Idaho

Displaying 1 - 10 of 39
Titlesort descending Summary
Detailed Discussion of Idaho Great Ape Laws In Idaho, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gibbons, and all other nonhuman primates are classified as “deleterious exotic animals” which are dangerous to the environment, livestock, agriculture, or wildlife of the state. As a result of this classification, it is illegal to import or possess an ape without a Deleterious Exotic Animal permit issued by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA). 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.
Garshelis v. Bennett This appeal concerns the valuation of a companion animal and the availability of emotional distress damages arising from its wrongful death. The plaintiff sought to recover for the shooting and disposal of her dog, Stanley, advancing multiple tort theories including conversion, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The central legal issue was the proper measure of damages for the loss of a pet, which the court resolved by affirming that, under Idaho law, pets are considered property. Specifically, where a fair market value exists as here, where it was established that Stanley's value was $500, that value is the proper measure for the animal's loss, which precludes a "value to the owner" assessment or loss-of-use damages. Furthermore, the court adhered to precedent limiting the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet strictly to the independent torts of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and not through property-based torts like conversion. While the district court's nominal damages award for intentional infliction of emotional distress was upheld, its dismissal of the negligent infliction claim was reversed due to insufficient findings. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings specifically on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
Gill v. Brown


Plaintiffs sought to recover property damages and damage and for mental anguish sustained when Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by the Gills.  By alleging that Brown's conduct was reckless and that they thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, the court held that the Gills have alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Accordingly, the court held that the district court erred by striking the Gills' claim for damages caused by mental anguish and the cause was remanded.
ID - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.
ID - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Idaho statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Every person who is cruel to any animal and whoever having the charge or custody of any animal subjects any animal to cruelty is guilty of a misdemeanor. "Animal" means any vertebrate member of the animal kingdom, except humans. "Cruelty" is defined as the intentional and malicious infliction of pain, physical suffering, injury or death upon an animal as well as the negligent deprivation of necessary sustenance, among other things. Dogfighting and cockfighting exhibitions are also prohibited, but the rearing of gamecocks regardless of their later intended use is not prohibited.
ID - Dangerous - § 25-2806. Liability for livestock and poultry killed by dogs This Idaho statute provides that any owner whose dog that kills, worries, or wounds any livestock and poultry is liable to the owner of the same for the damages and costs of suit, to be recovered before any court of competent jurisdiction. Further, any person, on finding any dog, not on the premises of its owner or possessor, worrying, wounding, or killing any livestock or poultry may, at the time of so finding said dog, kill the same, without liability for damages.
ID - Dangerous Dogs running at large - Chapter 28. Dogs. This Idaho statute provides that any person who lets his or her dog run at large after a complaint has been made to the sheriff shall be guilty of an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho Code. Any person who lets his or her dog physically attack someone when not provoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.
ID - Disaster planning - Idaho Emergency Operations Plan The Idaho Emergency Operations Plan has several mentions of both household pets and livestock animals throughout the plan. Example of these provisions are provided below together with a copy of the most recent EOP from 2023.
ID - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws These Idaho statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws regarding dogs at large and vicious dogs, and immunity for acts done by law enforcement dogs.
ID - Dog License - Chapter 28. Dogs. This Idaho statute provides that once a county board adopts a measure, sixty (60) days from the date of the board's meeting at which this measure is adopted, it shall be the duty of the sheriff of the county to seize and impound all unlicensed dogs at large, excluding those located in a municipality that has enacted a dog license law. A dog impounded under this provision may be killed in a humane manner after 5 days after there has been a "reasonable effort" to locate the owner.

Pages