Displaying 51 - 55 of 55
|OK - Veterinary - Chapter 15. Oklahoma Veterinary Practice Act.||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.|
|OK - Wildlife - Part 5. Possession of Wildlife.||Under these Oklahoma statutes, no person may possess any wildlife or parts thereof during the closed season, any endangered or threatened species or parts thereof at any time, or any native bear or native cat that will grow to reach the weight of 50 lbs. or more, with exceptions. A conviction could result in a fine of $100-$500 and/or by imprisonment up to 30 days. In addition, no person may buy, barter, trade, or sell all or any part of any fish or wildlife or the nest or eggs of any bird protected by law, with exceptions. A first violation could result in a fine of $100 to $500 and/or by imprisonment up to 60 days.|
|OK - Wildlife - Part 6. Transportation of Wildlife||Under these Oklahoma statutes, no common carrier may transport any wildlife or endangered or rare species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $25 to $100. In addition, no person may transport into or out of Oklahoma any wildlife or parts thereof, nests of wildlife, their eggs or their young, or any endangered or threatened species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $50 to $200, and/or imprisonment of 10 to 60 days.|
|OK - Wildlife - § 5-601. Wildlife breeders' sale and transportation of wildlife; tags for selling; invoices; records||This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements.|
|State v. Gilchrist||
The Appellant State of Oklahoma appeals the Grant County District Court's granting of defendant's motion to quash counts 2-13 of Cruelty to Animals violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685. Defendant was charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty stemming from maltreatment of 13 dogs at his property. Evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that two of the dogs were chained to small, metal shelters, and 11 were individually penned, all in 100 degree heat. No dogs had adequate water and rotting carcasses were found within reach of the dogs. According to responding veterinarians, all dogs were extremely dehydrated and in need of immediate medical care and one dog had gone into shock (it later died). Most of the dogs were malnourished and poorly conditioned with parasite-infested wounds. At district court, defendant argued that he could only be charged with a single count of Cruelty to Animals because the dogs were found all in one location and had been abandoned for approximately the same time period. The district court acquiesced and granted defendant's motion to quash, finding no caselaw on point. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the district court's interpretation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685 wrong as a matter of law. The section repeatedly use the phrase "any animal" to show that the intent to address acts of abuse against any particular animal. The Court observed that the state filed a count for each of the dogs at defendant's property because each dog needed to be separately fed and watered. "Gilchrist deprived all thirteen dogs of the food, water and shelter necessary to avoid the grotesque suffering observed at the scene." Thus, the Court found the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash.