|
MT - Initiatives - I-143 (game farm reform) |
This initiative would amend state law to prohibit all new alternative livestock ranches, also known as game farms. Existing game farms would be allowed to continue operating, but would be prohibited from transferring their license to any other party. They would also be prohibited from allowing shooting of game farm animals for any type of fee. The proposal also repeals provisions of the law concerning applications for expansion of game farms. If approved by voters, the measure would take effect immediately. It was passed in 2000 by 51.4% of voters. |
|
MT - Lost Property - RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF FINDERS GENERALLY |
This section comprises Montana's lost property provisions. |
|
MT - Ordinance - Chapter 23. Domestic Animal Control and Protection. |
This Montana statute provides that the governing body of the county may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of dogs by the adoption of an ordinance which substantially complies with state law provisions related to licensing. Violation of an ordinance adopted is a misdemeanor. Additionally, the county governing body is authorized to impound, sell, kill, or otherwise destroy dogs found at large contrary to ordinances. |
|
MT - Trusts - Chapter 2. Upc--Intestacy, Wills, and Donative Transfers. |
This Montana statute states that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (but for no longer than 21 years, even if the trust provides for a longer term). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining the transferor's intent. Except as expressly provided otherwise in the trust instrument, no portion of the principal or income may be converted to the use of the trustee or to any use other than for the trust's purposes or for the benefit of a covered animal and a court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use. |
|
MT - Veterinarian - 24.225.550. UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT |
This Montana regulation implies that a veterinarian has a mandatory duty to report suspected animal abuse. The Board of Veterinary Medicine defines unprofessional conduct in (1)(i) as, "(i) failure to report to the proper authorities cruel or inhumane treatment to animals, if the licensee has direct knowledge of the cruel or inhumane treatment." |
|
MT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 18. VETERINARY MEDICINE |
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
|
MT - Wolves, gray - 87-1-901. Gray wolf management--rulemaking--reporting |
This statute provides that the wildlife commission shall establish by rule hunting and trapping seasons for wolves. In addition, the commission shall adopt rules to allow a landowner or the landowner's agent to take a wolf on the landowner's property at any time without the purchase of a Class E-1 or Class E-2 wolf license when the wolf is a potential threat to human safety, livestock, or dogs. |
|
Muehlieb v. City of Philadelphia |
In this case, the city of Philadelphia filed a suit against a homeowner seeking to restrain her from violating the health, housing and zoning provisions of city code by owning more than ten dogs. On appeal, the homeowner challenged the local ordinance as being preempted by the state Dog Law. The Commonwealth Court held that the state Dog Law, which permitted holder of private kennel class I license to house up to 50 animals did not preempt city's animal control law which set limit of 12 dogs, and the homeowner's housing of 20 dogs was a public nuisance that the city could enjoin.
|
|
Muela v. Gomez |
Defendant Samuel Muela appeals a judgment for damages in the amount of $30,279.45 after plaintiff was attacked by a pit bull. Samuel contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he owned or possessed the pit bull and thus had no knowledge of its vicious propensities. The court concluded that there is no evidence that Samuel lived at his parents' trailer or owned the pit bull. Additionally, while Samuel did visit his parents' house to feed their pet dog, there was no direct evidence that he had ever seen the pit bull or knew of it. The court reversed and rendered judgment that Gomez take nothing against Samuel.
|
|
Municipal Ordinances |
|
