Hounded, Cowed, & Badgered

Catchup: Court rebukes USDA on horse slaughter, NM bans cockfighting

Apologies for the old news.

The recall of cat and dog food produced by Menu Foods has generated a lot of media interest in valuation of animals. An article in the Chicago Tribune by Mary Ann Fergus does a good job of summarizing the legal landscape, namely that, because animals are legally property, individuals who keep animals as companions can generally only recover the market value of a deceased animal. Although the coverage has included some quotes from veterinarians who support the status quo (who likes to pay?), most articles appear slanted towards the view that companion animals should be valued as the family members they often are. Or, as is commonly asserted by experts, the loss of a loved animal should not be treated like the destruction of a chair or sofa. Whether the outrage over the death of these animals will lead to legislation to allow for the recovery of loss of companionship or emotional damages remains to be seen.

Other recall-related posts: a rundown of causes of action (and another) against Menu Foods by the excellent, relatively new AnimalBlawg, a 50 state guide to companion animal valuation, and one prof expressing skepticism about class actions in this case and another not forecasting weak prospects for regulatory reform.

Animal Person laments that a bill to ban dog racing in New Hampshire has failed and ably takes apart the excuses given by legislators (one of whom she corresponds with) for allowing this practice to continue.

Two out of three plants that slaughtered horses for human consumption were put out of business by a Texas court's decision in January. (See item #4 in the January roundup) The future of the remaining plant, in DeKalb, Illinois, looks grim after a federal court vacated a USDA rule allowing inspectors to be funded by the slaughterhouses themselves. Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Johanns, No. 06-625 (D.D.C. 3/28/07). (Hat tip: An Animal-Friendly Life; more background.) The court's holding, that the USDA violated NEPA when it issued the rule, leaves open the possibility that it could issue another rule.

With SB 10, New Mexico has amended its dog fighting statute to ban cockfighting. (Hat tip: AAFL ... Happy Birthday!) Only Louisiana allows cockfighting now, but that may change.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, which would heighten penalties for animal fighting and ban blades and hooks used in cockfighting, passed the House. The N.R.A. convinced lawmakers to puts this ban in the animal welfare part of the U.S. Code, rather than the criminal one, though the penalties section still would appear alongside the law targeting animal advocates. Meanwhile, the legislation is being blocked in the Senate; the reason given: opposition to "redundant laws". (Update 4/12/07: Add another to the books, it passed the Senate.)

In da courts, in da statehouses, in da papers (catching up edition)

Since the posting pace has slackened, HC&B has no doubt missed much. To round out 5766, a rundown of recent animal law stories. It's a hodgepodge.

• (Anti-)circus news: S. 2699, a bill which would ban circuses (but not zoos) from using on elephants either 1) items which "may reasonably result in harm," harm being defined fairly expansively to include items which "pinch", or 2) restraining chains, has passed the Massachusetts Senate and is making its ways through committees in the House. One wonders whether circuses can control/exploit these animals without hurting them. Also, advocates in San Jose can protest Ringling Bros. outside the HP Pavilion. (Hat tip: An Animal-Friendly Life.)
• Experts on animal custody disputes post-Katrina: Steven Wise in the Austin American-Statesman: "The argument that the dogs have been abused is, at its heart, an argument about class and racism." Also, David Favre, quoted in the Concord Monitor: "The law is absolutely muddled."
• Into the mainstream ... The New York Times discovers animal law (reprinted at Book of Joe). Despite some missteps--an emphasis on the quirky, the idea that pets are not considered property in some states--this is a decent introduction to the issues involved in companion animal law practices. Also animal lawyers come in #9 on the "10 Hot Jobs for 2007."
• A grand jury refused to indict under a NY aggravated cruelty statute criminalizing "intentionally caus[ing] serious physical injury" when defendants allegedly slit a dog's throat and threw him out the window of a car.
• A bill has passed the California Legislature which would let the department of consumer affairs regulate pet stores. (Hat tip: GEARI.) Per the Bee, the legislation which passed was a compromise with pet stores, which "prefer to negotiate the specifics with a regulatory agency instead of the Legislature." Sweet capture.
• Michigan's first vet mal case (and some legislative reform brewing).

On the docket of animal advocates

Some of this is old news, but we'd be remiss if we didn't note some recent suits filed by animal advocates. (We'd also be remiss if we didn't thank PETA for background on all these issues.)

The ALDF is suing Mendes Calf Ranch and the California Department of Agriculture, alleging that calves at the ranch are held in crates which violate Penal Code 597t, which requires an "animal confined in an enclosed area [to be provided] with an adequate exercise area." (Hat tip: An Animal-Friendly Life.) An earlier suit alleging that gestation crates violated the same provision was dismissed on jurisdictional/standing grounds. The court in that case interpreted 2004's Proposition 64, which limits who may sue businesses, to apply to cases pending; the issue of retroactivity is on appeal. As the ALDF blurb notes, the named plaintiffs are alleging personal harm, a key requirement in the post-Prop. 64 landscape, because they, as consumers of dairy products "have suffered by paying for illegally-produced goods that they now know to have come from cows who have been cruelly raised in the process." For more on the dairy industry in California, check out Unhappy Cows.

The Humane Society of the United States is advancing a novel theory in an attempt to ban the production of foie gras in New York State. They argue that, because the production of foie gras causes disease in the birds who are force-fed and killed, the liver is "adulterated," per New York law.  Best Friends points out the difference between the statute and the interpretation given it in regulations, which might be a crucial difference. Governor Pataki recently agreed to subsidize a foie gras facility in the Hudson Valley.

The Animal Protection Institute is suing "exotic animal farms" in Ohio for violating the Animal Welfare Act in their treatment of primates and other animals. One proprietor is quoted as saying the animals, some of whom come from entertainment industries, "live 100 times better than they did before they came here." Given the abuse of animals face in the movies and TV and in circuses , that may be true, but it doesn't take much.

Animal racing legal developments in IL, FL, NH

Illinois casinos have sued the state over a recent law which would take tax revenues from casinos and use them to subsidize horse racing.  A lobbyist in Florida publicly acknowledges that bills which would require tracks to report dog injuries were filed defensively in order to prevent the enactment of a reporting requirement. (Background: Greyhounds who are raced live in crowded conditions, are drugged, face serious injury, and are killed when they're no longer profitable. GREY2K USA [pdf].) New Hampshire passes a law ending lottery subsidies to racetracks, effective 2009.

In da statehouses, in brief (criminal edition)

In New Hampshire, SB 351, which would ban drowning an animal, recently failed. The reason given for the bill's death, endorsed by the local paper: it would prevent people from killing rats, and should only apply to domestic animals. As one state rep notes, however, the New Hampshire statute only applies to a "domestic animal, a household pet or a wild animal in captivity" in the first place. Status anxiety? Callousness? General legislative incompetence? At least it wasn't money this time.

A bill in Illinois (HB 2946)  heads to the governor which would require people convicted of certain crimes (violent crimes, cruelty, drugs, firearms) to spay or neuter their dogs and banning such people from keeping a dog determined to be "vicious." There is a safe harbor provision which allows an indicted person to spay or neuter the animal within seven days to avoid prosecution. We await the rational-basis challenges for the link between a dog's fertility and its keeper's conviction for treason or burglary.

A cock-fighting ban shockingly dies in Louisiana. In New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson is  "on the fence" on the issue.

Elephant legislation in the news

Elephants, zoos, and the law have been in the news a bit lately in California, Illinois, and Missouri. In California, a state senator has proposed AB 3027, which would amend the criminal code in two ways: by making it a crime for anyone (not just an elephant's owner or manager) to abuse an animal and by creating a separate crime for someone who keeps an elephant to fail to provide at least five acres for him or her. The rationale behind the space requirement that elephants are "walking machines." When confined, the animals develop foot and joint problems, which sometimes leads to zookeepers killing them. An article in the Sacramento Bee, link supra, says the bill would also outlaw bullhooks, but we don't see that in the version of the bill online. Bullhooks are freaking evil.

A proposal in Chicago would ban bullhooks and require five acres outdoors and five indoors, Chicago's only minus when compared to California being its cold winters. Here's a pdf of a July 2005 version of the ordinance, c/o PETA. This requirement would put Lincoln Park Zoo, which has seen several of its elephants die recently, out of the elephant business, and keep circuses away. An AR-friendly piece in the New Standard quotes the usually slippery slope argument by zoo boosters, but also includes a nice quote by a former curator on how many zoos today are run like they were when Teddy Roosevelt was in the White House.

In the Defense of Animals has also filed a complaint against the St. Louis Zoo, the AP reports. All this proposed action at the local level is being accompanied by some action, again proposed, at the federal level. IDA recently petitioned the USDA to issue interpretive rules which would clarify what a regulation designed for a broad array of species (and thus vaguely speaking of "sufficient space" and "adequate freedom of movement") means for elephants. The USDA has opened the petition up for comment, but we couldn't find it on Regulations.gov yet.

Jury finds for Ringling Bros. head

A jury has found the head of the parent company for Ringling Bros. not liable in PETA's lawsuit against him for conspiracy to destroy the animal rights organization. (Tiny bit of background here.) The trial did reveal that Feld's company had people inside various animal advocacy organizations, believing (hopefully accurately) that AR organizations are a threat to his livliehood. 

MA dog racing initiative challenged

A Massachusetts race track owner is challenging an initiative which would ban dog racing in the state. The Dog Protection Act (pdf) would also increase penalties for offenders who hurt service, police, or military dogs during the commission of a felony and specifies that police officers can seize dogs that might be used to breed dogs for fighting (although the current law allows the seizure of "all such birds, dogs or other animals" found). Most of the claims the track owner appears to be making, including that the dog racing ban is not related to the other prohibitions, have been raised before and rejected by the AG's office. Legal qualms aside (a little help?), the placement of the dog racing provision at the end of the proposal seems savvy.  If it is perhaps a tiny bit underhanded, it seems only appropriate given how outgunned ban advocates are. When a previous effort to ban racing lost by a narrow margin, advocates of the ban were outspent 10 to 1.