Wisconsin

Summary: Wisconsin revised the State of Wisconsin Emergency Response Plan (WERP) in 2021. Emergency Support Function (ESF) 11 and Attachment 1 both relate to animals and disaster planning.

Summary: This case concerns the measure of damages for injury to companion animals in Wisconsin. It arises from the incident between the plaintiff’s 11-year-old dog and the neighbor's dog. Plaintiff’s dog sustained severe injuries that resulted in veterinary bills and related expenses for the amount of $12,235. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover all veterinary and related expenses. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that their damages were entitled to doubling under § 174.02(1)(b) as there were records that showed that the dog’s owner had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Defendants’ insurer sought declaratory ruling arguing that under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs’ maximum recovery was the lesser amount between the dog's "cost of repair" and the dog's pre-injury fair market value, as it was the measure for personal property damage. The circuit court limited damages to $2,695, which was the amount conceded by the parties to be the replacement cost of plaintiff’s dog. In addition, that amount was doubled pursuant to § 174.02(1)(b). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declined to extend Wisconsin's "keepsakes" rule to pets to provide different damages for pets that only have value to the owner. The court found there were “significant differences between an unrepairable and lost forever keepsake and an injured but "repairable" pet.” The court was also not persuaded by other states' precedent about allowing or denying veterinary treatment as part of damage awards and decided to continue to treat dogs the same as other personal property. On the additional expenses allegations, the court found them to be “expenses incurred by the Smiths to facilitate "repairing" their dog” that were subject to property damage limitations.

Summary: Wisconsin's department of administration is responsible for issuing licenses for occupations of participants in horse racing and dog racing. In order to own and operate a racetrack where pari-mutuel wagering is conducted a license must be obtained. Before a license is obtained, a public hearing must be held and the city in which the racetrack is to operate must adopt the resolution. The Department is required to appoint an administrator that has experience in gaming management and knowledge of animal racing and pari-mutuel wagering. Greyhounds are required to be registered with the National Greyhound Association of Abilene, Kansas in order to enter into a race. This statute also prohibits the use of live lure or bait in the training of race dogs. A dog may not be entered into a race if it was trained with live bait.

Summary: This Wisconsin law states that the board of higher education for the University of Wisconsin System shall adopt criteria for researchers to follow regarding humane treatment of animals for scientific research purposes.

Summary: These Wisconsin statutes concern restraining orders or injunctions in domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and cases filed by "individuals as risk." In each of these laws, there are protections for “household pets,” defined as domestic animals that are not farm animals, as defined in s. 951.01(3), that are kept, owned, or cared for by the petitioner or by a family member or a household member of the petitioner. In both cases of domestic abuse and child abuse, a judge or circuit court commissioner shall issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet, to allow the petitioner or a family member or household member of the petitioner acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet, or any combination of these remedies requested in the petition. The domestic abuse and child abuse laws then outline the procedures for obtaining an injunction that includes those protections for domestic pets if requirements are met under the laws. In section 813.123, an "individual at risk," may also seek a TRO and injunction that orders the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet and allow the individual at risk or a guardian, guardian ad litem, family member, or household member of the individual at risk acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet.

Summary: This Wisconsin law enacted in 2015 makes a person immune from civil liability for property damage or injury resulting from his or her forcible entry into a vehicle to rescue an animal or person. Immunity is provided only if certain conditions were met. The person must have a "good faith belief" that the person or domestic animal was in imminent danger of suffering bodily harm and used no more force than necessary to remove the person or animal. That person must have first determined the vehicle was locked and forcible entry was necessary, and that person must have dialed 911 or other emergency services prior to this action. In addition, the person must have waited with the person or animal until emergency services arrived or left information on the vehicle's windshield as described in the law.

Summary: The following article discusses Wisconsin Great Ape law. Wisconsin does not have a specific law that prohibits the possession of apes or otherwise addresses their care. The state has a chapter on captive wildlife with a number of provisions related to the possession of captive live wild animals, which would generally include great apes.The state’s endangered species law also prohibits the taking, transport, and possession of endangered or threatened species, including federally-listed species. It is unclear based on a reading of the law whether it requires state permits for foreign endangered species. The law specifically exempts zoological societies or municipal zoos from its reach. Finally, apes are covered generally under the state’s anti-cruelty laws as warm-blooded, non-human animals. The law prohibits treating animals in a cruel manner, which includes causing unnecessary and excessive pain, suffering, or unjustifiable death. Additionally, all animals kept in captivity must have adequate food, water, and shelter.

Summary: This Wisconsin statute embodies the legislative view that certain wild animals and wild plants are endangered or threatened and are entitled to preservation and protection as a matter of general state concern. Violation of the Act with regard to protected animal species may result in a $500-2,000 for a taking, and a $2,000-5,000 fine with 9 months imprisonment for an intentional taking. Both incur the suspension of hunting license privileges. Incidental takings may be allowed through permit if steps are taken to establish and file a "conservation plan."

Summary: [97.45. Repealed by 2015 Act 243, § 59, eff. March 3, 2016]. This former statute states that no person shall sell any horsemeat, unless it is conspicuously labeled, marked, branded or tagged “horsemeat.” Violation is a Class H felony.

Summary: This section comprises the Wisconsin anti-cruelty section. Under the section, "animal" includes every living warm-blooded creature (except a human being), reptile, or amphibian. The section prohibits "mistreating animals," which is defined as treating any animal, whether belonging to the person or another, in a cruel manner. This section does not prohibit bona fide experiments carried on for scientific research or normal and accepted veterinary practices. This section also prohibits the instigation of dogfights, and has a unique provisions that prohibits the shooting of caged or staked animals.