Animal Fighting

Displaying 71 - 80 of 194
Titlesort descending Summary
Ley 2385, 2024 - Bullfighting ban (Colombia) Law 2385 establishes a nationwide ban on the practices of bullfighting, rejoneo, novilladas, becerradas, and tientas. Its purpose is to foster a cultural transformation rooted in the recognition and respect for the lives of animals. Some of the key points of this law include a transitional model that provides a three-year timeline to phase out bullfighting and similar practices, the creation of a labor and cultural “reconversion” plan for transitioning those who economically depend on these industries to new livelihoods and to repurpose publicly owned bullfighting arenas for cultural, recreational, sports, and artistic uses. Additionally, this new law creates an interinstitutional committee comprising government officials and bullfighting industry representatives tasked with overseeing the implementation and compliance with this law and the reconversion program. Finally, it directs the Ministry of Cultures, Arts, and Knowledges to implement policies, programs, and activities to encourage animal protection and discourage bullfighting by highlighting its harms and consequences.
Ley 2385, 2024 - prohibicion de las corridas de toros (Colombia) La Ley 2385 prohíbe las corridas, el rejoneo, las novilladas, becerradas y tientas en todo el territorio Colombiano. El objetivo de esta ley es fomentar una transformación cultural basada en el reconocimiento y respeto por la vida de los animales. Algunos de los puntos clave de esta ley incluye un modelo de transición que otorga un plazo de tres años para eliminar gradualmente las corridas de toros y prácticas similares, la creación de un plan de "reconversión" laboral y cultural para ayudar a quienes dependen económicamente de estas industrias a encontrar nuevas formas de sustento, y la reutilización de las plazas de toros de propiedad pública para usos culturales, recreativos, deportivos y artísticos. Además, esta nueva ley crea un comité interinstitucional compuesto por funcionarios gubernamentales y representantes de la industria taurina encargado de supervisar la implementación y el cumplimiento de la ley y del programa de reconversión. Finalmente, ordena al Ministerio de Culturas, Artes y Saberes a implementar políticas, programas y acciones para promover la protección animal y desincentivar la tauromaquia de forma gradual en la sociedad, mostrando los perjuicios y consecuencias de estas prácticas.
Ley de Protección para la Fauna en el Estado de Chiapas
Louisiana v. Caillet, Jr.
Twenty- six people where charged with dog fighting in violation of

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

 

14:102.5

for paying a fee to be spectators at a dog fight. They filed a motion to quash, urging that the indictments failed to charge a punishable offense; they were denied the motion. Thereafter, 11 defendants applied for supervisory writs, the appellate court granted the motion to quash, holding that §

 

14:102.5 did not proscribe paying a fee to be a spectator at a dog fight.
MA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Massachusetts laws contain the state's anti-cruelty provisions. Sec. 77 is the operative anti-cruelty statute and provides that whoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or kills an animal, and whoever uses in a cruel or inhuman manner in a race, game, or contest, or in training, as lure or bait a live animal (except as bait in fishing), or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 7 years or imprisonment for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Other laws prohibit the dyeing of baby chicks, the docking of horse tails, and animal fighting, among other provisions. In 2010, the state made non-medically necessary devocalization of dogs or cats illegal.
Maloney v. State



The State charged defendant with maliciously placing a dog in a pit with another dog and encouraging the dogs to fight, injure, maim, or kill one another. The trial court convicted defendant of cruelty to animals pursuant to

Okla.


Stat. tit. 21, §

 

1685

(1971) and fined defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that

Okla.


Stat. tit. 21, §

 

1682

(1971) was constitutional as applied to the case but reversed and remanded the case because the court determined that the defendant had been improperly convicted under the anti-cruelty statute rather than the dogfighting statute.
McNeely v. U.S.



Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act.  On appeal, t




he Court of Appeals, held that the


Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was


required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the


prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions.
MD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes This Maryland statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the section, "animal" means a living creature except a human being. "Cruelty" is defined as the unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering caused or allowed by an act, omission, or neglect, and includes torture and torment. Agricultural, veterinary, research, and "an activity that may cause unavoidable physical pain to an animal, including food processing, pest elimination, animal training, and hunting. . . " are excluded from the purview of the act.
ME - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Maine statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The first section of laws occurs under Title 7, Agriculture and Animals. Under these laws, a person commits animal cruelty if he or she kills the animal of another person; kills an animal by an inhumane method; injures, overworks, tortures, torments, abandons or cruelly beats or intentionally mutilates an animal; gives drugs to an animal with an intent to harm the animal; gives poison or alcohol to an animal; or exposes a poison with intent that it be taken by an animal. The neglect component of the statute provides that a person commits cruelty if he or she deprives an animal that the person owns or possesses of necessary sustenance, necessary medical attention, proper shelter, protection from the weather or humanely clean conditions. These acts are then cross-referenced under the criminal provisions of Title 17, which describes the penalties under § 1031. Animal fighting is a class D crime under this section.
Mejia v. State


Rooster fighting case. Testimony from the defendant's witness, a sociologist that argued cockfighting is not generally thought of as an illegal activity, was irrelevant in cruelty to animals conviction. Statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

Pages