima - Breed - Chapter 6.18 - Pit Bull Dogs||Chapter 6.18||
This Yakima, Washington ordinance makes it unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog within the city of Yakima. Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. This chapter does not apply to pit bull dogs which: 1) do not reside in the city of Yakima, 2) are brought into the city for the purposes of participating in a dog show or canine sporting event for which the owner is able to show proof of entry, and 3) do not remain in the city of Yakima for a period exceeding ninety-six consecutive hours.
|Wade v. Rich||618 N.E.2d 1314 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.,1993)||249 Ill.App.3d 581 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.,1993)||
Plaintiff sued dog owners for injuries from a dog attack. The jury ruled in favor of plaintiff for medical expenses, and plaintiff sought a new trial as to damages only. The court held that a new trial on damages was appropriate because the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering was against the manifest weight of evidence as defendant's liability was established by the viciousness of the dog repeatedly biting plaintiff about the head and face, which was out of proportion to the unintentional act of plaintiff falling onto the sleeping dog. Unintentional or accidental acts can
|Wales - Collars, electronic - The Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010||2010 No. 943 (W.97)||Regulations prohibiting the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats in Wales.||Statute|
|Wales - Dogs - The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014||2014 No. 3266 (W. 333)||Regulations to license persons breeding dogs in Wales.||Statute|
|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|
|Wales - Fur, mink - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (Wales) Order 2012||2012 No. (W. )||An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in Wales.||Statute|
|Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard||325 F.3d 412 (C.A.3 (Pa.),2003)||175 Ed. Law Rep. 93||
Public school student circulated a petition during class and recess that opposed a school field trip to the circus. School officials prevented her from circulating the petition, and she complained of a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the school, holding that the student's rights had not been violated because a school may regulate the times and circumstances a petition may be circulated when it interferes with educational goals or the rights of other students.
|Walking Search Warrants: Canine Forensics and Police Culture after Florida v. Harris||John J. Ensminger and L.E. Papet||10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 1||The 1983 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Place set initial parameters to tell police how and when dogs could be used at airports and in a number of other environments. Recently, narcotics detection dogs have come to be considered “walking search warrants” by their human counterparts. Particularly since the United States Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris in 2013, such attitudes in law enforcement have been reinforced as to the use of such dogs in public places. This article explores the interaction of canine forensics and police culture, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris.||Article|