|Statute by category||Citation||Summary|
|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.|
|Mexico - Humane slaughter - Norma Oficial Mexicana Nom-033-Zoo-1995 - Sacrificio Humanitario de los Animales Domesticos y Silvestres||Official Mexican Law Nom-033-Zoo-1995, Humane Killing of Domestic and Wild Animals||This law regulates the humane slaughter or anesthesia of farm, domestic, and wildlife animals. It contains detailed guidelines about methods allowed depending on the species and how to handle animals prior to slaughter or euthanasia procedures. For instance, this law mandates that all farm animals and wild animals slaughtered for human consumption are stunned, while companion animals must be sedated before euthanasia. It also contains provisions on emergency killing protocols for all species. Some prohibited methods include the use of substances that induce muscular paralysis without causing loss of consciousness and that cause death by suffocation, and the use of potassium chloride in any form to cause the death of animals since its administration causes severe pain and anxiety, followed by diastolic cardiac arrest in the conscious individual. However, its use is allowed on mega vertebrates, as long as the animal is under anesthesia and a veterinarian verifies this. Inducing hypothermia or using electricity for stunning, anesthesia, killing, and euthanasia of all reptiles is also prohibited. In addition, it is prohibited to kill rodents, lagomorphs, and small mammals by hypothermia and/or freezing, chest compression, strangulation, drowning, or other mechanical suffocation methods. Finally, it is prohibited to use trapping methods to kill wildlife.|
|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.
|MO - Initiatives - Proposition B (dog breeders)||Proposition B (2010)||
This 2010 ballot measure asked whether Missouri law shall be amended to: require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and create a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty” for any violations. It was passed in 2010 by 51.6% of voters.
|IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965||Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965||This Ireland law is an amendment to the Animal Protections Act of 1911. It provides for more specific regulations regarding the treatment of animals. This act specifically addresses: care of impounded animals, use of poisonous gas in rabbit holes, restrictions on spring traps, open trapping, injured animals, laying of poisons, issues relating specifically to dogs, use of anesthetics in operations of animals, and the regulation of sale of pet animals.|
|IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals, 1911||Protection of Animals Act, 1911||This Ireland law makes it illegal for a person to cause any animal “unnecessary suffering.” The act outlines all of the ways a person can be guilty of causing an animal harm including: beating, kicking, over-loading, torturing, and poisoning. If a person is found guilty under the act, the court has the power to take ownership of the animal and order the guilty party to pay any damages that resulted from the harm.|
|US - Golden Eagle - Protection||Public Law 87-884; 76 Stat. 1246 (1962)||
This public law amended the Eagle Protection Act by adding golden eagles as a protected species under the Act. The Joint Resolution states that the golden eagle was added under the Act not only because it too faced extinction, but its listing would further protect the bald eagle, as the two species are sometimes mistaken for each other. For further discussion, see the Eagle Act Detailed Discussion.
|AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD)||Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001||
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. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint.
|IN - Initiatives - Question 1, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment||Question 1||Question 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appears on the 2016 general election ballot. The official summary states the following: "Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly." A "yes" vote is in favor of such a constitutional amendment and a "no" vote is against amending the state constitution.|
|ME - Initiatives - Question 1, An Act To Prohibit the Use of Dogs, Bait or Traps When Hunting Bears Except under Certain Circumstances||Question 1 (2014)||Question 1 is a citizen initiated referendum that will be appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The referendum seeks to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt or pursue bear, the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, and the setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear. There are certain exceptions for scientific and research purposes and for public safety.|
|ME - Initiatives - Question 2 (bear hunting)||Question 2 (2004)||This Maine citizen initiated was defeated in the November 2004 election (only 47% voted "yes"). The question posed to voters asked voters, "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" Per the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions summary, the initiated bill was to prohibit the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances (such as by state or federal employees to kill or capture depredating bears or by commercial timber operators).|
|MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016)||Question 3||Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.|
|MA - Initiatives - Question 3, 2000 (dog racing)||Question 3 (2000)||This Massachusetts ballot question asked voters in 2000 whether they wanted to prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the State Racing Commission. The question failed with 49% voting "yes" and 51% voting "no" on the question.|
|MA - Initiatives - 2008 Question 3 (dog racing)||Question 3 (2008)||This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The measure was approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %.|
|OH - Lien, care - 1311.48 Lien for care of animals||R.C. § 1311.48 - 54||This Ohio law states that any person who feeds or boards an animal under contract with the owner shall have a lien on such animal to secure payment for food and board furnished.|
|OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1518. Endangered Species.||R.C. § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99||These Ohio statutes protect both endangered plants and animals as defined by the State of Ohio as well as those species listed on the federal ESA list. Taking of an endangered or threatened animal species constitutes a misdemeanor and the person is required upon pleading guilty to the offense, in addition to any fine, term of imprisonment, seizure, and forfeiture imposed, to make restitution for the minimum value of the wild animal illegally held, taken, or possessed. Notably, if the aggregate value of the animal(s) taken exceeds $1,000, a person is guilty of a felony.|
|OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1531. Division of Wildlife. Propagation and Preservation.||R.C. § 1531.25, 1531.26||This Ohio statute provides for a wildlife fund created by tax revenue that is used to monitor and protect non-game and endangered species. Additionally, revenues in the wildlife fund from sources such as the Bald Eagle License Plate Fund and direct donations may also be used to pay the costs of acquiring, developing, and restoring habitat for bald eagles within this state.|