Oregon

Summary: Game ranch owners sought a declaratory ruling from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) as to whether their animals were property of the state. DFW ruled that the state had only a regulatory interest in the game animals. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State's property interest in the animals was not proprietary or possessory. The State's interest was regulatory, based on a state statute and a regulation adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. It also  held that the State's interest in wild game is that of a sovereign.

Summary: This action relates to a court order in an estate case.  The decedent left a legacy in the form of some timber reserves to the Human Society of Portland Oregon "to be used solely for the benefit of animals."  The executor refused to pay the legacy.  This is an appeal from a circuit court decision directing and authorizing Andrew Hansen, executor of the estate of Otto Kulka, deceased, to pay the petitioner a legacy from proceeds in the executor's hands.  The court affirmed the payment of the legacy.

Summary: This case involved an appeal from this conviction. The trial court found that the defendant rode the animal while it had a deep ulcerated cut on its back, and supplied it with insufficient food. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Summary: A woman had 11 cats which were in a state of neglect and were taken away from her and put with a cat protection agency. Criminal charges were dropped against the woman when it was found she was mentally ill and incapable of taking care of herself or her cats. The court found it could grant the cat protection agency ownership over the cats so they could be put up for adoption, even though the woman had not been criminal charged, and had not forfeited her cats.

Summary: A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection.  The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law.  The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.

Summary: This is an appeal of a circuit court decision in an aggravated animal abuse case.  A defendant was convicted in circuit court of aggravated animal abuse and other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's testimony that he loved his children more than the dog he shot was not evidence of his character, thus the evidence offered by the state in rebuttal (that the defendant assaulted his spouse) was not admissible and not harmless error by the trial court.

Summary: It is unlawful to hunt, kill, or attempt to hunt or kill, exotic mammals or game mammals held or obtained by private parties.  Exceptions under the statute include the slaughter of such an animal for meat, leather, or fur production, euthanization of such an animal for scientific, health, safety or other valid husbandry concerns, or the department's Wildlife Division Director may authorize any person to hunt or kill such an animal if the Division Director determines it would be in the best interest of sound wildlife management.

Summary: [Note: repealed 2015] Under this set of Oregon regulations, any person desiring to hold any bird, mammal, amphibian or reptile for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation must first obtain a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The requirements and conditions to obtain a permit is also provided. In addition to an Oregon Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit, persons possessing this permit must also obtain a federal permit for species protected by federal law and provide a copy of the current valid federal permit to the Department. Other sections provide prohibited species under the permit and facility requirements.

Summary: This set of regulations includes the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s rules governing the possession of non-human primates. Individuals wishing to possess a non-human primate must be qualified by experience and education, have an approved facility, and must obtain an exotic animal permit from the Department. All permittees must comply with the agency’s rules for the housing and care of non-human primates and any additional permit conditions that the Department imposes.

Summary: This Oregon regulation provides that no person shall ship, move, or import into this state any nonhuman primates (including, but not limited to, monkeys, baboons, gibbons, chimpanzees, and marmosets) without first obtaining a permit from the Department. Further, all nonhuman primates shipped, moved, or imported into this state shall also be accompanied by an official health certificate certifying that said animals are free from the following human pathogenic agents.