|CO - Trusts for Pets - Article 11. Intestate Succession and Wills.||
|CO - Vehicle, animal - § 13-21-108.4. Persons rendering emergency assistance from a locked vehicle||This Colorado law allows the rescue of animals and "at-risk persons" from locked vehicles under certain conditions. "Animal" defined as cat or dog and specifically excludes livestock. A person is immune from civil or criminal liability for property damage resulting from forcible entry into locked vehicle if all of the following occurs: (1) an animal is present and the person has a reasonable belief that the animal is in imminent danger of death or suffering serious bodily injury; (2) the person determines the vehicle is locked and forcible entry is necessary; (3) the person makes reasonable effort to locate the owner as outlined in the law; (4) the person contacts law enforcement/911/emergency responders prior to forcibly entering vehicle; and he or she remains with vehicle until law enforcement/responders arrive.|
|CO - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code||
|CO - Wildlife - Article 6. Law Enforcement and Penalties--Wildlife.||
|CO - Wildlife - Rules for Possession of Terrestrial Wildlife.||This set of regulations comprises the Colorado Department of Natural Resources general rules for the importation, transportation, possession, and release of terrestrial wildlife.|
|CO - Wildlife trade - Illegal sale of wildlife; penalties||
Colorado statute addressing illegal sale of wildlife, including bears.
|CO - Wildlife, nongame - Wildlife; Illegal Possession||Colorado law prohibits the taking, hunting, or possession of animals deemed property of the state or wildlife taken in violation of state, federal, or non-U.S. law (including bald and golden eagles), resulting in a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and fines. Further, there is an additional penalty for the taking of "big game" species. It is also illegal to have in one's possession any nonnative or exotic species.|
|Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver||
The plaintiffs, dog owners and related canine and humane associations (dog owners), filed a complaint in the Denver District Court against the defendant, City and County of Denver (city), seeking both a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the "Pit Bulls Prohibited" ordinance, Denver, Colo., Rev.Mun.Code § 8-55 (1989), and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement.
The dog owners in this case claim the ordinance is unconstitutional, violating their rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, is unconstitutionally vague, and constitutes a taking of private property.
|Detailed Discussion of Colorado Great Ape Laws||
Since 1994, Colorado’s Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA) has banned the import, possession, sale, and transfer of apes. . However, the ban is somewhat limited and there is little state-level regulation of apes beyond that. Generally, it is illegal to import, possess, or sell apes for use as pets; but federally licensed exhibitors (like circuses, zoos, animal acts, and some wildlife sanctuaries), scientific research facilities, and disabled people can freely import, possess, buy, and sell those animals.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. The discussion concludes with a compilation of local ordinances which govern the possession and use of apes within geographic subdivisions of the state.
|Hartlee v. Hardey||
Plaintiffs filed suit against a veterinarian and a number of police officers who were involved in their prosecution of animal cruelty. Plaintiffs Switf and Hatlee worked together on a Echo Valley Ranch where they provided care and boarding for horses. In February 2012, Officer Smith went to Echo Valley Ranch to conduct a welfare check on the horses. Officer Smith noticed that the horses seemed to be in poor condition, so he requested that a veternarian visis the ranch to inspect the horses. Dr. Olds, a local veterinarian, visited the ranch and wrote a report that suggested that the horses be seized due to their current state. Officer Smith initially served plaintiffs with a warning but after returning to the ranch and noticing that the horses’ condition had worsened, the horses were seized and plaintiffs were charged with animal cruelty. In this case, plaintiffs argued that the veterinarian had wrote the medical report for a “publicity stunt” and that this report influenced Officer’s Smith’s decision to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty. The court ultimately found that the veterinarian’s report was not made as a “publicity stunt,” especially due to the fact that the report was filed privately and not made available to the public. Also, the court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the veterinarian and the officers were working with one another in a “conspiracy” to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty.