Summary: Massachusetts bans private possession of exotic pets, and requires licenses for those who deal and propagate wild species for other reasons. The Massachusetts director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife also issues a list of exempted species for which no permit is needed.
Summary: Massachusetts specifically protects the eagle as a bird of prey from hunting or possession, unless provided by permit. The law further prohibits the possession, harassment or harming of the eggs and nests of birds of prey. Notably, sale and transportation are not specifically listed under the statute.
Summary: The 1921 of Massachusetts General Laws sections 77-96 cover the following topics: animal cruelty, treatment of horses, bird fighting, shooting of pigeons, procedural issues concerning an arrest for cruelty to animals, and transportation of animals.
The 1921 of Massachusetts General Laws sections 77-96 cover the following topics: animal cruelty, treatment of horses, bird fighting, shooting of pigeons, procedural issues concerning an arrest for cruelty to animals, and transportation of animals.
Summary: The Massachusetts law from 1869 stated in Chapter 344 concerns the treatment of animals. The first section is a generic animal cruelty act. The second section details the punishment for owners of animals that allow their animals to be treated cruelly by a third party. The third section concerns the treatment of animals during transportation.
The Massachusetts law from 1869 stated in Chapter 344 concerns the treatment of animals. The first section is a generic animal cruelty act. The second section details the punishment for owners of animals that allow their animals to be treated cruelly by a third party. The third section concerns the treatment of animals during transportation.
Summary: Section 1 from Chapter 96 of Massachusetts General Laws of 1859 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the law covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Section 1 from Chapter 96 of Massachusetts General Laws of 1859 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the law covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Summary: The Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine had sanctioned Dr. Lloyd for improper treatment of a dog, "Pooch," for heartworms. This is a suit for damages against Dr. Lloyd. The briefs are drafted by none other than one of the best-known names in Animal Law, Steven M. Wise.
Summary: In Cambridge, Massachusetts, research institutions that perform experiments on animals must do so in conformity with all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, as well as maintain or establish an autonomous animal care and use committee with the power to disapprove or restrict research, experiments or regarding the care and use of laboratory animals. This ordinance also establishes a Commissioner of Laboratory Animals (CLA) for the purpose of overseeing research institutions and their committees. Penalties for violating these provisions are also provided.
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, research institutions that perform experiments on animals must do so in conformity with all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, as well as maintain or establish an autonomous animal care and use committee with the power to disapprove or restrict research, experiments or regarding the care and use of laboratory animals. This ordinance also establishes a Commissioner of Laboratory Animals (CLA) for the purpose of overseeing research institutions and their committees. Penalties for violating these provisions are also provided.
Summary: Defendant released a fox from his possession and a number of other people then released various dogs, which pursued and killed the fox. Defendant was charged and brought to trial. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that there was no such crime, which the trial court denied. Defendant also moved to dismiss for lack of evidence, which the trial court also denied. Defendant was convicted and he appealed. The court found that there was a statutory basis for the charge and that the word "animal" in Mass. Pub. Stat. ch. 207, § 53 encompassed wild animals in the custody of a man. The court denied the exceptions brought by defendant and affirmed the order of the trial court, which convicted defendant of willfully permitting a fox to be subjected to unnecessary suffering.
Defendant released a fox from his possession and a number of other people then released various dogs, which pursued and killed the fox. Defendant was charged and brought to trial. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that there was no such crime, which the trial court denied. Defendant also moved to dismiss for lack of evidence, which the trial court also denied. Defendant was convicted and he appealed. The court found that there was a statutory basis for the charge and that the word "animal" in Mass. Pub. Stat. ch. 207, § 53 encompassed wild animals in the custody of a man. The court denied the exceptions brought by defendant and affirmed the order of the trial court, which convicted defendant of willfully permitting a fox to be subjected to unnecessary suffering.
Summary: Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious.
Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious.
Summary: The defendant was convicted of causing his dog to be bitten, mangled and cruelly tortured by another dog. The defendant appealled and the Supreme Court affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of causing his dog to be bitten, mangled and cruelly tortured by another dog. The defendant appealled and the Supreme Court affirmed.
