|
OR - Hunting - Division 64 . Privately Held Exotic and Game Mammals. |
It is unlawful to hunt, kill, or attempt to hunt or kill, exotic mammals or game mammals held or obtained by private parties. Exceptions under the statute include the slaughter of such an animal for meat, leather, or fur production, euthanization of such an animal for scientific, health, safety or other valid husbandry concerns, or the department's Wildlife Division Director may authorize any person to hunt or kill such an animal if the Division Director determines it would be in the best interest of sound wildlife management. |
|
OR - Lien, care - 87.159. Lien for care of animals |
This law relates to liens for animals impounded under the animal cruelty laws (specifically ORS 167.345). A person who, or governmental agency that, transports, pastures, feeds, cares for or provides treatment to an animal that has been impounded under ORS 167.345 has a lien on the animal in the possession of the person or governmental agency for the reasonable charges for transportation, pasturage, feed, care or treatment provided by the person or governmental agency, and the person or governmental agency may retain possession of the animal until those charges are paid. |
|
OR - Vehicle - Hunting or harassing animals from snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle |
A person commits the offense of hunting or harassing animals from a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle if the person: (a) Operates a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle in a manner so as to run down, harass, chase or annoy any game animals or birds or domestic animals or (b) Hunts from a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle. In addition to other penalties, operators or owners of a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle may be liable as provided under ORS 821.310.
|
|
OR - Vehicle, unattended animal - 30.813. Entrance into motor vehicle to remove unattended child or domestic animal; |
This Oregon law enacted in 2017 gives immunity from civil or criminal liability to a person who enters a motor vehicle, by force or otherwise, to remove a child or domestic animal if he or she follows steps listed in the law. The person must first determine the vehicle is locked and there is no reasonable method for the animal or child to exit the vehicle. That person must also have a good faith and reasonable belief based on the circumstances that entry is necessary due to imminent harm. Additionally, that person must notify law enforcement/emergency services before or soon as is reasonably practicable, use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle, and remain with the child or animal until responders arrive. |
|
Oshannessy v Heagney |
The case focuses primarily on the procedural requirements for stating a case. However, there is also discussion concerning what are the appropriate steps that a motor vehicle driver, who has hit and injured an animal with their vehicle, must take. In this case, the trial judge found that a refusal to stop and inspect the animal did not constitute a failure to take reasonable steps to alleviate that animal's pain.
|
|
Overview of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws |
This paper summarizes the current state of Canadian animal anti-cruelty laws. It examines the federal, provincial, and municipal laws that govern and enforce penalties against those who commit cruel acts against animals. The paper also examines select cases in Canadian animal cruelty jurisprudence and compares Canadian anti-cruelty laws with their counterparts in the United States. |
|
Overview of Cross-Reporting Laws for Child Abuse and Animal Abuse |
This overview discusses the link between animal and human violence and examines laws that mandate or permit cross-reporting of suspected abuse. |
|
Overview of Humane Societies and Enforcement Powers |
In many states, humane societies are given police powers to enforce animal cruelty laws. This Article explains the different ways that state legislatures vest police powers to humane societies.
|
|
Overview of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws |
Overview of the comparison between US animal cruelty laws and those in Europe. Specifically, laws of the US, EU, Germany, Norway and Switzerland are addressed. The comparison is based around companion animal and confinement farming laws, transportation and slaughter.
|
|
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR ENACTING ANIMAL CRUELTY STATUTES IN CHINA |
|
