United States

Summary: The Food Safety and Quality Service is seeking information from all interested members of the public on the need for modification of certain provisions relating to the humane handling of livestock contained in the Federal meat inspection regulations. The Agency has been requested to allow the withholding of water from cattle for a period of time not in excess of 24 hours when such withholding is specified in the sales contract. The Agency has also been requested to allow the withholding of water from animals which are to be slaughtered within 24 hours from the time they arrive at the slaughter establishment.

Summary: The Food Safety and Quality Service is seeking information from all interested members of the public on the need for modification of certain provisions relating to the humane handling of livestock contained in the Federal meat inspection regulations. The Agency has been requested to allow the withholding of water from cattle for a period of time not in excess of 24 hours when such withholding is specified in the sales contract. The Agency has also been requested to allow the withholding of water from animals which are to be slaughtered within 24 hours from the time they arrive at the slaughter establishment.

Summary: [Regulation removed 2010. Summary of former text provided.] This provision describes the mandatory criteria for establishing the existence of an American Indian tribe for purposes of recognition by the federal government.  These criteria implicate federal status for purposes of acquiring eagle parts for use in Indian religious ceremonies under the BGEPA.

Summary: The custody of an eleven year old German wirehaired pointer was the central issue in this Vermont divorce case. While both parties testified to their strong emotional ties to the dog and to the care that each spouse provided, the Superior Court awarded custody to the husband. The wife appealed the Superior Court’s decision arguing that the court erred in refusing a joint arrangement, that the court’s finding was not supported by the evidence, and that this finding provided an arbitrary basis for award. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that the family court division could consider factors not set out in 15 V.S.A. § 751(b); specifically, the welfare of the animal and the emotional connection between the animal and each spouse. The court found that both parties were afforded an opportunity to put on evidence regarding both factors without restriction in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court of Vermont also held that the Superior Court was correct in its statement that the family division could not enforce a visitation or shared custody order for companion animals. Unlike child custody matters, the court said, there is no legislative authority for the court to play a continuing role in the supervision of the parties with respect to the care and sharing of a companion animal. The Superior Court’s decision of awarding custody to the husband was therefore affirmed.

Summary: This case deals specifically with the issue of whether or not the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment extends to police action undertaken to render emergency assistance to animals. In this particular case, police officers were called to defendant’s property after a neighbor reported that two of defendant’s dogs were deceased and a third dog looked emaciated after being left outside in inclement weather. After showing up to the defendant’s home, police contacted animal control who immediately took custody of all three dogs, despite defendant not being present. The court held that the emergency aid exception did apply to the emergency assistance of animals because it is consistent with public policy that is “in favor of minimizing animal suffering in a wide variety of contexts.” Ultimately, the court determined that the emergency aid exception could be applied to emergency assistance of animals if an officer has an “objectively reasonable basis to believe that there may be an animal inside [the home] who is injured or in imminent danger of physical harm.” The matter was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.