United States

Summary: This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter.

Summary: This second annual western lands conference explored federal initiatives about policy objectives and management approaches for public lands in the West, including the Colorado Grazing Roundtable and Rangeland '94, Option 9 and the Pacific Northwest forests, bypass flows and Colorado national forests, and wilderness protection in Utah. Speakers were from federal agencies; from states; from groups concerned with the use and protection of the public lands; and from academia.

Summary: In 1996, the Endangered Species Act was up for reauthorization, and with it, a variety of reform proposals were debated in the Biodiversity Protection Conference at the University of Colorado—Boulder. The following conference proceeding -- which included natural resource scholars, experts from the private and nonprofit sectors, and government officials--examined the rationale for biodiversity protection, the legal framework of the Endangered Species Act, and examples of implementation of the Act from across the West. Special attention was given to major issues raised by the Act that cut across all regions, including: consultations and recovery planning; habitat conservation plans; the ESA and water rights; the ESA and state programs; the ESA and tribal rights; economic impacts of the ESA; and ESA reform proposals.

Summary: This document lists the states that prohibit the regulation of dogs by local governments based on breed, commonly known as breed-specific legislation. The laws are divided into two general categories: (1) states that prohibit breed-specific legislation (BSL) in all animal regulation (10 states); and (2) states that prohibit BSL in dangerous/vicious dog laws (15 states). In total, there are approximately 21 states with some sort of anti-BSL legislation (combining both (1) and (2) together, and not counting DE, IL, and VA twice because they have both such laws). The pertinent part of the legislation is included in this list as well as a link to the actual laws. A further distinction has to be made in the application of some of these laws in the dangerous dog category. Some laws state that municipalities may not regulate dangerous dogs based solely on breed while other laws simply say that breed cannot be used to prove a dangerous dog declaration.

Summary: As legal things, nonhuman animals lack all legal rights and remain entirely the object of the rights held by us legal persons—that is, the beings with rights. Most legal protections for nonhuman animals remain indirect (mostly anti-cruelty statutes), enforceable only by public prosecutors. Even the Endangered Species Act requires a human plaintiff to have standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution. It has become clear that no meaningful percentage of nonhuman animals will ever be treated well or fairly until they attain some minimum degree of legal personhood—that is, until they achieve some minimum level of fundamental legal rights. In his article, Steven M. Wise argues for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals by relying upon bedrock principles of Western law: liberty and equality.

Summary: In his article, Landis-Marinello argues laws criminalizing animal abuse should apply to the agricultural industry. He further argues that when the agricultural industry is exempted from these laws, factory farms increase production to unnaturally high levels. This increased production causes devastating environmental effects, such as climate change, water shortages, and the loss of topsoil. In light of these effects, Landis-Marinello argues, the law needs to do much more to regulate the agricultural industry, and the first step should be to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals. This would force the industry to slow down production to more natural levels that are much less harmful to the environment.

Summary: Concerned with the lack of legal protection for farm animals in the United States, Bernard Rollin argues for the enfranchisment of farm animals. In this article, Rollin also identifies five factors that have called forth new ethics and new laws regarding animals.

Summary: This California chapter declares that the intent of this legislation is to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals. Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances. These entities must also submit statistical information to the State Public Health Veterinarian on a quarterly basis.

Summary: This Utah law effective in 2015 prohibits a municipality from adopting breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs. Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void.