Idaho

Summary: In Fruitland, Idaho, it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, pit bills exempt from the ban are subsumed to be dangerous dogs.

Summary: In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another.

Summary: Plaintiffs sought to recover property damages and damage and for mental anguish sustained when Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by the Gills.  By alleging that Brown's conduct was reckless and that they thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, the court held that the Gills have alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Accordingly, the court held that the district court erred by striking the Gills' claim for damages caused by mental anguish and the cause was remanded.

Summary: A tiger habitat developer sued the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (Department) under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) for breach of ordinary care in refusing to grant exotic animal possession and propagation permits and for intentional interference with developer's prospective economic advantage. The Court held that the time period under which the developer had to file notice of its claim began to run when the Department sent its letter stating that a possession permit would be conditioned upon the tigers’ sterilization. This letter put developer on notice that he would not receive a possession permit without sterilizing the tigers, and therefore, had knowledge that he would not be granted a propagation permit.

Summary: After Gooding County adopted an ordinance regulating confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), cattle ranching and dairy associations brought suit challenging the constitutionality and validity of provisions within the ordinance and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the county, and the associations appealed.  The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's findings. 

Summary: A motorcyclist died when he ran into a calf on the road. His family sued for wrongful death. The court held that the owner of the calf was not liable because of open range immunity.

Summary: These Idaho rules concern the possession, propagation, and exhibition of "deleterious exotic animals." No person may possess or propagate a deleterious exotic animal in the state, unless such person obtains a possession permit issued by the Administrator. Species of deleterious exotic animals include leopards, lions, non-pinioned mute swans, Russian wild boar, and all non-human primates, among others.