Statutes

Statute by category Citationsort descending Summary
OR - Equine Liability Act - Chapter 30. Actions and Suits in Particular Cases. Actions Arising Out of Equine Activities. O. R. S. § 30.687 - 697 This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or an equine professional is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, arising out of riding, training, driving, grooming or riding as a passenger upon an equine. However, there are exceptions to this rule: an equine sponsor or professional will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant.
OR - Vehicle, unattended animal - 30.813. Entrance into motor vehicle to remove unattended child or domestic animal; O. R. S. § 30.813 This Oregon law enacted in 2017 gives immunity from civil or criminal liability to a person who enters a motor vehicle, by force or otherwise, to remove a child or domestic animal if he or she follows steps listed in the law. The person must first determine the vehicle is locked and there is no reasonable method for the animal or child to exit the vehicle. That person must also have a good faith and reasonable belief based on the circumstances that entry is necessary due to imminent harm. Additionally, that person must notify law enforcement/emergency services before or soon as is reasonably practicable, use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle, and remain with the child or animal until responders arrive.
OR - Damages - 30.822. Theft of or injury to search and rescue animal or therapy animal; attorney fees O. R. S. § 30.822 This Oregon law provides that the owner of a search and rescue animal or a therapy animal may bring an action for economic and noneconomic damages against any person who steals or, without provocation, attacks the search and rescue animal or therapy animal. The owner may also bring an action for such damages against the owner of any animal that, without provocation, attacks a search and rescue animal or therapy animal. If the animal dies as a result of the injuries sustained or the incident prevents the animal from returning to service, the measure of economic damages shall include, but need not be limited to, the replacement value of an equally trained animal, without any differentiation for the age or the experience of the animal. If the animal recovers and returns to service, the measure of economic damages shall include, but need not be limited to, the costs of temporary replacement services, veterinary medical expenses and any other costs and expenses incurred by the owner as a result of the theft of or injury to the animal.
OR - Endangered Species - Chapter 496. Application, Administration and Enforcement of Wildlife Laws. O. R. S. § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 These Oregon statutes set out the definitions and rules relating to the Oregon endangered species laws. Specifically, Oregon law provides rules for listing based on the federal ESA list as well as the state criteria. Violation of the law constitutes a Class A misdemeanor with an enhanced felony provision for subsequent convictions involving certain species (i.e., taking of game fish with a total value of $200 or more or the taking of antelope, black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose, mountain goat or mountain sheep in violation of the wildlife laws) within a ten-year period.
OR - Hunting - 496.994. Unlawful to obstruct the taking of wildlife O. R. S. § 496.994; 496.996 These two sections reflect Oregon's hunter harassment provisions. Under 496.994, a person commits the offense of obstructing the taking of wildlife if the person, having no right to do so, interferes with the lawful taking, or the process of taking, of wildlife by another with the intent to prevent the taking. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor. In a companion law, a person commits the crime of unlawful taking of wildlife if he or she discharges a hunting device toward a wildlife decoy in a manner inconsistent with lawful taking and the decoy is under the control of law enforcement officials.
OR - Sharks - 498.257. Possession, sale, etc. of shark fins prohibited; exceptions O. R. S. § 498.257, O. R. S. § 509.160 Under these Oregon statutes, a person may not possess, sell or offer for sale, trade or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for shark fins from spiny dogfish, for people who have a shark license, and for fish processors who have a license.
OR - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 603. Meat Dealers and Slaughterers. Meat Dealers and Slaughterers, in General. O. R. S. § 603.010 - 992 These Oregon laws comprise the state's slaughter laws. Among the provisions is the humane slaughter law, which requires that cattle, equines, sheep, or swine are slaughtered by by any method which renders the animal insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or by an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective; or by a method in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Violation of ORS 603.065 (the humane slaughter law) is a Class B misdemeanor.
OR - Licenses - 609.060. Notice by publication of election result; dogs running at large prohibited; violations O. R. S. § 609.060 This Oregon statute provides that if a governing body of a county by ordinance, or a measure approved by the electors in an election prohibits dogs from running at large, the county shall give notice, by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county. If after 60 days from the notice, a keeper violates the running at large ordinance, he or she commits a Class B violation.
OR - Impound - 609.090. Impounding dogs running at large; disposition of chasing, menacing or biting O. R. S. § 609.090 This Oregon statute provides that when a dog is running at large contrary to state or municipal law, a police or dog control officer shall impound it. Unless claimed by its owner, a dog will be held at least five days if it has a license tag. A "reasonable effort" shall be made to notify the keeper of a dog before the dog is removed from impoundment. This statute also states that, upon finding that the dog has menaced or chased a person when on premises other than the premises occupied exclusively by the keeper or has bitten a person, the dog control board or county governing body may order that the dog be killed in a humane manner. Before ordering that the dog be killed, the board or governing body shall consider the factors described in ORS 609.093 and issue written findings on those factors. A keeper of the dog may also file a petition to prevent the destruction. If the dog is not killed, the board or governing body may impose reasonable restrictions on the keeping of the dog.
OR - Exotic Pets - Chapter 609. Animal Control; Exotic Animals; Dealers. O. R. S. § 609.205 - 355 These Oregon laws concern the regulation of exotic pets in the state. An "exotic animal" for purposes of the section means a member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic cat), any nonhuman primate, any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic dog), any bear except the black bear, and any member of the order Crocodylia. A person may not keep an exotic animal in this state unless the person possesses a valid State Department of Agriculture permit for that animal issued prior to the effective date of this 2009 Act.
OR - Pet Dealers - 609.520. Inspection of records; procedure for obtaining animal held by dealer; O. R. S. § 609.520 This Oregon statute sets out the right of a person to inspect a pet dealer's business for the purpose of finding a lost companion animal. The statute also outlines acceptable methods to prove ownership and the procedure for resolving a dispute of ownership.
OR - Predator Control - Chapter 610. Predatory Animals. O. R. S. § 610.002 - 990 These Oregon statutes pertain to the control of predatory animals, which are defined as feral swine, coyotes, rabbits, rodents, and certain birds, and establish the Predatory Animal, Rabbit and Rodent Control Fund. The State Department of Agriculture may employ hunters and trappers to control and eradicate harmful predatory animals.
OR - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws O. R. S. § 659A.141; 659A.143; 167.352; 609.100; 401.977; 811.035; 814.110 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.
OR - Veterinary - Chapter 686. Veterinarians; Veterinary Technicians. O. R. S. § 686.010 - 990 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.
OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions O. R. S. § 87.142 This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes.
OR - Domestic Violence - 107.718. Court order when petitioner in imminent danger of abuse (allows pets) O.R.S. § 107.718 Under this Oregon law, if requested by a petitioner who has been the victim of domestic abuse, the court may enter an order to protect a companion or therapy animal. This includes an order to "[p]revent the neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose."
OR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws O.R.S. § 31.360; O. R. S. § 87.172, O. R. S. § 167.374, 376; O. R. S. § 433.340 - 405; O. R. S. § 609.010 - 994; O. R. S. § 498.102, 106, and 164; O.R.S. § 646A.075 - 077; O.R.S. § 811.200; O.R.S. § 30.815 These Oregon statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing and registration requirements, rabies control laws, and a comprehensive section on damage done by dogs, especially as it concerns the destruction of livestock.
OR - Education - 337.300. Refusal to dissect animal; alternative materials or methods of learning O.R.S. § 337.300 This Oregon law allows a student in grade kindergarten through grade 12 to refuse to dissect any vertebrate or invertebrate animal. A school district that includes dissection as part of its coursework shall permit students to demonstrate competency in the coursework through alternative materials or methods of learning that do not include the dissection of animals. Further, a teacher may not discriminate against a student or lower the grade of a student for not participating in the dissection of an animal.
OR - Property - 609.020. Dogs declared personal property O.R.S. § 609.020 Dogs are considered personal property in Oregon.
OR - Police Animal - 682.410. Emergency transportation for treatment of police dogs injured in the line of duty O.R.S. § 682.410 Under this Oregon law from 2021, an emergency medical services provider may provide emergency transportation for treatment to a police dog that is injured in the line of duty, provided that such transportation for treatment does not delay or otherwise interfere with the emergency transportation for treatment of any human.
OR - Vehicle - 811.200. Carrying dog on external part of vehicle; penalties O.R.S. § 811.200 This Oregon law states that a person commits a Class D traffic violation if he or she carries a dog upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any automobile or truck that is upon a highway unless the dog is protected by framework, carrier or other device sufficient to keep it from falling from the vehicle.
OR - Vehicle - Hunting or harassing animals from snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle O.R.S. § 821.260 A person commits the offense of hunting or harassing animals from a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle if the person: (a) Operates a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle in a manner so as to run down, harass, chase or annoy any game animals or birds or domestic animals or (b) Hunts from a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle. In addition to other penalties, operators or owners of a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle may be liable as provided under ORS 821.310.
OR - Lien, care - 87.159. Lien for care of animals O.R.S. § 87.159 This law relates to liens for animals impounded under the animal cruelty laws (specifically ORS 167.345). A person who, or governmental agency that, transports, pastures, feeds, cares for or provides treatment to an animal that has been impounded under ORS 167.345 has a lien on the animal in the possession of the person or governmental agency for the reasonable charges for transportation, pasturage, feed, care or treatment provided by the person or governmental agency, and the person or governmental agency may retain possession of the animal until those charges are paid.
OR - Lost Property - Chapter 98. Lost, Unordered and Unclaimed Property O.R.S. § 98.005 - 050 These statutes comprise Oregon's lost property provisions.
OH - Initiatives - Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2 (2009) Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2 (2009) This ballot issue, entitled the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2, appeared on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The amendment proposed creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. Ohio Issue 3 was approved by voters approved by 63.66% to 36.34%.
Poland - Cruelty - Polish Animal Protection Act OJ No 111, Item 724(1997); No 106, Item 668 (1998)

The general animal protection law for Poland. Covering all types of animal except hunting and endangered species.

OR - Disaster - Chapter 401. Emergency Services Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.975, § 401.977, § 401.978; § 404.350 In Oregon, the Office of Emergency Management must prepare a written animal emergency operations plan that provides for the evacuation, transport and temporary sheltering of companion and service animals during a major disaster or an emergency. The office shall consider various factors, including allowing owners and their companion animals to be evacuated together, establishing evacuation shelters for animals in close proximity to human shelters, and establishing an identification system so that owners can locate their animals.
China - Fishing - China Fisheries Law Order No. 34 (1986)

Although old, it remains the law for fishing in China " for the purpose of enhancing the protection, increase, development and reasonable utilization of fishery resources, developing artificial cultivation, protecting fishery workers' lawful rights and interests and boosting fishery production, so as to meet the requirements of socialist construction and the needs of the people."

China - Wildlife - China Protection of Wildlife Order No. 9 (1989)

This law seeks to protect national list and international list of endangered species.

Sri Lanka - Cruelty - Chapter 573 Cruelty to Animals (English) Ordinances Nos 13 of 1907, 19 of 1912, 43 of 1917, Y of 1919, 33 of 1921, 16 of 1927, 17 of 1970, 12 of 1945, 22 of 1955 This Ordinance, in English, details Sri Lanka's animal cruelty laws. It also provides provisions for starving animals, using disabled or ill animals for labor, killing animals with unnecessary cruelty, and permitting diseased animals to die in the street. This ordinance also gives the Minister the power to appoint infirmaries to treat and care for animals that are the victims of offenses committed under this ordinance; the owner of the animal is liable for the cost of caring for the infirmed animal. Any Magistrate, Superintendent, or Assistant Superintendent of Police, Judge of primary Court or the divisional Assistant Government Agent of a division may direct the immediate destruction of an animal who was a victim of an offense if in that person's opinion the animal's sufferings are such as to render such a direction proper. Offenders shall be fined or jailed depending on the seriousness of the offence.
AU - Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT) Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005

The Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (Pest Act) creates a system to identify and control potential pest plants and animals in the ACT. It provides a strategic framework for pest management. The objects of the Pest Act are to protect the Australian Capital Territories land and aquatic resources from threats posed by pest plants and animals by identifying, declaring and then managing pest plants and animals.

US - Horses - Sale of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros PL 108-447

These amendments to the Wild Horses Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 1333, amended by Public Law 108-447, allow for the sale of animals for commercial purposes in some circumstances, specifically when the excess animal is more than 10 years old, or has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption on at least 3 occasions.  Once the excess animal is sold, it will no longer be considered a wild free-roaming horse or burro according to this Act.

PR - Ordinances - § 4054 Municipal faculties in general PR ST T. 21 § 4054

This Puerto Rico statute provides that each municipality has the general power to order, regulate and resolve whatever is necessary and convenient to attend to its local needs and for its greater prosperity and development.  Among these powers is the power to regulate whatever concerns stray domestic animals, including euthanasia and disposal in interest of the public health, establishing rules and conditions under which they can be rescued by their owners, the muzzling and licensing of dogs, and the adoption and implementation of such precautionary measures that are necessary or convenient to protect the public health as it may be affected by domestic stray animals.

PR - Ordinances - Municipal regulation of domestic animals PR ST T. 24 § 651

This Puerto Rico statute confers authority to the municipal councils of Puerto Rico to regulate by ordinance, the running at large of domestic animals, destruction and impounding of such animals, as well as the regulation of muzzling and licensing of dogs.  In addition, the councils are given authority to enact all needful ordinances to protect the public health as affected by the running at large of domestic animals.

PR - Domestic Violence - § 1678 Protection orders PR ST T. 5 § 1678

This Puerto Rico law provides that, in all cases in which a person is accused of domestic violence or child abuse, the court shall, by petition of party, issue a protection order for the petitioner so that he/she be the sole custodian of the animal. The court shall order the accused to keep far away from the animal and prohibit contact of any kind. Violation is a fourth-degree felony.

AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia.  POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle.
AU - Animal Welfare Act 1993 (TAS) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986

  The AWA promotes the responsible care and use of animals through a strong focus on education, underpinned by legislation. It places a legal 'duty of care ' on those in charge of animals to provide for those animals' needs in an appropriate way. The RSPCA Tasmania administers this Act.

AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (VIC) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Version No. 080)

The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible.

PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 (in portuguese) PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 Institui o Código Federal de Bem-Estar Animal, estabelecendo diretrizes e normas para a garantia de atendimento aos princípios de bem-estar animal nas atividades de controle animal, experimentação animal e produção animal, através da otimização dos processos de desenvolvimento econômico e científico, com o aprimoramento das técnicas e investimentos que garantam maior eficiência, lucratividade e operacionalidade, controle e prevenção sanitário-ambientais, capacitação e preservação das condições de bem-estar do trabalhador, bem como o atendimento à legislação e recomendações nacionais e internacionais.
MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Proposal 14-1 (2014)

This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.

MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-2, A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS Proposal 14-2 (2014)

This is the second wolf-related ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election that also operates as a veto referendum. If the proposal is approved, it would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, which authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species (including wolves) and determine hunting seasons. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.

AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 102 (voter wildlife initatives) Proposition 102 (2000) This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters.
AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 109 (right to hunt and fish) Proposition 109 (2010) Proposition 109 would have amended the Arizona Constitution. It failed with only 43.5% voting "yes" for the measure. The proposition stated that: 1. Wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of this state, whom have a right to lawfully hunt, fish and harvest the wildlife. 2. The legislature has the exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife. The legislature may grant rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law or rule shall unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing or harvesting of wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods for those activities. Any law or rule shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. 3. Lawful public hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. By its terms, nothing in Proposition 109 shall be construed to modify any law relating to trespass or property rights.
CA - Initiatives - Proposition 12 (2018) Proposition 12 (2018) Proposition 12 establishes new minimum space requirements for certain farmed animals, including veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens. It also requires that egg-laying hens be raised in a cage-free environment after December 31, 2021. The measure follows the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008, which banned the sale of products from animals raised in violation of the minimum animal welfare requirements.
AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (trapping and taking) Proposition 201 (1994) Proposition 201 would make it illegal to use certain methods of taking "wildlife" on public land, including federal, state, county and municipal land. The listed devices that would be prohibited are "any leghold trap, any instant kill body gripping design trap, or by a poison or a snare." The measure passed with 58.5% of the vote.
AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) Proposition 201 (1998) Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote.
CA - Initiatives - Proposition 4 (trapping) Proposition 4 (1998) This state initiative measure was proposed in 1998 and prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps. It passed with 57.5% of the vote.
CA - Initiatives - Proposition 6 (horse slaughter) Proposition 6 (1998) This proposition would prohibit any person from possessing, transferring, receiving or holding any horse, pony, burro or mule with intent to kill it or have it killed, where the person knows or should know that any part of the animal will be used for human consumption. It provides that a violation constitutes a felony offense. There is also a provision making the sale of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor offense, with subsequent violations punished as felonies. The measure was passed in 1998 with 59.4% of the vote.
TX - Initiatives - Proposition 6, Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife Proposition 6 (2015)

This proposed constitutional amendment recognizes the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation. It was a legislative referendum originally proposed as Senate Joint Resolution 22 (attached below). The measure passed in November 2015 with 82% of the vote.

MO - Initiatives - Proposition A (felony animal fighting) Proposition A (1998)

This 1998 ballot proposal asked, "[s]hall a statute be enacted making it a class D felony to bait or fight animals; permit such activities on premises you control; or promote, conduct, stage, advertise or collect fees for such activities; and making it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly attend baiting or fighting of animals; knowingly sell, offer for sale, or transport animals for such purposes; own, possess, manufacture or deal in cockfighting implements; bear wrestle; permit bear wrestling on premises you control; promote, conduct, stage, advertise, or collect fees for bear wrestling; or market, possess, train, or surgically alter a bear for bear wrestling?" It was passed in 1998 by 62.6% of voters.

Pages