Arizona

Summary: This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters.

Summary: This Arizona statute provides that the board of trustees of a city may p ass ordinances not inconsistent or in conflict with the laws of this state.  More specifically, this statute provides that the board may restrain , under penalties, the running at large of cattle or other animals, and provide rules for impounding them, and provide for taxing dogs and penalties for the nonpayment of such taxes, or the killing of dogs running at large in the corporate limits.  However, before exercising these powers, the board shall cause a resolution of intention to be recorded in minutes and then published in some daily or weekly newspaper at least two

Summary: This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws.  The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian.  Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses.

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.

Summary: This Arizona article deals with horsemeat. A license shall be obtained from the division before slaughtering a horse for human consumption. There shall be an antemortem and a postmortem inspection of each horse slaughtered. All horsemeat food products shall be conspicuously branded, marked, tagged or labeled, “horsemeat” or “horsemeat product.” It is unlawful to offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption unless there is prominently displayed in conjunction therewith a sign bearing the words, in letters not less than eight inches in height and three inches in width, “horsemeat for human consumption.”

Summary: This Arizona statutory section covers the slaughter of animals.  Among its provisions include license requirements for the slaughter meat, recordkeeping requirements, and a section relating to humane slaughter.  The humane slaughter law requires that a livestock animal is rendered insensible to pain prior to being hoisted or shackled; however, none of the provisions apply to one who slaughters an animal for his or her own uses.  Interestingly, while the other provisions relating to adulterated meat and licensing requirements describe the penalty for violation, no penalty is listed under the humane slaughter statute.

Summary: These Arizona laws provide the requirements for transporting equines to slaughter. A vehicle used to transport equine for slaughter may have no more than one level or tier in the compartment containing the equine. Violation of the laws constitutes a misdemeanor.

Summary: This law represents Arizona's hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for a person while in a hunting area to intentionally interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife as defined under the law. It is a class 3 misdemeanor for a person to enter or remain on a designated hunting area on any public or private lands or waters or state lands including state trust lands with the intent to interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife. "Incidental interference" arising from lawful activity by public land users is not unlawful under this section.

Summary: The following statutes comprise Arizona's wildlife code. Among the provisions include methods of taking wildlife, hunting restrictions, the state's hunter interference laws, and laws specific to mountain lions, bears, and jaguars.

Summary: This set of statutes is comprised of the sections within Arizona's Game and Fish Code that are relevant to the possession of wildlife, including: the authority of the Department of Game and Fish and the Game and Fish Commission to regulate wildlife, enforcement authority and duties, definitions, restrictions on the possession of wildlife, licenses, and violations.