Environmental Appeal Board
|
|
- Rosaline Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) Facsimile: (250) Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 In the matter of an appeal under section of the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488 BETWEEN: Allan John APPELLANT AND: Deputy Director of Wildlife RESPONDENT BEFORE: A Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board Christie Mayall, Chair DATE OF HEARING: October 19, 1998 Concluding in writing on November 16, 1998 PLACE OF HEARING: Prince George, B.C. APPEARING: For the Appellant: Bruce Kaun, Counsel For the Respondent: Joe McBride, Counsel APPEAL This is an appeal against the May 19, 1998, decision of the Deputy Director of Wildlife denying Allan John a permit to possess three east African Gaboon vipers (Bitis gabonica gabonica) and three west African Gaboon vipers (Bitis gabonica rhinoceros). The Environmental Appeal Board has the authority to hear this appeal under section 11 of the Environment Management Act and section of the Wildlife Act. Mr. John seeks an order allowing him to possess Gaboon vipers. BACKGROUND Gaboon vipers are native to west and central Africa, western east Africa, southern Tanzania, parts of Zambia, northern Zimbabwe and northern Natal. They grow to approximately 2 metres in length, and are considered the largest vipers in the world by weight. Their colour and pattern is vivid and striking with many shades of purples, browns, creams, and other subtle colour combinations in a complex arrangement of geometric shapes, somewhat like an oriental carpet. Their fangs are about 5 centimetres long and their venom is fatal without sufficient quantities of the appropriate antivenin. Mr. John has been interested in snakes since he was about 7 or 8 years old and has possessed snakes since He currently possesses 18 snakes, the largest of which is about 12 feet in length and the most poisonous of which is about as toxic as a bee sting. The snakes are kept in cages in his living room and in a locked
2 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 2 bedroom of the trailer in which he lives in Chetwynd, British Columbia. Mr. John makes educational presentations with live snake specimens to students from elementary schools, high schools and colleges in several towns in northeastern British Columbia. He also shows his snakes to the community at large during the Family Fest in the spring and during Ghoulish Affair in the fall. In the fall of 1996, Mr. John applied to Andy Ackerman, the Regional Manager for Fish and Wildlife in Fort St. John, for a permit to import and possess three east African Gaboon vipers and three west African Gaboon vipers. The reasons that Mr. John gave for wanting to acquire Gaboon vipers were to add to his educational presentation, to breed and sell to universities, and to eventually milk the snakes for venom that he could sell. The permit was refused on October 8, This decision was appealed to the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director stated that Gaboon vipers fall into the family Viperidae - pit vipers and are therefore prescribed as wildlife under the Designation and Exemption Regulation, B.C. Reg. 168/90. The Deputy Director found that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks had made a policy decision to not allow the private possession of venomous snakes except in extenuating or special circumstances. He was convinced that no special circumstances exist that should allow Mr. John to be given a possession permit in these circumstances. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Section 33(1) of the Wildlife Act states: A person commits an offence if the person has live wildlife in his or her personal possession except as authorized under a licence or permit or as provided by regulation. Mr. John applied for a permit to import and possess the snakes under sections 19 (general permits) and 21 (import and export of wildlife) of the Act: 19 (1) A regional manager may, to the extent authorized by and in accordance with regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by the issue of a permit, authorize a person (a) to do anything that the person may do only by authority of a permit or that the person is prohibited from doing by this Act or the regulations, or subject to and in accordance with those conditions, limits and period or periods the regional manager may set out in the permit and, despite anything contained in this Act or the regulations, that person has that authority during the term of the permit. 21 (1) Except as authorized by a permit issued under this Act or under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a person commits an offence if the person (a) imports into British Columbia live wildlife, or the egg of a wildlife species,
3 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 3 The term wildlife is defined under section 1 of the Act as raptors, threatened species, endangered species, game or other species of vertebrates prescribed as wildlife.... There is no evidence that the snake at issue in this appeal is a raptor, threatened or endangered species or game. Therefore, if it is wildlife under the Act, it must fall under other species of vertebrates prescribed as wildlife. The Designation and Exemption Regulation of the Act states: 1. The vertebrates listed in Schedule A are prescribed as wildlife for the purposes of the definition of wildlife in section 1 of the Wildlife Act. Section 1(v) of Schedule A of the Designation and Exemption Regulation specifies that all species of the family Viperidae - pit vipers are prescribed as wildlife within the province of British Columbia. ISSUES The Panel has identified the issues in this appeal as follows: 1. Whether Gaboon vipers fall under section 1(v) of Schedule A of the Designation and Exemption Regulation and are therefore regulated as wildlife under the Wildlife Act. 2. If not, whether any other section of the Wildlife Act or of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks policy prohibits the possession of venomous snakes DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 1. Whether Gaboon vipers fall under section 1(v) of Schedule A of the Designation and Exemption Regulation and are therefore regulated as wildlife under the Wildlife Act. As noted above, section 1(v) of Schedule A of the Designation and Exemption Regulation states that all species of the family Viperidae - pit vipers are prescribed as wildlife within the province of British Columbia. This is the section used by the Deputy Director to determine that the Gaboon viper is wildlife under the Wildlife Act and therefore requires a permit to be imported and possessed. Originally, the Appellant accepted that the Gaboon viper fits within this designation. However, in the course of the hearing before the Board, a question arose as to whether this viper does, in fact, properly fall under this section. The question initially arose when it was noted that the terms pit viper and Viperidae are not synonymous in that Gaboon vipers are Viperidae, but are not pit vipers. Thus, did the legislature intend for snakes such as Gaboon vipers to be captured by this section? To determine the intent of the legislature, it is necessary to define the terms Viperidae and pit viper and also examine the context within which these terms are used. It was noted that the taxonomic system used in the regulation under the Alberta Wildlife Act subdivides Viperidae into three subfamilies, one of which is the
4 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 4 subfamily Viperinae which includes genus Bitis (Gaboon vipers). This Regulation then distinguishes pit vipers as a separate family, Crotalidae. Alberta Legislation Family: Viperidae (vipers and adders) Subfamily: Viperinae Species: Bitis gabonica gabonica Bitis gabonica rhinoceros Family: Crotalidae (pit vipers) Under this system the terms Viperidae and pit viper (Crotalidae) are mutually exclusive. Because of the use of both pit viper and Viperidae in section 1(v), it could be argued that both families are meant to be captured by the section. However, another taxonomic system, described in The Encyclopaedia of Snakes by Chris Mattison, includes pit vipers as a subfamily within the Viperidae family. In this system, family Viperidae is subdivided into four subfamilies. The pit viper subfamily is Crotalinae. The Gaboon viper is included in the subfamily Viperinae (as above). Encyclopedia of Snakes Family: Viperidae (vipers, adders, and pit vipers) Subfamily: Viperinae Species: Bitis gabonica gabonica Bitis gabonica rhinoceros Subfamily: Crotalinae (pit vipers) If this system is used to interpret section 1(v), it is arguable that by referring to Viperidae pit viper the legislature intended to limit what is captured by the broader family name (Viperidae), to only one of the subfamilies pit vipers or Crotalinae. The Panel requested and received additional written submissions from the parties on this matter. From the submissions it appears that the following can be said: Viperidae is the scientific name for the family of snakes commonly known as vipers and adders. It includes three or four subfamilies, depending on which classification system is used. Gaboon vipers (Bitis sp.) are a member of the Viperinae subfamily. Pit viper is a common name, describing a type of viper that has heat-sensing pits on the side of the face. They are recognized either as a subfamily within the Viperidae family (Crotalinae) or as a separate family altogether (Crotalidae). Regardless of the taxonomic system used, there is no dispute that the Gaboon viper does not have a heat-sensing pit on the side of its face and is, therefore, not a member of this family or this subfamily.
5 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 5 Counsel for the Respondent argues that the Gaboon viper is wildlife. He acknowledges that there is arguably an inconsistency in Schedule A of the Regulation in that, in one taxonomic system, pit vipers are a subset of the family Viperidae and, in the other, they are not even within the family Viperidae. However, he adds that the conflict can be resolved by applying the context principle of statutory interpretation, among other things. In applying the context principle of interpretation, the Respondent submits that the reader should look to similar constructions within the enactment to see if a pattern can be determined. He suggests that the pattern in Schedule A is clear: the common name is a restatement or synonym of the scientific name. He submits that the pattern is not for the common name to narrow or expand the scientific name, or to specify a thing not intended by the scientific name. He also notes that common names are less exact than scientific names and, in the case of an inconsistency between the two, the definitive term, the Latin name, should be used; in this case, the name Viperidae. The Respondent submits that under both taxonomic systems, the Gaboon viper is within the family Viperidae and, therefore, the Gaboon viper is clearly wildlife under the Wildlife Act. In support of this argument, the Respondent tendered an written by Chris Dodd, dated November 5, Mr. Dodd had been a biologist with the Wildlife Branch, and was responsible for the complete revision of the Designation and Exemption Regulation under the Wildlife Act in Prior to this revision, the equivalent of section 1(v) in the current Regulation simply included Crotalus viridis - western rattlesnake. The western rattlesnake is a pit viper. In 1990, this section was changed to its present language - broadening the scientific name to include the entire Viperidae family, but only broadening the common name to pit vipers. In the , Mr. Dodd explained why the drafters of the section chose to amend the section and used the words Viperidae and pit viper, and explained what he believes the legislature intended when enacting this section. Mr. Dodd states: there was no intent to allow the common name pit viper to restrict the meaning of the English name for the Latin. It was not meant to either expand or contract the list of animals referred to within the family Viperidae. It was intended, in fact, to include all the Old World vipers within the designation, despite many of them not being pit vipers. While the evidence of Mr. Dodd is relevant to the matter before the Board, its credibility or reliability is untested. Mr. Dodd was not a witness at the hearing and has not been subject to cross-examination on this evidence. In the Panel s view, this evidence has been tendered for the purpose of explaining not only the context in which the Regulation was drafted, but also as direct evidence of the legislative intent. In R. v. S. (G.) (1988), 67 O.R. (2d) 198 (C.A.); affd [1990] 2 S.C.R. 294, Lacourciere J.A. of the Court of Appeal stated that: Courts are not to be guided in their interpretation of statutes by the opinion of persons such as the witness in this case, although he was described as a knowledgeable senior civil servant in the federal
6 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 6 Department of Justice. The opinion of any policy-maker or law enforcement officer cannot be qualified as expert evidence when the court is considering the interpretation of or the purpose of a statute. (p. 212) In the view of the Court, it was not possible for the opinion of a government servant to be equated with, or even linked to, the intention of the legislature. The Panel finds that little or no weight can be given to Mr. Dodd s explanation of the legislative intent and meaning of the words used. The meaning of the words should be determined by reference to the general use of the words, other sections in the same statutory enactment, and the context of the section itself. Upon reviewing the Regulation, the Panel agrees with the Respondent that the common names in the other sections of the Schedule consistently match the scientific names they are synonomous. There is no indication that the legislature, by using the phrase Viperidae - pit viper, intended to capture two different families of snakes. This would be contrary to the drafting style used in the Schedule, which is for the Latin name to be followed by the common name. Further, if the legislative intent had been to regulate both families, then it seems likely that it would have specified each family separately, for example, by using the Latin family name for pit viper Crotalidae. It also appears on the evidence that the system adopted by Alberta is less common than that used by Mattison, which includes pit viper as a subfamily of the Viperidae family. Thus, the Panel finds that the Designation and Exemption Regulation was based on the taxonomic system which includes the pit viper as a subfamily of the family Viperidae. The next question is whether the legislature intended to narrow the broad scientific name Viperidae, by referencing just one of the subfamilies, that of the pit viper, as opposed to something more synonymous with Viperidae such as vipers and adders. The Panel finds the following evidence to be particularly compelling: Only Crotalus viridis (western rattlesnake), which is indigenous to this province and is a pit viper, was designated as wildlife under an earlier version of the legislation. The Appellant presented uncontested evidence that many snakes equally venomous to the Gaboon viper remain unregulated in British Columbia, including Egyptian cobras, twig snakes, sea snakes, boomslang, and king brown snakes. The species designated as wildlife in the Regulation are either indigenous to British Columbia, or have established populations that survive naturally in the wild in the province. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, [i]t is a principle of statutory interpretation that every word of a statute must be given meaning (Communities Economic Development Fund v. Canadian Pickles Corp., [1992] 1 W.W.R. 193, at 209). The rationale for this principle is the presumption that the legislature avoids using meaningless or superfluous words in legislation, and that every word in a statute is presumed to have a specific role to play in advancing the legislative purpose (R. Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3 rd. ed., 1994, at
7 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 7 159). Therefore, the legislation should not be interpreted in a way that renders any portion of a statute meaningless. In the Panel s view, to accept the Respondent s position that the Gaboon viper is wildlife because it falls within the family Viperidae in spite of the fact that it is not a pit viper would be to disregard the use of the common name in the section, or to interpret it as meaningless. The Panel cannot accept that this is what the legislature intended. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the term pit viper is meant to narrow the application of the term Viperidae to include the pit viper subfamily only - not snake species belonging to other sub-families of Viperidae, which are not indigenous and which have not established wild populations in British Columbia. Gaboon Vipers are not members of the pit viper subfamily, are not indigenous to British Columbia, and there is no evidence that they have established a wild population in this province. Moreover, given that they occur naturally in much warmer climates, it is unlikely that they could survive in the wild in the province. The Panel finds, therefore, that Gaboon vipers are not prescribed as wildlife under the Wildlife Act. 2. Whether any other section of the Wildlife Act or of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks policy prohibits the possession of venomous snakes. While the Panel has concluded that Gaboon vipers are not wildlife within the meaning of the Wildlife Act, the Act regulates certain activities concerning animals, the definition of which includes reptiles. No permit is required for animals just for wildlife possession. The way that the Act deals with animals is to apply consequences to persons who release, abandon, or allow the escape of captive animals (see sections 2(5)(b), 76, and 77). The Respondent argues that the Appellant should not be allowed to import or possess these snakes because of public safety concerns and treatment concerns related to a potential snakebite. The Respondent also suggests that it is Ministry policy to generally prohibit the private possession of poisonous snakes. In his decision, the Deputy Director states that [the Ministry s Procedure Manual] contains standards for the caging and keeping of venomous snakes. It also states that it is to apply in all cases where live wildlife is kept, whether for private or commercial use. Nowhere in this procedure does it contemplate private possession of venomous snakes. Therefore, he concludes: it is clear to me that the ministry has made a policy decision to not allow private possession of venomous snakes except in extenuating or special circumstances. The Panel disagrees with the Deputy Director s conclusion. The policy refers to private possession and deals with standards for caging and keeping of venomous snakes. In the Panel s view, the policy does therefore contemplate private possession of venomous snakes. However, if the Ministry is attempting to make a general policy to prohibit the private possession of poisonous snakes, the law is clear that policy does not have the force of law. Nowhere in the Act or Regulation is there express mention of a
8 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 8 requirement for a permit or licence to possess animals such as poisonous snakes which are not wildlife. Nor is there any express prohibition from possessing poisonous snakes. As was noted by the Appellant, many snakes equally venomous to the Gaboon viper remain unregulated in British Columbia. While there probably should be some regulation, the Panel can find no clear authority in the legislation regarding the conditions under which a person may possess such an animal, as long as it remains in captivity. The Act and Regulation simply provide consequences to an owner should a captive animal move outside of its captive environment. The Panel finds that there is nothing in the Wildlife Act requiring a permit for, or prohibiting the importation and possession of venomous snakes, such as the Gaboon viper, which are not wildlife for the purposes of the Act. DECISION In making this decision, the Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board has carefully considered all relevant documents and all evidence and arguments made during the hearing, whether or not they have been specifically reiterated here. The Panel found that Gaboon vipers are not prescribed as wildlife under the Wildlife Act. It follows, then, that they are not subject to regulation under the Wildlife Act as wildlife. Rather, they are subject to regulation as animals. Therefore, the Panel rescinds the decision of the Deputy Director to deny a permit to possess Gaboon vipers as no permit is required. However, the Panel remains concerned about the care and handling of the snakes and about public safety and is compelled to make the following comments. The Specific Guidelines for Captive Animal Standards contained in the Procedure Manual address the care and handling of poisonous snakes. While not binding, the guidelines provide reasonable direction to owners of such animals. Mr. John gave evidence that indicated that he was not aware of several of the provisions of the guidelines, and that he planned to have considerably more public interaction with the reptiles than is recommended in the guidelines. The Panel is extremely concerned at the prospect of Gaboon vipers being transported regularly and being taken regularly to any educational institutions or community events. The Panel also notes that the guidelines state that snakes should be kept in cages constructed of smooth, waterproof, rigid, chemically inert material, e.g. glass, plastic, arborite, etc. to facilitate quick, thorough cleaning. Mr. John showed the Panel a photograph of the metal that he planned to use to build the enclosures for the snakes. The metal was being stored outside and appeared rusty. It did not appear smooth or chemically inert. The Panel is concerned that Mr. John has not clearly thought through the care and handling of Gaboon vipers or the use that he would be able to make of them once acquired. The Panel is extremely concerned, therefore, that Mr. John is making too great a leap from the relatively innocuous snakes that he currently possesses to snakes with a potential to kill humans.
9 APPEAL NO. 98-WIL-24 Page 9 After being turned down in his application for Gaboon vipers, Mr. John contacted Mr. Ackerman regarding an application for a less poisonous type of viper, but he was told that this application, too, would be unsuccessful. Given the Panel s decision in this appeal and Mr. John s freedom to obtain the viper of his choice, the Panel strongly recommends to Mr. John that he begin by acquiring some of the less poisonous species. Although he would not be beginning with the cadillac of snakes, his educational objectives could be met with other species. In considering this direction, the Panel would like to draw Mr. John s attention to an excerpt from Reptile Life which he presented at the hearing. This article was written with reference to an almost fatal bite from a pet Gaboon viper. What is arguable, then, is whether the keeping of such extremely dangerous creatures in a household setting shows good judgement, regardless of motive or the expertise of the individual involved. Herpetoculturists, in recognition of the very real, ancient prejudices that still exist surrounding herptiles, must know when to make personal sacrifices for the good of their public image, for reasons of self-preservation. To lose respect for the rights of the public, to behave out of selfishness, is to risk retraction of their right to pursue their hobby in any capacity. Herpetoculturists must try to understand what constitutes a reasonable expectation on the part of the public. If the public suggests that noone be allowed to keep a rosy boa or a pine snake - creatures that constitute no danger whatsoever to a human being - they are acting out of ignorance, they are being unreasonable. On the other hand, citizens do have a right to expect that their neighbours will be responsible enough (to) not bring into their midst creatures that are, by anyone s standards, extremely dangerous. Venomous snakes are awesome, fascinating, and often beautiful creatures. Whether or not they belong in the home, or are best enjoyed in the wild, is a question to be taken very seriously. The Panel also recommends that the Ministry consider amending the Wildlife Act to enable the government to better regulate the possession of poisonous snakes that may present a danger to the public. Christie Mayall, Panel Chair Environmental Appeal Board February 16, 1999
A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15)
A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15) 1 Introduction 1.1 For as long as human beings continue to interact with dogs, there will be incidents of dog bites. However, the frequency
More informationhttp://arlington.granicus.com/agendaviewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=135 COUNTY BOARD MEETING AGENDA,May 17, 2008,8:30 A.M. Public Comment,No earlier than 9:00 A.M. Consent Agenda and Regular Hearing
More informationEnvironmental Appeal Board
Environmental Appeal Board APPEAL NO. 95/16 WILDLIFE In the matter of an appeal under section 103 of the Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57 BETWEEN: Edward Boyd APPELLANT AND: Deputy Director of Wildlife
More information4--Why are Community Documents So Difficult to Read and Revise?
4--Why are Community Documents So Difficult to Read and Revise? Governing Documents are difficult to read because they cover a broad range of topics, have different priorities over time, and must be read
More informationPOLICY INTENTIONS PAPER
POLICY INTENTIONS PAPER The Government of B.C. intends to introduce prevention measures to effectively deal with nonnative aquatic species that can potentially harm B.C. s fish and wildlife resource (see
More informationRESPONSE OF THE OTTAWA AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE ASSOCIATION TO THE PROPOSED ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL BY-LAW
PO Box 69053 Ottawa ON K1R 1A7 oara@ottawaherps.com http://www.ottawaherps.com/oara/ Ottawa, September 6, 2002 RESPONSE OF THE OTTAWA AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE ASSOCIATION TO THE PROPOSED ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
More informationDOG LICENCING BYLAW NO EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 24, 2000 CONSOLIDATED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY
CITY OF RICHMOND DOG LICENCING BYLAW NO. 7138 EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 24, 2000 CONSOLIDATED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY This is a consolidation of the bylaws below. The amendment bylaws have been combined with the
More informationLEGISLATURE
00 00 LEGISLATURE 00 AN ACT to amend 0. () (j); and to create. and. () (a). of the statutes; relating to: regulation of persons who sell dogs or operate animal shelters or animal control facilities, granting
More information2009 WISCONSIN ACT 90
Date of enactment: December 1, 2009 2009 Assembly Bill 250 Date of publication*: December 15, 2009 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 90 AN ACT to amend 20.115 (2) (j) and 93.21 (5) (a); and to create 173.41 and 778.25
More informationBY- LAW 39 of 2008 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ST. MARYS
BY- LAW 39 of 2008 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ST. MARYS BEING a By-law for prohibiting and regulating certain animals, the keeping of dogs within the municipality, for restricting the number of
More information505 Hamm Road Suite 101, Windermere Court. Abbotsford, BC V2T 4J2. Suite 2600, Three Bentall Centre 840 Howe Street PO Box 49314
File: 44200-50/CMB 03-09 DELIVERED BY FAX Mr. Ernie Silveri President General Manager BC Egg Hatchery Association BC Chicken Marketing Board 505 Hamm Road Suite 101, Windermere Court Abbotsford, BC V2S
More informationAnimal Services By-law Update Presentation
Animal Services By-law Update Presentation General Committee June 18, 2018 Slide 1 1. Introduction 2. City s Animal Care & Control By-law Update Administrative Amendments Prosecutorial Amendments Other
More informationSCHEDULE A. Bill No By-law No.
SCHEDULE A Bill No 2005 By-law No. A By-law to provide for the licensing and regulation of Pit Bull Dogs in the City of London. WHEREAS section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2007, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended,
More informationBYLAW NUMBER
BYLAW NUMBER 718-2009 BYLAW NUMBER 718-2009 OF THE TOWN OF BASHAW IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, BEING A BYLAW TO REPEAL BYLAW NO. 687-2005 AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND BEING REPLACED BY THIS BYLAW TO
More informationCYPRESS COUNTY BYLAW 2016/09 A BYLAW OF CYPRESS COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING AND REGULATING DOGS.
CYPRESS COUNTY BYLAW 2016/09 A BYLAW OF CYPRESS COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING AND REGULATING DOGS. WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to restrain and regulate the running
More informationCITY OF PITT MEADOWS Dog Control Bylaw
Dog Control Bylaw Bylaw No. 2735 and amendments thereto CONSOLIDATED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY This is a consolidation of the bylaws listed below. The amending bylaws have been consolidated with the original
More informationPit Bull Dog Licensing By-law
Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law PH-12 Consolidated October 17, 2017 As Amended by: By-law No. Date Passed at Council PH-12-06001 December 5, 2005 PH-12-06002 November 6, 2006 PH-12-17003 October 17, 2017
More informationAND WHEREAS by motion 13-GC-253 the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge deems it expedient to amend By-law ;
A BY-LAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE TO REQUIRE THE LICENSING OF DOGS AND FOR THE CONTROL OF DOGS WITHIN THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, (hereinafter
More informationDepartment of Health and Mental Hygiene. Board of Health
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Board of Health Notice of Adoption (#1) of Amendments to Articles 11 and 161 of the New York City Health Code In compliance with 1043(b) of the New York City Charter
More informationSession of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Federal and State Affairs 1-21
Session of 0 HOUSE BILL No. By Committee on Federal and State Affairs - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning pet animals; relating to the Kansas pet animal act; amending K.S.A. -0 and K.S.A. 0 Supp. -0 and - and repealing
More informationAgricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Regulations 2007
Version No. 002 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Regulations 2007 Version incorporating amendments as at 13 February 2013 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Regulation Page 1 Objectives 1 2 Authorising
More informationTHOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT DANGEROUS DOG CONTROL BYLAW NO. 2383
0 THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT DANGEROUS DOG CONTROL BYLAW NO. 2383 A BYLAW TO REGULATE THE CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOGS IN ELECTORAL AREAS "1", "M", "N" and "P" OF THE THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT
More informationTown of Whitby By-law #
Town of Whitby By-law # 7294-17 Responsible Pet Ownership By-law Being a Bylaw to regulate the keeping of cats and dogs in the Town; Whereas Section 10 and Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes
More informationSection 2 Interpretation
COUNTY OF TWO HILLS NO. 21 IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BY-LAW NO. 8-2000 A BY-LAW OF THE COUNTY OF TWO HILLS NO. 21 IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATING AND CONFINEMENT OF DOGS. WHEREAS,
More informationVILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09
VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09 BEING A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, REGULATING, AND CONFINEMENT OF DOGS WHEREAS,
More informationVILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09 And AMENDMENT with BYLAW 428/11
VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09 And AMENDMENT with BYLAW 428/11 BEING A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, REGULATING,
More informationCORYELL COUNTY RABIES CONTROL ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-03 Section 1.1 Authority. SECTION 1 INTENT AND AUTHORITY These regulations are adopted by the Commissioners Court of Coryell County, Texas, acting in its capacity as the governing body
More informationPets and Animals Policy
Pets and Animals Policy Our mission is to enhance the Life Chances of residents and service users through providing great homes, first class services and working in partnership to build sustainable communities.
More informationAnimal Research Ethics Procedure
Animal Research Ethics Procedure Policy Hierarchy link Responsible Officer Contact Officer Superseded Documents UNSW Research Code of Conduct Director, Research Ethics & Compliance Support Coordinator,
More informationRequired and Recommended Supporting Information for IUCN Red List Assessments
Required and Recommended Supporting Information for IUCN Red List Assessments This is Annex 1 of the Rules of Procedure for IUCN Red List Assessments 2017 2020 as approved by the IUCN SSC Steering Committee
More informationA BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF LANGHAM TO REGULATE & LICENSE DOGS AND CATS
A BYLAW OF THE TO REGULATE & LICENSE DOGS AND CATS The Council of the Town of Langham in the Province of Saskatchewan Enacts as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS a) Administrator means the Town Administrator of
More informationBYLAW NUMBER
BYLAW NUMBER 719-2009 BYLAW NUMBER 719-2009 OF THE TOWN OF BASHAW IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, BEING A BYLAW TO REPEAL BYLAW NO. 667-2003 AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND BEING REPLACED BY THIS BYLAW TO
More informationExplanatory Report to the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals
Explanatory Report to the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals Strasbourg, 13.XI.1987 European Treaty Series - No. 125 I. Introduction 1. The European Convention for the Protection of
More informationR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.16
Français Dog Owners Liability Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.16 Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2007 to the e-laws currency date. Last amendment: 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 13. Skip Table of Contents
More informationASSEMBLY, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2016 SESSION
ASSEMBLY, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Assemblyman MICHAEL PATRICK CARROLL District (Morris and Somerset) SYNOPSIS Clarifies that the
More informationA Conversation with Mike Phillips
A Conversation with Mike Phillips Clockwise from top: Lynn Rogers, Evelyn Mercer, Kevin Loader, Jackie Fallon 4 Fall 2011 www.wolf.org Editor s Note: Tom Myrick, communications director for the International
More informationSUMMER VILLAGE OF JARVIS BAY BY-LAW #
BY-LAW # 122-12 A Bylaw of the Summer Village of Jarvis Bay, in the Province of Alberta, to provide for the regulating, controlling and confinement of dogs. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of sections
More informationPLEASE NOTE. authority of the Queen s Printer for the province should be consulted to determine the authoritative statement of the law.
c t DOG ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 23, 2017. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationThe Guide and Assistance Dog Act: A Proposal for New Legislation for British Columbia Briefing Note
The Guide and Assistance Dog Act: A Proposal for New Legislation for British Columbia Briefing Note Presented by: Access for Sight Impaired Consumers Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians Autism Support
More informationCITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 411
CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 411 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 8 OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS GOVERNING DOGS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY OF STERLING
More informationWHEREAS, The Municipalities Act, 2005, provides that a Council may by bylaw:
TOWN OF KIPLING BYLAW 11-2014 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF KIPLING FOR LICENSING DOGS AND CATS REGULATING AND CONTROLLING PERSONS OWNING OR HARBOURING DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER ANIMALS This Bylaw shall be known
More informationBYLAW NUMBER
BYLAW NUMBER 418-05-09 BYLAW NUMBER 418-05-09 OF THE VILLAGE OF EDBERG, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, BEING A BYLAW TO REPEAL BYLAW NO. 383-7-99 AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND BEING REPLACED BY THIS BYLAW
More informationBYLAW NO SUMMER VILLAGE OF YELLOWSTONE DOG AND CAT CONTROL BYLAW
Being a Bylaw of the Summer Village of Yellowstone in the Province of Alberta to control and regulate the running at large of dogs and cats, the destroying of dogs and cats after a period of impoundment,
More information1. Introduction Exclusions Title Commencement Interpretation Definitions... 4
Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Exclusions... 3 3. Title... 3 4. Commencement... 3 5. Interpretation... 4 5.1 Definitions... 4 6. Penalties and recovery of costs... 4 7. Bylaw clauses... 4 7.1 Keeping
More informationCITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 8 OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS GOVERNING DOGS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY OF STERLING
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF TOWN OF PETROLIA. BY-LAW NO. 10 of 2009
THE CORPORATION OF TOWN OF PETROLIA BY-LAW NO. 10 of 2009 Being a By-law to Provide Regulation, Restriction and Prohibition of Dogs and Animals In the Town of Petrolia. WHEREAS paragraphs 1, 8, 9, 11 and
More informationTrade in Endangered Species Act 1989
Reprint as at 26 March 2015 Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989 Public Act 1989 No 18 Date of assent 28 April 1989 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 4 1 Short Title and commencement 4
More informationBYLAW NUMBER BEING A BYLAW TO REGULATE AND CONTROL, LICENSE AND IMPOUND DOGS IN THE SUMMER VILLAGE OF WHITE SANDS.
BYLAW NUMBER 152-15 BEING A BYLAW TO REGULATE AND CONTROL, LICENSE AND IMPOUND DOGS IN THE SUMMER VILLAGE OF WHITE SANDS. WHEREAS THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, RSA 2000, c. M-26 ENABLES COUNCIL OF A MUNICIPALITY
More informationVILLAGE OF ELNORA THE CAT CONTROL BYLAW BYLAW NUMBER
VILLAGE OF ELNORA THE CAT CONTROL BYLAW BYLAW NUMBER 492-0804 A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF ELNORA, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO REGULATE AND CONTROL, RESTRAIN THE RUNNING AT LARGE, LICENSING, AND IMPOUNDING
More informationChief Administrative Officer or CAO means the Chief Administrative Officer for the Village or their designate.
VILLAGE OF VETERAN BYLAW NO. 511-13 DOG BYLAW BEING A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF VETERAN IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE LICENSING, REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DOGS WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF VETERAN. WHEREAS,
More information1 SB By Senators Livingston and Scofield. 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18.
1 SB232 2 190459-2 3 By Senators Livingston and Scofield 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18 Page 0 1 190459-2:n:01/25/2018:KBH/tgw LSA2018-479R1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SYNOPSIS:
More informationTOWN OF ECKVILLE BYLAW #701/10 DOG CONTROL BYLAW
TOWN OF ECKVILLE BYLAW #701/10 DOG CONTROL BYLAW BEING A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF ECKVILLE TO LICENSE, RESTRAIN AND REGULATE THE RUNNING AT LARGE OF DOGS. WHEREAS, the Council for the Town of Eckville has
More informationNEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Amendments to Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New York What are we proposing?
More informationEXOTIC ANIMALS AND THE LAW IN BC/CANADA REBEKA BREDER ANIMAL LAW LAWYER OCTOBER 3, 2018
EXOTIC ANIMALS AND THE LAW IN BC/CANADA REBEKA BREDER ANIMAL LAW LAWYER WWW.BREDERLAW.COM OCTOBER 3, 2018 I. OVERVIEW Definitions Federal Laws Provincial Laws Municipal Laws Conclusion II. DEFINITION EXOTIC
More informationANIMALS. Chapter 284 DOG - LICENSING - REGULATION CHAPTER INDEX. Article 1 INTERPRETATION. Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS
ANIMALS Chapter 284 DOG - LICENSING - REGULATION 284.1.1 Animal Control Officer - defined 284.1.2 Deputy CAO/Clerk - defined 284.1.3 Dog - defined 284.1.4 Owner - defined CHAPTER INDEX Article 1 INTERPRETATION
More informationORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT ENDORSE BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT ENDORSE BREED SPECIFIC This list is not intended to be comprehensive, as there are numerous other organizations that have publicly voiced that they do not endorse BSL. The American
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY DR BOTHA (VETSCRIPTS) REGARDING CURRENT AND PROPOSED NEW RULES AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY DR BOTHA (VETSCRIPTS) REGARDING CURRENT AND PROPOSED NEW RULES AND AMENDMENTS THERETO Please see below my written submissions on the proposed new Council Rules. In each case I
More information2014 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings
2014 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings CANADA MUST STRENGTHEN ITS ANIMAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION Animal Legal Defense Fund Annual Study Ranks Laws across the Country No Improvement in 2014; Investigations
More informationTOWN OF LANIGAN BYLAW 2/2004
BYLAW 2/2004 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF LANIGAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF DANGEROUS DOGS AND THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF ALL OTHER DOGS INCLUDING LICENSING, RUNNING AT LARGE AND IMPOUNDING. The Council
More informationJune 2009 (website); September 2009 (Update) consent, informed consent, owner consent, risk, prognosis, communication, documentation, treatment
GUIDELINES Informed Owner Consent Approved by Council: June 10, 2009 Publication Date: June 2009 (website); September 2009 (Update) To Be Reviewed by: June 2014 Key Words: Related Topics: Legislative References:
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 3021
california legislature 2017 18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3021 Introduced by Assembly Members Levine, Medina, and Salas February 16, 2018 An act to add Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 16200)
More informationDISCUSSION ONE: Competent Voice Control
P.O. Box 20887 Juneau, AK 99802 gd-info@gratefuldogsofjuneau.org September 11, 2009 Bruce Botelho Mayor City and Borough of Juneau Juneau, Alaska SUBJECT: Dog Control Ordinance Amendments Ordinance 2009-12(b)
More informationOFFICE CONSOLIDATION
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION This is a consolidation of the Town s by-law to regulate the keeping of animals being By-law Number 2013-130 as amended by By-laws numbered 2016-104, 2017-53 and 2017-80 prepared for
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 2343
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2014 california legislature 2013 14 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2343 Introduced by Assembly Member Gatto February 21, 2014 An act to amend Section 31108 of the Food
More information2016 No. 58 ANIMALS. The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016
S C O T T I S H S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2016 No. 58 ANIMALS ANIMAL WELFARE The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 Made - - - - 28th January 2016 Coming into force - - 29th
More informationBY-LAW NUMBER A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE MUZZLING OF VICIOUS DOGS
''i''. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2000-04 A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE MUZZLING OF VICIOUS DOGS WHEREAS Section 210, subsection 10, of the Ontario Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990,
More informationCITY OF LACOMBE BYLAW 265
CITY OF LACOMBE BYLAW 265 Consolidation to January 14, 2013 A Bylaw to authorize the Municipal Council of the City of Lacombe, in the Province of Alberta to provide for the keeping and registration of
More information2015 No. 138 DOGS, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2015 No. 138 DOGS, ENGLAND AND WALES The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 Made - - - - 4th February 2015 Laid before Parliament 10th
More informationSouth Carolina General Assembly 118th Session,
South Carolina General Assembly 1th Session, 0- H. STATUS INFORMATION General Bill Sponsors: Rep. Kirsh Document Path: l:\council\bills\nbd\ac.docx Prefiled in the House on November, 0 Currently residing
More informationTMCEC Bench Book CHAPTER 17 ANIMALS. Dangerous Dogs. 1. Dogs that Are a Danger to Persons. Definitions:
CHAPTER 17 ANIMALS Dangerous Dogs 1. Dogs that Are a Danger to Persons Checklist 17-1 Script/Notes Definitions: Animal control authority is a municipal or county animal control office with authority over
More informationReferred to Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
HEARING 6/4/13 11am State House Rm 437 & 1pm State House Rm A2 SUPPORT SB1103 An Act Relative to Protecting Puppies & Kittens [Sen. Spilka (D)] SUPPORT HB1826 An Act Relative to Protecting Puppies & Kittens
More informationTESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE REGARDING RESOLUTION NO. T NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON HEALTH JUNE 7, 2013
Contact: Maria Cilenti - Director of Legislative Affairs - mcilenti@nycbar.org - (212) 382-6655 TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE REGARDING RESOLUTION NO. T2013-6368 NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL
More informationThese Regulations may be cited as the City of Corner Brook Animal Regulations.
The City of Comer Brook Animal Regulations PURSUANT to the powers vested in it under section 263, 264, 280.1, 280.2 and 280.4 of the City of Corner Brook Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. C-15, as amended, the Newfoundland
More informationTOWN OF PICTURE BUTTE BYLAW #690/92 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF PICTURE BUTTE TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROL AND REGULATING DOGS.
TOWN OF PICTURE BUTTE BYLAW #690/92 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF PICTURE BUTTE TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROL AND REGULATING DOGS. WHEREAS Section 164 (b) of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter
More informationARTICLE FIVE -- ANIMAL CONTROL
[Article Five was extensively revised by Ordinance 15-11-012L, effective January 1, 2016] ARTICLE FIVE -- ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 05.01.010 PURPOSE This Article shall be
More informationCALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION
CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 122125-122220 122125. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act. (b) Every pet dealer of dogs and cats shall
More informationWildlifeCampus Advanced Snakes & Reptiles 1. Vipers and Adders
Advanced Snakes & Reptiles 1 Module # 4 Component # 9 Viperidae - Hinged Front Fang Snakes This Family is divided into two sub-families. These are Old World and Modern / New World Adders. The predominant
More informationPE1561/J. Ned Sharratt Public Petitions Clerks Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP. 11 December 2015.
PE1561/J Agriculture, Food and Rural Communities Directorate Animal Health and Welfare Division T: 0300-244 9242 F: 0300-244 E: beverley.williams@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Ned Sharratt Public Petitions Clerks
More informationPUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS DOG CONTROLS CULTURE AND LEISURE (COUNCILLOR PETER BRADBURY)
CARDIFF COUNCIL CYNGOR CAERDYDD CABINET MEETING: 12 JULY 2018 PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS DOG CONTROLS CULTURE AND LEISURE (COUNCILLOR PETER BRADBURY) AGENDA ITEM: 3 Reason for this Report 1. To consider
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:08-cv-00014-DWM Document 106 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., No. CV-08-14-M-DWM Plaintiffs,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION The Fairways at Emerald Greens Condominium
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS THE CITIES OF JACKSONVILLE, LONOKE NORTH LITTLE ROCK AND BEEBE, ARKANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ROADS, INC., RICHARD VENABLE, DARIUS SIMS, MIKE KIERRY and PHILLIP MCCORMICK PLAINTIFFS VS. NO. THE CITIES OF JACKSONVILLE, LONOKE
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-004392 [2017] NZDC 12019 AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Prosecutor v IRENE LAGOCKI
More informationEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS No. [XXXX]
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. [XXXX] 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
More information3. records of distribution for proteins and feeds are being kept to facilitate tracing throughout the animal feed and animal production chain.
CANADA S FEED BAN The purpose of this paper is to explain the history and operation of Canada s feed ban and to put it into a broader North American context. Canada and the United States share the same
More informationThe Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth
The Corporation of the By-law 2002-045 (Consolidated as amended) DANGEROUS DOGS BY-LAW A by-law to provide for the muzzling of dogs declared dangerous in the. Consolidation Amendment No. 1 By-law No. 2005-075
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 152(4)(b) thereof,
14.10.2003 L 262/17 DIRECTIVE 2003/74/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain
More informationBE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CORNWALL AS FOLLOWS:
ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW BYLAW NO. 203 BEING A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CORNWALL RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF ANIMALS WITHIN THE TOWN OF CORNWALL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 96 AND 139 OF THE CHARLOTTETOWN
More informationIn the Provincial Court of British Columbia
File No: 148923-1 Registry: Victoria In the Provincial Court of British Columbia REGINA v. SYDNEY JAMES HASKELL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE WISHART COPY Crown Counsel: Defence Counsel:
More informationContract and Bill of Sale
Ke ery l e T eri r rei er u Foun d ation Contract Bill of Sale of Contract Bill of Sale Price 1. THE DOG Registered name Dog s call name Breed Sex Male Female of birth Neutered/spayed Yes No To be, as
More informationBY-LAW A By-law of the town of Rothesay Respecting Animal Control, Enacted Under the Municipalities Act, Section 96(1), R.S.N.B. 1973, c.
BY-LAW 01-12 A By-law of the town of Rothesay Respecting Animal Control, Enacted Under the Municipalities Act, Section 96(1), R.S.N.B. 1973, c.m-22 The Council of the town of Rothesay Duly Assembled Enacts
More informationQ1 The effectiveness of the Act in reducing the number of out of control dogs/dog attacks in Scotland.
PAPLS/S5/18/COD/20 PUBLIC AUDIT AND POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010 CALL FOR EVIDENCE SUBMISSION FROM National Dog Warden Association Scotland. Q1 The effectiveness
More informationTOWN OF GOLDEN BYLAW NUMBER WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Golden deems it desirous to regulate the keeping, care and licensing of animals;
TOWN OF GOLDEN BYLAW NUMBER 1157 Being a bylaw of the Town of Golden to regulate the keeping, care and licensing of animals in the Town of Golden WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Golden deems it desirous
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE RESCUE OF ANIMALS AFFECTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE RESCUE OF ANIMALS AFFECTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER BACKGROUND This Frequently Asked Questions ( FAQs ) project was designed to help address the legal questions
More informationBY-LAW 560/ DOG TAG means a numbered metal tag issued by the Village when the Owner of a Dog licenses such Dog with the Town/Village.
BY-LAW 560/08 A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF BAWLF IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSE REGULATION OF DOGS DETERMINED TO BE AGGRESSIVE OR VICIOUS. WHEREAS WHEREAS THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT,
More informationRecognition of Export Controls and Certification Systems for Animals and Animal Products. Guidance for Competent Authorities of Exporting Countries
Recognition of Export Controls and Certification Systems for Animals and Animal Products Guidance for Competent Authorities of Exporting Countries Disclaimer This guidance does not constitute, and should
More informationANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON. Ordinance No September 12, 2006
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON Ordinance No. 2006-463 September 12, 2006 Amended: December 11, 2008 September 13, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Article I General Provisions... 1 Section 101 Short
More informationPolicy on Animals on Campus
Policy on Animals on Campus Owner: Reviewed by: Deputy University Secretary Health and Safety Committee (October 2018) Appendix A Health and Safety Committee (May 2018) Approved by: Council (June 2018)
More informationAnimal Rights IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR INSIDE. Municipal Laws Provincial Laws Criminal Law Questions and Answers Adoption and Rescue Centres
Animal Rights IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR The Public Legal Information Association of NL (PLIAN) is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public throughout Newfoundland and Labrador about
More informationKey Stage 3 Lesson Plan Debating Animal Welfare Laws
Key Stage 3 Lesson Plan Debating Animal Welfare Laws A good lesson to do prior to this one is to book a RespectaBULL workshop from the Blue Cross. Some existing dog legislation is covered in the workshop
More information