|Statute by category||Citation||Summary|
|AL - Facility dog - § 12-21-148. Use of certified facility dog in certain legal proceedings.||Ala.Code 1975 § 12-21-147 -148||This Alabama law from 2017 covers use of both registered therapy dogs and registered facility dogs in certain legal proceedings. A "registered therapy dog" is defined as "[a] trained emotional support dog that has been tested and registered by a nonprofit therapy dog organization that sets standards and requirements for the health, welfare, task work, and oversight for therapy dogs and their handlers . . ." A "certified facility dog" is defined as "[a] trained working dog that is a graduate of an assistance dog organization, a nonprofit organization that sets standards of training for the health, welfare, task work, and oversight for assistance dogs and their handlers . . ." Both must meet minimum standards including minimum months/years of training, documentation showing graduation from an assistance dog organization, a current health certificate, and proof of at least $500,000 in liability insurance. During trial proceedings, all precautions should be taken to obscure the presence of the dog from the jury.|
|AL - Horsemeat - 2-17-15. Sale, offer for sale, transportation, etc.,||Ala.Code 1975 § 2-17-15||
This Alabama statute states that no person, firm or corporation shall sell, transport, offer for sale or transportation or receive for transportation in intrastate commerce any carcasses of horses, mules or other equines or parts of any such carcasses or the meat or meat food products thereof unless they are plainly and conspicuously marked or labeled or otherwise identified as required by regulations.
|AL - Entertainment - § 40-12-111. Horse show, rodeo, or dog and pony shows.||Ala.Code 1975 § 40-12-111||This Alabama laws states that every horse show, rodeo, dog and pony show, or like exhibition or show, where any charge is made therefor, shall pay a license tax of $25 for each day of performance.|
|KS - Initiatives - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2016)||Amendment 1||Amendment 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in the 2016 general election. The explanatory statement on the ballot says, "This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. The right of the public to hunt, fish and trap shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights." A "yes" vote would constitutionally preserve the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife that has traditionally been taken by hunters, trappers and anglers. A "no" vote would provide for no constitutional right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. It would maintain existing state laws and rules and regulations governing hunting, fishing and trapping wildlife.|
|SC - Initiative - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish||Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2010) (passed)||
The legislature summary for the proposed amendment states: "[a] joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources." It passed with 89% voting "yes."
|Florida - Initiatives - Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races||Amendment 13||A proposed revision relating to ending dog racing; creating new sections in Article X and Article XII of the State Constitution to prohibit the racing of, and wagering on, greyhounds and other dogs after a specified date.|
|CO - Initiatives - Amendment 13 (livestock operations)||Amendment 13. Uniform Regulation of Livestock Operations||This 1998 Colorado ballot measure sought to create uniform livestock regulations based on the potential environmental impact that the operation causes (rather than the character of the farm). It specifically sought to target the non-point pollution caused by large-scale operation run-off. The measure further added a definition for "livestock." It failed at the polls with only 38.7% of the vote.|
|CO - Initiatives - Amendment 14, Regulation of Commercial Hog Facilities||Amendment 14, 1998||This 1998 Colorado Ballot Measure created additional regulations for large-scale hog producers. The goal was to better curb the waste run-off from such facilities. It passed in the 1998 election with 64.2% of the vote.|
|MN - Initiatives - Amendment 2 (right to hunt)||Amendment 2 (1998)||This ballot measure asked whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to affirm that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. The measure was passed in 1998 by 77.2% of voters.|
|NE - Initiatives - Amendment 2 (right to hunt)||Amendment 2 (2012)||A constitutional amendment to establish the right to hunt, to fish, and to harvest wildlife and to state that public hunting, fishing, and harvesting of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. It passed with 76.7% of the vote.|
|AL - Initiatives - Amendment 5, Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife||Amendment 5 (2014)||Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing."|
|WY - Initiative - Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap, Amendment B||Amendment B (2012)||The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012.|
|IE - Welfare - Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013||Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013||This Ireland act deals with the health and welfare of animals by providing a number of regulations that help to protect animals. The regulations cover areas such as disease control, animal cruelty, animal health levies, and disposal of animals. In addition, the act provides for sanctions that are placed on anyone that is in violation of the act.|
|KR - Cruelty - Animal Protection Act||Animal Protection Act (2004)||
Article 1 of this Act states that, "The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the cultivation of aesthetic sentiments, such as the respect for life, etc., through protecting the life and safety of animals by prescribing matters necessary for proper pro- tection and administration of animals such as the prevention of cruelty to animals, etc."
|AU - Research - Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW)||Animal Research Act 1985||
The NSW Act was introduced to protect the welfare of animals by ensuring that their use in research is always humane, considerate, responsible and justified. The 1995 Regulation incorporated the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes into the legislation.Quorum The quorum for a meeting of the Panel is 7 members of the Panel, of whom: (a) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (a) or (b), (b) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (c) or (d), and (c) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (e), (f), (g) or (h).
|England - Licensing - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018||Animal Welfare Act (Licensing) Regulations 2018||Legislation requiring businesses involving animals in England to obtain a licence to show they are meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care. Includes dog kennels, cat boarding, dog breeders, pet sellers, horse riding schools and animal exhibitors.|
|AU - Cruelty - South Australia Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA)||Animal Welfare Act 1985||
The South Australian Animal Welfare Act’s primary purpose is for the promotion of animal welfare. The Act is enforced by RSPCA SA and is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in South Australia. The Act generally governs domestic privately owned animals (pets).
|AU - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act (ACT Primary Act)||Animal Welfare Act 1992||The Australian Capital Territory enacted this Act 'for the promotion of animal welfare and for related purposes'. The Act is enforced by the RSPCA ACT and generally covers domestic animals.|
|AU - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)||Animal Welfare Act 2002||
The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect animals from cruelty and to safeguard the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes. The Australian Code of Practice is incorporated into the legislation as the standard for animal care and use in scientific establishments.
|AU - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act 2007 (Northern Territory)||Animal Welfare Act 2007 (Northern Territory)||
The Northern Territory was one of the last states to enact Animal Welfare legislation with its passing in 2007 as an act to provide for the welfare of animals, prevent cruelty to animals and for related purposes. The objectives of the Act are to to ensure that animals are treated humanely, to prevent cruelty to animals, and to promote community awareness about the welfare of animals.
|England and Wales - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act 2006||Animal Welfare Act of 2006||An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare. Activities that constitute offenses include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending animal fighting. Nothing in the Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing.|
|IL - Farming - The Animal Welfare Regulations, Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015||Animal Welfare Regulations 2015||Attached are the Animal Welfare Regulations from 2015 on confined pigs, available in both English and Hebrew. These Israeli regulations ban the use of gestation crates without exception (isolation is allowed for up to a week for insemination, but in a compartment wide enough to allow the sow to turn around) and farrowing crates are allowed only up to 2 weeks after the sow gave birth.|
|AR - Facility Dog - § 16-43-1002. Certified facility dogs for child witnesses||Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-1002||
This statute deals with the use of certified facility dogs for child witnesses. In order to qualify as a certified facility dog, a dog must graduate from an assistance dog organization after receiving at least 2 years of training and passing the same public service access test as a service dog. Certified facility dogs are able to be used by child witnesses (a witness 18 years of age or younger) while testifying at a trial or hearing.
|MX - Bird - Parrot Ban (DECREE by which article 60 2 to the General Law of Wildlife)||article 60 2 to the General Law of Wildlife||
The ban prohibits the capture, export and import of 22 Mexican parrot species. The ban on imports was needed because most species are shared with Central and South American countries and many were being imported and used as cover up for illegal trade. The ban was approved by Congress last April by consensus and it was originally drafted after a presentation of a 2007 report, "The Illegal Parrot Trade in Mexico: A Comprehensive Assessment." The report revealed for the first time the volume of the illegal trade of parrots within Mexico. An estimated 65,000 -78,500 wild parrots and macaws are captured illegally each year, with more than 75 percent of the birds dying before ever reaching a purchaser. The measure was passed in late October of 2008.
|MX - Bird - Parrot Ban in Spanish (DECREE by which article 60 2 to the General Law of Wildlife)||artículo 60 Bis 2 a la Ley General de Vida Silvestre||
(Text of law in Spanish). The ban prohibits the capture, export and import of 22 Mexican parrot species. The ban on imports was needed because most species are shared with Central and South American countries and many were being imported and used as cover up for illegal trade. The ban was approved by Congress last April by consensus and it was originally drafted after a presentation of a 2007 report, "The Illegal Parrot Trade in Mexico: A Comprehensive Assessment." The report revealed for the first time the volume of the illegal trade of parrots within Mexico. An estimated 65,000 -78,500 wild parrots and macaws are captured illegally each year, with more than 75 percent of the birds dying before ever reaching a purchaser. The measure was passed in late October of 2008.
|AK - Conversation - Chapter 05. Powers and Duties of Commissioners of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.||AS § 03.05.011, § 03.05.013, § 03.05.050, § 03.05.090, § 03.05.100||
This set of Alaska laws sets forth the powers of the commissioner of environmental conservation. Additionally, the commissioner of environmental conservation may employ or appoint a person to act as the state veterinarian to carry out and enforce the requirements of this title. The penalties for violation of provisions under this chapter are also described.
|AK - Dogs - Title 3. Agriculture and Animals. Chapter 55. Dogs.||AS § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140||
This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock. It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ." Notably, "[a] ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large." This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs.
|AK - Bite - § 03.55.030. Dogs that annoy or bite animals or birds||AS § 03.55.030||
This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it.
|AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs||AS § 03.55.070||
This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village.
|AK - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes||AS § 03.55.100 - 190; AS § 11.61.140 - 145||
This section comprises Alaska's anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws, which were amended in 2010. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person: knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal; with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal; kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression chamber; intentionally kills or injures a pet or livestock by the use of poison; knowingly kills or injures an animal with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or terrorize another person; or knowingly engages in sexual conduct with an animal, films such activity, induces such activity, or intentionally permits this to occur on premises under the person's control. The court may also prohibit or limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of animals for up to 10 years for convictions under this section.
|AK - Veterinary - Chapter 98. Veterinarians.||AS § 08.98.010 to 250||
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.
|AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care||AS § 09.65.097||
This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.
|AK - Equine - Equine Activity Liability Statute||AS § 09.65.145; AS § 09.65.290||
Two Alaska statutes are provided here that relate to the limitation of liability for equine activities. The first is the equine activity liability statute, which states that livestock are unpredictable and inherently dangerous and all persons who knowingly place themselves in proximity to livestock for any reason involving an activity that includes livestock are considered a participant in livestock activity and assume the risk. Exclusions include gross negligence of the equine sponsor, knowledge of faulty tack or equipment, and failure to properly ascertain the level of competence by the participant. The second statute reiterates that a person who participates in a sports or recreational activity assumes the inherent risks in that sports or recreational activity, including horseback riding.
|AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos||AS § 09.65.180||
The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo.
|AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets||AS § 13.12.907||
This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute.
|AK - Fish and Game - Chapter 05. Fish and Game Code||AS § 16.05.150; § 16.05.255, § 16.05.270, § 16.05.920; § 16.05.925, § 16.05.940||
These provisions concern Alaska's Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The enforcement authority is defined and another statute gives power to the Board of Game to adopt regulations for game animals. Under § 16.05.920, a person may not take, possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase fish, game, or marine aquatic plants, or any part of fish, game, or aquatic plants, or a nest or egg of fish or game unless permitted by regulation. "Game" is defined as any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals.
|AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game||AS § 16.05.790||
This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.
|AK - Hunting - § 16.05.797. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited||AS § 16.05.797||
This law makes it a class A misdemeanor to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or or provide or operate a facility for computer-assisted remote hunting in Alaska.
|AK - Endangered Species - Endangered and Threatened Species||AS § 16.20.180 - 210||
This Alaska statute provides that the state shall take measures to preserve the habitat of species or subspecies which, are threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, overutilization, disease, predation, or other human or natural factors. Species recognized as endangered or threatened also gain habitat protection on state lands. Taking of a listed species without permit incurs a misdemeanor.
|AK - Elephants - Article 1. Buffalo, Musk Oxen, Elk, and Elephants||AS § 16.40.010 - 060||
This section of Alaska laws concerns the disposition of surplus buffalo and musk oxen as well as the requirements for obtaining a permit for elephants. An elephant permit may be issued only to a person who intends to exhibit the animal commercially; possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner.
|AK - Domestic Violence - Article 7. Domestic violence||AS § 18.65.510 - 590||
In 2016, the State of Alaska added language allowing the inclusion of pets in protective orders for domestic violence. Effective January 17. 2017 under Section 18.65.520, a petitioner may seek a protective order that includes a provision to "grant you [the petitioner] possession and use of a vehicle and other essential personal items, including a pet, regardless of the ownership of those items." In the new amendment to Section 18.65.590, “pet” means "a vertebrate living creature maintained for companionship or pleasure, but does not include dogs primarily owned for participation in a generally accepted mushing or pulling contest or practice or animals primarily owned for participation in rodeos or stock contests."
|AK - Divorce - § 25.24.160. Judgment||AS § 25.24.160||Alaska became the first state to allow judges to provide for “well-being” of pets in divorce actions. Governor Bill Walker signed HB 147 into law on October 2016, and becoming effective January 17, 2017. The law amends AS 25.24.160 contained in Chapter 24 on Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage. The amendment states: “[i]n a judgment in an action for divorce or action declaring a marriage void or at any time after judgment, the court may provide . . . (5) if an animal is owned, for the ownership or joint ownership of the animal, considering the well-being of the animal." Courts in most states have limited awarding pets in marriage dissolution based on traditional property classifications with only a few cases considering a pet's "best interests." This law is unique in that it gives the judge the authority to go beyond a traditional property paradigm for pets when dividing marital property.|
|AK - Eagle Protection - Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve||AS § 41.21.610 - 630||
Alaska established the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve through the Park System to preserve the eagle in its natural habitat and provide educational and public viewing opportunities. The eagle is not listed as a threatened or endangered species in Alaska, but is legislatively protected in the Chilkat Preserve.
|LA - Initiatives - Ballot Issue 1 (right to hunt)||Ballot Issue 1 (2004)||This Louisiana ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)."|
|AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 1 (voter wildlife initatives)||Ballot Measure 1 (2000)||This Alaska ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife. The measure failed with 36% of the vote.|
|AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 6 (hunters using airplanes)||Ballot Measure 6 (2000)||Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. The measure passed with 53% of the vote.|
|AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 9 (wolf trapping)||Ballot Measure 9 (2000)||This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote.|
|Austria - Animal Welfare - Federal Animal Protection Act||Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, Part I, No. 118, 28 September 2004, 21 pp.||The subject Federal Act, in English, aims at the protection of life and well-being of all animals based on man’s special responsibility for the animal as a fellow-creature. The Federal, Laender and Municipal authorities are obligated to create and deepen understanding for animal protection on the part of the public and in particular on the part of youth. In this Act, it is unlawful to inflict unjustified pain, suffering or injury on an animal or expose it to heavy fear, as well as to kill animals without reason. Interventions carried out for other than therapeutic or diagnostic purposes or for the expert marking of animals in accordance with legal regulations applicable, are prohibited and particulars are listed.|
|CT - Exotic Pets - § 26-40a. Possession of potentially dangerous animal; Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game||C. G. S. A. § 26-1, § 26-40a; § 26-54, 55, 61||
These Connecticut states reflect the state's laws on the keeping of wild animals. Under § 26-40a, no person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal, which includes wildlife such as the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, bobcat, wolf, coyote, all species of bears, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan. The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such potentially dangerous animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, relocation or disposal of such animal. Additionally, any person who violates any provision of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $2000, and is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Under § 26-55, no person shall import or introduce into the state, possess or let loose, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit. Again, a violator is responsible for expenses from the seizure, maintenance, and relocation of the illegally imported animal. The penalty includes a civil fine up to $1000 and results in a class C misdemeanor.
|CT - Education - § 10-18d. Animal dissection. Students to be excused from participation or observation||C. G. S. A. § 10-18d||This Connecticut law states that a local or regional school district shall excuse any student from participating in, or observing, the dissection of any animal as part of classroom instruction, provided the parent or guardian of such student has requested, in writing, that such student be excused from such participation or observation. A student excused under this law shall be required to complete an alternate assignment to be determined by the local or regional school district.|