Summary: Mr. Eck and Mr. Bovett examine the inequities and inconsistencies in Oregon dog control laws and due process concerns arising from them. The authors outline constitutional requirements that need to be enforced to ensure protection against unreasonable government actions in cases involving these laws.
Summary: This Georgia regulation has an exception for dogs in outdoor dining areas in the subsection of the regulation that prohibits animals in food service establishments. Subsection (5)(o)(vi) states that pet dogs may be allowed in outside dining areas of a food establishment provided patrons access the area from the outdoors and several other conditions are met. Pet dogs must not come into contact with any serving dishes, utensils, or tableware nor are they allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings. Employees and consumers must not provide food to pet dogs. The pet dogs must be kept on a leash and under control of the consumer at all times. At no time is the pet dog allowed to travel through the interior portion of the food service establishment. The establishment must also establish processes for training employees not to handle or pet the dogs and a procedure and equipment for the clean up of pet waste.
Summary: This Kentucky regulation provides an exception for dogs in outdoor dining areas to the Kentucky food code. A dog may be allowed in the outdoor dining area if that area is not fully enclosed and there is a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area. Employees must prevent the dog from coming into contact with any food, dishes, utensils, linens, and other food service items. If the employee comes into contact with the patron dog, that employee must wash hands before returning to work. A sanitizing kit for dog messes must be made available in the area. Signage must be posted at entrances to the outdoor dining area explaining that dogs may be allowed, but they must are not allowed on seats or tables or must not be served from human food or water receptacles. Also, dogs must be kept on a leash and under control of an adult at all times. The food establishment may refuse to serve the patron with a dog if he or she fails to exercise reasonable control over the dog, or the dog is behaving in a manner that comprises the health and safety of others.
Summary: This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals.
Summary: This South Carolina regulation concerns outdoor dining with pets. The regulation first defines pets as domesticated cats, dogs, and ferrets. A retail food service establishment may allow customers to be accompanied by pets in an outdoor dining area provided the retail food service establishment complies with the requirements of this section and all other applicable sections of this regulation. Among other requirements include availability of cleaning supplies and sanitizers in the outdoor pet dining area, signage indicating that the area is "pet dining friendly," a separate outdoor entrance to the dining area, a requirement that owners keep pets restrained at all times, and a prohibition on pets on the table, countertop, or other food contact surface.
Summary: This Oklahoma regulation relates to animals in food establishments. Subsection (d) states that dogs and cats may be allowed in outdoor dining areas, provided the dog or cat is controlled by the owner or handler of the animal and nine conditions are met. Among the conditions include a requirement for a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area, a prohibition on direct contact with the animals by employees, a process to keep the area clean from animal excrement, and a requirement that food and water receptacles for the animals be single-use, disposable containers.
Summary: This article was adapted from remarks from Joshua Marquis at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals.
Summary: This Article explores and evaluates the use of canines by the United States (U.S.) Armed Forces as military working dogs, and examines the reasons why the current administrative classification of these dogs is inappropriate. The author examines the historical use of, and increasing reliance on, military working dogs by the U.S. Armed Forces from World War II to present day. This historical exploration traces the development of the federal statutes and military regulations that govern the Military Working Dog Program. Federal law currently categorizes military working dogs as 'equipment,' which grossly underestimates their role within the U.S. military and deprives these dogs of the opportunity to transition to a peaceful civilian life once they are deemed 'excess equipment' and retired from service. Categorization as equipment creates significant obstacles for service members, their families, and civilian parties who wish to adopt these dogs. This categorization also deprives military working dogs of ongoing medical care upon retirement, eligibility for recognition and commendation, and burial in national military cemeteries. Despite some of the recent improvements made in the military's treatment of these dogs, more work is needed. This Article urges Congress to recategorize military working dogs as canine members of the armed forces in order to properly honor their service to this country, and to protect the dignity of these dogs upon retirement.
Summary: Within South Korea, the dog meat trade occupies a liminal legal space— neither explicitly condoned, nor technically prohibited. As a result of existing in this legal gray area, all facets of the dog meat trade within South Korea—from dog farms, to transport, to slaughter, to consumption—are poorly regulated and often obfuscated from review. In the South Korean context, the dog meat trade itself not only terminally impacts millions of canine lives each year, but resonates in a larger national context: raising environmental concerns, and standing as a proxy for cultural and political change. Part II of this Article describes the nature of the dog meat trade as it operates within South Korea; Part III examines how South Korean law relates to the dog meat trade; Part IV explores potentially fruitful challenges to the dog meat trade under South Korean law; similarly, Part V discusses growing social pressure being deployed against the dog meat trade.
Summary: Feral dogs occupy an ambiguous position, challenging standard categories of domestication, wildness, and property ownership. This ambiguity, in turn, complicates the legal status of feral dogs. Feral dogs’ property status is particularly critical, as whether a feral dog is owned by someone, or no one at all, hold implications not only for civil and criminal liability in incidents involving feral dogs, but also the legal ability of animal rescue organizations to intervene in the lives of feral dogs. Part II of this Article summarizes the application of property law to animals, particularly highlighting the role played by an animal’s status as wild or domestic; Part III explores the factors distinguishing feral dogs from other canines, determining that feral dogs should properly be situated as domestic animals; Part IV discusses the legal landscape relevant to feral dogs, focusing particularly on ownership and liability; and Part V examines the ways in which the property status of feral dogs may impact an animal rescue organization’s ability to care for those animals.
