Hot answers tagged

66

I believe you are correct. It doesn't seem illegal for a private individual to use a bee pesticide (following label instructions) to remove a beehive from property that you own. There are federal laws regarding the commercial use of pesticides which are regulated under the EPA (not the FDA). People are encouraged to report bees being killed to the EPA from ...


16

Short Answer This is governed by state law (for state law enforcement officers granting this authority) or federal law (in the case of authority granted by a federal law enforcement officer), so the details may vary from case to case. In many circumstances, however, a law enforcement officer has the authority to temporarily 'grant' his authority to another ...


6

In general, the law is not based on the species, it is based on the use of the animal. This gives rise to the difference between food rabbits and pet rabbits, and so on. The definition or applicable offenses are spelled out in each state's criminal code. In Washington, Chapter 9.08 RCW covers "Crimes relating to animals", and 16.52 RCW covers "prevention of ...


6

This is governed by state law. For example, regulations in the state of Washington allow veterinarians to euthanize wildlife under certain circumstances, and in a separate regulation, Only a law enforcement officer or individuals or entities authorized by the department may euthanize an animal injured in a motor vehicle collision and that deer or elk may be ...


5

Certified applicator here. You can use pesticides labeled for killing bees. But that's all. It is illegal to use pesticides contrary to their labeling. Stop stop stop. Before you arch your back, go over and read this bountied, well-voted Skeptics answer from a 116k rated mod. This type of labeling is present on every pesticide in Home Depot, Lowes, Farmer ...


5

I had a neighbor who was a licensed exterminator. We had bees move into our eaves and was talking to him about choices. He said a licensed exterminator isn't allowed to kill them but has to move them. A homeowner though can do anything they want.


5

No, you cannot ask for proof/documentation. According to the U.S. Department of Justice: In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to ...


5

Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to ...


4

There sort of is a law, this one. It does not absolutely forbid owning a possum, but it is required that you have a license to take or keep a wild fur-bearing animal including a possum. There is no existing "license to take and possess as a pet", but you could try under trapping licenses. However, they warn that the Fur-bearing Propagation Permit does not ...


4

This is an objective test When a law requires “worry” (or any other state of mind), it is usually not the state of mind of the particular person but of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The law does not ask “Were you worried?”, it asks “Would a reasonable person in your situation have been worried?” The fact that you have cynophobia is ...


3

The North Carolina Department of Justice runs an animal welfare hotline at 1-855-290-6915. The link implies that this is a toll-free number within North Carolina only, so it may not work from where you are. If it doesn't work, the page above also mentions ways to file a complaint online or by mail. They also suggest contacting local animal control ...


3

USA: 19 USC §1308 prohibits the import, export, or interstate sale of cat or dog fur: (1) In general It shall be unlawful for any person to— (A) import into, or export from, the United States any dog or cat fur product; or (B) introduce into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate ...


3

Astronauts are employees of the government and are thus barred from suing in lieu of receiving the government equivalent of worker's compensation. This wouldn't bar a suit against a third-party contractor who made a defective product, but I suspect that their contracts contain a waiver of liability for negligence or defective products given that this is ...


3

From the picture, I believe those to be domestic geese rather than ducks. This is not needless pedantry; it is necessary pedantry because the Wildlife Act 1953 classifies geese as "Wildlife not protected" but ducks (relevant species) as "game". If they are game you need to abide by the relevant Fish and Game Council regulations (from a quick look it is legal ...


3

In various states, you may shoot a dog attacking livestock or running at large (the latter possibly only in Indiana). In Ohio, ORC 955.28 allows shooting a dog that threatens (etc.) "livestock, poultry, other domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another person, except a cat or another dog". So in fact, dog against cat is specifically ...


3

Rob is responsible. No Bull! Around the world, the law of wandering cattle depends on the details. New Zealand is no different. This case is covered by s 26 of the Impounding Act of 1955, Damages for Trespass. As you said, S 26(1)(d) says Bob is entitled to damages whenever his "land (whether fenced or unfenced) is situated in a city." This is ...


3

It could be deemed dangerously out of control A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply: it attacks someone’s animal the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or ...


2

If the victim is unable to prove who the culprit was, then it will be impossible to prosecute that person criminally or sue them for civil damages. Incidents like these are rarely enough to cause a police department to throw sufficient investigative resources at it to crack the case without some reason to believe that it is part of something bigger. An ...


2

Generally no (it does vary state by state in the US). The intruder took a risk when breaking in and therefore knew that there might be a threat to his life. A judge would generally side with you if the intruder broke into your house, and got attacked by the dog in the house he broke into. http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/dog-bites/can-a-burglar-sue-me-if-...


2

The applicable law is here. Any animal that crosses its owner's property line in the slightest must be restrained. Chicago law also requires fences to be physical fences, not electronic ones. So you can report the situation to the police. This may or may not result in a fine for the owner: that's at the discretion of the city. From a legal perspective, ...


2

Things, especially but not only living things, have value beyond the price at which they can be bought and sold - always assuming they can be bought and sold. The value of a specific pet cat is not the cost of a generic kitten. The purpose of damages is to restore you, as far as money can, to the position you were in before the wrong-doers actions occurred....


2

Do I have the legal right to kill an animal preventing my exit when I burglarize another house? No. I'll respond on the basis of Michigan law. Other jurisdictions in the U.S. very likely have similar statutes in this regard. MCL 750.50b(2)(a) prohibits to knowingly and kill an animal without just cause. The act of committing burglary precludes the ...


2

Racing would likely be commiting an offence under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Section 28 Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, commits any of the following offences... [F23] Every person who rides or drives furiously any horse or carriage, or drives furiously any cattle


2

It depends on whether "person" means "owner" If Bob is liable, it's not under the Impounding Act of 1955. In that Act, the occupier of land is allowed, but not required to impound trespassing animals. This is made clear in s 21 of the Act, which says "the occupier...may seize and impound any stock trespassing on the land." A ...


2

There are laws against animal cruelty What counts as cruel is a social convention that changes over time. It is a fundamental principle of common law jurisdictions (like most of the united-states) that courts have the power to interpret (and re-interpret) the law so that as society’s standards change, so does the law.


1

Alice has a breach of contract claim Assuming that the slaughter of the horse was humane and legally allowed, there are no criminal violations here so the state is not interested. Joe has breached his contract with Alice because he did not do what he promised to do. Alice can sue for damages - possibly the market value of the horse (because she could have ...


1

Skunks are "unprotected mammals" under Oregon law, meaning that there are no closed seasons or bag limits. However, you must otherwise comply with general hunting regulations and licensing laws.


1

Probably not explicitly. In 2002 the BBC reported on travellers (gypsies) holding "Trotting" races on roads: http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series1/trotting.shtml The Hertfordshire Police said "It is not an issue for us here in Hertfordshire. They have a right to use the road as much as anyone else." Note that the RSPCA was arguing for stopping the ...


1

I wanted to add a piece to @user6726 comment for anyone that comes across this answer which both of you may also find helpful. IANAL so I defer, and your local animal control, authority figure, etc may not be smart enough to know the difference, but... If you forego the propagation (breeding, I believe) and trapping licenses (there appear to be many others ...


1

As BlueDogRanch said, animals are property; you can have an animal put down because you consider it dangerous, because (if it is livestock) you wish to sell the carcass, or because you are tired of it. Legally, the dog belongs to the person whose name is on the dog licence; that person's view is decisive. (If you are asking whether the family should have a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible