06 Nov Legal Definition of Pets
Exotic animal means any animal not included in the definition of “animal” in this Part, originating in a foreign country or of foreign origin or character, not originating in the United States or imported from abroad. This term includes animals such as, but not limited to, lions, tigers, leopards, elephants, camels, antelopes, anteaters, kangaroos and water buffaloes, as well as foreign domestic cattle species such as ankole, gayal and yak. This section is only given as a definition and, of course, does not specify a crime. An analysis of the definitions is provided in this section, where necessary or appropriate, in the commentary on substantive offences where defined terms are used. Retail Pet Store means a place of business or residence where the seller, buyer and animal for sale are physically present so that each buyer can personally observe the animal prior to purchase and/or take care of it after purchase, and where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale: In retail stores, For domestic use: dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, ground squirrels, chinchillas, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds and cold-blooded species. Such a definition excludes: A more gradual approach to using the legal system to change the ownership status of animals would involve recognizing that animals have at least some non-tradable interests. For example, the prohibition of certain scientific procedures or experiments would not mean the end of vivisection, but the recognition that animals have an interest in not being subjected to special treatment, regardless of the positive consequences for humans. This recognition is at least the beginning of a rejection of the status of owner of animals. Laws to prohibit certain forms of exploitation will generally strengthen the status of animals with non-tradable interests. Laws that only regulate exploitation, such as laws that increase laboratory cages, generally reinforce the ownership status of animals whose sole interest is not to be a “resource” wasted by the totally gratuitous infliction of pain, suffering or death. [FN15] Social attitudes towards animals are hopelessly confused.
On the one hand, many people consider at least some animals – their “pets” – to be members of their family. On the other hand, these same people do not think about eating animals other than “pets”, wearing their skin, using them in experiments or exploiting them for entertainment in movies, circuses, zoos and rodeos. On the one hand, we all agree that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” pain and suffering on animals; On the other hand, we regularly use animals in all sorts of contexts that could never be considered a coherent notion of necessity. [FN1] The status of animals as property has significantly limited the type of legal protection we give to animals. [FN4] In general, whenever we try to resolve a perceived human-animal conflict, [FN5] we weigh the human benefits arising from the use of animals against the interests of the animals that are “sacrificed” in the process. The limiting principle of this balancing process is that we treat animals “humanely” and do not expose them to “unnecessary” suffering. Animals are property, not people. And yet, at the same time, they are treated differently from other forms of ownership such as cars, toasters, and cereal. Professor Francione discusses the legal status of animals, arguing that, given current legislation, before real progress can be made in animal rights in theory or practice, the legal classification of animals must shift from that of good to something closer to personality. (2) Programs contained in Chapter VIII of this Title 24 that support rental projects that meet the definition of projects for seniors or persons with disabilities in this Subdivision C. Act 192, Session Laws 1986, amended the definition of “animal” to exclude human beings, thereby excluding the possible interpretation of the law for those involved in boxing: to be involved in the offence.
Report of the House of Commons Conference Committee No. 37-86, Report of the Senate Conference Committee No. 27-86 and Report No. 392 of the House of Commons Standing Committee. Act 147, Session Laws 2010 amended this section by adding the definition of “primary pet enclosure” and amending the definition of “necessary food” to include the requirements of a keeping area in a primary pet enclosure and veterinary care, if necessary to avoid suffering. Parliament noted that the existing definitions of cruelty to animals are not specific with respect to a primary pet enclosure and the level of care required to adequately maintain the health and welfare of a pet. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 2957, Conference Committee Report No. 37-10. The holder of a Class “C” licence (emitter) is a person subject to the licence requirements of Part 2 who meets the definition of an “exhibitor” (§ 1.1) and whose activity consists of displaying or presenting animals to the public.
A Class “C” licence holder may purchase and sell animals as a minor part of the business in order to maintain or expand their collection of animals. A good place to start if you`re not familiar with animal rights is Animal Law Academy`s Animal Law Academy, which includes free webinars on legal issues affecting animals. Any significant improvement in the treatment of animals will be the most difficult to achieve, as long as animals are considered only property by law. Pet property owners will always insist that the level of treatment they offer is appropriate given the particular use of the animal. For example, scientists often argue that animals used in laboratories are treated appropriately, otherwise these animals would not provide valid scientific data. The scientists point to what they consider to be the high quality of their research (from a scientific point of view) and conclude that the level of care is acceptable given this use. Food manufacturers argue that the level of care for intensively raised animals is appropriate because the “abused” animals would not produce the amount of high-quality meat claimed by modern agribusiness. Animal welfare debates generally focus on whether certain practices are empirically “baseless” or not. But no one questions the institutions of exploitation themselves, because there is simply no legal mechanism to do so.
Ultimately, the only way – apart from a coup by animal rights activists – is to eradicate the property status of animals, to convince a significant part of society that at least some animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be traded, no matter how much benefit they would derive from them. For example, until more societies accept that our enjoyment of the taste of meat cannot – for moral reasons – justify the slaughter of animals for food, legislative changes for animals will necessarily be limited. Lawyers need to educate the system about the need for change, but any demand for justice for animals will fall on deaf ears until those dealing with the issue understand that there is still much to be done to educate and gain the social support needed to make any legal change meaningful. Institutional official means the person at a research institution who is authorized to legally commit on behalf of the research institution that the requirements of 9 CFR Parts 1, 2 and 3 will be met. Isolation from marine mammals means the physical separation of animals to prevent contact, and a separate and unusual water circulation and filtration system for isolated animals. Act 35, Session Laws 2015, amended the definition of “necessary food” through non-substantial technical amendments. Intermediary means any person, including a division, agency or agency of the United States or a state or local government (other than a dealer, research institution, exhibitor, person excluded from the definition of a dealer, research center or exhibitor, auction operator or carrier) engaged in any commercial activity; in which it obtains custody of animals in connection with their transport in commerce. There are several organizations dedicated to helping animals, but the Animal Legal Defense Fund is unique in that our main goal is to use the law to improve the lives of animals.