Oklahoma

Summary: This Oklahoma case centers around a pit bull named Julian, who was being fostered from Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa. The foster went on vacation and left the dog with a pet-sitter named Sarah Marshall. The foster of the dog was under contract with Tulsa Animal Welfare to provide care, but was informed that the dog could be removed at any time and she was not allowed to have others care for the dog without prior approval. The foster needed to go out of town and attempted to contact the Foster Coordinator who did not respond. Ultimately, the foster hired Marshall from Rover.com to care for the dog over the weekend. The dog arrived at Marshall's home and was placed with five other dogs. This caused a fight to break out and Marshall's hand was bitten and fractured in the process of breaking up the fight. Approximately six months later, Marshall sued the City of Tulsa alleging strict liability, common law negligence, and negligence per se. The City filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Marshall was the owner of the dog at the time of the bite and the trial court granted the City's motion, finding Marshall was an “owner” of dog and could not recover under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and the City did not owe a duty to Marshall. Marshall then filed the instant appeal, alleging that she was not an owner of Julian but only a temporary boarder and that City has the legal right of possession of Julian. This court disagreed, finding that the Tulsa ordinance's definition of "owner" applied to Marshall because she was responsible for Julian's care and maintenance at the time. This does not conflict with state law, as state law contemplates a dog having more than one owner. With regard to Marshall's common law negligence claim, the Court found that the City did not owe Marshall a duty because she was not a foreseeable plaintiff. Merely residing in city limits does not automatically make her a foreseeable plaintiff nor did the City's failure to perform a formal behavior evaluation on Julian. In addition, Marshall was not a foreseeable plaintiff from the foster's placement of Julian with her. In fact, the foster's placement of Julian with Marshall violated the Foster Agreement. The trial court's granting of summary judgment and denial of Marshall's motion for partial summary judgement was affirmed.

Summary: Oklahoma's Internet hunting ban is located in Subsection B and states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided for in this section, no person shall hunt wildlife or exotic wildlife by computer-assisted remote control hunting." Violation incurs a fine of not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of any person convicted of violating the provisions of subsection B or C of this section be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years.

Summary: These regulations were terminated by operation of Laws 2012, c. 302. These regulations describe standards for pet breeders including sufficient food and water, regular exercise, veterinary care, adequate grooming, natural or artificial light during daylight hours, adequate space in living quarters, protection from the elements and extreme temperatures, and adequate resting time between breeding cycles, that ensures the general health and well-being of all pets the commercial pet breeder owns.“Commercial pet breeder” means any person that possesses or has possessed at any time in the last twelve months eleven or more adult intact female animals for use in breeding or dealing in animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration. Household pets kept by breeders which the breeder has registered with the Board as not being used in breeding or dealing shall not be counted under this definition. Mandated record-keeping is outlined in Subchapter 7, which includes a required pet health history provided to purchasers.

Summary: This Oklahoma statute provides that all furbearers, game mammals, game birds, game fish, and minnows are to be confined to the lands or waters described in the application.

Summary: This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements.

Summary: This Oklahoma regulation states that the owner or custodian of a domestic dog, cat, or ferret shall cause the animal to be vaccinated against rabies by the time the animal is four months of age and at regular intervals thereafter according to the label directions of an approved rabies vaccine for use in that species, or as prescribed by ordinances or rules adopted by a municipality within whose jurisdiction the animal owner resides.

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: The Appellant State of Oklahoma appeals the Grant County District Court's granting of defendant's motion to quash counts 2-13 of Cruelty to Animals violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685. Defendant was charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty stemming from maltreatment of 13 dogs at his property. Evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that two of the dogs were chained to small, metal shelters, and 11 were individually penned, all in 100 degree heat. No dogs had adequate water and rotting carcasses were found within reach of the dogs. According to responding veterinarians, all dogs were extremely dehydrated and in need of immediate medical care and one dog had gone into shock (it later died). Most of the dogs were malnourished and poorly conditioned with parasite-infested wounds. At district court, defendant argued that he could only be charged with a single count of Cruelty to Animals because the dogs were found all in one location and had been abandoned for approximately the same time period. The district court acquiesced and granted defendant's motion to quash, finding no caselaw on point. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the district court's interpretation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685 wrong as a matter of law. The section repeatedly use the phrase "any animal" to show that the intent to address acts of abuse against any particular animal. The Court observed that the state filed a count for each of the dogs at defendant's property because each dog needed to be separately fed and watered. "Gilchrist deprived all thirteen dogs of the food, water and shelter necessary to avoid the grotesque suffering observed at the scene." Thus, the Court found the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash.

Summary: These statutes compose the Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals Act of Oklahoma. The Act describes where animals who are rescued from a disaster area should be held, how long the animals should be held for their owners, and also restricts disaster animals from being removed from the state. The statute also describes the penalties for knowingly removing disaster animals from the state including a civil fine of up to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per offense.

Summary: The purpose of this Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 Annex is to coordinate State agencies, OKVOAD, Federal and other response entities in efforts to control and eradicate, as appropriate, any outbreak of a highly contagious or economically devastating animal/zoonotic (i.e. transmitted between animals and people) disease, or any outbreak of an economically devastating plant pest or disease; ensure the safety and security of the commercial food supply; protect natural resources; and provide for the safety and well-being of household pets during an emergency response or evacuation situation. [See FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.19 Title: “Eligible Costs Related to Pet Evacuation and Sheltering” for definition of “Household Pet”.]