Alaska

Summary: This 2008 measure was an initiated state statute presented to voters in August of 2008. The measure would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. It was defeated by a margin of 44.4% for the measure and 55.6% against on August 26th.

Summary: This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote.

Summary: Mahan had over 130 animals on her property. Alaska Equine Rescue went to check on the condition of the animals at the request of her family members. The animals were in poor health and were removed by Alaska State Troopers and the Rescue. The animals were then placed in foster homes. The defendant's attorney requested a writ of assistance to require law enforcement to assist and force the foster families to answer a questionnaire. The appellate court held that the families were under no legal obligation to answer the questionnaire unless the court were to issue a deposition order and the families were to be properly subpoenaed. The district court's denial of the writ was upheld. Mahan's attorney also asked for a change of venue due to the publicity the case garnered. The court held the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue when 15 jurors had been excused and there was no reason to doubt the impartiality of the jurors who were left after the selection process. There was no indication that the jurors were unable to judge the case fairly. Mahan's attorney also filed a motion to suppress a majority of the evidence, claiming that the Rescue and law enforcement unlawfully entered the property. The judge stated he would rule on the motion if it was appropriate to do so. The judge never ruled on the motion. To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must obtain an adverse ruling, thus it constituted a waiver of the claim. Mahan was also prohibited from owning more than one animal. She offered no reason why this condition of probation was an abuse of the judge's discretion, therefore it was a waiver of this claim. Lastly, although the Rescue received donations from the public to help care for the animals, that did not entitle Mahan to an offset. Restitution is meant to make the victims whole again and also to make the defendant pay for the expense caused by their criminal conduct.

Summary: This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock.  It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ."  Notably, "[a] ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large."  This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs.

Summary: This section of Alaska laws concerns the disposition of surplus buffalo and musk oxen as well as the requirements for obtaining a permit for elephants. An elephant permit may be issued only to a person who intends to exhibit the animal commercially; possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner.

Summary: This law makes it a class A misdemeanor to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or  or provide or operate a facility for computer-assisted remote hunting in Alaska.

Summary: These provisions concern Alaska's Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The enforcement authority is defined and another statute gives power to the Board of Game to adopt regulations for game animals. Under § 16.05.920, a person may not take, possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase fish, game, or marine aquatic plants, or any part of fish, game, or aquatic plants, or a nest or egg of fish or game unless permitted by regulation. "Game" is defined as any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals.

Summary: The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo.

Summary: Two Alaska statutes are provided here that relate to the limitation of liability for equine activities.  The first is the equine activity liability statute, which states that livestock are unpredictable and inherently dangerous and all persons who knowingly place themselves in proximity to livestock for any reason involving an activity that includes livestock are considered a participant in livestock activity and assume the risk.  Exclusions include gross negligence of the equine sponsor, knowledge of faulty tack or equipment, and failure to properly ascertain the level of competence by the participant.  The second statute reiterates that a person who participates in a sports or recreational activity assumes the inherent risks in that sports or recreational activity, including horseback riding.

Summary: These are the state's veterinary practice laws.  Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.