Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Agritourism
"Livestock" is a Broad Term That Could Include Dogs
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In United States v. Park, 536 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the term "livestock" encompassed a wide variety of animals and could conceivably include dogs.
Background
The Monroes granted the United States a scenic easement on their land in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to allow the U.S. Forest Service "to administer such land to protect the scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values [of the region] and to prevent any developments that will tend to mar or detract from their scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values." Id. at 1060. The restrictions on the land use did not allow for any professional or commercial activities, except for general crop and livestock farming and limited residential development. Id. The Parks purchased the tract of land from the Monroes, and with the Forest Service's approval they started operating a bed and breakfast from their home. Id. When the Parks later started a dog training and kennel business, the Forest Service notified them that the kennel business violated the terms of the easement as an unauthorized commercial activity. Id. The parties failed to resolve the matter, and the US filed suit. Id. The district court granted summary judgment for the US, and the Parks appealed. Id. at 1061.
Arguments
The Parks argued that their dog kennel constituted "livestock farming," which was permitted by the terms of the easement. Id. at 1060-61.
The government argued that dogs were not livestock under Idaho law. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court noted that the dictionary definition of livestock "is sweeping, capturing every type of domesticated animal," and that Black's dictionary likewise defined the term broadly. Id. at 1062. There was no statutory definition incorporated in the easement agreement, and the court found the term was ambiguous; therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. Id. at 1063-64. The lower court's ruling was reversed and the case was remanded. Id.
The case was decided on August 11, 2008.