Pennsylvania

Summary:

In this Pennsylvania case, defendant appeals from convictions for licensing violations under the state's Dog Law and for violation of the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act after a copier repair person was attacked by defendant's three German Shepherds. Because the Department of Health dog warden could not gain access to either question defendant about the dogs' vaccinations or quarantine the dogs, the victim had to receive a series of rabies shots. Based on the testimony of the dog warden that he finally saw vaccination certificates, and the fact the Commonwealth did not present any contrary evidence, the fines imposed under the Rabies Act were reversed. However, the court sustained the convictions for licensing violations under the Dog Law since defendant failed to show proof of licenses for 2005 (when the attack occurred).

Summary:

A Pennsylvania association consisting of hunters and outdoorsmen and members of the association filed a complaint/request for writ of mandamus against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), and various state officials, seeking an order directing Commission and DCNR to provide the data and information on which the Commission relied in setting "harvest" figures for Pennsylvania's deer population. Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Game Commission , the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and certain Commonwealth officers (collectively, Respondents). The court first found that the Sportsmen indeed have standing, conferred both by statute and under the under the traditional substantial-direct-immediate test. However, Respondent Game Commission's demurrer was sustained, primarily because the court agreed that due to the ambiguous nature of Sportsmen's pleading, it is not possible to discern a legal theory to support the relief requested. Further, the court sustained Respondent's claim that the DCNR, its Secretary, and the state's Governor were not proper parties to association's suit. Despite these procedural defects, the court did not dismiss the Sportsmen's action, and instead allowed them to amend their complaint within 30 days of this order.

Summary:

A woman's four serval cats, two fennic foxes, three ringtailed lemurs, three kinkajous, and one wallaby were all seized pursuant to a search warrant.  The trial court granted the woman's motion for return of her property in part and denied in part, specifically allowing for the return of the kinkajous and lemurs.  The Court of Appeals remanded to determine whether the woman's possession of the animals was in violation of the federal AWA or state Game Code.   

Summary:

In this Pennsylvania case, defendant was prosecuted for killing a cat that belonged to his neighbor. The section under which he was prosecuted prohibited the killing of a 'domestic animal of another person.' However, a cat was not one of the animals defined as a ‘domestic animal’ by the Act. Using rules of statutory interpretation, the court found that the omission of 'cat' from the listed species of the penal code provision was intentional by the legislature, and thus the defendant's sentence was discharged.

Summary:

Edward Banasczek (plaintiff) instituted an action in trespass against William Kowalski (defendant) for money damages resulting from the alleged shooting of two of plaintiff's dogs. The court held the following: “[T]he claim for emotional distress arising out of the malicious destruction of a pet should not be confused with a claim for the sentimental value of a pet, the latter claim being unrecognized in most jurisdictions.   Secondly we do not think, as defendant argues, that the owner of the maliciously destroyed pet must have witnessed the death of his or her pet in order to make a claim for emotional distress.” Pennsylvania has summarily rejected a claim for loss of companionship for the death of a dog.  

Summary: These Pennsylvania regulations relate to safeguards for public safety, humane care and treatment, adequate housing and nutrition, sanitation, safety, acquisition and disposal of wildlife kept in menageries. Under the regulations, it is unlawful to keep wildlife in an unsanitary or unsafe condition or in a manner which results in maltreatment, mistreatment or neglect. The regulations outline requirements for cage construction, food and water provision, waste disposal, and drainage.

Summary: These Pennsylvania regulations relate to the housing and care of exotic wildlife and public protection from wildlife that is being held or transported by exotic wildlife dealers. Under the regulations, it is unlawful to keep exotic wildlife in confinement in an unsanitary or unsafe condition, or in a manner which results in maltreatment, mistreatment or neglect. The regulations outline requirements for housing, cage construction, food and water provision, waste removal. and drainage.

Summary: Under this Pennsylvania chapter of regulations, the Director may issue a permit to an individual who meets the requirements of 34 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a) (relating to authority to issue permits) and this subchapter for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife capture and transportation, and educational use of rehabilitation wildlife. "Wildlife rehabilitation"is defined as the treatment and temporary care of injured, diseased and displaced wildlife, and the subsequent release of healthy wildlife to appropriate habitats in the wild.

Summary: This subchapter relates to the housing and care of exotic wildlife, and public protection from exotic wildlife held or transported by a person under the act or this part.

Summary: This set of administrative regulations prohibits the importation, possession, selling, offering for sale or release of certain species such as lynx, bobcat, coyote, wolf, bears, raccoons, nutria, skunks, all families of nonhuman primates, certain birds, game taken from the wild, and game or wildlife held in captivity. Exemptions includes zoos and circuses. A person wishing to import lawfully acquired wildlife, or parts thereof, shall first obtain an importation permit from the Commission. Another section makes it unlawful for a person to possess live wildlife taken from a wild state subject to certain exceptions.