|
MO - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities |
This set of statutes authorizes municipal governments to regulate animals and animal-related nuisances. |
|
MO - Ordinances - Chapter 79. Fourth Class Cities. Police and Health Regulations |
This Missouri statute provides that a local board of aldermen may tax, regulate and restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof. |
|
MO - Pet Shop - Animal Care and Facilities Licensing and Regulation (Chapter 273) |
Under these Missouri statutes, a license is required to operate animal boarding facilities, pet shops, pounds, dealers and commercial breeders. The canine cruelty prevention act makes it the crime of canine cruelty if the person poses a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in the person's custody. A violation is a misdemeanor. |
|
MO - Rabies - Chapter 322. Protection Against Rabies |
This chapter concerns laws preventing the transmission and control of rabies and other zoonotic diseases. Section 322.140 provides that if a county does not adopt rules and regulations pursuant to sections 322.090 to 322.130, whenever an animal bites or otherwise possibly transmits rabies or any zoonotic disease, the incident shall be immediately reported to the county health department. It also provides that the owner of an owner that bites is responsible for the costs associated with rabies testing and/or treatment. Further, the owner of an animal that bites or otherwise possibly transmitted rabies or any zoonotic disease shall be liable to an injured party for all damages done by the animal. |
|
MO - Trust - Creation of trust, care of living animals |
This Missouri statute represents the state's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. |
|
MO - Veterinary - 20 CSR 2270-6.011 Rules of Professional Conduct |
Subsection 11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for veterinarians provides that a licensee shall not reveal confidential, proprietary or privileged facts or data or any other sensitive information contained in a patient's medical records without the prior consent of the client except as otherwise authorized or required by law, regulation, or other order. The subsection specifically states that "[w]hen these situations [of abuse and neglect] cannot be resolved through education, the board considers it the responsibility of the veterinarian to report such cases to the appropriate authorities." Thus, the rule seems to create an ethical responsibility that mandates the reporting of abuse or neglect by veterinarians. |
|
MO - Veterinary - Chapter 340. Veterinarians. |
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. |
|
MO - Wildlife - Chapter 252. Department of Conservation--Fish and Game. |
No wildlife shall be pursued, taken, killed, possessed or disposed of except in the manner, to the extent and at the time or times permitted by such rules and regulations; and any pursuit, taking, killing, possession or disposition thereof, except as permitted by such rules and regulations, are hereby prohibited. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor except that any person violating any of the rules and regulations pertaining to record keeping requirements imposed on licensed fur buyers and fur dealers shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars. At least one case has held this statute to be applicable to dogs chasing deer. |
|
Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife |
Plaintiffs filed claim against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and failure to perform a nondiscretionary act under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).
The United States District Court, D. Oregon, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA and ESA claims, and that it remains without jurisdiction to mandate action by the agency if rulemaking has not been initiated by the FWS at its discretion, regardless of whether a determination resulting from a five year review suggests a listing status should be changed or should remain the same.
|
|
Modesto Irr. Dist. v. Gutierrez |
Plaintiffs, Modesto Irrigation District and other irrigation and water districts, contended that, in listing the steelhead—a type of Pacific salmon—as "threatened" under the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service violated both the ESA and APA. More specifically, Plaintiffs averred that listing the steelhead as a distinct species under the ESA violated the Act because the steelhead and rainbow trout interbreed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the ruling of the District Court. The court noted that while the steelhead and rainbow trout do interbreed, Congress, in enacting the ESA, did not intend to create a rigid limitation on an agency’s discretion to define the "statutorily undefined concept" of a "distinct population segment" ("DPS").
|
