|
Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables |
|
|
LUKUMI AT TWENTY: A LEGACY OF UNCERTAINTY FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS |
|
|
MA - Eggs - Ch. 129 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act |
This collection of laws was created by Massachusetts voters when they approved Question 3 and the 2016 ballot. These laws prevent the inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in the state of Massachusetts. These laws also prohibit the sale of products in Massachusetts made from animals confined in violation of these laws. |
|
MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016) |
Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. |
|
Mack v. State of Texas (unpublished) |
The Texas Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision that failure to adequately provide for cattle such that they suffered from malnourishment constituted animal cruelty offense under Texas law. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that malnourished cow was one of the many domesticated living creatures on defendant's ranch, and was therefore an “animal” under the state law.
|
|
McDermott v. Carie, LLC |
Plaintiff, after signing waiver of liability release, severed his finger while untying the horse from a fence. Though the waiver was illegal, defendants were allowed to enter a redacted release into evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware that equine activities were inherently dangerous. Montana Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the document and that because plaintiff had failed to object to the release during trial and voir dire, he waived his right to appeal.
|
|
McLibel |
McDonald's sued two defendants in England in 1991 for defamation and lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the "McLibel" case in relation to cruel common farming practices, and explores the contradiction that common farming practices can be found to be cruel.
|
|
McLIBEL |
|
|
McPherson v. Schlemmer |
In
McPherson v. Schlemer
, plaintiff’s cows were killed by defendant when they wandered onto the highway. The court determined that damages were calculated at the present and future profits for fair market value.
|
|
MD - Humane Slaughter - Maryland Wholesome Meat Act |
This section comprises Maryland's "Wholesome Meat Act." Included are laws related to licensing of slaughtering establishments, labeling of meat, and the state's humane slaughter provisions. The humane slaughter provisions state that it is the policy of the State to prevent inhumane methods of livestock slaughter at an official establishment. Humane methods include those by which livestock are rendered insensible to pain, by a single blow or gunshot, or by an electrical, chemical, or other rapid and effective means, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter defined by statute is also considered humane if done in compliance with the act. Use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax during a slaughtering operation is considered inhumane. Note that "livestock" here explicitly excludes poultry or other fowl. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 for each violation. |
