Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| England - Farming - The Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018 | 2018 No. 556 | These Regulations introduce requirements on operators of slaughterhouses in England to install and operate a closed circuit television (CCTV) system in all areas where live animals are present. CCTV footage and associated data must be retained for a period of 90 days. Inspectors are given powers to require compliance with these Regulations. This includes powers of inspection and seizure where an inspector has entered premises for the purposes of executing and enforcing the 2015 Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations, and powers to issue enforcement notices. | Statute | |
| Sentencia T-095, 2016 | Sentencia T-095/16 | In this decision, the court drew a line between the concept of animal welfare and the concept of animal rights. The court continues to see animal protection from a moral perspective when it states animals do not necessarily have rights, even though they should be treated with respect and should not be abused. The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary, created for the sole purpose of protection of fundamental rights) against ‘la Personería Local of Fontibón’, the local Mayor’s office of Fontibon, the District Secretary of Health, the Zoonosis Center and the Distril Secretary of the environment of Bogota. The Plaintiff argued that these governmental entities had violated his fundamental right to petition and the right to animal welfare of twenty five dogs, when the authorities ordered the confiscation the canines that were located in the District Ecological Park of the Wetland of Capellanía and who were cared for by volunteers. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants did not respond to his request to provide funds to build a shelter and provide food and veterinary assistance of the dogs or funds to relocate them. The Plaintiff sought a response from governmental authorities on the petition and to provide the funds to save the animals, thereby avoiding the Zoonosis Center to assume their care, who would euthanize the sick animals that were not adopted after five days of being up for adoption. The lower court denied the protection of the fundamental right to petition, as it found that the authorities responded to the petition of the Plaintiff in a clear and timely matter by denying the request to fund the Plaintiff to relocate the dogs or build a shelter for them. In regards to the right to animal welfare, the lower court considered it was a legal rather than a constitutional issue, therefore the action of ‘tutela’ was not the appropriate mechanism as its purpose is to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The court held that there was a constitutional duty of animal protection that derives from the duty to protect the environment. However, this duty to guarantee the well-being of animals as sentient beings is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions. The court determines that the mandate to protect the environment, which includes sentient beings, does not translate into a right to animal welfare, and for that reason such duty is not enforceable through an action of tutela. The duty to protect animals presumes an obligation to care and prohibits maltreatment and cruelty against animals, unless these actions come from one of the limits stipulated in the constitution. The court affirmed the lower court decision to deny the protection to the right to petition and declared the inadmissibility of the action of tutela for the protection of animal welfare. | Case | |
| Larry Ciaccio, Appellant v. City of Port St. Lucie Animal Control Department, Appellee |
The following documents concern the appellant's request to release his dog from the Port St. Lucie, Florida Humane Society. At the time of the petition, the dog was kept in a "quarantine" area of the shelter and had not been let out of his cage for exercise or socialization since he was seized 8 months prior. Appellant asks the court to either let him securely confine the dog at his home or board him at the Safe Harbor Animal Sanctuary until the dangerous dog determination is resolved. |
Pleading | ||
| PA - Veterinary - Chapter 14A. Veterinary Medicine Practice. | 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | PA ST 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund Boston, Inc. v. Provimi Veal Corp. | 626 F.Supp. 278 (D.Mass.,1986) |
District Court found that federal law preempts Massachusetts's consumer protection statute that requires retailers to inform consumers of relevant information, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer or prospective buyer not to enter into the transaction. The District Court also held that the Animal Legal Defense Fund could not enforce a cruelty to animals claim because it involves criminal statutes that only public prosecutors and legislatively-sanctioned groups may enforce. |
Case | |
| KS - Prairie Village - Breed - 2-105 PIT BULL DOG KEEPING PROHIBITED | PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS., CITY CODE § 2-105 | In Prairie Village, Kansas, it is unlawful to own, harbor, shelter, keep, control, manage, or possess within the corporate limits of the City, any pit bull dog. This includes the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dog, the American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dog, the American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any dog having the appearance and characteristics of being predominately of the breeds of Staffordshire pit bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier; or a combination of any of these breeds. | Local Ordinance | |
| NY - Licenses - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 109 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 109 | This New York statute provides that the owner of any dog reaching the age of four months shall immediately make application for a dog license. Certain villages and other municipalities may provide for differing licensure regulations as described in this statute. The statute outlines the specific application procedures for obtaining a license, including a purebred license. | Statute |
| Wyoming v. United States Department of the Interior | 360 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (Wy. 2005) | 60 ERC (BNA) 1189 |
In a letter, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected Wyoming's wolf management plan due to Wyoming's predatory animal classification for gray wolves. Wyoming brought claims against the United States Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service for violating the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the letter did not constitute final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. |
Case |
| 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 | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 20, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 20, Issue 2 (Spring 2014)
INTRODUCTIONTHE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT FORTY: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
|
Policy |