Circus, Entertainment, Rodeos

Summary: This Act prohibits the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Wales.

Summary: This Vermont law prohibits a person from holding, conducting, operating, or simulcasting a pari-mutuel dog race or pari-mutuel horse race for public exhibition.

Summary: Petitioners seek review of a decision and order of the USDA/APHIS determining that they violated various provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) and its implementing regulations, imposing civil penalties, and revoking the exhibitor license granted to Terranova Enterprises, Inc. Petitioners were licensees who provide wild animals like tigers and monkeys for movies, circuses, and other entertainment. In 2015 and 2016, APHIS filed complaints against petitioners that they willfully violated multiple provisions of the AWA and knowingly violated a cease and desist order issued in 2011 to avoid future violations of the AWA. After consolidating the complaints, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that petitioners willfully committed four violations, so the ALJ issued a cease and desist order, suspended petitioners' license for 30 days, and assessed a $10,000 penalty and an $11,550 civil penalty for failing to obey the prior cease and desist order. On appeal by both parties to the Judicial Officer of the USDA, petitioners' exhibitor license was revoked and the penalties were increased to $35,000 and $14,850, respectively. On appeal here to the Fifth Circuit, petitioners claim that the determinations of the Judicial Officer were not supported by substantial evidence and that she abused her discretion in revoking their exhibitor license. This court found there was sufficient evidence to support the violations, including failing to allow APHIS officials to conduct compliance investigations and inspections, faulty tiger enclosures, insufficient distance/barriers between tigers and the public, failure to make an environmental enrichment plan, and failings involving tiger enclosure and protection from inclement weather, among other things. With regard to petitioners' claim that the Judicial Officer abused her discretion in revoking the exhibitor license, this court court found that petitioners committed more than one willful violation of the AWA so revocation was not unwarranted or without justification. The court concluded that the USDA Secretary’s order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and that it was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review.

Summary: Comes into force January 2020: An Act banning the use of wild animals in traveling circuses in England and Wales.

Summary: Part I of this Article will discuss abusive training practices in breed industries such as the Tennessee Walking Horse and American Quarter Horse, before briefly examining similar practices in other performance horse industries. Turning to federal efforts to eliminate the abuse, Part II examines the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (“HPA” or “Act”), including its legal history and current administration. Part III considers horse show industry attitudes toward horse treatment, particularly among trainers, owners, and exhibitors. Part IV deals with HPA's inadequate protection of competition horses, while Part V suggests a solution that is further developed in the Proposal section.

Summary: The iconic status of the horse in Kentucky belies the bitter reality faced by the vast majority of horses in that state. This Article explains how multiple aspects of the current law enforcement system in the state permit the persistent failure to protect horses against gross neglect and abuse, as exemplified in particular by two case studies. The Kentucky Equine Health and Welfare Council, a legislative construct promoted by its backers as a unique safeguard for Kentucky horses, was in fact ill-suited ab initio for this role and has proved uninterested in it. Although there is no legislative cure for indifference on the part of those charged with enforcing laws against neglect and abuse, there are a number of legislative changes that would improve the now lamentable odds faced by Kentucky's horses. These changes, discussed in Part IV of this Article, are designed to increase the likelihood of action being taken against an offender, including through civil as well as criminal proceedings; secure immediate care for horses which have been victimized and prevent recidivism by offenders; increase the severity of the offense; dampen the current robust market for slaughter horses, and fund the costs inherent in creating a more effective enforcement system. All of the changes proposed are already law in at least some other states-in some instances in many other states--and these existing laws offer a ready model for Kentucky to follow if it so chooses. Although the focus of this Article is on Kentucky, all the legislative recommendations made are more broadly applicable to any state which does not yet have a statute as proposed in place.

Summary: This article begins with a brief history of dog racing laws in the United States. It then goes on to discuss the declining interest in dog racing and its causes and compares the nine states that still have dog racing laws enacted, detailing specific provisions from each state. The article ends with a potential new problem, despite the trend in banning the sport, which is: what will happen to all the displaced dogs?

Summary: A person or business organization must have a license in order to conduct a races. The Commissioner of Consumer Protection is the one who grants the licenses. Each town must hold an election approving racing and pari-mutuel wagering in order for a license to be issued. The Commissioner may order random urine testing of race dogs. The Commissioner is also allowed to conduct investigations and hearings in order to carry out the provisions of this statute and is responsible for adopting regulations.

Summary: Oregon created a Racing Commission that has the authority license, regulate, and supervise all race meets within the state and shall cause the race tracks that hold races to be inspected at least once each fiscal year. A race meet is not to be held unless a license is obtained from the Oregon Racing Commission. All employees of the race track as well as any public training facility or kennel for greyhounds involved in racing are also required to obtain a license from the Commission prior to engaging in their duties. The Commission may require each applicant to obtain a recommendation in writing of the board of county commissioners of the county in the event a race meet is to be held outside of a city and of the governing body of such city if the race meet is to be held within a city. The Commission is tasked with determining the number and classes of race meets to be held in any fiscal year and the total number of racing dates to be granted to a licensee, not to exceed 350 days in any metropolitan area in any fiscal year. The Commission is entitled to require chemical testing of the urine, blood, saliva, or other bodily substances of animals participating in races. Animals are prohibited from participating in races if they have been administered a drug that is prohibited by the Commission, prohibited drugs have been detected in the animal's system, and the animal has been stimulated or depressed in any way by a mechanical device not sanctioned by the Commission.

Summary: This Alabama laws states that every horse show, rodeo, dog and pony show, or like exhibition or show, where any charge is made therefor, shall pay a license tax of $25 for each day of performance.