Dogs

Summary: Regulations to license persons breeding dogs in Wales.

Summary: Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database.

Summary: Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database.

Summary: These Regulations cover license requirements, including renewal, suspension and cancellation; and license conditions for the racing of greyhounds in England. Conditions include the attendance of a veterinary surgeon at every race, kennels at races, microchipping and race injury records.

Summary: An Act to prohibit deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The Act also makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to knowingly allow another person to hunt wild mammals with dogs on their land. Stalking and flushing is exempted in certain circumstances, for example, in order to protect livestock, providing food for animal or consumption, or controlling pest species.

Summary: An order providing exemptions from the immediate destruction of a dangerous dog, by way of a Contingent Destruction Order. Following a conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Court must either order the immediate destruction of the dog, or the contingent destruction of a dog if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety. Contains conditions that must be met in relation to the dog, and requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with.

Summary: Regulations making it compulsory for dog owners to ensure their dog is microchipped, and that their contact details are kept up to date on a database.

Summary: This case addressed the power of the court to make a contingent destruction order under Section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). These orders allow dangerous dogs to be released and kept under strict conditions. The court held that the 19991 Act is not clear as to the breadth of who these conditions apply to, but considered that dangerous dogs may only be released to their owners or other persons properly identified as being in charge. The case was remitted to the Crown Court for further determination. The court also addressed other aspects of the 1991 Act along with the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015.

Summary: This is the first time an animal, more specifically a dog, filed a lawsuit seeking that the government grant protection for the dog’s rights to life and health. The judge denied the action of "tutela" filed by the dog ("Negro") based on the definition of person given by the civil code. As a result, the judge concluded that "Negro" was not a person and therefore was not entitled to have rights. However, there is a possibility that the Constitutional Court on appeal will grant the plaintiff the rights he is seeking based on Decision T-622 de 2016, where the court declared that a river was subject to rights that guarantee its protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration, and that the government was the main guarantor of these rights.