Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 151 - 160 of 974
Titlesort descending Summary
CA - Rodeos - § 596.7. Rodeos; veterinarians present at performances; violation of section This statute regulating rodeos requires that animals involved have access to veterinary care and mandates treatment of injured rodeo animals. This statute forbids the use of an electric prod once an animal is in the holding chute, unless necessary to protect participants or spectators. Violations of this section are infractions punishable by a fine.
CA - Service Animal - § 600. Horses or dogs used by peace officers or volunteers; This statute makes it an offense to willfully, maliciously and with no legal justification harm, injure, obstruct, or interfere with a horse or dog under the supervision of law enforcement in the discharge of official duties or a volunteer under the direct supervision of a peace officer. Violations are punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Punishment depends on the seriousness of the injury to the animal. Upon conviction, a defendant must also pay restitution for damages.
CA - Service Animal - § 600.2. Allowing dog to injure or kill guide, signal or service dog; punishment; restitution It is unlawful for any person to permit any dog he or she owns or controls to injure or kill any service dog while the service dog is in discharge of its duties. A violation is an infraction punishable by a fine if the injury is caused by the person's failure to exercise ordinary care. A violation is a misdemeanor if the injury is caused by reckless disregard in the exercise of control over his or her dog. A violation in this case shall be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Upon conviction, the defendant shall make restitution, including veterinary bills and replacement costs.
CA - Service Animal - § 600.5. Intentional injury to, or death of, guide, signal or service dog; penalty; restitution Any person who intentionally causes injury to or the death of any service dog, while the dog is in discharge of its duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor. punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Upon conviction, a defendant must make restitution to the person with a disability who has custody or ownership of the dog for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed.
CA - Slaughter - § 597.3. Live animal markets This California statute regulates live animal markets. Operators must ensure that no animal (frogs, turtles, and birds, but not poultry) sold for the purpose of human consumption) is cut, dismembered, butchered, or de-feathered while still alive. Operators must also provide that no animals are confined in such a way that could case injury, starvation, dehydration, or suffocation. Violation may result in a warning for the first offense and an infraction for a second offense.
CA - Slaughter - § 598b. Animals commonly kept as pets or companions; use as food; violation; exceptions This statute makes it a misdemeanor to possess, import into, or export from, California, sell, buy, give away, or accept any carcass of any animal commonly kept as a pet with the intent of using any part of that carcass for food. It is also a misdemeanor to possess, import, export, buy, sell, give away or accept a common pet animal with the intent of killing it for food.
CA - Transport - § 597a. Cruelty to animals; transportation; care of animals by arresting officer; expense This statute makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to carry a domestic animal in a vehicle in a cruel manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind. If an officer takes a defendant into custody, the officer must take charge of such vehicle and its contents. A lien is placed on them for any necessary expenses incurred for their care, which must be paid before they can be recovered.
CA - West Hollywood - Chapter 9.48 Animal Control Regulations.


This comprises the City of West Hollywood, California's animal control ordinances. The animal control ordinances of Los Angeles County have been adopted by reference, prohibiting animal nuisances as well as the keeping of dangerous animals. The code also defines and outlines procedures for feral cats. Uniquely, West Hollywood has a ban on onychectomy (“declawing") of domestic cats unless done as a medically necessary procedure, as well as a ban on the sale of fur (with some exceptions). Further, subject to some exemptions, the city prohibits the retail sale of cats and dogs.
California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood This California case centers on an anti-cat declawing ordinance passed by the city of West Hollywood in 2003. On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court concluded West Hollywood's anti-declawing ordinance was preempted by section 460 and entered judgment in favor of the CVMA, declaring the ordinance invalid and enjoining further enforcement. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, finding section 460 of the veterinary code does not preempt the ordinance. Although section 460 prohibits local legislation imposing separate and additional licensing requirements or other qualifications on individuals holding state licenses issued by agencies of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), it does not preclude otherwise valid local regulation of the manner in which a business or profession is performed.
CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. City of West Hollywood, Defendant & Appellant This California action concerns the adoption of an ordinance in 2003 by the City of West Hollywood that prohibits the de-clawing of house cats. Amici Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF" ), the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (" A V AR" ), and the Paw Project submitted a brief to assist the Court in its determination of whether the ordinance at issue on this appeal legally prohibits non-therapeutic onychectomies (commonly known as " de-clawing") of domestic animals within the City of West Hollywood. The California Superior Court found that the Business and Professions Code section 460 preempts a municipal ordinance that attempts to regulate veterinarian procedures. The Amici contend that the CVMA examines only one section of the Code and disregards other sections that apply. Further, the amici find that the CVMA’s “. . . members have a pecuniary interest in performing the acts that the City has determined to be cruel.” On Friday, June 22, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 that a city can regulate the conduct of its professionals provided it does not prohibit procedures that state law expressly allows.

Pages