Statutes
Statute by category |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| AZ - Assistance Animal - Arizona's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910; § 9-500.32 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. |
| AZ - Breed - § 20-1510. Homeowner's or renter's insurance; dog breeds | A. R. S. § 20-1510 | This 2022 Arizona law states that the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for any of the following purposes: (1) underwriting or actuarial processes for determining risk, liability or actual or potential losses related to claims involving dogs under a policy of insurance; or (2) questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information regarding ownership or possession of a dog or the presence of a dog on premises insured or to be insured under a policy of insurance. |
| AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes | A. R. S. § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 | The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor. |
| AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1001 - 1029; § 28-2422 - 2422.02; § 17-309 | These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. |
| AZ - Dog Ordinances - Powers and duties of board of supervisors (dogs/animals) | A. R. S. § 11-1005 | This Arizona statute provides that each county board of supervisors may regulate dogs, including the designation of a county enforcement agent, contracting with any city or town to enforce the provisions of any ordinance enacted by such city or town for the control of dogs, and for the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs and the excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs. They may also establish either civil or criminal penalties for violations of the above ordinances and establish a rabies quarantine zone. |
| AZ - Domestic Violence - Chapter 36. Family Offenses. | A. R. S. § 13-3602 | This Arizona law provides that, if a court issues an order of protection, the court may grant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody or control of any animal that is owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by the petitioner, the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or the respondent, and order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, committing an act of cruelty or neglect in violation of section 13- 2910 or otherwise disposing of the animal (see (G)(7)). |
| AZ - Endangered, nongame - Illegal Taking or Wounding of Wildlife | A. R. S. § 17-268, § 17-296, § 17-298, § 17-298.01, § 17-314, § 17-402 - 407 | Arizona assesses a monetary civil penalty for the possession or taking of listed species of wildlife and endangered/nongame wildlife (including eagles). This fine goes to the state wildlife theft prevention fund and is in addition to any other fine or penalty assessed by law. |
| AZ - Equine Activity Liability Statute | A. R. S. § 12-553 | This Arizona statute provides that an equine agent or owner is not liable for injury if the participant took control of the equine prior to injury, if a parent or guardian signed a release on behalf of a minor, if the owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or the participant has personally tacked the equine, or the owner or agent assigns a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his or her skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines. Liability is not limited, however, when an equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits willful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions. |
| AZ - Equine Transport - Transporting equine in a cruel manner; violation; | A. R. S. § 3-1312; § 28-912 | These Arizona laws provide the requirements for transporting equines to slaughter. A vehicle used to transport equine for slaughter may have no more than one level or tier in the compartment containing the equine. Violation of the laws constitutes a misdemeanor. |
| AZ - Facility Dog - § 8-422. Use of a facility dog in court proceedings; definition | A. R. S. § 8-422 | This Arizona law states that a court shall allow a facility dog to accompany a victim who is under 18 while he or she is testifying in court. A party seeking the use of a facility dog must file a notice with the court that includes the certification of the facility dog, the name of the person or entity who certified the dog and evidence that the facility dog is insured. It is discretionary for the court to allow a facility dog for a victim over the age of 18. |
| AZ - Horse slaughter - Article 4. Horsemeat. | A.R.S. § 3-2121 - 2132 | This Arizona article deals with horsemeat. A license shall be obtained from the division before slaughtering a horse for human consumption. There shall be an antemortem and a postmortem inspection of each horse slaughtered. All horsemeat food products shall be conspicuously branded, marked, tagged or labeled, horsemeat or horsemeat product. It is unlawful to offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption unless there is prominently displayed in conjunction therewith a sign bearing the words, in letters not less than eight inches in height and three inches in width, horsemeat for human consumption. |
| AZ - Humane Slaughter - Slaughter of Animals | A. R. S. § 3-2001 to 2017 | This Arizona statutory section covers the slaughter of animals. Among its provisions include license requirements for the slaughter meat, recordkeeping requirements, and a section relating to humane slaughter. The humane slaughter law requires that a livestock animal is rendered insensible to pain prior to being hoisted or shackled; however, none of the provisions apply to one who slaughters an animal for his or her own uses. Interestingly, while the other provisions relating to adulterated meat and licensing requirements describe the penalty for violation, no penalty is listed under the humane slaughter statute. |
| AZ - Hunting - § 17-316. Interference with rights of hunters; classification; civil action; exceptions | A. R. S. § 17-316 | This law represents Arizona's hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for a person while in a hunting area to intentionally interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife as defined under the law. It is a class 3 misdemeanor for a person to enter or remain on a designated hunting area on any public or private lands or waters or state lands including state trust lands with the intent to interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife. "Incidental interference" arising from lawful activity by public land users is not unlawful under this section. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 204 (inhumane confinement) | 2006 Arizona Proposition 204 | This comprises Proposition 204 also known as the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act. A "yes" vote shall have the effect of establishing misdemeanor fines and penalties for tethering or confining a pregnant pig or a calf raised for veal for all or a majority of the day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely but excepts transportation of the animal, rodeo and fair exhibitions, lawful slaughters, research, veterinary purposes and the seven day period before a pig's expected date of giving birth. The measure passed with 62% voting "yes." |
| AZ - Leash Laws - Article 6. Animal Control. | A. R. S. § 11-1012 | This Arizona laws provides generally that no female dog in her breeding season or vicious dog may be allowed to go at large. It further delineates the state's leash requirements for dogs, including during times of rabies quarantines, in state parks, and at public schools. Exceptions under the law include the training of livestock dogs and hunting dogs, among others. |
| AZ - License and Vaccination Ordinances - Exemption of cities, towns and counties (dogs/animals) | A. R. S. § 11-1018 | This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. |
| AZ - Microchip - 44-8021. Dog or cat possession; microchip scan; owner notification; definition | A. R. S. § 44-8021 | This Arizona law from 2022 requires an animal shelter to thoroughly scan for the presence of a microchip in the dog or cat and make a reasonable effort to contact the owner after taking possession of a dog or cat. |
| AZ - Motor vehicle - 12-558.02. Limited liability; removing minor or confined animal from motor vehicle; definition | A. R. S. § 12-558.02 | This Arizona law insulates a person from liability for civil damages when he or she uses reasonable force to enter a locked and unattended motor vehicle to remove a minor or confined domestic animal if certain factors apply. The person first must determine that the motor vehicle is locked or there is no reasonable manner in which the person can remove the minor or domestic animal from the vehicle. Before entering the vehicle, the person must notify law enforcement or first responders. No more force than is necessary to remove the animal or minor may be used and the person must remain with the minor or domestic animal until first responders arrive. For the purposes of this section, “domestic animal” means a dog, a cat or another animal that is domesticated and kept as a household pet. |
| AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations | A.R.S. § 9-240 | This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large. |
| AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. | A. R. S. § 9-219 (repealed 2017) | §§ 9-211 to 9-226. Repealed by Laws 2016, Ch. 62, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 2017 (related to powers of the board of trustees) |
| AZ - Ordinances - Lawful presence on private property defined (dogs) | A. R. S. § 11-1026 | This Arizona statute provides that a person is lawfully on a dog owner's property when he or she is there as an invitee or guest, or when in the performance of a duty imposed upon him by law of the state or United States, or by ordinances of a municipality in which such property is located. |
| AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses. | A. R. S. 44-1799 - 1799.11 | This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws. The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian. Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses. |
| AZ - Pet Trusts - Honorary trusts; trusts | A. R. S. § 14-2907; A. R. S. § 14-10408 | This Arizona statute allows for the creation of a trust for a designated domestic or pet animal, and must be performed in 21 years or less. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust; the remaining property is distributed according to statute and cannot be converted by the trustee. |
| AZ - Veterinary - Chapter 21. Veterinarians. | A. R. S. § 32-2201 - 2297 | 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. |
| AZ - Wildlife - Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Article 1. General Regulations | A. R. S. § 17-301 to 320 | The following statutes comprise Arizona's wildlife code. Among the provisions include methods of taking wildlife, hunting restrictions, the state's hunter interference laws, and laws specific to mountain lions, bears, and jaguars. |
| BD - Cruelty - THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1920 | Cruelty to Animals Act, 1920 (Act No. I of 1920) |
This Act constitutes Bangladesh's prevention of cruelty to animals act. The act defines "animal" as "any domestic or captured animal." Any person who: overdrives, cruelty or unnecessarily beats, or otherwise ill-treats any animal; binds or carries an animal in a position as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering; offers or has in his possession an animal that is suffering because of mutilation, thirst, starvation or other ill-treatment shall be punished for every such offence with fine up to one hundred Taka, or imprisonment up to three months, or with both. Overloading an animal is also punishable with a fine or jail term, and animal fighting results in a fine. |
| Bolivia - Animal control - LEY Nº 4095, 2009 | LEY Nº 4095, 2009 | Declared of necessity and public utility, the construction of shelters for abandoned pets in the city of Oruro is authorized under this law to protect the health and physical integrity of people as well as the welfare of animals. |
| Bolivia - Circus - LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | This law eliminates the use of wild and/or domestic animals in circuses in the national territory, as it is considered an act of cruelty against animals. Circuses were given a deadline of one year to surrender their animals and modify their shows. |
| Bolivia - Cruelty - Ley 700, 2015 | Ley 700, 2015 | Ley 700, is the animal cruelty statute of Bolivia. This law lays out the rules for the defense of animals against cruelty committed by humans. Animals are considered part of mother earth, and therefore, their life has to be defended and respected. This law punishes physical, psychological, emotional and sexual mistreatment, and prohibits the breeding of domestic animals for commercial purposes. It also prohibits sport hunting and overworking animals, especially those of an older age. |
| Bolivia - Dangerous dog - LEY Nº 553 , 2014 | LEY Nº 553, 2014 | This law contains the legal framework that establishes the minimum legal conditions for the possession of dangerous dogs. The purpose of this law is to prevent aggression against people and their property by prohibiting the possession of dangerous dogs. Possession of dangerous dogs is allowed with prior authorization, obtaining a license, and compliance with safety measures established in this law. |
| Bolivia - Endangered species - Ley N° 12301 | Ley N° 12301 | The "wildlife, national parks, hunting, and fishing law," regulates the protection, use, transportation, and commercialization of wildlife and its products, and the protection of endangered species, among other things. It encourages the rational and sustainable use of wildlife and natural resources. |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY 71, 2010 | Ley 71 is “the law for the rights of mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of Mother Earth, as well as the obligations and duties of the government and society to guarantee respect for these rights. This law gives the environment, or "mother earth," and all its components, the status of collective subject of public interest for the purpose of guaranteeing the protection of its rights. | |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY Nº 300, 2012 | LEY Nº 300, 2012 | Ley 300 establishes the legal framework for the conservation of the environment, or "mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of mother earth and the legal status that are subjects of rights. |
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley 2352, 2002 | Ley 2352, 2002 | Approved and adopted the "CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS" signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, into the Bolivian legal system. |
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley No. 1333 | Ley No. 1333 | This is the most important law regarding the protection of the environment and natural resources in Bolivia. It regulates human interaction with nature and promotes sustainable development to improve the quality of life of the population. Under this law, wildlife trafficking is punished with up to 6 years of imprisonment. |
| Brazil - Animal weflare - 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. |
| Brazil - Constitution (Portuguese) - Constituiclo Federal do Brazil - Protecclo dos Animais | CHAPTER VI, ART. 225 |
Constituiclo Federal do Brazil - Protecclo dos Animais |
| Brazil - Constitutional Provision - Animal | TITLE Vlll, CHAP. VI, ART. 225 |
Article 8 of the Constitution provides for legal concern about animals.(See, VII. of Paragraph 1.) |
| Brazil - Crimes - Brazilian Environmental Crimes Law | Law 9, 605 (Feb 12, 1998) |
This law of Brazil seeks to protect wildlife and plants of the country, particularly endangered species. |
| Brazil - Dogs and Cats - Sao Paulo State Law n. 12.916 (no kill ordinance) | Sao Paulo State Law n. 12.916, concerning stray dogs and cats |
Sao Paulo state becomes the first Brazilian state to enact a law banning the killing of stray dogs and cat as a population control practice. The law n. 12.916 was enacted in April 16, 2008. The law asserts that animal control agencies shall work together with non-profits and other organizations to reach the law’s objective which is the sterilization of domestic animals as a form of population control, to establish adoption centers, and to put forward adoption programs for stray animals. In addition, the animal control agencies shall promote educational programs about responsible pet ownership. |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597.1. Failure to care for animals; misdemeanor; powers and duties | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.1 | Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statutes also creates a duty in peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to cause the animal to be killed or rehabilitated and placed in a suitable home on information that the animal is stray or abandoned. |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597.2. Equines; abandoned or relinquished; auction and adoption programs | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.2 | This California statute sets forth the requirements for the sale of equines at a private or public auction and that the minimum price must be above the animal's slaughter price. It also provides that a sale to an individual who buys an equine under the personal use provision shall submit a written statement declaring that the person is adopting the equine for personal use and not for purposes of resale, resale for slaughter, or holding or transporting the equine for slaughter. |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597f. Failure to care for animals; duty of peace or humane officers; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597f (repealed) | (Repealed in 2022). Every owner of any animal, who permits the animal to be without proper care and attention, shall, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be the duty of any peace officer, officer of the humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency, to take possession of the animal so abandoned or neglected and care for the animal until it is redeemed by the owner. Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a dog or cat, may, if after due search no owner can be found therefor, be killed by the officer. all injured cats and dogs found without their owners in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by the officer or agency to be a veterinarian that ordinarily treats dogs and cats for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately and humanely destroyed or shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency treatment. |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597s. Abandonment of animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597s | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to willfully abandon an animal, but does not apply to the release or rehabilitation and release of native California wildlife pursuant to statute or regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game. |
| CA - Animal Control - Chapter 20.5. Animal Control Officer Standards Act. | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 26220 - 26230 | This comprises the Animal Control Officer Standards Act. The law requires the Board of Directors of the California Animal Welfare Association to develop and maintain standards for various classes of CACOs. The standards for education, training, and certification shall be adopted by administrative rule of the board, and shall not be less rigorous than those described in this chapter. The board shall maintain a registry of each application for a certificate of registration under this chapter. |