|
CO - Trusts for Pets - Article 11. Intestate Succession and Wills. |
This Colorado statute provides that trust for the care of designated domestic or pet animals
and
the animals' offspring in gestation is valid. The determination of the "animals' offspring in gestation" is made at the time the designated domestic or pet animals become present beneficiaries of the trust. Unless the trust instrument provides for an earlier termination, the trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust (but no longer than 21 years). The trust property then transfers as provided by statute, but the trustee may not covert the trust property.
|
|
CO - Vehicle, animal - § 13-21-108.4. Persons rendering emergency assistance from a locked vehicle |
This Colorado law allows the rescue of animals and "at-risk persons" from locked vehicles under certain conditions. "Animal" defined as cat or dog and specifically excludes livestock. A person is immune from civil or criminal liability for property damage resulting from forcible entry into locked vehicle if all of the following occurs: (1) an animal is present and the person has a reasonable belief that the animal is in imminent danger of death or suffering serious bodily injury; (2) the person determines the vehicle is locked and forcible entry is necessary; (3) the person makes reasonable effort to locate the owner as outlined in the law; (4) the person contacts law enforcement/911/emergency responders prior to forcibly entering vehicle; and he or she remains with vehicle until law enforcement/responders arrive. |
|
CO - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code |
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. |
|
CO - Wildlife - Article 6. Law Enforcement and Penalties--Wildlife. |
These Colorado statutes represent Part 1 of the state's wildlife code. Among the provisions include violations for improperly taking wildlife, hunting provisions, and a law prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting. |
|
CO - Wildlife - Rules for Possession of Terrestrial Wildlife. |
This set of regulations comprises the Colorado Department of Natural Resources general rules for the importation, transportation, possession, and release of terrestrial wildlife. |
|
CO - Wildlife trade - Illegal sale of wildlife; penalties |
Colorado statute addressing illegal sale of wildlife, including bears.
|
|
CO - Wildlife, nongame - Wildlife; Illegal Possession |
Colorado law prohibits the taking, hunting, or possession of animals deemed property of the state or wildlife taken in violation of state, federal, or non-U.S. law (including bald and golden eagles), resulting in a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and fines. Further, there is an additional penalty for the taking of "big game" species. It is also illegal to have in one's possession any nonnative or exotic species. |
|
COALITIONS IN THE JUNGLE: ADVANCING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH CHALLENGES TO CONCENTRATION IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY |
|
|
Coballes v. Spokane County |
In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals determined the appellant had a statutory right to appeal a county board’s dangerous dog declaration because the board had acted within its ordinary and usual duties. The availability of the right to appeal, however, foreclosed a statutory and constitutional writ of review/writ of certiorari. Furthermore, given the court’s finding that a prior proceeding constituted an appeal as of right, the appellant’s dangerous dog declaration could only be appealed under a discretionary review. The court therefore granted the appellant leave to file a motion for discretionary review.
|
|
Coe v. Lewsader |
In this case, Ryan and Hillary Coe filed suit against Eric and Trish Lewsader for damages resulting from an accident involving the Lewsader’s dog. Ryan Coe was driving his motorcycle while intoxicated on a public highway when he hit the Lewsader’s dog that was lying in the middle of the street. Coe suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and filed suit against the Lewsader’s according to Section 16 of the Illinois Animal Attacks or Injuries statute. According to the Act, “if a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages.” In order to be awarded damages under the Act, the Coe’s needed to establish “some overt act” of the Lewsader’s dog . As a result, the question before the court was whether or not the Lewsader’s dog was acting overtly when it was lying in the middle of the street at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the court held that the dog was not acting overtly by lying in the middle of the street. Also, the court rejected the Coe’s argument that the dog had acted overtly when it walked into the street before lying down. The court rejected this argument because the overt act needed to take place at the time of the injury, not before. As a result, the court found that the Lewsader’s were not liable for civil damages under the Act because the dog had not acted overtly at the time of accident and therefore the Act did not apply in this situation. |
