Alaska

Summary: This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.

Summary: This set of Alaska laws sets forth the powers of the commissioner of environmental conservation. Additionally, the commissioner of environmental conservation may employ or appoint a person to act as the state veterinarian to carry out and enforce the requirements of this title. The penalties for violation of provisions under this chapter are also described.

Summary: <p> Under this Unalaska, Alaska ordinance, a person who owns a seeing-eye dog, a hearing aid dog, or other aid dog is exempt from the license fees. Furthermore, this ordinance exempts such dogs from provisions that prohibit animals from entering certain places as long as the owner carries proper documentation certified by a recognized aid dog institution. </p>

Summary: <p> This case concerns the proper measure of damages for the death of a pet dog caused by a municipality's negligence after the Fairbanks North Star Borough Animal Shelter violated a Borough ordinance and mistakenly killed the Richardsons' pet dog, Wizzard.&nbsp; The court indicated it is&nbsp;willing to recognize a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the intentional or reckless killing of a pet animal in an appropriate case.&nbsp; However, the court held that in this case, the Richardsons made an offer of proof regarding their emotional distress and the evidence in the record indicates that the trial judge properly made a threshold determination that the severity of the Richardsons' emotional distress did not warrant a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <span> <span> In this case, the husband and wife had agreed to shared ownership of their dog, which the lower court incorporated into its order.Based on danger the dog faced by other dogs in the wife&rsquo;s home and increased contention between the parties, the lower court next gave the husband custody with an order for the wife&rsquo;s visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband. </span> <span> The state&rsquo;s Supreme Court affirmed the modified order. </span> </span>

Summary: <p> Defendant shot plaintiff's dogs after perceiving they were&nbsp;a threat to her livestock and her when&nbsp;they trespassed upon her property.&nbsp; In denying defendant's claim for punitive damages,&nbsp;the court observed that in this case, defendant's conduct, while drastic, did not rise to&nbsp;the level of outrageousness.&nbsp; With regard to the trial court's award of only the market value of the dog to plaintiff ,&nbsp;the court noted that it agreed with those courts that recognize that the actual value of the pet to the owner, rather than the fair market value, is sometimes the proper measure of the pet's value.&nbsp; However, the court declined to award Mitchell&nbsp;damages for her dog's sentimental value as a component of actual value to her as the dog's owner. </p>

Summary: <p> Plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Wasilla, Alaska's enforcement action&nbsp;over zoning&nbsp;ordinances. The facts stem from the City's denial of plaintiff's application for a use permit in 2005 to run an eighteen-dog kennel. Plaintiff argued on appeal that Wasilla's former three-dog limit infringed on her property rights in both her land and her dog. This court agreed with the lower court that the provision here bore a "fair and substantial relationship" the government purposes of controlling dog noise, reducing dog odor and pollution, and preventing loose dogs. Further, the court found that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the city clerk's statement that she only needed a kennel license to operate a hobby kennel. </p>

Summary: <p> Krystal R. Allen pleaded no contest to two counts of cruelty to animals after animal control officers came to her home and found 180 to 200 cats, 3 dogs, 13 birds, and 3 chickens in deplorable conditions. She was sentenced to a 30-day jail term and was placed on probation for 10 years. One of the conditions of Allen's probation prohibits her from possessing any animals other than her son's dog. In first deciding that its jurisdictional reach extends to claims not just based on the term of imprisonment, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by restricting Allen's possession of animals during the term of her probation. <span> &nbsp; </span> </p>

Summary: <span> The trial court approved a divorcing couple&rsquo;s agreement for dogs to be with their children (and so travel to the husband's and wife&rsquo;s houses as part of a shared custody agreement of their children).&nbsp; The&nbsp;wife did not abide by the agreement, so the&nbsp;Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court&nbsp;to determine sole ownership of the dog. </span>

Summary: These Alaska regulation provides that, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may possess, import, release, export, or assist in those actions, live game, unless the person holds a possession permit issued by the department. The regulations also list species that may be possessed without a permit, but may not be released into the wild which includes dogs,cats, chimpanzees, white rats, and many others. The department may not issue a permit for the capture, possession, import, or export of any game animal, including a hybrid species of a game animal, for use as a pet. Any of the listed species of bird, mammal, or reptile that is endangered may not be held in private ownership without a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.