Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. A yes vote rejects the law. A no vote approves the law.

This bill would prohibit a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf. It would also prohibit a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would be a Class A misdemeanor.

These Alabama provisions contain the state's anti-cruelty laws.  The first section (under Article 1 of Chapter 11) provides that a person commits a misdemeanor if he or she subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, neglect (as long as he or she has custody of the animal), or kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another.  The next section (Article 11 of Chapter 11 entitled, "Cruelty to Cats and Dogs"), provides that a person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she intentionally tortures any dog or cat or skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony.

These ordinances comprise the municipalities of Mobile and Muscle Shoals, Alabama's animal control provisions.

Proposition 201 would make it illegal to use certain methods of taking "wildlife" on public land, including federal, state, county and municipal land. The listed devices that would be prohibited are "any leghold trap, any instant kill body gripping design trap, or by a poison or a snare."

This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.  The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section.

These sections are from the California Penal Code and detail the crimes associated with various forms of cruelty to animals.

This 2008 California initiative measure would add to the Health & Safety Code with a law entitled, "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act." Specifically, the proposed law requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions are made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. The law provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days and would go into effect on January 1, 2015. It was approved in November 2008 by a margin of 63% to 37%.

This statute forbids anyone from causing a fight between any animal or creature for amusement or gain, or allowing an animal fight to take place on her premises.  It also makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to be present at an animal fight.

This section defines "poling" and "tripping" of a horse and makes both practices a misdemeanor under California state law.   Poling a horse is a method of training a horse to jump which consists of such methods as forcing, persuading, or enticing a horse to jump. Tripping a horse is an act that consists of the use of any wire, pole, stick, rope, or other object or apparatus whatsoever to cause a horse to fall or lose its balance.

This statute makes it a crime to willfully harm or injure in any way a horse or dog under the supervision of law enforcement in the discharge of official duties.  The section distinguishes between serious and less serious injuries and defines the punishment for conviction of this offense accordingly.

Prohibits any person from possessing, transferring, receiving or holding any horse, pony, burro or mule with intent to kill it or have it killed, where the person knows or should know that any part of the animal will be used for human consumption. Provides that a violation constitutes a felony offense.   Also adds a provision making the sale of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor offense, with subsequent violations punished as felonies.

These provisions outline the requirements for fur dealers.  Every person engaging in the business of buying, selling, trading or dealing in raw furs of fur-bearing mammals or nongame mammals is a fur dealer and shall procure a fur dealer license.  An exception is made for those dealers that trap and sell raw furs which he has lawfully taken, or a domesticated game breeder selling raw furs of animals which he has raised.  Fur dealers are required to maintain complete recordings for all of the furs they trade or sell and are prohibited from purchasing raw fur of any fur-bearing mammal or nongame mammal from any person who does not hold a valid trapping license, fur dealer license, or fur agent license.

The following are fur-bearing mammals: pine marten, fisher, wolverine, mink, river otter, gray fox, cross fox, silver fox, red fox, kit fox, raccoon, beaver, badger, and muskrat.  These sections outline the requirements for taking these animals.  A person who takes these animals must, for example, procure a license and are prohibited from using poison and certain enumerated traps.

Requires, rather than permits, the court prior to the sentencing of any person convicted of an animal cruelty crime involving the intentional torture or torment of animals to order an evaluation of such person in order to assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence. Exempts wildlife nuisances from the sentencing provisions for animal cruelty crimes involving the intentional torture or torment of animals. Clarifies that the mandatory sentence for a second or subsequent conviction for committing cruelty to animals through the intentional torture or torment of an animal shall be a sentence of imprisonment within the statutory presumptive range for a class 1 misdemeanor.

Extends the bonding requirements for the impoundment of animals to the owner or custodian of an animal that has been impounded because of investigation of charges of animal fighting. Allows the court, upon its own motion or the motion of the prosecuting attorney, after the defendant's conviction for cruelty to animals or for animal fighting, to order the forfeiture of an animal under certain circumstances.

This ballot proposal addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs.  To prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date.  Note:  this measure appears to have passed in the November 2002 election with 54% of the vote.

Livestock were excluded from the definition of animal in Iowa's animal cruelty laws in 1994.  These sections deal exclusively with livestock and exempt practices consistent with customary farming practices.

This comprehensive Humane Care of Animals Act from Illinois gives the requisite anti-cruelty provisions.  "Animal" means every living creature, domestic or wild, but does not include man.  Notably, the Act includes a provisions for psychological counseling for a person convicted of violating this section.  An individual is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense.  The Act includes special provisions for juveniles and "companion animal hoarders" (510 ILCS 70/2.10).  The cruelty provisions are listed at 510 ILCS 70/3.01, 3.02, and 3.03.  The statute also prohibits the marketing and distribution of depictions of animal torture or cruelty for entertainment purposes (510 ILCS 70/3.03-1).

This Louisiana 2001 proposed law would have provided for the crime of illegally training dogs; however, it died in committee.  It would have also defined "illegally train" to mean the training of a dog to attack or kill a human being, another dog, or any other animal species.  The proposed law would have created exceptions for any dog used by law enforcement officials, a guard dog used to defend livestock raised for commercial or subsistence purposes, or a guard dog used to defend any school, place of business, or personal residence.   Violation of the proposed law would have incurred a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both.

This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The measure was approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %.

This document is the legislative analysis for House Bills 4551 and 4552. The bills (now law) amend the penal laws (MCL 750.50) to revise the penalties for harming animals and allow for consecutive sentencing.  Both bills would exempt veterinarians and veterinarian technicians from the prohibitions and penalties when lawfully engaging in the practice of veterinarian medicine. Under the new law, a court could order a term of imprisonment imposed for a violation prohibited under the bills to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other crime including any other violation of law arising out of the same transaction. 

In 2006, Michigan voters were presented with Proposal 3 that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves by adding the species to the state game list.  The measure was defeated by a 69 to 31 percent vote.

This  initiative petition passed in 1998 makes it a class D felony to bait or fight animals; permit such activities on premises under an individual's  control; or promote, conduct, stage, advertise or collect fees for such activities; and makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly attend baiting or fighting of animals; knowingly sell, offer for sale, or transport animals for such purposes; own, possess, manufacture or deal in cockfighting implements; bear wrestle; permit bear wrestling on premises you control; promote, conduct, stage, advertise, or collect fees for bear wrestling; or market, possess, train, or surgically alter a bear for bear wrestling.

These ordinances comprise the cities of Kansas City and Springfield's animal control provisions.

This statutory section constitutes Mississippi's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions.  The pertinent anti-cruelty law, § 97-41-1, states that any person who overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, unjustifiably injures, deprives of necessary sustenance, food, or drink, cruelly beats, or needlessly mutilates any living creature, is guilty of a misdemeanor.  (However, this section was held unconstitutional in Davis v. State, 806 So.2d 1098 (Miss. 2001)).  Other sections include mandatory forfeiture of mistreated animals, anti-animal fighting provisions, and separate sections that prohibit the malicious injuring of livestock and dogs. 

These New Jersey statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions.  According to the definitional section, "animal" or "creature" includes the whole brute creation.  Exclusions under the act include state regulated scientific experiments, state sanctioned killing of animals, hunting of game, training of dogs, normal livestock operations, and the killing of rats and mice.  With regard to livestock practices, no person may be cited or arrested for a first offense involving a minor or incidental violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to domestic livestock unless that person has first been issued a written warning.  A person who shall overdrive, overload, overwork, deprive of necessary sustenance, abuse, or needlessly kill a living animal or creature, or inflict unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature, or unnecessarily fail to provide a living animal or creature of which the person has charge either as an owner or otherwise with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather, or leave it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions adverse to the health or welfare of the living animal or creature is guilty of a disorderly persons offense and shall be fined not less than $250 nor more than $1,000, or be imprisoned for a term of not more than six months, or both. 

This New Jersey bill authorizes a court to issue an order directing the care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party or a minor residing in the household.  Animals are not directly addressed by current domestic violence law.  The purpose of the bill is to provide specific statutory authorization for courts to issue orders covering animals in situations where a person abuses or threatens to abuse an animal as part of a domestic dispute.  The bill is modeled on a recently enacted Maine law.

This Nevada Senate Bill increases the penalties for certain mistreatment of animals; authorizing a court to require a defendant convicted of certain offenses involving the mistreatment of animals to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and to participate in counseling or therapy as a condition of probation.  The bill also retains prohibitions against animal fighting and other forms of animal cruelty.

In Nevada, a knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other such as injuring or killing an animal, is included in their definition of Domestic Violence. A victim can then get a Protection Order and enjoin the adverse party from physically injuring, threatening to injure or taking possession of any animal that is owned or kept by the applicant or minor child, either directly or through an agent.

Dogs, domestic animals and birds are considered personal property in Nevada.

These statutes comprise Ohio's anti-animal cruelty and animal fighting provisions.  Included in the prohibited acts are abandoning domestic animals, willfully injuring or poisoning domestic or agricultural animals, drugging animals in competition, and "cruel" acts to both wild and domestic animals as defined by statute.  The section also prohibits dogfighting and cockfighting.

These ordinances comprise the cities of Oklahoma City and Sallisaw, Oklahoma's animal control provisions.

Under this Oregon regulation, 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.

This Texas section addresses the treatment of animals and disposition of cruelly treated animals. 

Chapter 823 enumerates the standards by which animal shelters shall comply.  It sets forth confinement requirements, permissible forms of euthanasia, and personnel requirements. 

This federal statute prohibits commerce in dog or cat fur.  Specifically, the statute forbids import into, or export from, the United States of any dog or cat fur product; or the introduction into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product.  The exception under the act is for the importation, exportation, or transportation, for noncommercial purposes, of a personal pet that is deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy.

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to transfer or market nonambulatory cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats, and for other purposes.   (Proposed in 2001, but not adopted).

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, to make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to transfer or market nonambulatory livestock, and for other purposes.   (Proposed in 2001, but not adopted).

These Utah statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions.  "Animal" is defined as a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature, but animals raised for agricultural purposes and wildlife are excluded from the definition.  A person is guilty of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence fails to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in his custody, abandons an animal in the person's custody, transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner, injures an animal, or causes any animal to fight with another animal for amusement or gain.  Aggravated cruelty (i.e., torturing, poisoning, or intentionally killing an animal) and dogfighting incur stiffer penalties.

Vermont amended its personal protection/no contact order law on May 26, 2006 (effective October 1, 2006) to include companion animals as a proper subject for inclusion in an order.  Specifically, 15 V.S.A. § 1103 was amended to allow a court to include an order relating to the possession, care and control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held as a pet by either party or a minor child residing in the household in a domestic violence situation.  This amendment was part of the larger Act Number 193 (H. 373), which pertains to orders against stalking, sexual assault, no contact orders, and the establishment of a victims' rights committee.

This controversial measure would have allowed hunters to hunt any cat that was found free roaming, meaning it did not exhibit a collar or other signs of domestic ownership.  At the Monday, April 11, 2005 meeting of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, those in favor of the feral cat hunting proposal approved the measure by a vote of 6,830 to 5,201.  This approval was then forwarded to the state Natural Resources Board for consideration.  Proponents of the measure suggest feral cats expose domestic animals to disease and endanger native songbirds.  Opponents of the measure counter that such a law would be cruel and archaic, putting domestic cats who have escaped from their homes at risk of death.  On May 25, 2005 at the Natural Resources Board regular spring meeting, a representative of the Congress indicated that the Executive Committee has declined to pursue the issue any further.  (See the official meeting minutes at page 5 at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/minutes/M05/0505%20minutes.pdf).  Feral cat advocates claimed a public relations victory, as the measure gained national and even international criticism.  (See Alley Cat Allies at http://www.alleycat.org/wi.html).  (For more on the procedural history of this measure, see the "Long Summary" under the "Statute Details" above).