In 2019, many of the same animal issues appeared again in state legislature, particularly service animals and anti-cruelty laws.
Alabama revamped its chapter on service animals to reflect federal regulations for service animals. In addition, it now requires a conspicuous sign to be posted in public places reminding patrons that service animals are welcome and that it is illegal to misrepresent ones's pet as a service animal. Likewise, Arkansas and Montana, Rhode Island, and South Carolina enacted service dog fraud laws in 2019. Kentucky modified the law on assistance animals in housing from 2018. In particular, the state clarified parties that may document the need for an assistance animal in housing and limited the use of out-of-state providers who charge a fee for a letter.
Anti-cruelty issues emerged in a handful of states. New York states became the first state to ban cat declawing (unless for therapeutic reasons). Wyoming became the 35th state to allow pets in domestic violence protection orders. "Punky's Law" in Colorado mandates a mental health evaluation for a person convicted of intentional cruelty as part of the sentencing process. Indiana altered its definition in animal cruelty to change it from "beat" to "abuse." The state also added additional definitions to the category of "torture," which include destroying an animal by electrocution and intentionally freezing or heating an animal to death. Kentucky made headlines by outlawing sexual assault against an animal (bestiality) and Maryland included "sexual contact with an animal" in its definitions for felony cruelty. Nevada amended its law to allow preconviction forfeiture of animals who are victims of anti-cruelty violations.
Both Washington and Colorado enacted facility/courthouse dog laws. These two states also signed "Beagle Freedom" laws. These laws require that a research facility that uses dogs or cats for laboratory research, before euthanizing a dog or cat that is no longer needed for research purposes, offer the dog or cat for adoption (provided that euthanizing the dog or cat is not required for health or safety reasons or is not necessary to complete laboratory research).
Wildlife and animal trade were also a subject of legislative changes. New Mexico outlawed "coyote-killing contests" and Minnesota banned the trade in ivory by designating it a "prohibited animal part."
Finally, some unique laws were passed in 2019. California passing a ban on the use of animal testing in cosmetics (effective in January 2020). Both Connecticut and New Jersey enacted laws that prohibit the sale of pets via retail installment contracts ("pet leasing").
Under a new law, an "agricultural work dog," defined as any dog that is trained to herd or protect livestock or to otherwise assist in agricultural work and is actually or has been used for such purposes" or a hunting dog is exempted from any local law requiring a dog to be kept on a leash or otherwise restrained while the dog is engaged in agricultural work or a hunting dog at any time while the dog is engaged in hunting wild game.
Substantial changes were made to the state's service animal laws included in Chapter 7 on "Rights of Blind and Otherwise Physically Disabled Persons." In Ala. Code 1975 § 21-7-1, on the declaration of policy for the chapter, several definitions were added. These include definitions for handler, housing accommodation, individual with a disability, major life activity, physical or mental impairment, public accommodation, service animal, trainer, and transient public lodging establishment.
In § 21-7-4 concerning the right of person with a disability to be accompanied by service animal, language was added that specifies that a service animal must be under the control of its handler:
(b) A service animal shall be under the control of its handler and shall have a harness, collar, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because his or her disability prevents him or her from the use of a harness, collar, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, collar, leash, or other tether would interfere with the safe, effective performance of work or tasks by the service animal, in which case the service animal shall be otherwise under the control of the handler by means of voice control, signals, or other effective means.
Most of the changes in this law were related to trainers of service animals. While the section reiterated that a "trainer of a service animal, while engaged in the training of the animal, has the same rights and privileges with respect to access to areas of public accommodation and the same liability for damage as is provided for an individual with a disability who is accompanied by a service animal," requirements were added.
For example, a service animal in training that is a dog shall wear a harness, collar, leash, cape, or backpack that identifies in writing that the dog is a service animal in training.
The written identification for a service animal in training shall be visible and legible from a distance of at least 20 feet.
a. If a trainer is an owner trainer with a disability or a qualified trainer with at least one year's experience training animals.
b. For photo identification stating that the trainer is an employee, volunteer, agent, or graduate of a school for seeing eye, hearing, service, or guide dogs or an organization generally recognized by agencies involved in the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities as reputable and competent to provide dogs with training, and who is actually involved in the training process.
c. What task the animal is being trained to perform, and if the trainer is currently engaged in the training of the animal.
With regard to all service animals, the law states that "documentation that the service animal is trained is not a precondition for providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal." Like the federal regulations, a place of public accommodation may not ask about the nature or extent of the disability of an individual. To determine the difference between a service animal and a pet, a public accommodation may ask if an animal is a service animal required because of a disability and what work or tasks the animal has been trained to perform.
The law also reflects federal regulations by stating that a service animal that is not under the control of its handler or is not housebroken or presents a danger to others may be asked to be removed. However, allergies and fears of animals are not valid reasons.
Finally, the law also includes a prohibition on the knowing and willful misrepresentation of a pet as a service animal. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor, and in addition to any fines and penalties provided by law, the perpetrator must perform 100 hours of community service for an organization that serves individuals with disabilities, or for another entity or organization, at the discretion of the court, to be completed in not more than six months.
With this law, § 21–7–5 was rewritten to state this requirement:
A conspicuous sign may be posted in a location accessible to public view in a place of public accommodation that contains the following, or substantially similar, language:
“NOTICE: Service animals welcome. It is illegal for a person to misrepresent an animal in that person's possession as a service animal.”
Other changes were made throughout the chapter with respect to modernizing language and coordinating requirements for service animals and service animals in-training.
|No major statutory changes.|
|A. R. S. § 13-2910|
The state's main anti-cruelty law (A. R. S. § 13-2910) was expanded in 2019. Subsections (A)(14) and (15) were added. The changes provide the following:
A. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person does any of the following:
* * *
14. Intentionally or knowingly subjects a domestic animal to cruel mistreatment.
15. Intentionally or knowingly kills a domestic animal without either legal privilege or consent of the domestic animal's owner or handler.
Violation is a class 5 felony per subsection (G).
Additionally, the definition for "domestic animal" was added that means, "a mammal, not regulated by title 3, that is kept primarily as a pet or companion or that is bred to be a pet or companion."
The state added a service animal fraud law. The new law (A.C.A. § 20-14-310) states that an individual shall not misrepresent an animal to be a service animal or service animal-in-training to a person or entity that operates a public accommodation. Violation results in a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for each violation.
The law on veterinary licensing (A.C.A. § 17-101-307) added an exemption for required licensure by the Veterinary Medical Examining Board. A person practicing or performing equine massage therapy or animal massage therapy is not prohibited by the licensing law.
A new section was added to the veterinary practice code on grounds for suspension of veterinary technologists and veterinary technician specialists.
Several new laws were added in 2019 concerning animal shelters within the state's Food and Agricultural Code (West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 30503.5). There are two separate chapters (chapter 1 and chapter 1.5) based on the population size of the county, so there are two similar laws enacted in each chapter.
Sections 30503.5 and 30526 require that animal shelters and rescues disclose previous bites to prospective owners:
If an animal shelter or rescue group knows, to the best of the knowledge of the shelter or rescue group, that a dog, at the age of four months or older, bit a person and broke that person's skin, thus requiring a state-mandated bite quarantine, the animal shelter or rescue group shall, before selling, giving away, or otherwise releasing the dog, do both of the following:
(1) Disclose in writing to the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred, the dog's known bite history and the circumstances related to the bite.
(2) Obtain a signed acknowledgment from the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred that the person has been provided information about the dog as required . . .
Sections 30505 and 30524.5 state that a public animal shelter shall not charge an adoption fee for a dog if the person adopting the dog presents a current and valid driver's license or identification card with the word “VETERAN” printed on its face pursuant to Section 12811 of the Vehicle Code.
California enacted a law (West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.9.5) making it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this state, any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. Some exemptions are listed. A violation of this section may be enforced by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred. The civil fine shall be paid to the entity that is authorized to bring the action. The section becomes operative on January 1, 2020.
Amendments were made to the 6-day holding laws for stray cats. In an effort to place young kittens quickly, a paragraph was added to West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31752:
(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a kitten under eight weeks of age that is reasonably believed to be unowned may be available immediately for adoption beginning on the day on which the kitten is seized, taken up, or impounded, through the entire holding period.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph supersedes or otherwise limits the requirements in Section 31751.3 or Sections 31760 to 31762, inclusive, to ensure that a kitten sold, given away, or transferred to a new owner is or will be spayed or neutered.
A new law was added in 2019 entitled, "Shelters; waiver of cat adoption fee for veterans; limit on number of cats adopted." The law allows veterans with proper ID to adopt cats for no fee:
(a) A public animal shelter shall not charge an adoption fee for a cat if the person adopting the cat presents to the public animal shelter a current and valid driver's license or identification card with the word “VETERAN” printed on its face pursuant to Section 12811 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) A public animal shelter may limit the number of cats adopted from that public animal shelter pursuant to this section to one cat each six-month period.
A similar provision was added to "Chapter 2, Special Provisions Applicable to Counties with a Population of Less than 100,000 Persons" - West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31764.5.
The Wildlife Protection Act of 2019 effectively bans the trapping of fur-bearing mammals for recreation or commerce. The law states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code or regulations adopted pursuant to this code, it is unlawful for any person to trap any fur-bearing mammal for purposes of recreation or commerce in fur. The raw fur of a fur-bearing mammal otherwise lawfully taken pursuant to this code or regulations adopted pursuant to this code may not be sold.
West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4001. The legislative statements preceding the law notes that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature in adopting this act to ensure that native species of California mammals are not commercially exploited for their fur." Further, the revenue generated by the licensing of the relatively small number of trappers in the state "would only cover a fraction of the costs of even a single [game] warden." Importantly, the legislature found that, "[p]rohibiting fur trapping would eliminate the needless taxpayer subsidized killing of California's native species for the international fur trade, while better protecting the role these species place in our ecosystems and economy."
As a result of this new law, other sections in the trapping laws of the Fish and Game Code were amended. Section § 4004, deleted this former paragraph (b): "(b) Use a body-gripping trap, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 3003.1, for the purpose of recreation or commerce in fur." Section 4005 added this sentence to paragraph (a): "[r]aw fur of fur-bearing and nongame mammals may not be sold."
Section § 4150 of the Fish and Game Code also added a paragraph to make it clear that trapping of nongame mammals for fur is also prohibited:
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code or regulations adopted pursuant to this code, it is unlawful for any person to trap any nongame mammal for purposes of recreation or commerce in fur. The raw fur of a nongame mammal otherwise lawfully taken pursuant to this code or regulations adopted pursuant to this code shall not be sold. For purposes of this subdivision, “raw fur” has the same meaning as defined in Section 4005.
Also see, "§ 4150. “Nongame mammal” defined; possession and taking; trapping for recreation or commerce; sale of raw fur."
To the law (West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.8) that requires a sign be posted with public auctions for the sale of equines, the law was amended. Previously, the sign would state:
Horses sold on these premises may be purchased for slaughter. As a possible safeguard, seller can set minimum bid above current slaughter prices.”
After the 2019 amendments, the sign must now display:
“WARNING The sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.”
Importation of Animals:
To the law (West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 653o) that prohibits the importation for commercial sale of certain dead body parts of animals with the intent to sell those body parts, new species were added:
(b)(1) Commencing January 1, 2020, it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or a part or product thereof, of a crocodile or alligator.
(c) Commencing January 1, 2022, it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard.
A new law was added that establishes a pilot program for wildlife salvage. Section § 2000.6 of the Fish and Game Code states:
the commission may establish a pilot program for the issuance of wildlife salvage permits through a user-friendly and cell-phone-friendly web-based portal to persons desiring to recover, possess, use, or transport, for purposes of salvaging wild game meat for human consumption of, any deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, or wild pig that has been accidentally killed as a result of a vehicle collision on a roadway within California. This permitting process shall be available at no cost to the public.
Definitions were added to West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2 and West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.5 related to damages for injury or death to a service animal:
(1) “Guide, signal, or service dog” means a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code. “Guide, signal, or service dog” also includes a dog enrolled in a training school or program, located in this state, for guide, signal, or service dogs.
(2) “Located in this state” includes the training of a guide, signal, or service dog that occurs in this state, even if the training school or program is located in another state.
(3) “Loss of wages or income” means wages or income that are lost by the person with a disability as a direct result of a violation of this section.
(4) “Replacement costs” means all costs that are incurred in the replacement of the guide, signal, or service dog, including, but not limited to, the training costs for a new dog, if needed, the cost of keeping the now-disabled dog in a kennel while the handler travels to receive the new dog, and, if needed, the cost of the travel required for the handler to receive the new dog.
In addition, damages now include "medical or medical-related expenses of the person with a disability, loss of wages or income of the person with a disability."
"Punky's Law" created some changes in the anti-cruelty laws. A mental health evaluation requirement was added to § 18–9–202:
(III) The court shall order an evaluation to be conducted prior to sentencing to assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence. If the violation is a felony offense in violation of subsection (1.5) of this section, a felony offense in violation of subsection (2)(b)(II) of this section, or any other violation of this section demonstrating knowing torture or torment of an animal that needlessly injured, mutilated, or killed the animal, the court shall require a comprehensive evaluation to help determine the causative factors. The person ordered to undergo an evaluation shall be required to pay the cost of the evaluation, unless the person qualifies for a public defender, then the cost will be paid by the judicial district. If the evaluation results in a recommendation of treatment and if the court so finds, the person must be ordered to complete, as a condition of any sentence to probation or a deferred judgment or sentence, an anger management treatment program, a mental health treatment program, or any other appropriate treatment program designed to address the underlying causative factors for the violation.
In addition, the state implemented a possession ban for those convicted of felony cruelty. This is a mandatory ban:
[T]he court shall enter an order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, or caring for a pet animal as defined in section 35-80-102(10) as a condition of the sentence for a period of three to five years, unless the defendant's treatment provider makes a specific recommendation not to impose the ban and the court agrees with the recommendation.
C. R. S. A. § 18–9–202.
In 2019, a new law was passed on facility dogs (§ 16-10-404). It states that a court may order that a witness's testimony be offered while a court facility dog is in the courtroom during a criminal proceeding if the judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the presence of a court facility dog with the witness during the witness's testimony would reduce the witness's anxiety and enhance the ability of the court to receive full and accurate testimony; (2) the arrangements for an available court facility dog during the witness's testimony would not interfere with efficient criminal proceedings; and (3) no prejudice would result to any party due to the presence of a court facility dog with the witness. A "court facility dog" must be a graduate of an accredited internationally recognized assistance dog organization.
Sterilization of dogs and cats:
Under the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act, Section § 35-80-106.4 was amended in 2019 to remove sections related to sterilization agreements with "ownerless" dogs and cats. In the previous version, a prospective owner was able to sign an agreement with the shelter stating that he or she would sterilize the animal within 90 days. If the owner failed to do that, the sterilization deposit would be forfeited. Under the amendments from 2019, an animal shelter or pet animal rescue cannot release a dog or cat to a prospective owner unless the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian or the veterinarian determines that sterilization could jeopardize the life or health of the dog or cat.
To section 22-344 on the licensing of commercial kennels, pet shops, training or grooming facilities, a new paragraph was added in 2019:
(3) For purposes of this subsection, no person who boards three or fewer cats or dogs in his or her residence shall be required to
Under P.A. 19-82 (C.G.S.A. § 22-354a) enacted in 2019, the state now bans the sale of dogs or cats using lease or installment contracts:
Any contract entered into on or after October 1, 2019, that is described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection shall be deemed void:
(1) A contract to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time by one party subsequent to the transfer of possession of such dog or cat to such party, and (2) any contract for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of the transfer of ownership of such dog or cat at the end of such lease. The provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall not be deemed to apply to any payment to repay an unsecured loan for the purchase of any dog or cat.
Certain exceptions exist to the law including breeding service contracts, motion picture animals, and working animals.
|No major statutory changes.|
|No major statutory changes.|
In the law prohibiting the sale and transport of horsemeat for human consumption, language that a minimum mandatory period of incarceration of 1 year in the penalty portion was deleted.
A paragraph was added to the veterinary records law (§ 474.2165) that allows veterinarians to release records where a criminal violation is suspected without notice to the client. However, if the violation occurs at a commercial food-producing animal operation on land classified as agricultural, notice must be provided before reporting the suspected violation. The added paragraph states:
(d) In any criminal action or situation where a veterinarian suspects a criminal violation. If a criminal violation is suspected, a veterinarian may, without notice to or authorization from the client, report the violation to a law enforcement officer, an animal control officer who is certified pursuant to s. 828.27(4)(a), or an agent appointed under s. 828.03. However, if a suspected violation occurs at a commercial food-producing animal operation on land classified as agricultural under s. 193.461, the veterinarian must provide notice to the client or the client's legal representative before reporting the suspected violation to an officer or agent under this paragraph. The report may not include written medical records except upon the issuance of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
|No major statutory changes.|
No major statutory changes.
Dangerous and at-risk dogs:
The law on dangerous and at-risk dogs was amended in 2019.
First, the law was restructured to make it a crime (a misdemeanor) to maintain a dangerous or at-risk dog. Because this was changed to a criminal offense, language of the previous law that allowed certain parties (injured people, parents of injured minors, prosecutors, etc.) to bring a petition to declare a dog dangerous or at risk were deleted.
The beginning of the law now sets forth the process:
(1) A person commits the crime of maintaining a dangerous dog or at-risk dog if the person owns, possesses, or harbors a dangerous dog or at-risk dog as described in subsection (4)(a) or (b) of this section unless otherwise in compliance with the provisions of an order pursuant to subsection (7) of this section. In all judgements rendered under this section, if the dog in question is still living, its disposition shall in all cases be determined in the same proceeding in accordance with this section to provide restrictions for the keeping of the dog or alternatively for its destruction.
(2) Anyone who owns, possesses, or harbors a dog found to be a dangerous dog or at-risk dog under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor unless otherwise in compliance with the provisions of an order pursuant to subsection (7) of this section.
(3) The court may also, in its discretion, order any individual found guilty of violating this section to pay the victim restitution related to medical expenses, property damage, property repair and replacement costs, if any, incurred as a result of the individual's violation of the provisions of this section.
The definition for "serious injury" was changed. Previously, it stated:
(e) “Serious injury” means an injury to a person characterized by piercing of the hypodermis or tearing of the muscles, veins or
. . . an injury to a person characterized by bruising, laceration, or other injury that would cause a reasonably prudent person to seek treatment from a medical professional without regard to whether the person actually sought medical treatment.
The conditions for designation and keeping of dangerous or at-risk dogs remain essentially unchanged except for some minor details. A dog may be permanently identified by a microchip or, as of 2019, a tattoo. Also, during the pendency of the case to have a dog found dangerous or at risk, "[t]he court may also, in its discretion, order any individual found guilty of violating this section to pay the law enforcement or animal control agency or animal shelter additional restitution related to impoundment costs, medical, and veterinary-related expenses, and any costs related to the care and keeping of the animal including costs of destruction and disposal of the animal."
Service and assistance animals:
Changes were made throughout Chapter 58 (Public Health and Safety) and Chapter 7 (Rights of Individuals with Disabilities) with bringing language up-to-date. For example, the phrase "disabled person" was changed throughout both chapters to "individual with a disability."
Section § 56–701A did have some more substantive changes. This section contains definitions for the chapter. Definitions for "assistance dog," "disabled person," "guide dog," and "hearing dog," among others were removed. As a result, the definition for "service dog" was expanded and reflects the federal definition under the ADA.
The state also enacted Act 120 the "Assistance Animal Integrity Act."
In the law (510 ILCS 5/24) that prohibits municipalities or other political subdivisions from regulating animals based on breed, the word "policy" was added in addition to regulation and ordinance. This minor addition means that animals can be controlled "provided that no regulation, policy or ordinance is specific to breed."
Cosmetic testing on animals:
A new law (410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2) makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There are several exceptions under the law.
Animal care and sales:
The state's Animal Welfare Act received some amendments. In the definitional section, 225 I.L.C.S. 605/2, the definition for “Animal shelter” was expanded to include rescues that foster animals. "An organization that does not have its own building that maintains animals solely in foster homes or other licensees is an “animal shelter” for purposes of this Act."
A new law was also added to the Act: 605/18.2. Fire alarm system. The new law requires that a kennel operator that maintains dogs or cats for boarding and that is not staffed at all times dogs or cats are on the premises shall be equipped with at least one fire alarm system or fire sprinkler system in operating condition in every building of the kennel operator that is used for the housing of animals.
The state added a new chapter entitled, "Police Service Dog Protection Act" (510 I.L.C.S. 83/1). It requires that the law enforcement agency or handler of the police dog shall be required to have every police dog receive, at minimum, an annual medical examination by a licensed veterinarian. Further, a vehicle transporting a police dog must be equipped with a heat sensor monitoring device that provides a visual and audible notification if the interior temperature reaches 85 degrees F as well as a safety mechanism to reduce the interior temperature.
Under changes to the Animal Control Act, cats at least four months of age kept as companion animals must now be inoculated against rabies:
(b) Every owner of a cat that is a companion animal and is 4 months or more of age shall have each cat inoculated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. Every cat that is a companion animal shall have a second rabies vaccination within one year of the first. Terms of subsequent vaccine administration and duration of immunity must be in compliance with USDA licenses of vaccines used. This subsection (b) does not apply to feral cats; however, if a feral cat is presented to a licensed veterinarian for sterilization, the feral cat shall be inoculated against rabies, unless the person presenting the feral cat for care provides an inoculation certificate showing that the feral cat has been inoculated against rabies, and the cost of the inoculation shall be paid by the person presenting the feral cat to a licensed veterinarian for care.
Further, veterinarians must issue a certificate:
(e) A veterinarian who inoculates a cat that is a companion animal shall issue an inoculation certificate to the owner which shall comply with any registration requirements adopted by the county under Section 3 of this Act. The owner shall pay any fee imposed by the county under Section 3 of this Act. A veterinarian who inoculates a feral cat shall issue an inoculation certificate to the person who presented the feral cat for veterinary care. The registration requirements or any fee imposed by the county under Section 3 of this Act shall not apply to feral cats.
510 ILCS 5/8.
Changes were made to the definitional section of Indiana's anti-cruelty laws. The term "beat" was changed to "abuse." Previously, the law said that is meant to "unnecessarily or cruelly strike an animal or to throw the animal against an object causing the animal to suffer severe pain or injury." The phrase that stated, "[t]he term does not include reasonable training or disciplinary techniques" was completely eliminated. Now, "abuse" means to "knowingly or intentionally beat, torment, injure, or otherwise harm an animal."
A new exception was added to that definition:
The term includes destruction of an animal by any means other than humane euthanasia if the person who destroys the animal is:
(A) a humane society;
(B) an animal control agency; or
(C) a governmental entity operating an animal shelter or other animal impounding facility.
(3) “Humane euthanasia” means the humane destruction of an animal using sodium pentobarbital or a derivative, administered in a manner that causes painless loss of consciousness and death. The term does not include a method:
(A) prohibited by section 15 of this chapter; or
(B) involving the use of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or any nonanesthetic inhalant.
In subsection (6), the definition of "torture" was also amended. Subpart (B) on administering poison to a domestic animal removed the following language at the end of the sentence: "and suffer harm, pain, or physical injury." Thus, there is not requirement that the animal suffered pain or harm if poisoned under this subpart. Additionally, the following were added to this definition for torture:
(C) to destroy an animal by electrocution; or
(D) to intentionally freeze or heat an animal to death.
As a result of the amendment that changed the term "beat" to "abuse" other laws including 35–46–3–12(b), 31–9–2–42(4), 34–6–2–34.5(4), and 35–31.5–2–1.5.
The state of Iowa passed a law on agricultural production facility trespass (I.C.A. 717A.3B). The law was eventually ruled unconstitutional in Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, 353 F. Supp. 3d 812 (S.D. Iowa 2019).
The definition for “assistive animal” in § 717F.1 was changed from "means the same as defined in section 216C.11," to "a simian or other animal specially trained or in the process of being trained to assist a person with a disability. This change occurs in the chapter on animal cruelty and abuse.
Several laws in Chapter 216C, "Rights of Persons with Disabilities" were amended. The definitions portion of the law (section 216C.1A) added definitions for "disability," "service animal," and "service-animal in-training."
Further, two laws were added related to the use of assistance animals in housing. The first Section 216.8B, incorporates the federal definitions for assistance animal and service animal and states that "a landlord shall waive lease restrictions and additional payments normally required for pets on the keeping of animals for the assistance animal or service animal of a person with a disability." A tenant is still responsible for damage done to any dwelling by an assistance animal or service animal. The last paragraph of the new law makes it a simple misdemeanor to knowingly deny or interfere with the right of a person with a disability under this section.
Next, Section 216.8C details the process for a healthcare or social work licensee whose assistance is required in establishing the disability-related need for an assistance animal. The law indicates that rules will be developed for such requests:
The commission, in consultation with the consumer protection division of the office of the attorney general, shall adopt rules regarding the making of a written finding by licensees under this section. The rules shall include a form for licensees to document the licensees' written finding. The form shall recite this section's requirements and comply with the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., as amended, and section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as amended. The form must contain only two questions regarding the qualifications of the patient or client, which shall be whether a person has a disability and whether the need for an assistance animal or service animal is related to the disability. The form must indicate that the responses must be limited to “yes” or “no”. The form must not allow for additional detail.
Paragraph five (5) does state that a "landlord may deny a request for an exception to a pet policy if a person, who does not have a readily apparent disability, or a disability known to the landlord, fails to provide documentation indicating that the person has a disability and the person has a disability-related need for an assistance animal or service animal."
Finally, Section § 216C.11 changed portions of the law so that it is clear that service-animals-in-training are granted access in both public accommodations and housing. This section also makes it a simple misdemeanor to intentionally misrepresent an animal as a service animal or a service-animal-in-training. However, to be prosecuted under this misrepresentation law, the following must be proven:
A person commits the offense of intentional misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal or a service-animal-in-training if all of the following elements are established:
(1) For the purpose of obtaining any of the rights or privileges set forth in state or federal law, the person intentionally misrepresents an animal in one's possession as one's service animal or service-animal-in-training or a person with a disability's service animal or service-animal-in-training whom the person is assisting by controlling.
(2) The person was previously given a written or verbal warning regarding the fact that it is illegal to intentionally misrepresent an animal as a service animal or a service-animal-in-training.
(3) The person knows that the animal in question is not a service animal or a service-animal-in-training.
I. C. A. § 216C.11
|No major statutory changes.|
Animal sexual assault/bestiality:
Kentucky adopted a new animal sexual assault law in 2019 (KRS § 525.137). A person is guilty of sexual crimes against an animal if he or she:
(a) Engages in sexual contact with an animal;
(b) Advertises, solicits, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal, or possesses, purchases, or otherwise obtains an animal, with the intent that the animal be subject to sexual contact; or
(c) Causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in sexual contact with an animal.
Sexual crimes against an animal is a Class D felony. Violators also must relinquish custody of all animals under the person's control at the time of the violation and will face a minimum 5-year possession ban.
Assistance animals in housing:
Kentucky amended its law from 2018 on assistance animals in housing as reasonable accommodations in housing (KRS § 383.085). In paragraph (b) that describes a “therapeutic relationship," more specific terminology on the types of medical professionals was added. Previously, it listed these roles more generally as "mental health service provider" and "an individual with a valid, unrestricted state license." Now, the parties are specifically described:
1. A licensed clinical social worker who holds a valid, unrestricted state license under KRS 335.100 and who maintains an active practice within the state;
2. A professional counselor who holds a valid, unrestricted state license under KRS 335.525 and who maintains an active practice within the state;
3. An advanced practice registered nurse who holds a valid, unrestricted state license under KRS 314.042 and who maintains an active practice within the state;
4. A psychologist who holds a valid, unrestricted state license under KRS 319.050 or 319.053 and who maintains an active practice within the state; or
5. A physician who holds a valid, unrestricted state license under KRS 311.571 and who maintains an active practice within the state.
Further, the following paragraph was added about out-of-state providers:
An individual who moves from another state may provide documentation from a health services provider who is licensed in that state, so long as the person with a disability has an ongoing therapeutic relationship with the provider. This definition shall not include a health care provider described in this paragraph whose primary service is to provide documentation to a person requesting a reasonable accommodation in exchange for a fee.
Finally, to paragraph (6) concerning the offense of misrepresentation of an assistance animal if the person knowingly, two other actions were added:
(e) Engages in fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in providing documentation to a person as a part of a request for the use of an assistance animal in housing; or
(f) Provides documentation as a part of a request for an assistance animal in housing to a person for the primary purpose of obtaining a fee.
In the law on vaccinating dogs, cats, and ferrets against rabies (258.015), the following paragraph was removed in 2019: "(4) Any person with feral cats on his premises shall make a reasonable effort to capture or vaccinate the cats."
Animal shelters transfer to research/biological supply:
In the definition section for the chapter on minimum standards for animal shelters (3:2462), several new definitions were added:
(1) “Animal dealer” means a person who receives payment for the transportation or delivery for transportation of any living or dead animal or who buys, sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of any living or dead animal for research, teaching, exhibition, or biological supply.
(3) “Biological supply facility” means any blood bank, laboratory, firm, association, corporation, copartnership, or educational institution that sells biological materials, including blood or living or dead animals, to research facilities, educational institutions, or veterinarians.
(8) “Research facility” means any school, institution, organization, or person that uses or intends to use animals in research or experiments.
These new definitions relate to a new law added in 2019 on the euthanasia of animals for research or biological supply. Under new section 3:2462, an animal shelter that turns over euthanized animals to a research facility or biological supply facility shall post and maintain a sign in a place where it is clearly visible to all persons turning animals over to the shelter. The sign shall contain the following statement: “Animals Euthanized at This Shelter May Be Used for Educational or Research Purposes or to Supply Blood, Tissue, or Other Biological Products”. The statement must also be included on the owner surrender forms. There are strict requirements under the law for transfer of living animals for research or instruction. Violation of the law incurs a fine not more than one thousand dollars for each separate act of violation.
Dangerous dog law:
In the state's dangerous dog law (LSA-R.S. 14:102.12 and § 102.22), a paragraph was repealed. This paragraph formerly defined "serious bodily injury” as "bodily injury which involves unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death."
A new law (LSA-R.S. 3:2438.1) was added defining "horse aftercare." “Horse aftercare” means the providing for the retraining or retiring of thoroughbreds and quarter horses that have participated at licensed racetracks in Louisiana.
The state amended its anti-cruelty law (7 M. R. S. A. § 4016) to allow certain listed parties to act as advocates in animal cruelty cases:
1–A. Separate advocate. In any proceeding brought under this section, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. A decision of the court denying a request to appoint a separate advocate to represent the interests of justice is not subject to appeal. An advocate appointed under this subsection must be appointed from a list provided to the court by the Maine State Bar Association pursuant to paragraph B.
A. The advocate may:
(1) Monitor the proceeding;
(2) Consult any individual with information that could aid the judge or fact finder and review records relating to the condition of the animal and the defendant's actions, including, but not limited to, records from animal control officers, veterinarians and law enforcement officers;
(3) Attend hearings; and
(4) Present information or recommendations to the court pertinent to determinations that relate to the interests of justice, as long as the information and recommendations are based solely on the duties undertaken pursuant to this subsection.
B. The Maine State Bar Association shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Attorneys and law students serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this subsection.
Under 7 M.R.S.A. § 4011, giving a schedule 1 drug to an animal with intent to harm or intoxicate the animal is considered cruelty:
addition of this sentence to cruelty law: gives drugs, including but not limited to, a scheduled drug as defined in Title 17–A, section 1101, subsection 11, to an animal with an intent to harm or intoxicate the animal . . .
Similar language was added to the anti-cruelty law of 17 MRSA § 1031.
The penalties under 7 M.R.S.A. § 4016 were increased in 2019. Now, a first offense has a maximum civil fine of up to $5,000 (before it was a maximum of $2,500) and a second or subsequent offense has a maximum fine of up to $10,000 (previously $5,000).
Several changes were made to 17 MRSA § 1021. As existed before in the law, if it appears at the hearing that the animal has been abandoned or cruelly treated by its owner or the animal is maimed, disabled, diseased, dehydrated, malnourished or injured, the court shall order one of three things. First, the court can now declare the animal forfeited and direct the applicant or other suitable person to take possession of and provide for the animal. Second, as before, the court can order the animal to be disposed of humanely, but only if a veterinarian determines that, given reasonable time and care, the animal's recovery is doubtful or that the animal is diseased or disabled beyond recovery. Finally, the section that, if appropriate, allows the animal to be returned to its owner remain unchanged.
All veterinary records, seizure reports prepared by a humane agent, a state veterinarian or a person authorized to make arrests, police reports, witness statements and other written documents are admissible as evidence when the authors of these documents are available for cross-examination at a hearing. An oral statement of a witness included in a police report is admissible only if the witness is present. After hearing, the court shall issue a writ of possession, order the disposition of the animal or return the animal to its owner, in which case the animal must be returned within 30 days of the seizure.
[a] full hearing must be held within 31 days of application for authorization under subsection 1. The court shall take notice that the evidence in a matter under this subsection is a living animal requiring proper care and nourishment and shall advance the matter on the docket and give the matter priority over other cases when the court determines that the interests of justice so require. In the event of a postponement of the original hearing date, the court shall reschedule the matter for full hearing no more than 14 days later than the original hearing date. It is the owner's responsibility at the hearing to show cause why the animal should not be seized permanently or disposed of humanely.
Emergency euthanasia was clarified:
3–A. Emergency euthanasia. If an animal in possession of a humane agent, state veterinarian, sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, police officer, animal control officer, person authorized to make arrests or the commissioner is in a condition that could cause the animal to suffer while in custody or if the animal is severely sick or severely injured and there is no possibility of recovery, the animal may be euthanized. The custodian of the animal shall submit in writing to the district attorney in the prosecutorial district where the animal is located a written report including a statement from a veterinarian stating the condition of the animal and how continued care could cause greater harm or damage to the animal. An animal euthanized under this subsection must receive a full necropsy to detail the condition of the animal and confirm the veterinarian's diagnosis.
Most significantly, the law allows a temporary possession ban:
5–B. Temporary possession ban. An owner or keeper of an animal that was lawfully seized or impounded pursuant to this section or section 1034 is prohibited from possessing or acquiring an animal prior to any hearing to determine possession of the animal that was lawfully seized or impounded. Notice of the prohibition under this subsection must be served to the owner or keeper subject to the prohibition. An owner or keeper who violates the prohibition under this subsection commits a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $200 may be adjudged for each day of violation.
Changes in 2019 to 17 M. R. S. A. § 1027 now allow an appeal of a seizure order:
2–A. Appeal of action or order. When an animal is lawfully seized or impounded pursuant to section 1021 or 1034, if the owner, custodian or person claiming an interest in the animal wishes to contest the order, the owner, custodian or person claiming an interest may appeal the action or order to the Superior Court pursuant to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
In 7 M.R.S.A. § 3954 on prohibitions on dangerous dogs and nuisance dogs, the following paragraph was deleted:
A. Train or encourage a dog that is not directly involved with a protection dog training program recognized by the Department of Public Safety, Bureau of State Police to be aggressive toward or attack another person or domesticated animal . . .
A new law was added: 7 M.R.S.A. § 3955, "Leaving the scene of an assault by a dog that causes an injury that requires medical attention for a person." This new law provides the following:
1. Required actions by owner or keeper. The owner or keeper of a dog that assaults a person and causes an injury that requires medical attention shall comply with the requirements of this section before leaving the scene of the assault:
A. The owner or keeper shall secure aid for the injured person, including, as appropriate, securing medical assistance and reporting the assault to the local law enforcement agency;
B. After securing aid for the injured person, the owner or keeper may leave the scene on a temporary basis in order to contain the dog that assaulted the person; and
C. After securing aid for the injured person and containing the dog that assaulted the person, the owner or keeper shall provide the owner's or keeper's name, current address and contact information to the injured person, a person acting for the injured person or a law enforcement officer.
2. Violation. A violation of this section is a Class D crime.
The penalty portion of the state's endangered species law was amended (12 M. R. S. A. § 12808).
Previously, for negligent violations (paragraph 1), the penalties were listed as Class E crimes for things like hunting, taking, possessing, exporting or transporting endangered species. Now, each of those paragraphs states that it is a Class E crime "for which a fine of $1,000 must be adjudged, none of which may be suspended." In addition, the paragraph that prohibits the feeding or bait setting removed the language requiring law enforcement officers to first give a warning to violators. Now, that paragraph follows the others by saying it is a Class E crime for which a fine of $1,000 must be adjudged, none of which may be suspended.
The penalties changed similarly for intentional acts (paragraph 1-A). Violations are a Class D crime "for which a fine of $2,000 must be adjudged, none of which may be suspended" under the amendments. Again, the first warning language was also deleted for this subsection.
Finally, on paragraph (2) concerning intentional acts toward delisted species, it is also a Class D crime, with the same provision that says, "for which a fine of $2,000 must be adjudged, none of which may be suspended." Subsection (D) on feeding and baiting delisted animals was deleted entirely.
Maine repealed its law on "§ 1052. Taking up stray beasts; notice." This law from 1954 previously provided that a person who takes up a "stray beast" must publish notice with a description to receive compensation for its care. The laws dealing with the procedure for stray beasts including § 1055, § 1057, § 1059, and § 1060 were also repealed. These covered restitution for owners of stray beasts, sale of stray beasts when no owner appears, recovery of stray livestock, and restitution to owner of lands damaged by stray beasts.
In 2019, the state enacted new law 7 M. R. S. A. § 4042 on "Stray Livestock." This new law states that the ownership of any stray livestock cannot be established, the livestock must be handled as a stray and an animal control officer shall seize, impound or restrain the livestock. The animal must be held by the shelter for 10 days before title vests with municipality or animal shelter.
Another section (M.R.S.A. § 3950-B) gives a humane agent, animal control officer or animal shelter the authority to authorize in writing the euthanasia of severely sick or severely injured livestock under the certain conditions.
Pet purchaser protection law:
To the state's pet purchaser protection act (7 M. R. S. A. § 4155), a couple changes occurred in 2019. In paragraph 3 related to undisclosed health problems that renders and animal unfit for sale, subsection D was added:
D. For an animal with less than one year of life expectancy, as determined by a veterinarian pursuant to subsection 1, retainment of the animal and a full refund of the original purchase price of the animal. Reimbursement of veterinary fees by the seller is not required under this paragraph.
Additionally, in paragraph 5 which states that sellers cannot make themselves exempt from this law through contract, provisions were added that makes it clear it covers congenital and hereditary problems as well:
5. Sellers not exempt. Sellers may not, contractually or otherwise, exempt themselves from the remedies provided by this section for deaths or health problems in animals caused by infectious, contagious, parasitic or communicable disease or for deaths or health problems in animals caused by hereditary or congenital defects as described in subsection 1. [emphasis added].
In § 10–604, 10-606, 10-607, and 10-608 on abuse and neglect of an animal, the following paragraph was added in 2019 under the penalty portion of those laws:
(ii) pay, in addition to any other fines and costs, all reasonable costs incurred in removing, housing, treating, or euthanizing an animal confiscated from the defendant.
"Sexual contact with an animal" was added to the aggravated cruelty law in 2019. Section § 10-606 now makes the defined activity a felony similar to other forms of intentional cruelty.
Pet sales/ban on retail pet sales:
The entire chapter 7 on retail pet stores was revamped in 2019. This was due primarily to the state eliminating the retail sale of pets at pet stores. Previously, chapter 7 contained provisions for display of breeder information on cages at pet stores to inform consumers. In addition, the chapter also had section that provided pet purchaser protection in the event a consumer was sold a pet that developed illness or displayed serious congenital malformities (§ 19–705).
As of January 1, 2020, several statutes in this chapter were amended or repealed. In the definitions section (§ 19–701), definitions for "clinically ill," "dealer," "nonelective surgical procedure," and "purchaser" were deleted. Definitions for “Animal welfare organization" and "broker" were expanded.
Section § 19–702.1 concerning requirements for retail pet stores to display breeder information was repealed.
Section § 19–703 was redrafted entirely. Previously, the law listed requirements for pet stores to list the origin of the dog and a written record for the origin of all dogs sold. Now, the law states:
(a) A retail pet store may not offer for sale or otherwise transfer or dispose of cats or dogs.
(b) This section may not be construed to prohibit a retail pet store from collaborating with an animal welfare organization or animal control unit to offer space for these entities to showcase cats or dogs for adoption.
Sections § 19–704 and § 19–705 on pet purchaser protections and remedies were amended and/or repealed. § 19–704 kept the following provisions from former section § 19–706:
Violation of subtitle
(a) A violation of this subtitle:
(1) is an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article; and
(2) except for the provisions of § 13-411 of the Commercial Law Article, is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions contained in Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article.
Each offer of an animal for sale is a separate violation
(b) Each offer of an animal for sale in violation of this subtitle is a separate violation.
|No major statutory changes.|
Animal Industry Act:
Michigan's Animal Industry Act, the act that regulates disease control, breeders, and transport of animals within the state, was amended.
Michigan's felony anti-cruelty law (750.50b) received some amendments. A definition for "companion animal" was added that defines it as "an animal that is commonly considered to be, or is considered by its owner to be, a pet, or that is a service animal as that term is defined in section 50a. Companion animal includes, but is not limited to, dogs and cats."
Further, the prohibitions that comprise felony cruelty were expanded to include subsection (2)(d) this act:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do any of the following without just cause:
(a) Knowingly kill, torture, mutilate, maim, or disfigure an animal.
(b) Commit a reckless act knowing or having reason to know that the act will cause an animal to be killed, tortured, mutilated, maimed, or disfigured.
(c) Knowingly administer poison to an animal, or knowingly expose an animal to any poisonous substance, with the intent that the substance be taken or swallowed by the animal.
(d) Violate or threaten to violate subdivision (a) or (c) with the intent to cause mental suffering or distress to a person or to exert control over a person.
The law was refined to add "degrees" of culpability. A first-degree felony occurs when the animal victim is a companion animal and a person violates (2)(d) and intentionally violates subsection (2)(a) or (c), the person is guilty of killing or torturing animals in the first degree. Second and third degree occur under the following situations:
(4) If the animal is a companion animal and a person violates subsection (2)(d), or if a person intentionally violates subsection (2)(a) or (c), the person is guilty of killing or torturing animals in the second degree.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3) and (4), a person who violates subsection (2) is guilty of killing or torturing animals in the third degree.
The punishment for first degree animal cruelty remained the same, but a punishment for second degree were added:
(7) Killing or torturing animals in the second degree is a felony punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than 7 years.
(b) A fine of not more than $5,000.00.
(c) Community service for not more than 500 hours.
(8) Killing or torturing animals in the third degree is a felony punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than 4 years.
(b) A fine of not more than $5,000.00.
(c) Community service for not more than 500 hours.
(9) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed for a violation of this section to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other crime including any other violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.
Finally, subsection (18) was added at the end:
(18) This section does not prohibit the lawful killing or use of an animal under the animal industry act, 1988 PA 466, MCL 287.701 to 287.746.
To the law on the duty to provide care (M.C.L.A. 750.50) two new definitions were added:
(d) “Animal protection shelter” means a facility operated by a person, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other nonprofit organization, for the care of homeless animals.
(h) “Neglect” means to fail to sufficiently and properly care for an animal to the extent that the animal's health is jeopardized.
Dogs to track wounded deer or bear:
A new law (M. S. A. § 97B.207) was added in 2019 that allows a person to use a dog to locate and retrieve a wounded deer or bear only as provided in this section. Among the requirements is that the person attempting to locate and retrieve a wounded deer or bear using a dog must have a valid license to take the deer or bear and have the license in possession or must be accompanied by a validly licensed person.
Trade in ivory/animal parts:
The state added a new law (M. S. A. § 84.0896) that prohibits the trade in "prohibited animal parts." This means:
(1) a tooth or tusk from any species of elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth, mastodon, walrus, whale, or narwhal, or any piece thereof, whether raw or worked;
(2) a product containing any of the materials described in clause (1);
(3) a horn; piece of horn; or derivative of a horn, such as a powder, of any species of rhinoceros; and
(4) a product containing any of the materials described in clause (3).
Certain exemptions exist under the chapter including activities undertaken by law enforcement, certain antiques, possession of certain cultural artifacts, sale or purchase of certain musical instruments, and possession by a bona fide educational or scientific institution that is a nonprofit corporation as defined.
|Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-15|
Under the state's meat inspection act, language was added to the law on labeling of meat and false/misleading labeling (Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-15). The new language states:
A food product that contains cultured animal tissue produced from animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food product. A plant-based or insect-based food product shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food product.
|No major statutory amendments.|
In Montana's laws on service animals, the definitional section was amended in 2019. Section 49–4–203 added a definition for "housing accommodation" and changed the definition for "service animal" to mean a dog or miniature horse individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. Previously, the statute said, "dog or other animal." Additionally, this phrase was added to the end of the definition: "[t]he term does not include an emotional support animal."
Section 49-4-214 on the right to be accompanied by a service animal added some provisions in 2019. The person using the service animal must keep the animal under control as described in federal regulations and the law alerts that person that he or she may be asked the following questions:
(i) whether the animal is a service animal that is required because of a disability; and
(ii) to describe the work or task the animal is trained to perform.
Again, this mirrors the inquiry established under federal law.
If the animal is not under control or is not housebroken, the handler may be asked to remove the animal from the place or accommodation.
Finally, that law now provides that if a place or accommodation posts a notice that dogs or other animals are prohibited on the premises, it must also indicate that a person may be accompanied by a service animal subject to the provisions of this chapter.
Montana also enacted a two-tiered service animal fraud law. The first law, MCA 49-4-221, allows local law enforcement to investigate if a person knowingly and willfully represents that an animal is a trained service animal by fitting the animal with a leash, collar, cape, harness, backpack, or sign that identifies the animal as a service animal or claims verbally or in writing that the animal is a service animal in order to access the places and accommodations. The law notes that the place of public accommodation must have a conspicuous public notice that it does not allow animals other than service animals and it reserves the right to file complaints regarding misrepresentation.
The second new law is the criminal component of the misrepresentation law. If a person has been given a warning about misrepresenting an animal as a service animal and that person continues to do so, he or she may be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalty begins at $50 for a first offense and goes to $100 - $1000 for third or subsequent offenses. MCA 49-4-222.
|Neb. Rev. St. § 37-247.01|
The state has a new definition in its game/hunting laws for "wildlife abatement." The phrase means "the use of a trained raptor to frighten, flush, haze, take, or kill certain wildlife to manage depredation, damage, or other threats to human health and safety or commerce caused by such wildlife."
Nevada added new laws (Sections 574.055) related to impoundment of animals that are suspected victims of animal cruelty, often called "preconviction forfeiture." Previously, when a person was arrested for 7 or more days for suspected animal cruelty, that person first got notice of the impound and then the animal could be temporarily cared for by another person.
The 2019 changes the procedure. A city or county may, within 10 days of the arrest, (1) allow another person who is able to provide adequate care and shelter to care for the animal temporarily; or (2) take possession of the animal. Written notice must be provided to the arrestee, with availability in a number of languages, and it must be provided to the jail or detention facility.
If the court receives a timely request, it must hold a hearing within 15 judicial days after receipt of the request to determine whether the person is the owner of an animal and whether the person is able and fit to provide adequate care and shelter to the animal. The new law (574.203) states factors the court may consider in making its decision.
(a) The person not to own or possess the animal; and
(b) The county, city or other local government to transfer the animal to an animal rescue organization, animal shelter or another person who is able to provide adequate care and shelter to the animal.
Further, if the court finds the person is not fit, it may also order impoundment of any other animals possessed by the person and even enjoin the person from owning or possessing any animal.
This bill added new definitions for this section for "animal," "animal rescue organization," and "animal shelter."
Finally, under 574.204, if the court makes a determination pursuant to subsection 2 of section 8 of this act, the county, city or other local government or animal shelter may by appropriate action recover the reasonable cost of any care and shelter furnished to the animal. The court may order a later and separate hearing to make a determination about such costs.
The state's operative anti-cruelty law (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8) received an overhaul in 2019 with respect to the procedure for confiscation of animals. Previously, the statute provided that a person convicted of violations under the animal cruelty laws shall have their animals confiscated at arrest, and after conviction, "the court may dispose of said animal in any manner it decides." In the event of an appeal of an animal cruelty conviction, "the trial court may require the appellant to post a bond or other security in an amount not exceeding $2,000 for each animal in custody for costs expected to be incurred for the board and care of the animal during the appeal. If the conviction is affirmed on appeal, the costs incurred for the board and care of the animal shall be paid to the custodian from the posted security and the balance, if any, returned to the person who posted it."
(b) In addition, the court may prohibit any person convicted of a misdemeanor offense of animal cruelty under RSA 644:8, RSA 644:8-aa, RSA 644:8-b, RSA 644:8-c, or RSA 644:8-d, or violation of RSA 644:8-f from having future ownership or custody of, or residing with other animals for any period of time the court deems reasonable or impose any other reasonable restrictions on the person's future ownership or custody of animals as necessary for the protection of the animals. The court shall prohibit or limit any person convicted of a felony offense of animal cruelty under RSA 644:8 or a misdemeanor or felony offense of bestiality under RSA 644:8-g from having future ownership or custody of other animals for a minimum of 5 years, and may impose any other reasonable restrictions on the person's future ownership or custody of, or residing or having contact with animals as necessary for the protection of the animals. For the purposes of this paragraph, a reasonable restriction on future contact may include limiting a person from engaging in any employment in the care of animals or other similar contact as the court sees fit. Any animal involved in a violation of a court order prohibiting or limiting ownership or custody of animals shall be subject to immediate forfeiture. Any person violating such order may, in addition to being held in criminal contempt of court or subject to a probation violation, be fined in the amount of $1,000 in any court of competent jurisdiction for each animal held in unlawful ownership or custody.
The state's animal fighting law (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8-a) was amended to reach more activities related to animal fighting. The acts of " offer for sale, sell, loan, export" were added to "keep, breed, or train."
Further, activities related to animal fighting paraphernalia are also prohibited. The new amendments state:
III. (a) Any person who possesses, owns, buys, sells, transfers, or manufactures animal fighting paraphernalia with the intent to engage in or otherwise promote or facilitate such fighting shall be guilty of a class B felony.
(b) For purposes of this section, “animal fighting paraphernalia” means equipment, products, implements, and materials of any kind that are used, intended for use, or designed for use in the training, preparation, conditioning, or furtherance of animal fighting, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: breaking sticks, cat mills, fighting pits, springpoles, unprescribed anabolic steroids, unprescribed anti-inflammatory steroids, unprescribed antibiotics, treatment supplies or gaffs, slashers, heels, or any other sharp implement designed to be attached in place of the natural spur of a cock or game fowl.
(c) In determining whether an object is animal fighting paraphernalia, the court shall consider any prior convictions under federal or state law relating to animal fighting, the proximity of the object in time and space to the direct violation of this section, direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of the accused to deliver the object to persons whom he or she knows or should reasonably know intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this section, oral or written instructions provided with or in the vicinity of the object concerning its use, descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use, and all other logically relevant factors.
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8-a
Finally, the legislation also amended the paragraph relating to bans on ownership of animals after conviction. Previously, the law left it up to the court to issue a possession ban " for a period of time determined by the court." Now, the ban is much more specific and expansive:
the court shall issue an order prohibiting or limiting a person who is convicted of a violation of this section from owning or possessing any animals for a period not less than 5 years, and may add other reasonable restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals as necessary for the protection of the animals. Any animal involved in a violation of a court order prohibiting or limiting ownership or possession of animals shall be subject to immediate forfeiture. Any person violating such order may, in addition to being held in criminal contempt of court or subject to a probation violation, be fined in the amount of $1,000 in any court of competent jurisdiction for each animal held in unlawful ownership or possession. For purposes of this section, a reasonable restriction on future ownership or possession may include limiting a person from engaging in any employment in the care of animals or other similar contact as the court sees fit.
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8-a
In New Hampshire's law on property settlement during divorce (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 458:16-a), a new paragraph was added related to animals:
II–a. Tangible property shall include animals. In such cases, the property settlement shall address the care and ownership of the parties' animals, taking into consideration the animals' wellbeing.
Sale of pets and small animals:
The state has a law on the sale or gift of baby rabbits (Section 437:15). The law used to state that rabbits younger than 8 weeks shall not be sold or given away. In 2019, this was changed to rabbits under the age of 4 weeks.
In Section 437:8 concerning health Certificates for dogs, cats, and ferrets, a new paragraph was added:
VI. No dog, cat, or ferret shall be offered for transfer by a licensee or by any individual without first being protected against infectious diseases using a vaccine approved by the state veterinarian. No dog, cat, or ferret shall be offered for transfer by a licensee or by any individual unless accompanied by an official health certificate issued by a licensed veterinarian. No transfer shall occur unless the transferred animal is accompanied by a health certificate issued within the prior 14 days. The certificate shall be in triplicate, one copy of which shall be retained by the signing veterinarian, one copy of which shall be for the licensee's records, and one copy of which shall be given to the transferee upon transfer as provided in paragraph III. If an official health certificate is produced, it shall be prima facie evidence of transfer. The signing veterinarian shall provide a copy of the health certificate to the department of agriculture, markets, and food upon request.
A new law (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5:15-b) was added in 2019 that requires the secretary of state to develop a decal on service animals for businesses:
The secretary of state shall coordinate with the governor's commission on disability to develop, prepare, and make available to businesses upon request:
I. A decal suitable for posting in a front window or door stating that service animals are welcome and that misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal is a violation of RSA 167-D:8.
II. Materials including permissible questions a business owner may ask in order to determine whether an animal is a service animal, guidelines for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the business owner, and information on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such materials shall also contain language stating that persons who have non-apparent disabilities such as asthma or allergies to animals may also be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such materials shall also contain information about the penalties for misrepresentation of a dog as a service dog under RSA 167-D.
Amendments to the dog fighting law (2C:33-31) in 2019 expanded prohibited activities. A person is guilty of dog fighting if that person knowingly:
(7) owns, possesses, buys, sells, transfers, or manufactures dog fighting paraphernalia for the purpose of engaging in or otherwise promoting or facilitating the fighting or baiting of a dog.
“Dog fighting paraphernalia” means equipment, products, implements, and materials of any kind that are used, intended for use, or designed for use in the training, preparation, or conditioning of a dog for fighting, or in furtherance of dog fighting.
The amendments also describe how to determine whether objects are dog fighting paraphernalia.
d. In determining whether an object is dog fighting paraphernalia, a tryer of fact may consider:
(1) the proximity of the object in time and space to any violation of this section;
(2) direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of the person to deliver the object to any person whom the person in possession of the object knows, or should reasonably know, intends to use the object to violate this section;
(3) oral or written instructions concerning its use provided with, or found in the vicinity of, the object;
(4) descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use; and
(5) any other relevant factors.
N. J. S. A. 2C:33-31
The animal fighting paraphernalia bill also amended the state's general anti-cruelty law, N. J. S. A. 4:22-24. A person who shall:
(7) Own, possess, buy, sell, transfer, or manufacture animal fighting paraphernalia for the purpose of engaging in or otherwise promoting or facilitating the fighting or baiting of a living animal or creature—
Shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree.
The same definition for animal fighting paraphernalia as above and the same five factors are incorporated into this law too.
Finally, 4:22–26, subsection (v) also had language added on paraphernalia:
v. Own, possess, keep, train, promote, purchase, or knowingly sell a living animal or creature for the purpose of fighting or baiting that animal or creature; or own, possess, buy, sell, transfer, or manufacture animal fighting paraphernalia as defined pursuant to R.S.4:22–24 for the purpose of engaging in or otherwise promoting or facilitating the fighting or baiting of a living animal or creature;
According to the legislative summary for the bill, "[a] crime of the third degree is punishable by a term of imprisonment of three to five years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. Finally, the bill establishes a civil penalty for owning, possessing, buying, selling, transferring, or manufacturing animal fighting paraphernalia of not less than $3,000 nor more than $5,000."
Dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs:
Changes were made to the dangerous dog laws in New Jersey. The first change was to N. J. S. A. 4:19-22. A section that required a municipal court to declare a dog vicious that "has engaged in dog fighting activities as described in R.S.4:22–24 and R.S.4:22–26, and poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person" was deleted. Under changes, a court MAY order "(1) the dog's owner to comply with certain restrictions to protect the public that are at least as stringent as the requirements for potentially dangerous dogs pursuant to section 8 of P.L.1989, c. 307 (C.4:19–24) and section 12 of P.L.1989, c. 307 (C.4:19–28)." The next provision changed the term "destroy" to "euthanize."
The next law on potentially dangerous dog was also amended. Paragraph (7)(a)(2) changed "severely injured" to "caused serious bodily injury to another domestic animal." Dogs also must now pose "serious" threats. Paragraph (7)(a)(3) was deleted, which previously stated, "has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited, or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals." In subsection (7)(b) regarding when a dog shall NOT be declared potentially dangerous, again "severely injuring" was changed to "causing serious bodily injury to." In addition, three more circumstances were added:
(3) causing bodily injury to a person who was committing or attempting to commit a crime or offense upon the owner or person with custody or control of the dog or committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner or person with custody or control of the dog;
(4) causing bodily injury to a person or a domestic animal who was abusing, assaulting, or physically threatening the dog or the dog's offspring; or
(5) causing bodily injury to a person who was intervening between two or more dogs engaged in aggressive behavior or fighting.
Finally, definition for "bodily injury" and "severe bodily injury" were added:
c. As used in this section, “bodily injury” means bodily injury as defined in subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:11–1; and “serious bodily injury” means serious bodily injury as defined in subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:11–1.
Pet leasing contracts:
New Jersey enacted N. J. S. A. 56:8-211, which makes it an unlawful practice to enter into (1) a contract for a cat or dog in which the transfer of ownership of the animal is contingent on the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the animal, unless these payments are on an unsecured loan for the purchase of the animal; or (2) a lease agreement that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of a cat or dog at the end of the lease term. A pet dealer who violates this law can be fined up to $10,000 for a first offense and up to $30,000 for second or subsequent offenses.
|NMSA 1978, § 30-18-16|
Under a 2019, coyote-killing contests are now prohibited. “Coyote-killing contest” means an organized or sponsored competition with the objective of killing coyotes for prizes or entertainment. The prohibition is placed under the anti-cruelty chapter and prohibits organizing, sponsoring, or participating in such a contest.
McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law:
Under McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-d, amendments in 2019 added emergency medical services personnel, paid firefighters, or volunteer firefighters to the list of who can respond to a call for assistance for animals confined in motor vehicles under extreme weather conditions.
New York became the first state in the nation to ban cat "declawing" under McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 381. No person shall perform an onychectomy (declawing), partial or complete phalangectomy or tendonectomy procedure by any means on a cat within the state of New York, except when necessary for a therapeutic purpose. Under the law, "[t]herapeutic purpose does not include cosmetic or aesthetic reasons or reasons of convenience in keeping or handling the cat." Violation incurs a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
Section 380 of the Agriculture and Markets Laws made it unlawful to use elephants in any type of entertainment act. Violation can result in a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation. Institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and state recognized wildlife sanctuaries are exempted from the law.
In 2019, a new law (McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0535-b) was added that established "vulnerable species" in the state based on listed criteria.
Pet dealer standards:
McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 401 in Article 26-a. Care of Animals by Pet Dealers received some amendments improving minimum standards of care.
Separate and apart from the whelping box, a pet dealer shall provide a pregnant or nursing dog with a separate space accessible to her that complies with the standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Each nursing dog shall be provided with a sufficient amount of floor space to nurse and care for her litter.
Part (2) deals with Sanitation. For housing facilities, including primary enclosures, the following requirements was added:
"Primary enclosures must be cleaned daily and sanitized at least once every two weeks by washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions and disinfectant or by using a combination detergent or disinfectant product that accomplishes the same purpose with a thorough cleaning of the surfaces to remove excreta, feces, hair, dirt, debris and food waste to permit effective sanitization, followed by a clean water rinse."
Part (3) deals with feeding and watering. Subsection (3)(c) on food requirements added the word "sanitary" before the noun "food."
Part (5) deals with veterinary care requirements. In this subsection, pet dealers must establish a program of veterinary care. As of 2019, such program of veterinary care added the following new requirement:
(vi) In the case of dealers who sell or offer to sell twenty-five or more dogs or cats per year to the public for profit that are born and raised on the dealer's residential premises, annual veterinary examinations, at a minimum, for all intact adult dogs or cats on such dealer's premises.
Finally, grooming requirements were added per new part (8):
8. Grooming. All animals shall be groomed regularly to prevent excessive matting of fur, overgrown toenails and flea and tick infestation.
The definitions section (§ 90-181) for the North Carolina Veterinary Practice Act had a new definition added in 2019:
(12) “Impairment” means an individual's inability to practice veterinary medicine; the inability to assist in the delivery of veterinary services as a registered veterinary technician, or the inability to perform acts, tasks, and functions with reasonable skill and safety; and in a manner not harmful to the public or to animals, by reason of physical or mental illness or condition, or use of alcohol, drugs, chemicals, or any other type of substance or material.
Additionally, a new law was added: § 90-187.16. The law states:
Notwithstanding any rule adopted by the Board prescribing minimum facility and practice standards for any location where veterinary medicine is practiced, a licensed veterinarian may practice veterinary medicine, including surgery and invasive procedures, at an animal shelter registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, consistent with any rules adopted by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services concerning animal shelters.
Changes were made to laws in the anti-cruelty chapter. Section § 36–21.2–05 concerning court orders for seizure of animals added a sentence to paragraph (1):
If the animal to be seized is a bovine animal, horse, or mule, the law enforcement officer shall provide a copy of the petition to the chief brand inspector. The chief brand inspector shall conduct an ownership inspection of the animal as provided under section 36–21.2–06.
Amendments were then made to § 36–21.2–06 again mainly concerning livestock animals. Paragraph (1) subpart (b) added "or can be determined following a reasonable inquiry." This adds another avenue for an officer to find out the owner of a suspected animal victim.
Paragraph (1)(a)(1) added a requirement that "if the animal is a bovine animal, horse, or mule" notice of the seizure must be provided "to the chief brand inspector."
Another change occurred to paragraph (1)(b). This concerns when an animal's owner is unknown to the law enforcement officer. If the animal to be seized is a bovine animal, horse, or mule, the officer also shall provide notice to the chief brand inspector.
Also, the notice period now clearly begins "following publication."
Finally, in ruling on an animal's disposition after the notice period has ended, the following new language was added:
3. The owner of an animal, at any time before a final ruling on the animal's disposition, may request a hearing before the court. If a hearing is requested, the court may not issue a final ruling on the disposition of the animal until the conclusion of the hearing.
The state enacted a service animal fraud law (NDCC 25-13-02.2). Effective August 1, 2019, the new law states:
An individual is guilty of an infraction if the individual, in an attempt to gain admission to a public place under this chapter or obtain a reasonable housing accommodation under section 47-16-07.5, knowingly makes a false claim that a pet is a service animal.
Tracking of animals/movement:
In the chapter on the duties of the State Board of Animal Health, a new law was added in 2019 (NDCC 36-01-36). Subject to exceptions for federal law and law enforcement activities, data collected on animals and their locations by the State Veterinarian are now confidential:
The board shall maintain the confidentiality of information created, collected, or maintained by the state veterinarian for purposes of premises identification, animal identification, or animal tracking, including the name and address of the owner or lessee of the property where an animal found, is located.
The new law is part of the section on the animal tracking database established. Most data in that database are subject to open records law. This law from 2019 now exempts data maintained by the State Veterinarian.
|R.C. § 956.01 - 99|
Commercial dog breeders:
In the definitional section (956.01), slight changes were made to the definition for "pet store." Previously, the definition meant an individual retail store that sells dog to the public with parties physically present. After 2019, it means a retail store that sells "forty or more puppies or adult dogs in any calendar year." Further, in the last sentence regarding exclusions for the definition, a "high volume breeder or any other dog breeder that maintains and sells dogs from the same premises where the dogs are bred and reared" is excluded.
As used in this division, “dog” means a puppy that is twelve weeks of age or older or an adult dog.
In addition, the prohibition on wire cages was changed. Now, a metal cage is allowed if the metal wire is coated with another material and the outer diameter of the coated metal measures six gauge or thicker.
In paragraph (O) on providing a dog a daily opportunity for exercise, the limitation on expectant dogs was changed to "beginning fifty-two days after the first breeding date until the dog gives birth."
Similarly, in paragraph (P)concerning an opportunity to safely access the outdoors during daylight hours for dogs, the following exclusion was added; "[h]owever, this requirement does not apply to an expectant female dog beginning fifty-two days after the first breeding date and until the dog gives birth, a female dog that is nursing, or a puppy that is younger than twelve weeks of age."
In 956.051, the following paragraph was deleted in 2019:
(D) This section does not apply to any dog that is being sold, delivered, bartered, auctioned, given away, brokered, or transferred from the premises where the dog was bred and reared.
In 956.20, the following paragraph was deleted in 2019:
(D) This section does not apply to any dog that is being sold, delivered, bartered, auctioned, given away, brokered, or transferred from the premises where the dog was bred and reared.
|4 Okl.St.Ann. § 801|
In Chapter 18, "Public Accommodations and Service Animals," a new law was enacted in 2019 (4 Okl.St.Ann. § 801). This law states that a public accommodation may adopt a policy to prohibit animals, except service animals, from entering the place of public accommodation. A public accommodation that adopts such a policy must post a sign in a conspicuous location outside the entrance of the place stating which types of animals are prohibited and that service animals are permitted.
As part of this law, definitions for "service animal" and "publication accommodation" are the same as 28 C.F.R., Section 36.104. Definitions for "emotional support animal" and "therapy animal" are also provided in this new law.
The law states that if a public accommodation questions the qualification of a service animal, it must comply with 28 C.F.R., Section 36.302(c)(6).
|O. R. S. § 609.410|
"Beagle Freedom" law:
Oregon adopted a "beagle freedom" law in 2019 (O. R. S. § 609.410). This law requires that a research facility that uses dogs or cats for laboratory research, before euthanizing a dog or cat that is no longer needed for research purposes, shall offer the dog or cat for adoption, provided that euthanizing the dog or cat is not required for health or safety reasons or is not necessary to complete laboratory research. The law also establishes annual reporting requirements for such facilities.
|22 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701 et seq.|
Humane officer training:
Several changes were made to Chapter 37 on Humane Society Police Officers (22 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701 - 3718) in 2018 that became effective on October of 2019.
In Section § 3705 concerning the qualifications for appointment, an applicant must submit proof satisfactory as specified in the law that the individual has not had an appointment as a humane society police officer revoked for cause in another county or another state. This is in addition to the other six previous requirements.
(6) The individual is not a resident of this Commonwealth.
(7) The individual has had an appointment as a humane society police officer revoked for cause in another county or another state.
In Section § 3712 on the training program, the minimum hours of instruction increased from 60 to 80 hours. Hours of instruction specific to criminal procedure and criminal animal law increased from 36 to 40 hours. Hours of instruction on animal husbandry and agricultural animals added two additional topics:
(vi) Agricultural biosecurity protocols.
(vii) General farm orientation, safety and security practices, including instruction in measures for discovery of conditions and implementation of precautionary actions to prevent harm or damage to persons, animals or property.
(3) In conducting the training listed in paragraph (2), the program of instruction shall include at least one on-site visit to a normal agricultural operation that includes agricultural animals and is at least ten acres in contiguous area.
Section 3706 added a grandfathering provision for officers trained as humane officers prior to June 30, 2018:
(f.1) Exemption.—Individuals who have been appointed as humane society police officers and have successfully completed initial training under this chapter prior to June 30, 2018, shall be exempt from the initial training requirements under this section provided that the individual can provide proof to the secretary of successful completion of continuing education training under section 3713 (relating to continuing education program) within six months of the effective date of this subsection.
Similar to increased training hours for new appointments of humane officers, continuing education details were also amended. Hours of instruction increased from six to eight hours and the same agricultural topics included in the training program were added:
(vi) Agricultural biosecurity protocols.
(vii) General farm orientation, safety and security practices, including instruction in measures for discovery of conditions and implementation of precautionary actions to prevent harm or damage to persons, animals or property.
(3) In conducting the training listed in paragraph (2), the program of instruction shall include at least one on-site visit to a normal agricultural operation that includes agricultural animals and is at least ten acres in contiguous area.
Under paragraph (e) on automatic suspension for non-completion, the following was added:
(2) The department shall notify, within one week of the suspension, the court of common pleas and district attorney of each county to which the individual is appointed as a humane society police officer of the suspension.
Finally, an entirely new law was added to the chapter related to the inclusion on a statewide registry of humane officers in the Commonwealth. A humane society police officer shall make, upon appointment, an application to the department for inclusion in the registry on a form provided by the department. The application shall include confirmation of the appointment by the court of common pleas, proof of completion of the necessary education and a criminal history report.
A new law (§ 4-1.2-1) provides that The RI state veterinarian, the general/special agent of the RI Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA), or any duly sworn and authorized state or municipal law enforcement officer may lawfully take charge and possession of any animal found abandoned or neglected or hazardously accumulated may be seized and provided care. The seizing party must leave written notice on the property where the animal was seized within twenty-four (24) hours of the seizure. This notice must be left in a location where it is reasonably likely to be found and must include the name, address, telephone number, and signature of the person seizing the animal; the reason for seizing the animal; and the location where the seized animal is being kept.
In 2019, Rhode Island added language to its law on protection orders in domestic abuse circumstances that protects household pets (§ 15-15-3). Upon petition, a judge may order that a defendant vacate the household immediately, and "further provid[e] in the order for the safety and welfare of all household animals and pets."
The law on cruelty to a police animal was repealed and reenacted in a new section: § 4-1-30.1. As part of the reenactment, definitions were added to the section for "police canine," "fire canine," and "SAR canine." Penalties were then graduated based on the conduct toward the animal. Intentional or knowing conduct that causes death, disability, or great bodily harm results in a possible $1,000 fine/5-year felony with triple damages in a civil proceeding and 50 hours of community service. A person who actually and intentionally maliciously touches, strikes, or causes bodily harm to a law enforcement canine is guilty of a $1,000/one-year penalty. Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. The previous version of the law had one possible penalty was increased from a $100 - $500 fine with possible imprisonment up to one year, or both to willfully tortures, torments, beats, kicks, strikes, mutilates, injures, disables, or otherwise mistreats any dog or horse owned by a police department of this state or political subdivision.
Sales of pets:
Rhode Island enacted two new laws related to the sale of pets. The first, § 4-19-4.1, creates a strict recordkeeping requirement for pet stores. The store must provide health certificate signed by a veterinarian and source information on the animal, which must be displayed on the animal's cage for the consumer to see. Violation incurs a fine of up to $250 for a first offense increasing to a $300 fine for a second, and up to $500 for a third or subsequent offense.
A second law (§ 4-19-4.2) prohibits the display and sale of animals in public spaces like parks, flea markets, roadsides, or parking lots. An exception exists for displays by humane organizations and animal rescues for adoption of animals.
Rhode Island also enacted a service animal fraud law. Under § 40-9.1-3.1, it is a civil violation punishable by up to 30 hours of community service for an organization that serves individuals with disabilities at the discretion of the court when:
(1) An individual expressly represents that an animal in his or her possession is a service animal for the purpose of obtaining any rights or privileges afforded to persons with disabilities accompanied by service animals, but unavailable to people and their pets or other animals; and
(2) The individual knew or should have known that the animal in question did not meet the definition of a service animal.
Gen. Laws, 1956, § 40-9.1-3.1.
In Chapter 9.1 on "Equal Rights of Blind and Deaf Persons to Public Facilities," a new law was added in 2019:
§ 40-9.1-7. Non-interference with federal law
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to interfere with any rights provided by federal law to individuals with disabilities.
Also, in the same chapter, references to (d) “Personal assistance animal” meaning "a dog that has been or is being trained as a guide dog, hearing dog or service dog" were deleted.
Trainers of animals:
Chapter 19 on Animal Care was amended to include "training facilities" within its ambit so that animals are given proper care and treatment. In the definitional section, § 4–19–2, a new definition for "trainer" was added:
(32) “Trainer” means those persons who actively engage in the application of behavior analysis using the environmental events of antecedents and consequences to modify the behavior of an animal, either for the animal to assist in specific activities or undertake particular tasks, or for the animal to participate effectively in contemporary domestic life, and who keep, board, or retain possession of the animal for at least one overnight period, with the exception of those persons engaged in these activities for dog training programs operated by government agencies and for dog training programs operated by a not-for-profit or exempt nonprofit organization pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
In addition, under § 4–19–5.2, trainers must also obtain kennel licenses:
No person shall act as a trainer, as defined in § 4–19–2, unless in possession of a valid kennel license as set forth in § 4–19–6. Provided, however, persons engaged in dog training activities for dog training programs operated by government agencies, or operated by a not-for-profit or exempt nonprofit organization pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, shall not be required by this section to obtain a kennel license.
A new law was added in South Carolina in 2019: Code 1976 § 47-1-145, "Custody and care of animal after arrest; custodial costs." Any person, organization, or other entity that is awarded custody of an animal under the provisions of Section 47-1-150 because of the arrest of a defendant for a violation of any provision of Chapter 1, Title 47 or Chapter 27, Title 16 and that provides services to the animal without compensation may file a petition with the court requesting that the defendant, if found guilty, be ordered to deposit funds in an amount sufficient to secure payment of all the reasonable expenses incurred by the custodian in caring for and providing for the animal pending the disposition of the litigation. In the absence of a conviction, the county or municipality making the arrest shall pay the reasonable expenses of the custodian.
A new law was added that requires judges to receive CLE on animal cruelty: "§ 47-1-225. Animal cruelty instruction for certain judges":
Every four years, at their mandatory continuing legal education programs, magistrates and municipal court judges must receive at least two hours of instruction on issues concerning animal cruelty. The content of the continuing legal education must be determined by the South Carolina Court Administration at the direction of the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Fair Housing Act/assistance animals:
The state amended its Fair Housing Act relative to animals used as reasonable accommodations in housing. The following paragraphs were added to Code 1976 § 31-21-70:
(N)(1) A landlord may ask a tenant or prospective tenant the following questions to determine whether an animal that is not a service animal should be deemed a reasonable accommodation:
(a) “Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability that is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?”
(b) “Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability-related need for the animal?”
(2) Landlords may request documentation to verify the tenant's responses to the above questions. Such documentation shall be deemed sufficient if it establishes that an individual has a disability and that the animal in question will provide some type of disability-related assistance or emotional support.
Holding period law:
The state's five-day holding period law (Code 1976 § 47-3-60) received an amendment. A new provision allows young litters of puppies and kittens to be turned over to a rescue organization for life-saving purposes before the hold period is up:
(B) Notwithstanding subsection (C), a litter of unidentifiable dogs or cats four months of age or younger may be turned over to any organization established for the purpose of caring for animals immediately, so long as the litter is turned over for life-saving purposes.
South Carolina revamped its entire section on service dog laws. First, some definitions were changed in § 47-3-920. The definition for "service animal" was changed from:
(4) "Service animal" means an animal that is trained for the purposes of assisting or accommodating the sensory, mental, or physical disability of a disabled person.
to one that reflects the federal definition:
(4)(a) “Service animal” or “service animal-in-training” means an animal that is trained or that is being trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. A service animal is not a pet and is limited to a dog or a miniature horse. The work done or tasks performed must be directly related to the individual's disability and may include, but are not limited to:
(i) guiding an individual who is visually impaired or blind;
(ii) alerting an individual who is deaf or hard of hearing;
(iii) pulling a wheelchair;
(iv) assisting with mobility or balance;
(v) alerting others and protecting an individual if the individual is having a seizure;
(vi) retrieving objects;
(vii) alerting an individual to the presence of allergens;
(viii) providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to an individual with a mobility disability;
(ix) helping an individual with a psychiatric or neurological disability by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors;
(x) reminding an individual with a mental illness to take his prescribed medications;
(xi) calming an individual with post-traumatic stress disorder during an anxiety attack; or
(xii) doing other specific work or performing other special tasks.
(b) The crime-deterrent effect of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.
Next, two new definitions were added for "emotional support animal" and "places of public accommodation:"
(6) “Emotional support animal” means an animal intended to provide companionship and reassurance.
(7) “Places of public accommodation” means airports, train stations, bus stations, and establishments defined in Section 45-
South Carolina added a service animal fraud law in 2019 (§ 47-3-980). Under the new law, it is unlawful for a person to intentionally misrepresent an animal as a service animal or service animal-in-training for the purpose of obtaining any right or privilege provided to a disabled person if the person knows that the animal in his possession is not a service animal or service animal-in-training. Violation incurs a fine of up to $250 for a first offense, up to $500 for a second offense, and up to $1,000 for a third or subsequent offense.
Finally, a new law (§ 47-3-990) was added that allows places of public accommodation to establish rules and regulations related to access to such facilities by nonservice animals, including emotional support animals.
Under a new law (Code 1976 § 40-69-255), a veterinarian authorized pursuant to state and federal law to prescribe controlled substances shall obtain a South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Controlled Substances Registration and complete at least two hours of continuing education every two years related to approved procedures of prescribing and monitoring controlled substances.
|No major statutory changes.|
In the law on fighting or baiting animals (§ 39-14-203), a prohibition on possessing "cock fighting paraphernalia" was added in 2019. Under new subsection (a)(6), it is unlawful for any person to:
(6) Possess, own, buy, sell, transfer, or manufacture cock fighting paraphernalia with the intent that the paraphernalia be used in promoting, facilitating, training for, or furthering cock fighting.
For purposes of this section, “cock fighting paraphernalia” means gaffs, slashers, heels, or any other sharp implement designed to be attached in place of the natural spur of a cock or game fowl. The amendments also note that "all other logically relevant factors" such as statements of the owner, prior convictions, written instructions, expert testimony, etc. may be considered. A violation of subdivision (a)(4) or (a)(6) is a Class A misdemeanor.
The bluetick coonhound is designated as the official state dog under new section § 4-1-343.
Tennessee added a service animal fraud law in 2019 (T. C. A. § 39-16-304). The law covers both service animals AND support animals in housing. Under the law, a person commits the offense of misrepresentation of a service animal or support animal who knowingly:
(1) Fraudulently represents, as a part of a request to maintain a service animal or support animal in residential rental property under § 66-7-111 or § 66-28-406, that the person has a disability or disability-related need for the use of a service animal or support animal; or
(2) Provides documentation to a landlord under § 66-7-111(c) or § 66-28-406(c) that falsely states an animal is a service animal or support animal.
Violation is a Class B misdemeanor.
Dogs in restaurants:
The state passed a law allowing food establishments to permit customers to have dogs in outdoor dining areas under certain conditions (V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 437.025). Among other things, the restaurant must post a conspicuous sign informing patrons that dogs are permitted, create access so dogs do not enter the interior of the restaurant, require customers to keep dogs on leashes and off tables and chairs, and make sure there is no food preparation in the dog-friendly dining area. A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or similar measure that imposes a requirement on a food service establishment for a dog in an outdoor dining area that is more stringent than the requirements listed in the statute.
To the law relating to continuing education for veterinarian license renewal (V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 801.307), the following paragraph was added in 2019:
(a–1) The board by rule shall require a veterinarian to complete two hours of continuing education related to opioid abuse and controlled substance diversion, inventory, and security every two years to renew a license to practice veterinary medicine.
Under Utah's service animal laws, a definition for "support animal" was added to § 62A-5b-102 in 2019:
(3) “Support animal” means an animal, other than a service animal, that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under federal law for an individual with a disability.
In Section § 62A–5b–104 on service animals in housing, the subsection that prohibits an owner or lessor of private housing from discriminating against a lessee who has a service animal was also expanded to include a support animal. That section now states:
(b) An owner or lessor of private housing accommodations:
(i) may not, in any manner, discriminate against an individual with a disability on the basis of the individual's possession of a service animal or a support animal, including by charging an extra fee or deposit for a service animal or a support animal; and
(ii) may recover a reasonable cost to repair damage caused by a service animal or a support animal.
Support animals are now included under the state's misrepresentation law. It is now a class C misdemeanor (previously a class B misdemeanor) to intentionally and knowingly falsely represent an animal is a service animal OR a support animal IF "(c) the individual, except for an individual with a disability, uses an animal to gain treatment or benefits only provided for an individual with a disability." § 62A-5b-106.
The state's Veterinary Practice Act had some amendments related to equine teeth floating. The definition section, § 58–28–102, now includes a definition for "teeth floating" under subsection 12(a), which states it is "the removal of enamel points and the smoothing, contouring, and leveling of dental arcades and incisors of equine and other farm animals." In addition, the 2019 changes exempted equine teeth floating from the chapter provided:
(16) an individual who performs teeth floating if the individual:
(a) has a valid certification from the International Association of Equine Dentistry, or an equivalent certification designated by division rule made in collaboration with the board, to perform teeth floating; and
(b) administers or uses a sedative drug only if the individual is under the direct supervision of a veterinarian in accordance with Subsection 58–28–502(2)(a)(iv).
|No major statutory updates.|
Some slight changes were made to Virginia's main anti-cruelty law (VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6570). First, language was added that make it clear the acts apply to any animal regardless of ownership: "any animal, whether belonging to himself or another." Next, torture was added to the list of prohibited acts. Finally, in subsection (F) related to intentional cruelty and torture, an actor who causes death or now "serious bodily injury to such dog or cat that is a companion animal" is guilty of a felony. The phrase "serious bodily injury" is now defined as well:
For the purposes of this subsection, “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
Section § 3.2–6538, the law that allows local governments to adopt ordinances to prevent dogs from running at large, was amended last year. Dogs used for hunting are now excepted from these ordinances under this law. Additionally, the law now addresses dogs running at large in packs:
Such ordinance shall provide that the owner or custodian of any dog found running at large in a pack shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount established by the locality not to exceed $100 per dog so found. For the purpose of such ordinance, a dog shall be deemed to be running at large in a pack if it is running at large in the company of one or more other dogs that are also running at large. Any civil penalty collected pursuant to such ordinance shall be deposited by the treasurer of the locality pursuant to the provisions of § 3.2–6534.
The law on control of dangerous dogs and the procedure to designate dogs as "dangerous" had one subsection added in 2019. A court may now decide to defer proceedings without adjudicating a dog as dangerous after hearing evidence. This allows the court to impose conditions on the owner without designating the dog and then a dismissal can be entered. Here is the new subsection:
E. If, after hearing the evidence, the court decides to defer further proceedings without entering an adjudication that the animal is a dangerous dog, it may do so, notwithstanding any other provision of this section. A court that defers further proceedings shall place specific conditions upon the owner of the dog. If the owner violates any of the conditions, the court may enter an adjudication that the animal is a dangerous dog and proceed as otherwise provided in this section. Upon fulfillment of the conditions, the court shall dismiss the proceedings against the animal and the owner without an adjudication that the animal is a dangerous dog.
VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6540
Under the definition for "livestock" for both VA Code Ann. § 3.2-5900 and VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6500, the genus Vicugna (Alpacas) was added in 2019.
Also, changes to definitions for VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6500 modified a couple definitions. The definition for "adequate shelter" had the following added:
“Adequate shelter” means provision of and access to shelter that . . . during hot weather, is properly shaded and does not readily conduct heat; during cold weather, has a windbreak at its entrance and provides a quantity of bedding material consisting of straw, cedar shavings, or the equivalent that is sufficient to protect the animal from cold and promote the retention of body heat . . .
The definition for "adequate space" added greater protections for tethered animals, although the amendment notes the changes do not apply to agricultural animals. The following changes to the definition are indicated in bold:
“Adequate space” means . . . that the tether to which the animal is attached . . . is at least ten feet in length or three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, whichever is greater, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line; does not, by its material, size, or weight or any other characteristic, cause injury or pain to the animal; does not weigh more than one-tenth of the animal's body weight; and does not have weights or other heavy objects attached to it. The walking of an animal on a leash by its owner shall not constitute the tethering of the animal for the purpose of this definition. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space. The provisions of this definition that relate to tethering shall not apply to agricultural animals. [emphasis added].
Amendments to § 3.2–6571 on animal fighting allows law enforcement to confiscate any "tethered cocks" as part of the crackdown on cockfighting.
Under the state's general game and hunting law (§ 29.1-521), a new provision was added to the paragraph that generally prohibits the killing of animals from vehicle:
6. To shoot or attempt to take any wild bird or wild animal from an automobile or other vehicle, except (i) as provided in § 29.1-521.3 or (ii) for the killing of nuisance species as defined in § 29.1-100 on private property by the owner of such property or his designee from a stationary automobile or other stationary vehicle.
The law on misrepresentation of an animal's condition, VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6509 was amended to add the following consumer protection language:
Any violation of this section by a pet dealer shall also constitute a prohibited practice under § 59.1–200 and shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (§ 59.1–196 et seq.).
Additionally, under § 3.2-6512, the copy of the pet dealer's animal history certificate signed by the consumer must now be maintained by the pet dealer for a period of two years following the date of sale. Previously, it was one year.
Washington passed a law (16.08.110) that states a city or county may not prohibit the possession of a dog based upon its breed, impose requirements specific to possession of a dog based upon its breed, or declare a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous based on its breed unless conditions under the statute are met. These include an exemption based on a dog passing a "canine good citizen test" with an opportunity for appeal or re-test. Notably, the preamble to this law stated, "A number of local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances prohibiting or placing additional restrictions on specific breeds of dogs. While the legislature recognizes that local jurisdictions have a valid public safety interest in protecting citizens from dog attacks, the legislature finds that a dog's breed is not inherently indicative of whether or not a dog is dangerous and that the criteria for determining whether or not a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous should be focused on the dog's behavior."
"Beagle freedom" law:
Washington joined several other states with "beagle freedom" laws. New section 18.92.270 requires a higher education facility that receives public money, including tax exempt status, or a facility that provides research in collaboration with a higher education facility, that utilizes dogs or cats for scientific, educational, or research purposes, upon conclusion of a dog or cat's use for scientific, educational, or research purposes make reasonable efforts to offer the dog or cat for adoption, when the dog or cat is deemed suitable for adoption, through the facility's own adoption program or through an animal care and control agency or an animal rescue group.
Cruelty and animal fighting:
In the definitional section of 16.52.011, the definition for "abandons" was expanded to include those involved in animal fighting activities:
(a) “Abandons” means the knowing or reckless desertion of an animal by its owner, or by a person who has taken control, custody, or possession of an animal that was involved in animal fighting as described in RCW 16.52.117, or the causing of the animal to be deserted by its owner, in any place, without making provisions for the animal's adequate care.
In Section 16.52.117, the primary animal fighting law, the act of "stealing" an animal with the intent of using the animal for animal fighting was added to the list of prohibited acts in paragraph (e).
(f) Owns, possesses, buys, sells, transfers, or manufactures animal fighting paraphernalia for the purpose of engaging in, promoting, or facilitating animal fighting, or for baiting a live animal for the purpose of animal fighting.
The term is defined farther down the law with this new definition:
A new provision makes it a class B felony to "intentionally mutilates an animal in furtherance of an animal fighting offense as described in subsection (1) of this section . . ."
Under Section 16.52.207, a new action was added for animal cruelty in the second degree:
(b) The person takes control, custody, or possession of an animal that was involved in animal fighting as described in RCW 16.52.117 and knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence abandons the animal, and (i) as a result of being abandoned, the animal suffers bodily harm; or (ii) abandoning the animal creates an imminent and substantial risk that the animal will suffer substantial bodily harm.
In 2019, the state passed a law allowing the use of facility/courthouse dogs in certain legal proceedings (West's RCWA 10.52.110). Courts with an available courthouse facility dog must allow a witness under eighteen years of age, or who has a developmental disability as defined in RCW 71A.10.020, to use a courthouse facility dog to accompany them while testifying in court.
Hunting with Dogs:
The state enacted a law (West's RCWA 77.12.077) on using dogs to hunt black bears, cougars, and bobcats. The law states that the commission shall adopt by rule a process and training program to select persons who may act as agents of the state for the purpose of using one or more dogs to hunt or pursue black bear, cougar, or bobcat to protect livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety. The purpose of this program is to provide dog training opportunities using nonlethal pursuit.
Under amendments to West's RCWA 77.15.740, on "Protection of southern resident orca whales--Unlawful activities--Penalty," the distance that a vessel of other object to approach, in any manner, a southern resident orca whale was changed from two hundred to three hundred yards.
A new subsection (1)(c) was added that makes it unlawful to "[p]osition a vessel behind a southern resident orca whale at any point located within four hundred yards."
A new subsection (1)(e) was added that makes it unlawful to "[c]ause a vessel or other object to exceed a speed greater than seven knots over ground at any point located within one-half nautical mile (one thousand thirteen yards) of a southern resident orca whale."
Under subsection (2) concerning exemptions, the following was added:
(d) Lawfully engaging in a treaty Indian or commercial fishery that is actively setting, retrieving, or closely tending fishing gear. Commercial fishing vessels in transit are not exempt from subsection (1) of this section . . .
Finally, a new section (5) was added:
(5) The enforcement actions required of the department from this section are subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose.
In the definition section of the laws on service animals, the definition for "service animal" was expanded. Previously, the definition stated the following:
(24) “Service animal” means an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a sensory, mental, or physical disability of a person with a disability.
As of January 1, 2019, the definition now states:
(24) “Service animal” means any dog or miniature horse, as discussed in RCW 49.60.214, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. The work or tasks performed by the service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing nonviolent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks. This subsection does not apply to RCW 49.60.222 through 49.60.227 with respect to housing accommodations or real estate transactions.
Section 49.60.214, "Misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal," was also effective in 2019. It is now a civil infraction for any person to misrepresent an animal as a service animal by expressly or impliedly representing that an animal is a service animal as defined in RCW 49.60.040 for the purpose of securing the rights or privileges afforded disabled persons accompanied by service animals. The new law reflects the limited inquiry that places of public accommodation can make that are based on the federal regulations. Additionally, this law also mandates that trained miniature horses functioning as service animals for disabled people be granted access.
Finally, from West's RCWA 49.60.215, a law on unfair practices of places of public resort and accommodation, the following paragraph was deleted on January 1, 2019:
(2) This section does not apply to food establishments, as defined in RCW 49.60.218, with respect to the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Food establishments are subject to RCW 49.60.218 with respect to trained dog guides and service animals.
West's RCWA 49.60.215.
In the state law dealing with unlawful types of traps, the following exception was added in 2019:
(6)(a) An airport operator that uses a padded foot, leghold, or any other body-gripping trap for the protection of human and aviation security to secure an animal is exempt from the provisions of subsection (3) of this section if: (i) Once every three years, the airport operator obtains a special permit from the director for this purpose; and (ii) once each year, the airport operator submits a report to the director detailing the previous year's activities regulated under subsection (3) of this section.
(b) Nothing under this subsection (6) authorizes an airport operator to sell the raw fur of a mammal or otherwise violate the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, “airport operator” has the same meaning as defined in RCW 14.08.015.
West's RCWA 77.15.194.
|No major statutory updates.|
|No major statutory updates.|
The states' main anti-cruelty law (W. S. 1977 § 6-3-203) was amended in 2019. In paragraph (a), "and with intent to cause death, injury or undue suffering" was removed. The law now states that " [a] person commits cruelty to animals if he knowingly . . ." In paragraph (a)(iii), the phrase "or cruelly beats, tortures, torments, injures, mutilates or attempts to kill" was changed to just "beats or injures" an animal.
In addition, to paragraph (n) on felony cruelty, the following language was removed: "if he commits aggravated cruelty to animals as defined in subsection (c) of this section or knowingly and with intent to cause death, injury or undue suffering, cruelly beats, tortures, torments, injures or mutilates an animal resulting in the death or required euthanasia of the animal. A felony under this subsection or subsection (c) of this section is punishable by not more than two (2) years imprisonment, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both."
(n) A person commits a felony punishable by not more than two (2) years imprisonment, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or both, if the person:
(i) Commits aggravated cruelty to animals as defined in subsection (c) of this section, resulting in the death or required euthanasia of the animal; or
(ii) Knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering, cruelly beats, tortures, torments or mutilates an animal.
Dogs tracking game animals:
To § 23–3–109, the law that generally prohibits using dogs to hunt, run or harass any big or trophy game animal, protected animal or furbearing animals, a new exception was added. Under subsection (d), a person may use one leashed blood-trailing dog to track a wounded or killed big game animal within seventy-two (72) hours of shooting the animal. Several requirements are provided in the law.
Domestic violence orders:
In the law that allows a court to enter an order of protection in a domestic abuse case (W. S. 1977 § 35-21-105), amendments in 2019 now allow courts to consider pets in those orders:
As a part of any order of protection, the court may:
(ix) Grant sole possession of any household pet, as defined in W.S. 6–3–203(o), owned, possessed or kept by the petitioner, the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent to the petitioner during the period the order of protection is effective if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet;
(x) Order that the respondent shall not have contact with any household pet, as defined in W.S. 6–3–203(o), in the custody of the petitioner and prohibit the respondent from abducting, removing, concealing or disposing of the household pet if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet.
This change become effective on July 1, 2019.