Thông tin tài liệu
Animal Neglect 95 Schaffner (2011) explains that a Pennsylvania law which limited owners to no more than five dogs or cats was successfully challenged by a woman cited for having 25 cats on the grounds that the limitation was arbitrary and unreasonable and the restriction violated due process rights (contrary to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) The matter was referred for trial and the Court was invited to consider the presumption that public health or safety was threatened by the mere presence of a large number of animals or whether the residence constituted a threat In contrast a Minnesota court concluded that an ordinance which limited households to two dogs was not unreasonable and thus was constitutional In this case, the burden of proof was held to be on the owner to demonstrate that limiting the number of dogs ‘would not promote public well-being by reducing noise and odor’ (Schaffner 2011, pp 120–121) Nurse and Ryland (2013, p 65) identify that, under UK law, for the keeping of animals to become actionable as a nuisance some ‘extraordinary, non-natural or unreasonable action’ is required (see Peech v Best [1931] KB 1, 14) However, nuisances involving animals are not uncommon and the keeping of an excessive number of cats or dogs, for example, can give rise to nuisance complaints concerning odour, noise or relating to health concerns The intent of the legislation is to improve human health and to protect humans from nuisances affecting peaceful enjoyment of their property (although in places the Act refers to wider harm caused to ‘living organisms’) Analysing UK case law Nurse and Ryland (2013, pp 65–66.) identified that in cases of insufficient care caused by neglect, a local authority might use Section 79(1)(f) of the EPA 1990 to serve a specific notice requiring works to be carried out to improve the conditions under which animals are kept In particular where the living conditions of non-human animals, including the number of animals produces problems such as excessive smell, noise or flies, action might be taken, although overcrowding by itself is not subject to action via this provision However, where overcrowding causes the nuisance, for example, somebody keeps too many non-human companions and the number combined with the conditions causes a nuisance, then a local authority could impose restrictions on the number of animals kept thus addressing neglect issues The ALDF argues that comprehensive criminal prohibitions which include objective standards of care with well-defined neglect-related terms are essential to addressing neglect offences.5 However, they also identify Such provisions exist in some animal welfare laws but the ALDF observation also amounts to a recommendation that there is a need for wider use of such provisions
Ngày đăng: 24/10/2022, 10:36
Xem thêm:
