Idaho

Share |

ID - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 70. Trespass and Malicious Injuries to Property.

Summary: These laws comprise Idaho's animal enterprise interference/"ecoterrorism" laws. The state has a provision specific to trespass into enclosures for fur-bearing animals such as foxes. Additionally, § 18-7037 prohibits the unauthorized release of an animal, a bird, or an aquatic species which has been lawfully confined for agriculture, science, research, commerce, public propagation, protective custody, or education. This offense is a misdemeanor and the actor is liable for restitution that includes replacement costs, property damage, and even costs of repeating an experiment. Section § 18-7040 defines the crime of interference with agricultural research where a person knowingly damages property, obtains property with the intent of hinder the research; obtains access to the facility by misrepresentation to perform acts to damage or hinder the research; enters the facility with the intent to damage, alter, or duplicate data or records; or the release of an animal or injury to an animal at the facility. Violation is a felony with punishment of up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000. The state also has a separate section on damage to aquaculture operations.

These laws comprise Idaho's animal enterprise interference/"ecoterrorism" laws. The state has a provision specific to trespass into enclosures for fur-bearing animals such as foxes. Additionally, § 18-7037 prohibits the unauthorized release of an animal, a bird, or an aquatic species which has been lawfully confined for agriculture, science, research, commerce, public propagation, protective custody, or education. This offense is a misdemeanor and the actor is liable for restitution that includes replacement costs, property damage, and even costs of repeating an experiment. Section § 18-7040 defines the crime of interference with agricultural research where a person knowingly damages property, obtains property with the intent of hinder the research; obtains access to the facility by misrepresentation to perform acts to damage or hinder the research; enters the facility with the intent to damage, alter, or duplicate data or records; or the release of an animal or injury to an animal at the facility. Violation is a felony with punishment of up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000. The state also has a separate section on damage to aquaculture operations.

ID - Slaughter, animal - Chapter 58. Public Health and Safety

Summary: These Idaho statutes make certain activities involved with animal slaughter criminal. For example, it is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to put the carcass of any dead animal into any river, creek, pond or street. It is a misdemeanor to slaughter or sell any animal that has been confined for 20 hours without water or 48 hours without food. The statutes also make it a felony if a mischievous animal is allowed to run at large and the animal kills a person.

These Idaho statutes make certain activities involved with animal slaughter criminal. For example, it is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to put the carcass of any dead animal into any river, creek, pond or street. It is a misdemeanor to slaughter or sell any animal that has been confined for 20 hours without water or 48 hours without food. The statutes also make it a felony if a mischievous animal is allowed to run at large and the animal kills a person.

ID - Pet Trusts - CHAPTER 7. TRUST ADMINISTRATION.

Summary: This Idaho statute represents Idaho's relevant pet trust law.  The law, while not termed a pet trust, provides that a person may create a "purpose trust."  This trust does not require a beneficiary and  may instead just name a person to enforce the trust.

This Idaho statute represents Idaho's relevant pet trust law.  The law, while not termed a pet trust, provides that a person may create a "purpose trust."  This trust does not require a beneficiary and  may instead just name a person to enforce the trust.

ID - Endangered Species - Chapter 24. Species Conservation- Chapter 26. Fish and Game

Summary: This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws.  It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government.  This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department.

This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws.  It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government.  This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department.

ID - Payette County - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance

Summary: It is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within Payette County, Idaho, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, a pit bull exempt from the ban is subsumed to be a dangerous dog.

It is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within Payette County, Idaho, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, a pit bull exempt from the ban is subsumed to be a dangerous dog.

ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals)

Summary: In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

ID - Fruitland - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance

Summary: In Fruitland, Idaho, it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, pit bills exempt from the ban are subsumed to be dangerous dogs.

In Fruitland, Idaho, it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, pit bills exempt from the ban are subsumed to be dangerous dogs.

ZENIER v. SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RAILROAD COMPANY

Summary: In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another.

In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another.

Gill v. Brown

Summary: Plaintiffs sought to recover property damages and damage and for mental anguish sustained when Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by the Gills.  By alleging that Brown's conduct was reckless and that they thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, the court held that the Gills have alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Accordingly, the court held that the district court erred by striking the Gills' claim for damages caused by mental anguish and the cause was remanded.

Plaintiffs sought to recover property damages and damage and for mental anguish sustained when Brown allegedly shot and killed a donkey owned by the Gills.  By alleging that Brown's conduct was reckless and that they thereby suffered extreme mental anguish and trauma, the court held that the Gills have alleged facts that, if proven, could permit recovery under an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Accordingly, the court held that the district court erred by striking the Gills' claim for damages caused by mental anguish and the cause was remanded.

Share |