Farming or Food Production
Displaying 471 - 480 of 506
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| UT - Animal Disease Control - R58. Animal Industry. | These are the regulations for Utah's Control of Animal Disease Act. The regulation states, "It is the intent of these rules to eliminate or reduce the spread of diseases among animals by providing standards to be met in the movement of animals within the State of Utah (INTRASTATE) and the importation of animals into the state (INTERSTATE)." Included in the rule are all import requirements for all major livestock species as well as dogs, cats, and ferrets. The rule also covers exotic animals, zoological animals, and wildlife (section 18). |
| UT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | These Utah statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" is defined as a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature, but except where the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature, is in accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices, an animal kept by a AZAA zoological park, an animal kept, owned, or used for the purpose of training hunting dogs or raptors, or an animal temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the USDA.. An actor commits cruelty to an animal if the actor, without legal privilege to do so, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence fails to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in his custody, abandons an animal in the actor's custody, injures an animal, or engages in animal fighting as outlined for amusement or gain. Aggravated cruelty (i.e., torturing, poisoning, or intentionally killing an animal) and dogfighting incur stiffer penalties. |
| UT - Eggs - Chapter 4A. Confinement of Egg-Laying Hens | These Utah laws render the use of battery cages to house egg-laying hens unlawful in the state. Under these laws, egg-laying hens must be housed with a certain amount of usable space. Egg-laying hens must also be allowed to engage in natural behaviors, such as dust bathing. Certain exceptions apply, such as for veterinary care. |
| UT - Livestock - § 76-6-111. Wanton destruction of livestock--Penalties--Seizure and disposition of property | This Utah statute makes wanton destruction of livestock a crime. A person is guilty if that person intentionally or knowingly and without the permission of the owner injures, physically alters, releases, or causes the death of livestock. Wanton destruction of livestock is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the value of the livestock. |
| Ventana Wilderness Alliance v. Bradford |
|
| VIVA! International Voice for Animals, et al v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., et al | In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o—and thus are committing an unlawful business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 653o is preempted by federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court also agreed, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products. The accompanying regulations set forth a comprehensive national policy for the protection of endangered species such as the three kangaroo species involved in this case. Application of section 653o would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress if applied to the defendants. |
| Viva! v. Adidas |
Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law. |
| VT - Humane Slaughter - Humane Slaughter of Livestock | These statutes comprise Vermont's humane slaughter provisions. The law requires the humane slaughter of all commercial livestock with a "humane method" defined as a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut (with exemptions for religious ritual slaughter). A person who violates this chapter shall be fined not more than $100.00 nor less than $50.00 or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both, and in addition, the secretary may seek an injunction against a slaughterer. |
| VT - South Burlington - Backyard Chicken Ordinance |
|
| WA - Eggs - Chapter 96.25. Washington Wholesome Eggs and Egg Products Act | This collection of Washington laws prohibits the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages and mandates the use of cage-free housing. The laws also ban the sale of eggs in Washington from producers that house egg-laying hens in battery cages. These laws apply to egg producers in the state of Washington and out of state producers. |