Ohio

Summary: This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition.

Summary: This ballot issue, entitled the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2, appeared on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The amendment proposed creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. Ohio Issue 3 was approved by voters approved by 63.66% to 36.34%.

Summary: Chamberlain owned a dog breeding kennel with over one hundred fifty dogs. An investigation was conducted when the Sheriff's Office received complaints about the condition of the animals. Observations indicated the kennel was hot, overcrowded, and poorly ventilated. The dogs had severely matted fur, were sick or injured, and lived in cages covered in feces. Dog food was moldy and water bowls were dirty. Many cages were stacked on top of other cages, allowing urine and feces to fall on the dogs below. A court order was granted to remove the dogs. The humane society, rescue groups, and numerous volunteers assisted by providing food, shelter, grooming and necessary veterinary care while Chamberlain's criminal trial was pending. Chamberlain was convicted of animal cruelty. The organizations and volunteers sued Chamberlain for compensation for the care provided to the animals. The trial court granted the award and the appellate court affirmed. Ohio code authorized appellees' standing to sue for the expenses necessary to prevent neglect to the animals. The evidence was sufficient to support an award for damages for the humane society, the rescue groups, and the individual volunteers that protected and provided for the well-being of the dogs during the months of the trial.

Summary: After witnessing the 73 year old defendant-appellant emerge from area by the veterinary's dumpster holding an empty, wire cage animal trap, an employee of the clinic followed the defendant-appellant's car and obtained the vehicle's license plate number. Upon returning to the dumpster, the employee found a kitten with matted eyes that seemed unhealthy. The defendant-appellant was charged with one count of animal abandonment in violation of R.C. 959.01 and was found guilty. Defendant-appellant appealed her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a keeper or, if she was a keeper, the court erred in determining that she abandoned the animal. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that once the defendant captured the animal in a cage, she assumed the responsibility that she would treat the animal humanely and could therefore be considered a “keeper.” Since Amos captured the animal and released it in another location without taking steps to make sure the animal would be found, the Ohio Court of Appeals also held that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant had “abandoned” the animal. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

Summary: This Ohio chapter concerns the establishment of "pet cemeteries." The owner of land used for a pet cemetery must file a declaration in the county recorder's office that the land is to be used only for such purposes. Unless the deed restriction is removed, no person shall use land restricted as provided in this section for any purpose other than for pet cemetery purposes. The pet cemetery must be at least three acres in size and the owner must comply with deposit requirements described under the "endowment care fund." Violation of the provisions relating to the land use restriction (961.02), the size of the pet cemetery (961.03), or the endowment care fund requirement (961.04) results in a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

Summary: This section represents Ohio's commercial dog breeding laws. Under the chapter, a "high volume breeder" is defined as an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains six or more breeding dogs and: (1) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells five or more adult dogs or puppies in any calendar year to dog brokers or pet stores; (2) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells forty or more puppies in any calendar year to the public; or (3) Keeps, houses, and maintains, at any given time in a calendar year, more than forty puppies that are under four months of age, that have been bred on the premises of the establishment, and that have been primarily kept, housed, and maintained from birth on the premises of the establishment. High volume breeders have additional duties under the law related to well-being of the dogs kept. The chapter also details requirements for licenses and/or registrations for high volume breeders, rescues, and dog brokers. Inspections are also outlined in the chapter, with high volume breeders having a requirement of at least one inspection annually. Penalties for violation of provisions, availability of injunctions, and revocation of licenses is also covered.

Summary: This is the Ohio statute that regulates dogs in general, outlining rules and regulations for dog owners. The state leash requirement appears limited to rabies quarantines (Sec. 955.26).  It also gives the definition of  what is considered a dangerous or vicious dog, the rules and regulations for owners of these dogs, and penalization for breaking these rules.

Summary: This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, or municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code.  These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter.

Summary: These laws comprise Ohio's humane slaughter provisions.  After July 1, 1967, no method of slaughtering livestock or handling in connection with the commercial slaughtering of livestock shall be utilized unless it is humane.  Humane methods are defined as those that render animals insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective.  Slaughter in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain is also allowed.  Violation of the act results in a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.

Summary: On June 5, 2012, Ohio governor Kasich signed the "Dangerous Wild Animal Act" into law. Under this new section, no person shall possess a dangerous wild animal on or after January 1, 2014 unless he or she is authorized under an unexpired wildlife shelter/propagation permit or other exception. Dangerous wild animals include big cats, some smaller exotic cats, bears, elephants, hyenas, gray wolves, alligators, crocodiles and nonhuman primates other than lemurs. Except as provided, no person shall acquire, buy, sell, trade, or transfer possession or ownership of a dangerous wild animal on or after the effective date of this section