Enter ALDF's Rescue "Tails" Photo Contest!

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on September 1st, 2010

Think you have the cutest rescued critter ever? Enter ALDF's Rescue "Tails" Photo Contest for a chance to show off that cuteness to the world! Between now and September 30th, send us a photo of your rescued animal with a short story about him or her. The winning photo will be featured on ALDF's 2010 holiday card!

To enter, submit a photo of your rescued animal to photocontest@aldf.org or by mail. All entries must include:

• A photo of your rescued animal. (Digital photos must be a minimum of 200 dpi. Your photo will not be returned. )
• Your rescued animal’s story in 100 words or less.
• Your name, email address and phone number so we can contact you if your photo is selected.

Beginning on October 12th, you will have the opportunity to vote for your favorite finalist and the winner will be announced on November 1st.

We're looking forward to seeing your photos and reading your stories! Enter today!

Wisconsin Lawmaker Seeks Tougher Animal Cruelty Law After Man Shoots Dog with Bow and Arrow

Posted by Stephanie Ulmer, Guest Blogger on August 31st, 2010

GazetteXtra.com reports that because a Milton, WI, man has been accused of shooting a dog with a bow and arrow for essentially no reason at all, a state legislator has proposed a tougher law against pet assaults, making the type of crime allegedly committed a felony in the future, instead of a misdemeanor. 

According to the criminal complaint, Dale A. Moore told a Rock County sheriff’s deputy that the dog wasn’t on his property and wasn’t barking, growling or approaching him when he shot an arrow into it. The case so affected Rep. Kim Hixson (D-Whitewater) that he is working to introduce “Casey’s Law,” which would “allow prosecutors to pursue felony charges in cases of unprovoked assaults on pets involving a deadly weapon.” The law is named after the Great Pyrenees, Casey, who was shot with an arrow May 21st while walking with his owner along railroad tracks in Lima Township. Hixson announced “Casey’s Law” this week, just days before Moore appeared in court on misdemeanor charges of mistreating animals and disorderly conduct. “Pets are not merely animals living among us—they are friends and family,” Hixson said in a news release announcing “Casey’s Law.” “As a state, we cannot allow cruelty to companion animals to occur in any form.”

Stricter animal abuse laws are absolutely necessary to deter this type of behavior from occurring now and in the future. Not only was Moore not provoked by Casey, it appears that Moore shot him with the arrow just because he could. At least he will have to answer in some way for what he did to Casey, who thankfully survived surgery after the injury. We need more such felony laws to protect our animals from those who act recklessly.

Food Justice is an Animal Rights Issue

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on August 27th, 2010

Last March, my partner and I volunteered to gather data for an important study by the Food Empowerment Project on the availability of fruits and vegetables in Santa Clara County, California. The Food Empowerment Project just released the report this week, and the results are disturbing, reflecting significant disparities in access to healthy foods in low-income communities and communities of color.

But first, why am I writing about this study here? Why is this an “animal issue”? The Food Empowerment Project, led by long-time animal rights campaigner lauren Ornelas, is one of the few groups working at the intersections of the animal rights movement and the food justice movement, drawing connections between the exploitation of human and nonhuman animals in the production and distribution of food. As its mission states, “The Food Empowerment Project seeks to create a more just and sustainable world by recognizing the power of one's food choices. We encourage healthy food choices that reflect a more compassionate society by spotlighting the abuse of animals on farms, the depletion of natural resources, unfair working conditions for produce workers, and the unavailability of healthy foods in low-income areas.”

It is this last component, also known as “food deserts,” that the Santa Clara study addresses. FEP volunteers conducted extensive surveys of the offerings at grocery stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores in lower-income and higher-income neighborhoods and compared the results. Here are some of the findings:

• “On a per-capita basis, the higher-income areas have 2.4 times as many large supermarkets compared to the lower-income areas. Additionally, the lower income areas have nearly twice as many liquor stores and 50% more meat markets than the higher-income areas. . . . The disparity is significant and shows that those living in lower-income areas are relying on small corner markets while those in higher-income areas have access to large grocery stores.”

• “All types of fruits and vegetables covered by the survey are more commonly available in higher-income areas, except (non-organic) canned fruits and vegetables, which are equally available in both higher- and lower-income neighborhoods. Those living in the higher-income areas have significantly more access to fresh, frozen, and organic produce.”

• “On average, higher-income areas have twice as many locations with fresh fruits and vegetables compared to the lower-income areas. The disparity for frozen produce is even higher, with higher-income areas having 14 times more locations with frozen fruit and six times more locations with frozen vegetables.”

• “[A]ccess to organic fruits and vegetables is almost nonexistent in the low-income areas and represents the greatest disparity between the two types of areas surveyed . . . .”

• “[W]hile meat alternatives were available in more than a fifth (22%) of locations in higher-income areas, they were available in only 2% of locations in lower-income areas. Similarly, 18% of locations in higher-income areas had vegan meat alternative options, versus less than 1% of locations in lower-income areas.”

• “Dairy alternatives . . . , such as soymilk and rice milk, are available in only 3% of locations in lower-income areas (which have proportionally much larger populations of ethnic minorities), compared with 23% of locations in the higher-income areas. And while only 1% of locations in lower-income areas had vegan dairy alternatives, 21% of locations in higher-income areas had vegan options.”

These results illustrate the drastic inequalities in access to healthy, vegan food in low-income communities. Food justice, in addition to being a compelling civil rights issue on its own terms, is an animal rights issue: we cannot promote a vegan, plant-based diet without simultaneously trying to remedy the structural injustices that make such a diet nearly impossible for large portions of the country.

Animal Abuser Registry Bill Introduced in Suffolk County, New York

Posted by Stephanie Ulmer, Guest Blogger on August 25th, 2010

Suffolk County lawmakers have proposed a county registry that will keep animals away from abusers. According to longislandpress.com:

“Pet owners, animal rights advocates and even animals gathered outside the Suffolk County Legislature in Hauppauge on Thursday, August 19th, to join Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) as he unleashed several animal protection bills. The main component is a database known as the Animal Abuser Registry, which will include the names of people who have been convicted of harmful treatment and torture to animals. Additional legislation would restrict those on the registry from adopting animals and prevent shelters or pet stores from letting those on the registry take a new pet home.”

Cooper states that all animals offenders would be included on the database, and “the bill will require pet stores and animal shelters to check an individual’s identify on the registry. If the shelters and pet stores do not follow the precautions they would face a fine for allowing an animal into the hands of a convicted animal abuser.” It was reported that if the law passes, Suffolk County will be the first municipality in the nation to have an Animal Abuser Registry.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund has long been an advocate of such registries. An abuser registry will answer many questions, such as whether an animal abuser lives in your neighborhood and whether your pets are safe from repeat offenders. They provide protection for our pets and peace of mind for us. ALDF has previously reported that communities have good reason to be concerned about the whereabouts of animal abusers. In story after heartbreaking story, abusers repeat their violent crimes against helpless animals, and often go on to victimize people as well. An animal abuser registry will help prevent such abuse. Hopefully this new law will pass and serve as a model for other such registries across the nation. Let’s all applaud this step!

Make Airlines Accountable for All Animals on Flights

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on August 24th, 2010

Make airlines accountable for all animals shipped on commercial flights!

Recently, seven puppies died after being shipped in the cargo hold from an American Airlines flight from Tulsa to Chicago, causing a surge of public concern about the risky and controversial practice of shipping companion animals and other animals as "cargo" on commercial airlines.

Currently, the Department of Transportation only requires airlines to report the deaths or disappearances of animals considered "pets" -- meaning that there has been no accurate reporting on in-flight harm to dogs shipped by puppy mills or other animals transported as cargo.

Whether an animal is shipped as a pet or as an item of commerce has no bearing whatsoever on that animal's ability to suffer. Travelers and animal lovers have a right to know exactly how risky it is for animals to be shipped as cargo on commercial airlines.

Please send a letter to your senators and representatives through ALDF's website and ask them to join Senators Menendez, Durbin, and Lieberman and ALDF in amending this regulation to ensure accurate reporting about the real risks to animals shipped in cargo holds.

Thank you for joining the Animal Legal Defense Fund's fight to win justice animals!

Bearing Witness

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 23rd, 2010

I’m home in California now, after my whirlwind 2 ½ week tour of Australia and as I settle back into my usual routine, I am reflecting on all that I learned and felt while Down Under.

People sometimes ask me how I avoid burning out, given all of the pain involved in working for animals and I have a standard reply about the need to bring balance into one’s life. But, there are times when I do get overwhelmed and my trip to Australia provided one of them.

Before I went to Australia, I had not given a great deal of thought to the plight of the four million kangaroos annually shot in the head, nor the 440,000 joeys bludgeoned to death when their mothers are killed. And, I had not focused on the extraordinary suffering caused by putting sheep and cattle onto large ships and forcing them to undergo a torturous three week journey to other countries, where they are slaughtered for food. Touring around Australia, meeting the activists, talking with the media, I became steeped in these and other issues and the pain of it is bone crushing. I’m feeling quite raw and vulnerable right now, having read everything I can, having looked at the photos and the videos, and visiting the port at Fremantle, where I actually saw the sheep loaded on the Al Shuwaikh, heading out that evening on a trip that will cause them enormous suffering and ultimately, death.

Brian Sherman, one of the founders of Voiceless, said repeatedly that we have an obligation to “bear witness” to the suffering that animals endure when we humans treat them as if they were things, when we confine them to tiny spaces for their entire lives, or perpetrate violent acts, such as the barbaric practice of mulesing sheep or the mass killings of the kangaroos and joeys. Most people really don’t want to hear about this suffering. It’s too painful, too uncomfortable. They might have to change their eating habits or what they wear. They might have to find a different way to make a living. It’s as if there is a switch that, for most people, is turned to “off.” For some of us, that switch, that ability to hear the groans and murmurs of those who suffer is turned “on” – a cruel joke on us, in a way. But, it is also a gift, and one that we must accept.

We must hear their suffering. We must bear witness to it. We must open ourselves to the pain. Then, even if we feel overwhelmed, we must use those feelings to create positive solutions to the problems. Remaining overwhelmed does nothing to help the animals. We have to mold that pain into positive action and try, to the best of our abilities to get other people to listen and help us demand that animals’ lives and interests be respected.

My trip to Australia has reminded me that the exploitation of other animals by human beings is not limited to one culture or one country. And, our duty is to speak up for the animals, even those outside our continental borders, as they will never have a voice unless and until we give them one.

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Urgent California Alert: Support the Pet Responsibility Act - Call Today!

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on August 23rd, 2010

Update 9/1/10: According to a report on lbreport.com, on August 31, the Assembly voted to defeat SB 250, the "Pet Responsibility Act," effectively killing the measure for the remainder of this legislative session. ALDF would like to thank everyone who made phone calls in support of this bill.

Your call can help stem the travesty of the 500,000+ companion animals that are euthanized every year in California.

SB 250 -- the Pet Responsibility Act -- is now ready for a final assembly vote and your Assemblymember needs to hear from you today!

After lying dormant for almost a year, SB 250 is now just hours away from receiving a final vote in the Assembly. Please call your Assemblymember today and urge their vote for this important legislation.

Each year, over $250 million dollars are spent sheltering and euthanizing dogs and cats in California. Approximately one million dogs and cats enter California’s shelters each year, and over half of them are euthanized simply because there are not enough homes.

SB 250, based on successful laws in Santa Cruz and New York City, provides a reasonable, fiscally-responsible step towards reducing pet overpopulation in California. The bill simply requires that dogs be sterilized unless their owners/guardians obtain a special license (if required under existing local ordinances), and that cats allowed to roam at-large also be spayed or neutered. The bill provides safeguards for animals whose health makes sterilization inadvisable; and its wholly-discretionary penalties would not be applicable to those who responsibly care for feral cat colonies.

Please call your assemblymember today and ask for them to vote in favor of SB 250!

Overview of SB 250 (From YesOnSB250.com)   

SB 250 does not outlaw unaltered animals. If a dog is licensed and the owner/guardian is following current animal laws, SB 250 has no effect on them. Similarly, if someone’s cat does not roam outdoors, it can remain unaltered.

SB 250 does not cost the state any money. Similar laws have reduced costs and increased revenues through increased licensing.

Similar laws have not resulted in more animals being surrendered by owners.

Similar laws have resulted in increased licensing of pets, and decreased shelter intake and euthanasia.

SB 250 does not allow animal control to seize animals.

SB 250 does not allow animal control to automatically spay or neuter animals. Only when an unlicensed, unaltered dog or roaming, unaltered cat is impounded, does animal control have the option to require a spay or neuter, but the responsibility falls on the owner.

SB 250 is NOT mandatory spay and neuter. Anyone can still have an unaltered animal.

Read the current status/history/text of SB 250 here.

Please call your assemblymember today and ask for them to vote in favor of SB 250! If you do not know your legislator, click here.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

MEMBER NAME	PARTY	DISTRICT	CAPITOL PHONE
Adams, Anthony	Rep	59th	(916) 319-2059
Ammiano, Tom	Dem	13th	(916) 319-2013
Anderson, Joel	Rep	77th	(916) 319-2077
Arambula, Juan	Ind	31st	(916) 319-2031
Bass, Karen	Dem	47th	(916) 319-2047
Beall, Jim Jr.	Dem	24th	(916) 319-2024
Berryhill, Bill	Rep	26th	(916) 319-2026
Berryhill, Tom	Rep	25th	(916) 319-2025
Blakeslee, Sam	Rep	33rd	(916) 319-2033
Block, Marty	Dem	78th	(916) 319-2078
Blumenfield, Bob	Dem	40th	(916) 319-2040
Bradford, Steven	Dem	51st	(916) 319-2051
Brownley, Julia	Dem	41st	(916) 319-2041
Buchanan, Joan	Dem	15th	(916) 319-2015
Caballero, Anna M.	Dem	28th	(916) 319-2028
Calderon, Charles M.	Dem	58th	(916) 319-2058
Carter, Wilmer Amina	Dem	62nd	(916) 319-2062
Chesbro, Wesley	Dem	1st	(916) 319-2001
Conway, Connie	Rep	34th	(916) 319-2034
Cook, Paul	Rep	65th	(916) 319-2065
Coto, Joe	Dem	23rd	(916) 319-2023
Davis, Mike	Dem	48th	(916) 319-2048
De La Torre, Hector	Dem	50th	(916) 319-2050
De Leon, Kevin	Dem	45th	(916) 319-2045
DeVore, Chuck	Rep	70th	(916) 319-2070
Eng, Mike	Dem	49th	(916) 319-2049
Evans, Noreen	Dem	7th	(916) 319-2007
Feuer, Mike	Dem	42nd	(916) 319-2042
Fletcher, Nathan	Rep	75th	(916) 319-2075
Fong, Paul	Dem	22nd	(916) 319-2022
Fuentes, Felipe	Dem	39th	(916) 319-2039
Fuller, Jean	Rep	32nd	(916) 319-2032
Furutani, Warren T.	Dem	55th	(916) 319-2055
Gaines, Ted	Rep	4th	(916) 319-2004
Galgiani, Cathleen	Dem	17th	(916) 319-2017
Garrick, Martin	Rep	74th	(916) 319-2074
Gatto, Mike	Dem	43rd	(916) 319-2043
Gilmore, Danny D.	Rep	30th	(916) 319-2030
Hagman, Curt	Rep	60th	(916) 319-2060
Hall, Isadore III	Dem	52nd	(916) 319-2052
Harkey, Diane L.	Rep	73rd	916) 319-2073
Hayashi, Mary	Dem	18th	(916) 319-2018
Hernandez, Edward P.	Dem	57th	(916) 319-2057
Hill, Jerry	Dem	19th	(916) 319-2019
Huber, Alyson	Dem	10th	(916) 319-2010
Huffman, Jared	Dem	6th	(916) 319-2006
Jeffries, Kevin	Rep	66th	(916) 319-2066
Jones, Dave	Dem	9th	(916) 319-2009
Knight, Steve	Rep	36th	(916) 319-2036
Lieu, Ted W.	Dem	53rd	(916) 319-2053
Logue, Dan	Rep	3rd	(916) 319-2003
Lowenthal, Bonnie	Dem	54th	(916) 319-2054
Ma, Fiona	Dem	12th	(916) 319-2012
Mendoza, Tony	Dem	56th	(916) 319-2056
Miller, Jeff	Rep	71st	(916) 319-2071
Monning, William W.	Dem	27th	(916) 319-2027
Nava, Pedro	Dem	35th	(916) 319-2035
Nestande, Brian	Rep	64th	(916) 319-2064
Niello, Roger	Rep	5th	(916) 319-2005
Nielsen, Jim	Rep	2nd	(916) 319-2002
Norby, Chris	Rep	72nd	(916) 319-2072
Pérez, John A.	Dem	46th	(916) 319-2046
Pérez, V. Manuel	Dem	80th	(916) 319-2080
Portantino, Anthony J.	Dem	44th	(916) 319-2044
Ruskin, Ira	Dem	21st	(916) 319-2021
Salas, Mary	Dem	79th	(916) 319-2079
Saldaña, Lori	Dem	76th	(916) 319-2076
Silva, Jim	Rep	67th	(916) 319-2067
Skinner, Nancy	Dem	14th	(916) 319-2014
Smyth, Cameron	Rep	38th	(916) 319-2038
Solorio, Jose	Dem	69th	(916) 319-2069
Strickland, Audra	Rep	37th	(916) 319-2037
Swanson, Sandre R.	Dem	16th	(916) 319-2016
Torlakson, Tom	Dem	11th	(916) 319-2011
Torres, Norma J.	Dem	61st	(916) 319-2061
Torrico, Alberto	Dem	20th	(916) 319-2020
Tran, Van	Rep	68th	(916) 319-2068
Villines, Michael N.	Rep	29th	(916) 319-2029
Yamada, Mariko	Dem	8th	(916) 319-2008

ALDF's New Public Service Announcement

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on August 20th, 2010

Deprived of legal protection, animals are defenseless against exploitation and abuse by humans. Despite the fact that they are living, feeling beings, animals in the U.S. are still considered merely “property” by law—in most cases no different than a table or a chair. When laws protecting animals do exist, they are often insufficient or full of loopholes. That’s why the Animal Legal Defense Fund fights every day to win the case against cruelty for our country’s animals.

Check out ALDF’s 30-second public service announcement (PSA) version of our “This Is Who We Are” video.



The full length version, which we premiered in April 2010 at the Future of Animal Law conference at Harvard Law School, can be seen here.

If you’re a broadcaster interested in airing ALDF’s new PSA, contact us!

Breaking: ALDF Petitions Department of Transportation to Require Airlines to Report on Deaths of Animals Shipped as "Cargo"

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on August 19th, 2010

On the heels of the deaths of seven puppies transported in the cargo hold on an American Airlines flight from Tulsa, Oklahoma to Chicago earlier this month, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has filed a petition with the Department of Transportation urging them to oblige air carriers to report on the deaths of any animals in transit, and to identify the shippers and consignees involved in their “shipment.” Currently, the Department of Transportation only requires airlines to report the deaths or disappearances of animals considered “pets”—meaning that there has been no accurate reporting on in-flight harm to dogs shipped by puppy mills or other animals transported as cargo. Senators Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) have drafted a joint letter to the Secretary of Transportation, arguing that a “flawed interpretation of laws” has allowed animal death reporting to “slip through the cracks.” Read more...

The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 17th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

Well, just as I’m getting the hang of which side of the sidewalk to walk on, it’s time to head back to the U.S. (they walk on the left over here, not the right, just as they drive their cars on the left side of the street).

My trip to Australia has been a once-in-a-lifetime adventure. With the help and backing of Voiceless, we delivered 13 presentations in seven cities in six jurisdictions in 10 days. I met many wonderful, committed animal activists and many lawyers and law students who are eager to use their skills to protect animals. I predict that animal law in Australia will continue to grow exponentially in the next five to ten years.

Australia is a beautiful and exciting country. Please come to visit. And, if you have read my other blog posts, please speak out for the animals in Australia who need your help.

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos

A Hero to Chicago's Ducks

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on August 16th, 2010

On a recent trip to Chicago, I took time to take a walk through the city’s Millennium Park downtown. Passing through one section of the park I saw a man carrying a net, usually used for scooping fish out of water, and peering through the cracks in the boardwalk we were on. Curious, and admittedly a bit skeptical, I asked him what he was looking for. The answer? Ducklings.

It seems a mother duck and her ducklings had become trapped far back under the boardwalk which spanned a shallow pool of stagnant water. Without rescue they would likely have starved or died from exhaustion. Enter Norm Lippiatt and his friends who had already spent hours this sunny Sunday afternoon trying to save the ducks and had managed to catch five of the ducklings.

Amazed and uplifted by their efforts, I offered to help and soon found myself slithering through the water under the boardwalk, net in hand. I managed to catch the remaining two ducklings but, sadly, missed the mother duck – something that happens occasionally in these rescues. The ducklings will be raised in a sanctuary until they can be returned to a protected wild area.

I learned that each summer Norm and his compassionate friends spend many days rescuing ducklings who find themselves in peril. I was so taken by their dedication and selflessness that I asked Norm if he would tell me more about their efforts. Here’s what he had to say:

ALDF: What sparked your interest in rescuing ducklings and how long have you been doing it?

NORM: I've been actively involved with rescuing ducklings for eight years now. I guess I got hooked after the first rescue. The feeling that you've made a difference in some small way can be extremely gratifying, plus just looking at these one or two day old little downy ducklings, you can't help but want to do everything you can for them. Nature is cruel, man doesn't have to be.

ALDF: What was the most challenging rescue you undertook?

NORM: Just this past July, a mother duck and her ducklings were crossing a busy street and sadly the mother was struck by a car and killed. The ducklings ran for the closest cover they could find which turned out to be a thicket about a football field long and maybe 20 feet across. The thicket was overgrown with weeds, nettles and small trees that had an above-ground root system that enabled the duckling to run underneath it to get away from us. The caring woman who called us in thought there were five or six ducklings but as we captured the sixth one, we could still hear peeping coming from the thicket, so we knew the count was off but had no idea how many were in there. The only way to catch them was to try to pinpoint them by their peeping then get on our hands and knees and try to catch them. We were scratched, stung and itchy from head to toe! We were there from noon to 8:30 p.m. on an extremely hot day and ended up with eleven ducklings! We were fortunate enough to have caught the last one just prior to sunset, so what was a sad story didn't turn out to be a complete tragedy.

ALDF: What happens to the ducklings after you rescue them?

NORM: We immediately have volunteers from licensed rescue organizations come and take them to their shelters where they are triaged, and if need be, fed. Then if they are with their mother, they're released as a family in a wetlands area outside the city. If we aren't able to catch the mother, as was the case in Millennium Park, the ducklings will be raised until they can safely be released in an area that is known to have other migrating Mallards so they can integrate with the flock.

ALDF: Anything else you’d care to add?

NORM: Regarding the rescue that you were involved in, we had been contacted late on that Saturday afternoon by the volunteers that work at Millennium Park but weren't able to gain permission to enter the park and attempt a rescue until evening, so we decided to coordinate the rescue for the following morning as there was plenty of water and shelter for them for the night. We arrived at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday and were informed that they could only spot the mother and two of the six the ducklings that were there the day before so we feared the worst, but as we started looking around we eventually saw five. I managed to scoop them up in one shot within the first couple of minutes but Momma and number six were pretty elusive. That is until you came along and plunged in! I was excited to hear that you saw two ducklings under the boardwalk, that meant number six was alive and well and there was one more! You made short work of capturing the remaining two (I thought we were going to be there all day). We spent another 1.5 hours trying to capture the mother but she was just too spooked to let us get close. We had a volunteer driver meeting us at 1 p.m. to take the ducklings to the rescue organization, so we had to abandon our efforts to catch the mother. Nevertheless, I think it all ended well, thanks to you. People who call in about ducklings in danger cross all social and racial boundaries. There are a lot of good people out there who care which is very reaffirming. Most of the people who call usually stay around and help out with the rescue leaving afterwards, I'm sure, with the same sense of satisfaction I feel. Thanks again Steve for stopping and caring.

ALDF: The thanks clearly go to you, Norm, and your wonderful fellow duck rescuers. I was honored to help and am eternally grateful for people like you who care and choose to make a difference.

A Visit With Kangaroos

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 14th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

I’m tired; I’m soggy, but I’ve had a truly wonderful day. When I awoke this morning, I saw that it was raining hard, a cold and blustery winter’s day here in Adelaide. I thought that my one chance to see kangaroos had slipped away, due to the inclement weather. But, the Hon. Ian Hunter M.L.C. a Labor Member of Parliament, took pity on this poor American woman and drove me to a place where kangaroos reside.

First, we stopped for breakfast at the Adelaide Central Market, a huge and fascinating market where one could probably wander for the entire day; I feasted on muesli and soy milk. Fortified, we headed out of the city in search of kangaroos. After two weeks of visiting Australia and spending all of my time in cities, I yearned to see this country’s national icon. We found them in a wildlife area where they are protected from hunting. It was raining quite hard, so we decided to duck inside for a hot cup of tea (tea is served very hot over here).  

When the rain lightened, we ventured out and there they were. I felt a thrill at seeing them—a “mob” (group) of kangaroos. We had some snacks for the roos and one brave fellow approached us. He stood quite near to us and ate snacks from our hands. He even allowed me to scratch his rain soaked head. Watching the other roos hopping on those powerful hind legs is something that I will never forget. We walked around for awhile, watching the roos from a distance, and then headed back to the city.

As if that wasn’t enough, we stopped for lunch at Bliss Organic Café, Compton Street in Adelaide and I had (no exaggeration) the world’s best tofu scramble. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of tofu scramble; it always seems a bit “off.” But, at Bliss, the tofu scramble is a scrumptious mix of potatoes, mushrooms, bits of spinach, finely grated tofu, tomatoes, nuts, seeds, dried cranberries and spices. If you get to Adelaide, don’t miss a trip to Bliss.

My Australian adventure is winding down, as I head back to Sydney for a few final meetings and then, the long trip home. Cheers!

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Live Animal Exports - Part 2

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 13th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

When Katrina Sharman and I arrived in Perth to continue the Voiceless animal law lecture series, we had a few hours of free time. We decided to take a cab to Fremantle, where the shipping port is and where live animals, mainly sheep and cattle, are shipped overseas. According to Animals Australia, in the past thirty years, over 150 million sheep and cattle have been sent by boat to the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Two million of these animals have died on the ships, due to the poor conditions and lack of appropriate care.

As we walked toward the port, we could see a large ship docked there. It was the Al Shuwaikh, loaded with sheep initially raised to produce wool, who are packed into pens several stories high. We could see the sheep moving around in the pens. It was depressing to bear witness to this sight, given what we know about the suffering that this boatload of animals will endure over the next three weeks as the Al Shuwaikh sails to the Middle East. I kept thinking, there go the damned, on their way to hell…

I have written about live animal exports from Australia in a previous blog post. Live animal exports are a thriving business and they will stop only when enough people demand an end to the misery that they cause. When I returned to my room, later that night, I found this video that describes the situation movingly:



Please. Watch this video. Then, raise your voice; speak up for these animals.

For more information about the continuing tragedy of the export of live animals from Australia and ideas of what you can do, follow these links:
Live Animal Exports: The Issues
How you can help

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

The Kangaroo Whisperer

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 13th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

I want to introduce you to some very special beings. One is Marilyn Mills, who runs a sanctuary for kangaroos. The other special beings are the kangaroos she works so hard to protect. Marilyn approached me after one of my talks and began to describe the kangaroos she has raised and released. They come “home” to her frequently and I could have listened to her stories for many hours. I asked her to send me some photos of the kangaroos or “roos” and the photos she sent take my breath away. Take a look:

Gadriel and her joey

Marilyn with Rachel and Gadriel

Gadriel with her joey and two orphaned joeys

Marilyn reads as a baby kangaroo naps on her chest

Rhiannon

A joey with a dummy (a.k.a. a pacifier)

Marilyn and Morgan give each other a hug

Kangaroos are highly social animals. They live in groups of three or more that are called “mobs.” (Hmmm; that might be an appropriate term to apply to a group of lawyers!) The mob can have 50 or more members and the members protect each other from external dangers. I have always been fascinated by the birth and development of young kangaroos. The female usually gives birth to one baby, called a “joey” annually. At birth, the joey is about the size of a finger and hairless, so tiny that the mother would risk harming the baby if she touched him. The joey climbs up his mother’s belly and into her pouch. There, he attaches to a teat for milk and remains in the pouch feeding for nine months. After that, the joey will begin to leave the pouch for increasing periods of time, but will return to feed, until he no longer needs his mother’s milk.

Marilyn shared the following story with me and I want to share this with you:

“I am fortunate to have the opportunity to closely study the mob which reside on my sanctuary. Another opportunity I have is to closely study a mother raise her joey - Gadriel (the kangaroo you saw in the picture which the BIG pouch) came to me at six months old with severe injuries and I eventually had to have her right toe amputated at the second phalanges. She adapted to the missing toe and I released her. The problem is that when she has a joey in her pouch her hopping becomes difficult so she comes home every year to raise her joey, she just turns up when it gets too difficult to hop and sets herself up in one of the enclosures, then when the joey is fully out of pouch & she has a bit of a rest, about 12 months later, she stands at the gate till I let her out. So far she has raised two joeys at home, I expect her to move back in later this year. The other good thing is that I introduce my orphans to Gadriel and I raise them with her, they play with her joey and when I release Gadriel she takes my orphans with her. The picture shows two joeys laying behind Gadriel - they are two of my orphans. Having Gadriel home actually makes my life a lot easier as the orphans have a REAL role model.”

Australia annually slaughters approximately 4 million adult kangaroos and 440,000 joeys, so someone with a heart as big at Marilyn’s is an absolute blessing and more people like her are needed here. If you’d like to learn more about the plight of kangaroos and what you can do to speak up for them, please check the Voiceless website.

My Australian adventure continues...

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Oppose the Parole of Dogfighting Kingpin David Tant

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on August 12th, 2010

David Tant of Charleston County, South Carolina was reportedly considered by the underground dogfighting community to be one of the top breeders of fighting pit bulls in the country. In April 2004, authorities seized 47 pit bulls from Tant's property, many with injuries consistent with dogfighting. They found dogfighting equipment: caged treadmills, a "rape box" (designed to restrain female dogs so that they can be forcibly bred), cattle prods, harnesses, a bear trap, homemade gun silencers, dogfighting magazines and remnants of a dogfighting ring.

In November 2004, after two days of a jury trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of animal fighting and one count of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for animal fighting, 10 years in prison for creating a booby trap, and restitution of about $150,000.

On July 21, 2010, six years into his 30 year sentence, Tant was granted his first parole hearing in front of three members of the seven-member parole board. He was not required to go in front of the full parole board because, shockingly, his is considered a non-violent offense. The vote was split 2-1 in favor of parole. Because the partial board did not reach a unanimous decision, Tant will go in front of the full board on September 8.

Write a polite letter to the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to oppose parole for this dogfighter, who is responsible for the suffering of many innocent animals in this violent bloodsport. Use SC PPP's online comment form to oppose parole for David Tant, SC Department of Corrections inmate # 306170.

Thank you for joining ALDF in our push to make sure authorities get tough on dogfighters!

Live Animal Exports

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 9th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

It’s hard not to like Melbourne. It’s a beautiful city, with stunning architecture and lots to do. It’s winter, but the weather is around 55 degrees and sunny—milder than our American winters and perfect for a walk.  

As promised, I will continue to report on pressing animal issues here in Australia. One of the big challenges is the plight of live animals exported by ship to other countries. This is a large industry in Australia. Each year, Australia exports 4 million live sheep, initially raised to produce wool, to the Middle East and 1/2 million live cattle to Southeast Asia. The ships used to carry the animals can fit up to 100,000, with sea voyages that last up to three weeks.  

The welfare of the animals seems to be a minor concern to the shippers and there are a number of problems:

• Overcrowding and increased competition for food and water.
• Stress from being handled.
• Lack of veterinary care (even though mandated by law).
• Sheep are grazing animals, accustomed to eating grass; on ship they are only given food pellets and some of the sheep will starve to death, not realizing that the pellets are food. 
• Storms, bad weather, fires and the potential for rejection by the importing country, which leaves the animals stranded on the ship for even longer periods of time.
  

The suffering caused by live shipment is extreme and a certain percentage of the animals die before the ship reaches land; industry considers that an acceptable cost of doing business. Animals Australia has also documented cruelty and abuse in the countries receiving Australian animals and is working to stop live animal exports from Australia. Please visit their website for more information and to find out how you can help.

Stay tuned for more from Australia...

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Face-to-Face: ALDF Attends State Legislators Summit

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on August 9th, 2010

Welcoming thousands of legislators and staff-members from around the country, Kentucky was the host state for this year’s National Summit of State Legislators. From July 25 – 28, state legislators gathered in Louisville to exchange ideas and educate themselves on current legislative trends. As in past years, ALDF was on site promoting the advancement of animal protection laws, with a particular emphasis this year on animal abuser registries.

Among the many legislators we spoke with, we were particularly glad to see Representative Walker Hines of Louisiana’s 95th District in attendance.  Representative Hines sponsored an animal abuser registry bill in Louisiana this year, and ALDF has been proud to provide him with direct research assistance and support.

With state budgets continuing to be in crisis across the board, the cost-saving aspects of many of ALDF’s model laws engaged many of those in attendance, regardless of party affiliation. Examples of cost-saving measures proposed by ALDF include:

• Animal Abuser Registries - assisting law enforcement and community shelters toward preventing recidivism with high-risk convicted abusers

• First Strike and You’re Out - mandating court-ordered possession/ownership bans for convicted animal abusers

• Cost-of-Care Bonds – placing the financial burden for the care and rehabilitation of rescued animals on the abusers rather than on taxpayers

While the advancement of legal protections for animals is a long-term pursuit which faces many obstacles, we continue to be encouraged by the one-on-one interactions made possible by this event. This summit is an invaluable opportunity to get important face time with lawmakers from all over the country, and to better develop and foster those lines of communication that are so critical for advancing the interest and protection of animals.

Download a copy of our new legislative poster “Where are the Animal Abusers in Your Community?” that debuted at the Kentucky summit.

Speaking Australian

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 7th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

One of the charming qualities of Australians is their commitment to the development and use of lingo that is unintelligible to anyone not native to this continent. For example, “sunnies” are sunglasses and “cozzies” (short for swimming costumes) are bathing suits. “Uni” refers to university (college), a “banana bender” is a resident of Queensland and “righto” means that the person you are speaking to understands what you just said. When someone says, “brilliant,” that is a compliment, unless he is “plonked” (too drunk to know better). “Avo” is avocado; why bother saying the whole word when everyone gets the point after the first two syllables?

Some of my best sources for this lingo have been the taxi drivers, who place my suitcase into the “boot” (trunk) of their taxis, as they greet me with “How y-goin?” My cabbie friends tell me that a “slab” is a case of 24 cans of beer (valuable information) and “your cheese and kisses” is a loving (albeit, non-vegan) reference to your wife.

Contrary to those Paul Hogan movies that we Americans love, no one says, “G-day, mate,” except to the tourists, but Australians do call each other “mate.”

Continuing my cross-cultural quest, I am determined to figure out the rules of rugby and the related sport, footy. From what I’ve seen, the goal seems to be to toss the ball, knock people down and jump on top of them. Both rugby and footy are on the telli (television) at all hours of the day and night; I’m still clueless as to why.

Stay tuned as I continue my adventures in Australia...

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Animal Law in Australia

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 6th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

One of the striking impressions I’m getting is that Australian animal activists are incredibly eager for information about animal law. To my amazement, several people have come to my lectures twice and even three times! I sense that they are feeling an isolation similar to that which American activists experienced twenty years ago. Australia is a large continent, the organized animal movement is relatively new and the problems these activists face are overwhelming. I have written about the plight of kangaroos and intensive confinement of farmed animals. In future blogs, I will address other pressing issues here in Australia.

Today, Katrina Sharman and I have traveled to Brisbane for two lectures, the first at Griffith University School of Law and an evening lecture at Allens Arthur Robinson, a very large Australian law firm.

Professor William MacNeil, the acting dean of the law school, opened our afternoon lecture with some very heartfelt remarks about the importance of animal law. I was quite touched by his speech. I was excited about the lecture at Griffith, as it provided me with the opportunity to meet two of the luminaries in Australian animal law: Professor Steven White, the co-author of “Animal Law in Australasia” and Professor Deborah Cao, the author of the newly released “Animal Law in Australia and New Zealand.” Katrina, my traveling companion, has written a chapter in each of those books. Both of the authors proved to be delightful and talented scholars and animal law is all the richer for their contributions. Let’s put this into perspective: animal law has existed in Australia only since 2003, because of the vision of Brian and Ondine Sherman. For there to be two textbooks within its first seven years is an outstanding achievement.

I haven’t mentioned this before, but I’ve had incredible vegan meals since I arrived in Australia and last night was no exception. Tracy-lynne Geysen, the first lawyer in Australia to establish an animal law (private) practice and two other attorneys joined us for a lovely meal and spirited conversation. Unfortunately, it appears that I’ve put on a few pounds and my pants may need to be let out!

Stay tuned for more of my Australian adventure...

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Disgusting and Illegal

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on August 6th, 2010

Earlier this week the New York Times published an editorial called "Disgusting but Not Illegal," which defends animal crush videos as free speech.  

Not only does the Times’ editorial ignore the reality of these videos, but it also misreads the text of the new bill to ban their sale and distribution.

The Times is right to point out that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment applies only to prurient or sexual materials. But animal crush videos do appeal to the prurient interest in sex: the sadistic desire to observe animals being tortured and the masochistic desire to fantasize oneself as an animal being crushed by a dominatrix.

In theory, one could have a non-sexual crush video (e.g., one without the sado-masochistic overtones). But the way the new bill defines crush video requires obscenity: “[T]he term ‘animal crush video’ means any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled . . . .’’

The only videos whose sale and distribution are criminalized by the new bill are those that are obscene, and therefore already unprotected by the First Amendment.

The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 5th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

Today, we traveled to the Gold Coast, on the Northeastern side of Australia. Even though it is winter here, the weather in the Gold Coast is quite lovely: warm and sunny. We visited Bond University Law School, where I delivered a lecture this evening.  

As I travel through Australia, I am meeting many fascinating and knowledgeable people. Marilyn Mills, of Wildlife Advocate, Inc., runs a sanctuary for kangaroos and described several of the kangaroos who have become treasured members of her extended family. She told me of their intelligence and sweet natures and lovingly showed me photos of some of her favorite kangaroo friends.

The commercial hunting of Australia’s beloved national icon, the kangaroo, is an embarrassing and cruel chapter in this country’s current history. Adult kangaroos are killed to be eaten by humans (also for pet food) and their skins are made into soccer shoes and other products. Kangaroo hunting is carried out at night in the rural areas where kangaroos are found. The quota for 2009 was 4 million kangaroos. Mother kangaroos commonly care for two kangaroo children (called “joeys”) at once: a baby who is in their pouch and an older joey who travels alongside the mother. Joeys stay with their mothers for up to two years. By law, the adult kangaroos are supposed to be shot in the brain, but even the most experienced hunters miss a clean shot pretty regularly, leaving wounded kangaroos to die slowly and painfully. Additionally, when mother kangaroos are shot, the law requires that hunters club the joey to death; they are considered “collateral damage.” Each year, 440,000 joeys are clubbed to death with steel pipes.

I also spoke with kangaroo expert, Dr. Dror Ben-Ami, PhD, the author of “A Shot in the Dark, A Report on Kangaroo Harvesting.” This report concludes, “The realities of the kangaroo industry: extensive and alarmingly unhygienic practices, unacceptable suffering of young kangaroos and the manufacture of false hope that kangaroo harvesting will alleviate environmental degradation in rural areas.”  You may visit the Voiceless website for the full report. (PDF download)

The hunting of kangaroos is an outrage and should be stopped. If you want to learn more about the plight of kangaroos in Australia and what you can do to help, please check out the Voiceless website.

Tomorrow, we head to Brisbane. Stay tuned for more of my Australian adventure...

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Protecting Dogs From the Dangers of Hot Cars

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on August 5th, 2010

Every summer at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we receive numerous phone calls and emails from people who have heard stories about dogs who have died after being left in hot cars. Sometimes the owners of these dogs are charged with animal cruelty, and unfortunately, many times they are not.

What many people don’t know is that even on moderately cool days, the temperature inside a car can be fatal. Even when its only 70 degrees outside, in just one hour, the temperature inside a car can soar to over 110 degrees, and cracking the windows doesn’t really help.

Check out ALDF’s video about the dangers of leaving dogs in hot cars and suggestions for what you can do in your community to protect dogs from becoming “hot car” victims.

Factory Farming in Australia

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 4th, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

Last night, I delivered my first keynote address to a large and eager audience at the University of Sydney Law School. I was joined at the podium by Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir AC CVO, the Governor of New South Wales, Dr. Melissa Perry QC, and Professor Gillian Triggs, Dean of the Law School, who graciously welcomed us all. I was introduced by Katrina Sharman, General Counsel of Voiceless.

Brian Sherman, the founder of Voiceless, is a self made multi-millionaire, who could be spending his time doing any number of pleasurable undertakings. Instead, he has chosen to champion the protection of animals and he is a passionate and eloquent spokesperson. Last evening, Brian spoke about the intensive confinement of farmed animals in Australia. The following statement by Brian is from the Voiceless web site is similar to what he shared with the audience at the law school:

“I recently visited a chicken farm in New South Wales, and I can tell you the deprivation that these animals suffer is appalling and unrelenting,” Mr. Sherman said.  

“They may lawfully be packed 20 per square metre in sheds that can hold 60,000 and that are artificially lit for up to 23 hours a day. These birds have little or no freedom to engage in natural behaviours, like foraging for food and nurturing their young, and no exposure to the outside world. Their entire existence is geared towards growing as fast as possible. Chickens can live for years, but the modern factory farm ensures they are ready for slaughter in just 35 days.” 

Voiceless goes on to tell us that:

Battery hens share a similarly miserable life of deprivation, living indoors in cages with about the size of an A4 sheet of paper each in which to move. Male layers are considered a waste product as they can’t lay eggs, so they are disposed of within days of hatching by gassing or maceration. Australia’s consumption of chicken has increased by 600% over the past 40 years. On average, more than 490 million chickens are killed annually in order to satisfy our national appetite. Chickens represent 90% of all farm animals used for food production in Australia.

As you can see from the above description, life (if one can call it living) in the factory farm is as miserable in Australia as it is in the U.S. The protection of animals is something that not only consumes Brian Sherman’s time, but is a family affair. His daughter, Ondine, is equally involved in the key work of Voiceless, as is son-in-law, Dror Ben-Ami, an animal expert who recently issued a report on the plight of kangaroos in Australia. I will report on that in future blog posts.

Later today, we move on to Canberra. Stay tuned…

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Welcome to Australia, Joyce!

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 3rd, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

Yesterday was a busy day, with some media interviews and introductions to the staff of Voiceless, the animal protection institute. Last evening, Voiceless held a lovely cocktail reception. Gene Sherman and Ondine Sherman of Voiceless spoke first, and then, I delivered a short talk. One of the interesting things is that while our respective laws are different, the major problems faced by animals in the U.S. and Australia are quite similar. In Australia, sows (female pigs used to produce piglets who are raised to be eaten) are kept in the most egregious form of intensive confinement, just as they are in the U.S. Pigs are highly intelligent and active animals, who naturally graze and turn things over with their snouts. Sow stalls (called “crates” in the U.S.) are metal containers where each sow is housed individually. She has no room to move or even turn around. This is how the sow is forced to live for life! An analogy for humans would be being forced to spend one’s entire life in an airline seat with nothing to do and no way to get out. As you can imagine, the sows become frustrated and depressed; they also develop joint damage and other health problems from the intensive confinement.

There are signs of change in Australia, as there are in the U.S., due to pressure coming from consumers who demand that the sows be raised in a more humane manner. But, the pork producers in each of our countries are fighting back, so it remains to be seen how much progress will be made on behalf of the sows.

This evening, I will deliver my first keynote address at the University of Sydney, Sydney Law School.  I’ll let you know how it goes!  

Related blog posts:
Hello from Sydney, Australia
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Declaring Freedom for Animals from Harm, Illogic and Wrongheadedness

Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on August 2nd, 2010

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” begins the famous line from the Declaration of Independence. I’ve got my own version: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that one and one is two, that the sky is blue, and that abused animals should not be returned to their abusers. Yet I must live in an enlightened animal law bubble to think the last concept to be self-evident, because plenty of others do not think it so obvious, or even consider the idea at all.  What am I talking about? Judges and attorneys who see nothing wrong with returning animals back to defendants who plead guilty to animal cruelty or are convicted of it after a trial, thus putting the animals right back in harm’s way again, sometimes after having recovered in foster homes from their horrific ordeals.

In what I hope does not portend a trend, twice this year in separate New York counties (Erie and St. Lawrence) judges went so far as to order animals to be returned to their abuser before trial, and unbelievably, without even having a hearing on the matter! That’s right, no inquiry as to the basis for the criminal charges supporting the animal’s seizure from the abuser, even though the law provides for such in the form of a bond or forfeiture hearing. No effort made by the court to even ascertain whether the conditions had improved since the charges were filed and were now adequate to support the return of animals to their accused abuser. Such judicial arrogance is not only legally improper, it is shockingly inappropriate.

One way to combat this is to pass legislation taking away discretion to hand back abused animals, in the form of mandatory forfeiture of all animals upon conviction, and prohibiting convicted abusers from having contact with animals, as Oregon and several other states have done. ALDF has model laws that may be used as samples for legislation here.

Surely I am not the only one who thinks returning animals to their tormenters is self-evidently wrong?

Hello from Sydney, Australia

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on August 1st, 2010

Join ALDF Founder & General Counsel Joyce Tischler as she tours Australia with Voiceless, the animal protection institute, for the 2010 Animal Law Lecture Series.

It’s Sunday, August 1 and I landed here at 7:00 a.m. this morning, to start my lecture tour with the Australian animal protection organization, Voiceless. It’s winter in Australia, but to paraphrase the old Mark Twain joke, a winter’s day in Sydney is warmer than a summer’s day in San Francisco. Sydney was still asleep when I checked into my hotel and meandered over to Hyde Park. Once there, I was greeted by the very loud “phweep… phweep” sound made by the aptly named “Noisy Miner,” a pretty little gray and yellow bird found everywhere in this city. Small bird, large lung capacity. A few minutes later, I was absolutely taken aback when I was  approached by an Australian White Ibis, a bird I’ve never seen before. This bird is quite large, with an all white body, a featherless black head and a foot-long, downward curved beak. His head and beak look almost pre-historic. The Ibis is quite common in Australia and Australians consider them to be pests. I, on the other hand, was thrilled to meet my first Ibis and gladly shared some of my puffed kamut cereal, so that I could take some close-up photos of my feathery friend.

Katrina Sharman, corporate counsel of Voiceless, took me to lunch at a charming little restaurant in Paddington, where we chatted about various animal issues related to Australia. What fascinates me is that the problems that animals face in Australia are quite similar to those faced in the U.S. For example, the intensive confinement of sows is a major issue in both countries. Big news Down Under is the giant supermarket chain, Coles, announced in July that, by 2014, it will stop buying pork from farms which confine sows in sow stalls (the Australian equivalent of American gestation crates). There are so many animal activists to meet in Australia, so much to learn.  I can’t wait to get started on the tour.

Stay tuned!

Related blog posts:
Welcome to Australia, Joyce!
Factory Farming in Australia
The Plight of Kangaroos in Australia
Animal Law in Australia
Speaking Australian
Live Animal Exports
The Kangaroo Whisperer
Live Animal Exports - Part 2
A Visit With Kangaroos
The Future of Animal Law in Australia

Kool & the Gang Said it Best

Posted by Tom Linney, Animal Law Program Staff Attorney on July 29th, 2010

So I just returned from the Taking Action for Animals Conference in D.C. and have to say that one of the things that I enjoyed most was the banquet performance by Hal Sparks. As a well-known comedian and supporter of animal causes, I was really curious to hear what his stand-up bit would be like. Of course, trying to re-tell a comedian’s joke never leads to the kind of laugh that he or she was able to get so I won’t dare try. But I laughed a lot and he had great commentary on a variety of issues. There was one in particular that stuck with me (along with his joke about the sweltering heat and the conference being held at the time when D.C. was closest to the sun!) He said something to the effect of, we (in the animal protection community) can be a pretty morose group at times. And with millions of animals abused every day in factory farms, dog fighting rings, circuses, laboratories, puppy mills, etc… you can see why.

But his suggestion was that we should act more like dogs. A dog may have been beaten, stabbed or shot, and the next day he or she will be there, wagging their tail and moving side to side in front of you to get your attention. The truth is we do have to take time to reflect on all the good that has and is being done for animals. When he said this, I thought of the attorney and law student reception ALDF hosted shortly before the banquet. At this reception, I had the great fortune of meeting both new and long-time practicing attorneys and current and soon-to-be law students. They came from all over – states like Vermont, Illinois, Pennsylvania, D.C., New Jersey, Oregon, New York, Texas, Kentucky and even the Virgin Islands. And they came from all types of backgrounds – criminal, non-profit, corporate, military, policy, children’s rights, etc… Some were former, current, or soon-to-be SALDF members and two had worked as summer clerks for ALDF. Some were new and anxious to get involved in animal law issues; others were leading experts in the field. Seeing this wide spectrum of talented attorneys devoted to the field really gave me hope for the future of animals and animal law in general. Let’s CELEBRATE our victories and stay positive about the work to come.

So in those instances when we feel like pulling a Debbie Downer and talking about how Mad Cow Disease can live in your body for years before it ravages your brain or how feline AIDS is the number one killer of domestic cats, think twice. Take on the spirit of a dog you know. And right on queue, my formerly neglected, rescue dog just rolled over and showed me his tummy. Lesson learned.

First Attempt at Legislating "Crush Videos" was Deemed Too Broad

Posted by Stephanie Ulmer, Guest Blogger on July 28th, 2010

In response to recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Congress seeks to find a narrower road to protecting animals

On July 21, 2010, the House stepped up to answer the U.S. Supreme Court’s call for a narrower version of a law aimed at stopping the distribution of “crush videos” (videotaped depictions of small animals being smashed underfoot). H.R. 5566, Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010, passed with a vote of 416 to 4. The House acted after an April 2010 decision by the Supreme Court in which it overturned a defendant’s conviction under a similar 1999 law, 18 U.S.C. §48, finding that it was too broad and that it could allow for prosecutions outside its intended scope. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (U.S. 2010).

The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing that, “As Congress has found, animal cruelty is often committed so that others can watch. It is those who peddle to that market who are § 48's target.” It was also asserted that §48 criminalized depictions only when the depiction's sole expressive content was an illegal act of cruelty. ALDF argued that it was clear that the prior law made an exception for certain materials. In the introduction to its brief, ALDF noted that § 48 also recognized that there may be depictions of animal cruelty that contain an expressive message beyond the commission of acts of animal cruelty. “Consistent with Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), § 48 does not criminalize such depictions.  If there was some expressive message, if there is content of ‘serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,’ there is no criminal penalty. 18 U.S.C. § 48(b); Miller, 413 U.S. at 34.”  The brief goes on to state that § 48 criminalized depictions only when the depiction's sole expressive content was an illegal act of cruelty. 

But, alas, the high court rejected the arguments, ultimately agreeing with opponents of the law (many of whom included sportsmen and journalist groups) that it created an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights. The new bill will now go to the Senate for a vote. This quick reaction by the House deserves praise. Now… let’s hope this narrower bill will provide the protection the animals deserve.

ALDF’s full amicus brief can be found at UNITED STATES v. STEVENS, 2008 U.S. Briefs 769 (U.S. June 15, 2009).

Historic Vote to Ban Bullfighting

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on July 28th, 2010

Today, the Spanish region of Catalonia voted to ban bullfighting, a cruel blood “sport” long entrenched in Spanish culture. The ban—the first-ever in mainland Spain—passed with a vote of 68 to 55, and will go into effect in January 2012. It’s an incredible victory for animals and for the dedicated activists and legislators in Spain who have tirelessly contended for many years that la tortura no es arte ni cultura—the fact that bullfighting has a long cultural history in Spain does not excuse the barbaric cruelty to bulls who are tortured and die incredibly painful, slow deaths in bullfighting rings.

As the New York Times reports, the historic vote comes at a time when bullfighting’s popularity is waning.

The decline is particularly sharp in Catalonia, home to some of the country’s first bullfighting societies and some of the country’s leading bullfighters. The main city, Barcelona, once operated three bullrings to cater to a fanatic public. Now, there is now just one bullring, La Monumental, which attracts as few as 400 season ticket holders.

Prior to today’s vote, PROU! (Enough!), a coalition of Spanish animal protection groups, collected 180,000 signatures in support of their proposal to modify Catalonia’s Animal Protection Law to ban bullfighting.  The Animal Legal Defense Fund lent our support by asking the 1,700 members of our own network of legal professionals across the U.S. to endorse their campaign, which was also endorsed by research scientists, psychologists, criminologists, and human-service professionals concerned about the link between violence toward animals and violence toward humans.

Today’s vote is an inspiring example of legislators rejecting outdated cultural mores and pushing laws forward to reflect a more modern understanding of our duty to protect animals from suffering. As the Times story further reports,

“This is not an attack against Spain but evidence that we, Catalans, support and share more advanced values with the rest of Europe,” said Josep Rull, a lawmaker from Convergence and Union, a Catalan party. “We can be proud to have demonstrated today that Catalonia has a more dignified and respectful society that believes in eliminating the torture and suffering of animals.”

Even though you likely don’t speak Catalan, no translation is necessary to appreciate the joy of activists in this video of the moment of the vote.

El Parlament prohíbe las corridas de toros en Cataluña

House Passes Bill Banning Animal Crush Videos

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on July 27th, 2010

Good news from Congress: last week, the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to pass the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010, which would prohibit the sale and distribution of crush videos in interstate and foreign commerce. As readers of this blog know, animal crush videos contain depictions of small animals being crushed underfoot for the sexual gratification of the viewer.  

This new law, which must still pass the Senate, is a response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision this past April in U.S. v. Stevens. In Stevens, the Court invalidated a 1999 law that prohibited the sale, possession, and distribution of any depiction of animal cruelty that lacked serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value. By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that the old law was overbroad and swept up too much constitutionally protected speech, such as hunting videos. The Court left open the possibility that a more narrowly tailored law could be found constitutional. This new law is Congress’s attempt to craft a law that sidesteps the concerns the Court raised in Stevens.  

This new law is essential, because recent investigations by the Humane Society of the United States have shown that crush videos are on the rise in the wake of the Stevens decision. Hopefully the Senate will act as quickly and decisively as the House did to once again criminalize the commercial exploitation of animals in crush videos.

Spaceless in Seattle

Posted by Ken Moore, Animal Advocate, Guest Blogger on July 26th, 2010

Have you ever felt so passionate about a social issue... yet when you explain your position to others, rather than igniting a similar passion their eyes just glaze over? Since I started learning about the plight of the three elephants at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo a year ago, I've experienced this frustration over and over again. Sure, part of the problem may be my speaking style (do I wave my arms too much?) but I think the big culprit is lack of brevity. I don't have enough fingers and toes to enumerate all the facets of suffering these creatures endure, and trying to cover all these points in a single discussion has been my recipe for failure. So decided to try something new...

I produced Spaceless In Seattle to make the elephants' case in two to three minutes (before minds begin to wander). Working with local activists and some well-known elephant experts to unearth the most compelling statistics, I created a short script and produced the illustrations. So far the response has been very positive, but we need all the support we can get -- please watch the video and share it with your friends. Any passion ignited makes it all worthwhile.

Urge the City of Seattle to stop funding the Woodland Park Zoo's cruel elephant exhibit. Sign ALDF's petition today.

Nevada's Wild Horse Roundup Resumes Despite 21 Deaths

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on July 23rd, 2010

Sadly, the wild horse roundup in Nevada resumed yesterday despite the death of 21 horses and several others being treated for painful colic and brain swelling due to dehydration and exhaustion. USA Today reports:

“Horse activist Laura Leigh, whose lawsuit put a temporary halt to the roundup July 14, blames the deaths on the BLM, which she says allowed the horses to become dehydrated and held the roundup during the hottest season of the year.”

Learn more about this tragic issue and help put a stop to these roundups by contacting your Senators and Representatives today!

A Small Antidote

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on July 22nd, 2010

A quick internet search for coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now that we’re three months into this unprecedented environmental devastation, would suggest that there’s probably nothing left to write. Literally tens of thousands of hits pop up, articles, blogs, and personal accounts using once-dramatic descriptors that now feel clichéd—the hemorrhaging well gushing blackness into a once-blue sea; the vast wasteland of the now-spoiled waters; the despair of Gulf residents who have already endured enough disaster of Biblical proportion for one generation.

We’re so saturated with news about the spill that even “compassion fatigue”—a potential ramification of the overwhelm—is getting played-out as a topic of discussion. It’s understandable. How can even the most empathetic among us conceive of the ever-expanding nature of what is already an unimaginable catastrophe?

Speaking for myself, I can’t, really—conceive of the magnitude of the spill, that is. And so it felt like a much-needed antidote to how abstract my understanding of the massive spill has become when I saw these photos of oil-covered turtles in a Washington Post piece yesterday. "'The turtles look as if they’ve been frosted in cake frosting,' said research scientist Blair Witherington." Despite all I’ve heard and read as a part of the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s lawsuit to ensure that BP and the Coast Guard stop burning turtles alive in controlled burns, nothing has quite put a beat into my heart like the image of this young turtle, caked in oil—her utter helplessness the most compelling indictment I can imagine of the destruction that we humans have allowed.

All of our best efforts to right this wrong—and we must make them, with all of the ferocity we can muster—will still be insufficient. But the image of this turtle will now be the touchstone that reminds me why we must continue to fight these small battles, and for whom.

Speak Up for Animals on GreatNonprofits.org

Posted by Megan Backus, ALDF's Media Relations Associate on July 20th, 2010

The Animal Legal Defense Fund has partnered with GreatNonprofits.org’s 2010 Animal Welfare Campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to help raise visibility and support for animal issues. The campaign will recognize the top-rated nonprofits making a difference on behalf of animals, both wild and domestic, here and overseas.

In 2009 over 450,000 people read reviews of thousands of nonprofits on GreatNonprofits.org written by donors, volunteers, board members and by the general public. These reviews are also visible on GuideStar.

Every organization that gathers 10 or more positive reviews during the month of July will make the GreatNonprofits Top-Rated Animal Welfare Nonprofits List.

Please take a moment to write a quick review of your experience with ALDF. Please either sign in with your Facebook account or sign up for a Great Nonprofits profile.

Long Road to Recovery for Gulf Wildlife

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on July 19th, 2010

As I write this, there is good news in the Gulf of Mexico. A cap placed on the hemorrhaging Deepwater Horizon well has, for now, staunched the flow of oil. Though the cap may not hold, it appears that the worst of the spill may finally be coming to an end. Far less certain is whether the worst is over for the animals who call the Gulf home.

The most visible victims of the spill are those animals who inhabit the surface waters and shorelines of the Gulf. Confronting a deadly killer for which millions of years of evolution could not have prepared them, pelagic animals, including shorebirds, marine mammals, sea turtles and many other species continue to raise their young, eat, swim and nest as they always have. As they come in contact with oil they may die lingering deaths from acute toxicity or, in the case of many birds, hypothermia – as oiled feathers can no long provide the insulation needed to maintain a healthy body temperature.

Beneath the surface and along the seabed the effects of the spill are practically invisible and poorly understood. Much of the oil has not surfaced, either due to the extreme depth and cold at the mile-deep wellhead or due to the use of chemical dispersants which break the oil into smaller droplets that disperse in the water and linger below the surface. One has to imagine that driving BP’s unprecedented dumping of more the two million gallons of the toxic dispersant, Corexit, is its desire to keep public-relations-unfriendly oil out of sight and out of mind.

What does that mean for the Gulf? No one is certain. Many biologists claim that the use of dispersants will only compound the effects of the oil but it will be nearly impossible to document its effects due to the scale of the spill and the difficulty in determining mortality. Whale sharks, for example, a threatened species which feed by skimming plankton on the surface of the ocean, are now moving north towards the Mississippi delta – and into the slick. Like all sharks, these leviathans will sink when they die. On the bottom, a recently discovered species of tube worm has individuals that are over 400 years old and scientists estimate some may be more than 1000 years old. The fate of whale sharks, sea turtles and millennia old worms may hang in the balance.

But there is good news too. The successful test of the latest well cap could mean the spill is drawing to an end, which will also mean the end of dispersant use. In addition, the lawsuit filed by ALDF and three other environmental and animal protection groups has forced BP and the Coast Guard to initiate procedures to prevent the burning alive of sea turtles and other marine animals in the controlled burns used to reduce surface oil. And, with the help of animal advocates, this spill will result in new laws requiring systems for preventing and containing future accidents, for example, simultaneous drilling of emergency relief wells along with any new drilling operations. Meanwhile, ALDF is continuing to seek ways to minimize the harm currently being done to animals in the Gulf.

Please stay tuned for news about our pending lawsuit against BP, and for other actions you can take to help the animal victims of this tragedy, by signing up for our e-alerts and e-newsletters. The animals need you to be their voice.

Twelve Wild Horses Die in Nevada Roundup - Take Action!

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on July 16th, 2010

Despite the public's outcry against young foals being run long distances in high temperatures during the height of summer, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) blazed forward with a plan to roundup 1,400 federally protected wild mustangs from Nevada's Tuscarora region in Elko County earlier this month. Tragically, the first day of the roundup resulted in the death of at least 12 horses and several others being treated for painful colic and brain swelling due to dehydration and exhaustion.

Help stop this massacre of America's wild horses! Contact your Representatives and Senators and urge them to call on the Interior Department and President Obama to immediately halt the BLM's summer roundups. In the next three months, 6,000 additional wild horses and burros are slated for removal, paid for with your tax dollars.

Violating their own protocol of waiting until mid-August (after the foaling season) to begin helicopter roundups, the BLM started the Nevada roundup on July 10. Adults and foals, some only days or weeks old, were chased up to eight miles over dangerously rocky and rugged terrain during the hottest part of the summer. Last winter, after being run over similar terrain, two foals suffered horrible deaths when their hooves separated from their leg bones.

While there is some debate around the reason for the gather - the BLM claims it's to protect the horses; wild horse advocates say it's driven by helicopter availability, using taxpayer money before the end of the fiscal year and making public lands available for cattle ranchers - there is no question that the horses' best interests should dictate the schedule and size of the roundup. Chasing mothers and their newborn foals across the desert during the hottest months of the year is clearly not protecting these majestic animals.

The BLM's mismanagement must be stopped before another horse suffers and dies at the agency's hands. Send a letter to your Representatives and Senators through ALDF's website, demanding a moratorium on all summer roundups.

Animal Rights Moves into the Mainstream

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on July 15th, 2010

TIME published an article yesterday that asks, “Can animal rights go too far?” — citing examples such as California’s vote in 2008 to increase the size of cages for egg laying hens so they can stand up, lay down and spread their wings, and the more recent law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger last week that requires out-of-state egg producers to follow the same rules if they intend to sell their eggs in California.

The article discusses numerous animal protection laws — in both the U.S. and abroad — and how the force driving the animal rights movement is “a surprisingly strong level of popular support.”

It’s exciting to see this informative article in a major news outlet, despite its leading title and ever-popular comparison between the animal rights and human rights movements. Early in the article, the author writes:

“Even as human rights seems to have taken a few hits of late — with the U.S. government endorsing harsh interrogation techniques, also known as torture, and the Supreme Court whittling away at race-discrimination laws, defendants' rights and the Voting Rights Act — animal rights has moved further into the mainstream.”

Comparisons like this disturb me. Why is there a belief by some that advocates must choose between fighting for the rights of humans versus non-humans? As an animal advocate, I am not aware of having signed an exclusive contract to only help animals. I am fully capable of empathizing with both humans and non-humans, and I work toward ending the suffering of all individuals, whether they have fins, feathers or feet. Let’s stop sensationalizing the issues and start working toward a world that recognizes and respects the rights of all sentient beings.

New California Law Protects Out-of-State Egg-Laying Hens

Posted by Stephanie Ulmer, Guest Blogger on July 12th, 2010

Non-Californian egg-laying hens are included in a new law allowing them to stretch their wings if their eggs make it to market in the Golden State but they still must wait until 2015 to gain this new freedom...

Although not the first state to regulate the size of cages for hens (other states had previously passed laws regarding bovine and swine crates), California is the first to include chickens in the banning of small cages and in the regulating of their living spaces. Although it took several years and lots of work to get Proposition 2 on the ballot in California in 2008, it passed with over 63% approval. It is clear that the people of California want better treatment and living conditions for farmed animals. However, Prop 2 will not take effect until 2015.

This newest provision, signed into law last month by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and introduced by state assemblyman Jared Huffman, assures that Proposition 2's protections will apply to all eggs sold in California, even if the eggs are laid out of state. The 2015 deadline also applies to the new law, and is again most likely a compromise with farmers who have maintained that they need adequate time in order to comply with the new provisions requiring them to have larger cages in which the hens can stand and turn around. But nearly five years still seems like a long time for the hens to have to wait. Here’s hoping that this law will push farmers all over the country to get the larger crates even sooner than expected.

Right, But For The Wrong Reason

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on July 12th, 2010

Due to South Dakota’s consistent low rating in ALDF’s annual State Animal Protection Laws Rankings, I read with interest a June 23, 2010 opinion that came down from the Supreme Court of South Dakota: State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats. While the Court’s ultimate ruling is a desirable one, I take issue with the underlying reasoning used to get there.

The facts are simple. On a hot August night in 2009, Patricia Edwards was in the midst of a substantial road trip with 15 cats (and most of her other worldly possessions) packed in her car. She stopped at a convenience store in Pierre, South Dakota, where a police officer responded a short time later to a complaint “about a car parked in the parking lot occupied by a woman and a large number of cats.” When the officer rolled up, Ms. Edwards almost backed her car into the patrol officer’s vehicle. After a chat with Ms. Edwards, the officer noted that the car was crammed full of boxes, coolers, blankets, two-liter bottles full of water, books, cooking utensils, a big bag of cat food and a large and exceptionally dirty litter box. After photographing these conditions, the officer also noted that “there was a strong odor of ammonia emanating from the car.” Ms. Edwards was not in possession of any kennels, carriers or other means to confine the cats while she drove. Moreover, she was unable to provide vet records documenting that any of the cats had been spayed or neutered—offering instead the “dog ate my homework” excuse that the cats themselves had destroyed those records.

Based on his observations of Ms. Edwards’ car, along with his concern over her inability to safely operate her car with fifteen free-roaming cats in the passenger compartment, and his concern for the welfare of the cats, the officer impounded the cats and placed them with a local shelter. The officer did so under authority of SDCL § 40-1-5, which states that:

Any peace officer, agent of the board, or agent or officer of any humane society finding an animal inhumanely treated, as defined in § 40-1-2.4, shall, pursuant to a warrant or court order, cause the animal to be impounded or otherwise properly cared for, and the expenses of such impoundment or care shall be a lien on the animal to be paid before the animal may be lawfully recovered.

However, a warrant or court order is not necessary if the animal is severely injured, severely diseased, or suffering and any delay in impounding the animal would continue to cause the animal extreme suffering or if other exigent circumstances exist. If any animal is impounded or subjected to other action under this section without a warrant or court order, the officer or agent shall subsequently show cause for the impoundment or other action to the court, and the court shall issue an order ratifying the impoundment or action; or, if sufficient cause for the impoundment or action is not shown, the court shall order the return of the animal to the owner or other appropriate remedy. (Emphasis added).

Six days later, the trial court held a hearing on the propriety of the officer’s conduct and ultimately entered an order ratifying the warrantless impound of the cats as justifiable under the exigent circumstances exception as codified in the above-quoted statute.

In an effort to secure the return of the cats, Ms. Edwards appealed the court’s finding, arguing that these 15 cats were not neglected or otherwise cruelly confined and that the officer’s decision to impound them was a violation of her constitutional and statutory rights.

The Chief Justice of the Court wrote the majority’s opinion and held that the officer’s seizure of the cats was properly done as an exigency as contemplated under SDCL § 40-1-5. So far, so good. However, the majority went on to rule that the exigency was the risk of dangerous driving conditions (what with the 15 cats roaming around inside the car) rather than the conditions of confinement in what is otherwise an obvious animal hoarding case. In so holding, the Court took particular pains to emphasize the limited scope of the opinion by stating that, “In reaching this conclusion, the distinction is emphasized between the safety risk in this case and that in more typical situations involving the transportation of a pet. In that regard, the significant factors are the large number of animals involved here and the fact that they were seen running loose and climbing in a jam-packed vehicle and clearly interfering with the driver’s ability to see and focus on her driving task…”  

Now, to be fair, the majority may have been paying homage to the trial court’s underlying rational for its ruling. However, the factual record was clear and undisputed—recall that there are photographs—not to mention the: strong odor of ammonia; 15 cats crammed in an already packed vehicle; hot August weather; lack of any vet records; a less than credible explanation for the lack of vet records. These are the relevant factors that triggered the application of SDCL § 40-1-5, not the corollary driving hazards that come with these conditions.

Nevertheless, I was pleased to read Justice Konenkamp’s concurring opinion wherein he succinctly defined the issues as:

(1) did the officer have “sufficient cause” to believe that a cross-country trip with fifteen cats loose in an over-packed car was inhumane treatment of animals? and (2) were there exigent circumstances justifying impoundment of the cats without a warrant or court order? The only statute cited to justify the officer’s seizure and the circuit court’s ratification of that seizure was SDCL 40-1-5, dealing with mistreatment or neglect of animals. Whether pedestrians, motorists, or the general public may have been endangered is not germane to these questions. The circuit court found that the “living conditions of the animals were neglectful,” and focused on “visibility” and “safety.” If safety was the basis for the decision, then only the safety of the cats was subject to inquiry.

Bravo, Justice Konenkamp! While it is heartening that the majority reached the correct result in this case (e.g., the impound was lawful), it is disappointing that they did so for the wrong reason—by analyzing this case from the “traffic safety” perspective rather than from the humane perspective.

Take Action! Animal Hoarder Back in Court

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on July 7th, 2010

In May 2010, at the Clinton County, New York home of Michael Malpass, police discovered six dead animals along with eighteen cats and three dogs suffering from severe neglect in conditions so filthy that the house was condemned. Amidst accumulated feces and urine, they also found three dead animals in Malpass' house and three other dead animals in his car. Two of the seized cats had to be euthanized because of their poor health.

The next hearing for this case is set for tomorrow, July 8. Please send a letter to District Attorney Andrew Wylie today, thanking him for pursuing animal cruelty charges in this case and encourage a meaningful sentence upon conviction that includes a prohibition against possessing animals and psychiatric treatment.

The recidivism rate among animal hoarders approaches 100%. While the criminal justice system may not be the ideal venue for accomplishing mental health interventions, the cyclical criminal suffering of so many animals along with the associated costs to the community demands the participation of the courts - where psychological treatment should be meaningfully pursued.

The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.

Posted by Pamela Alexander, Director of ALDF's Animal Law Program on July 1st, 2010

Three years after the National Research Council (NRC) issued its landmark vision and strategy for toxicity testing, what comes next? This was the question that was asked at the June 21, 2010 “The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.: Creating a Roadmap to Implement the NRC’s Vision and Strategy” symposium at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. It was at this historical event that lawyers, regulators and policy makers converged to discuss the necessary steps to ensure that chemical testing protects public health, the environment, and animals—using twenty-first century toxicology.

Drawing on advances across a range of disciplines—such as genomics, bioinformatics, systems biology, and computational toxicology—the NRC envisions a new paradigm for chemical testing that is not only more predictive of adverse effects in humans, but also faster and cheaper than current models, and less dependent on whole-animal-based testing methodologies. This transformation will not happen overnight: the NRC recognized that implementation of its recommendations would require a substantial commitment of resources, would demand the involvement of multiple organizations in government, academia, industry, and the public, and could require a decade or two to achieve.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in particular, has played an important role. In addition to commissioning the efforts that culminated in the NRC vision report, EPA, through its Office of Research and Development, entered into a five-year Memorandum of Understanding with two National Institutes of Health in an effort to “guide the construction and governance of a detailed research strategy to make the NRC Committee’s vision a reality.” Last year, EPA issued its Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals, which the Agency characterized as “a blueprint for ensuring a leadership role for EPA in pursuing the directions and recommendations presented in the 2007 NRC report.”

The Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Environmental Law Institute were pleased to present the June 21 symposium, which featured a keynote presentation by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Stephen A. Owens and convened a range of legal, policy, and scientific experts to discuss:

• The status of implementation of the vision for chemical toxicity testing three years after the NRC report was issued.
• What the federal agencies are doing—and planning to do—to ensure implementation of the NRC vision.
• Stakeholder perspectives on implementation across a range of viewpoints: industry, public health and environmental protection, the academy, and animal welfare.
• Where implementation of the NRC vision fits into a landscape of potentially broad legislative reform for toxic substances, harmonization with Canadian requirements, and scarcity of financial resources.
  

While there is still monumental work to be done to protect animals in research, these types of coalition building meetings are a step in the right direction. As Joyce Tischler, ALDF's founder and general counsel, explained in a previous article, “Our objective is to bring about a win-win for everyone—the animals, the scientist, the industries, environmentalists and public health advocates—by helping them work through the many questions of how to develop non-animal scientific techniques that are more cost-effective, faster and better predicators of toxicity. This project is complex and many layered, and the change will not come as quickly as we would like, but we are feeling very hopeful.”

BP Burns Endangered Sea Turtles Alive, ALDF Files Suit

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on June 30th, 2010

Today, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, along with several other groups, filed suit in federal court against BP for burning critically endangered sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws.

As part of BP’s efforts to contain the massive oil spill that continues to devastate the Gulf of Mexico, BP is using “controlled burns” whereby oil is corralled by fire resistant booms dragged through the water by shrimp boats and then lit on fire. Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley, one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth, are caught in the gathered oil and unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.

Read more about the lawsuit.

Elephant Abuse at Zoo Leads to Lawsuit

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on June 29th, 2010

Chai weaves from side to side, mindlessly shifting her massive 8,550 pound body to her right foot then back to her left foot… over and over… day after day. The thirty-one-year-old Asian elephant was born in the wild in Thailand, then captured as a baby and brought to the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington.

The hard-packed surface she stands on has caused chronic, extremely painful injuries to her feet and joints. She has been artificially inseminated at least fifty-seven times, and has suffered multiple miscarriages resulting in physical and psychological pain.

Yet the City of Seattle uses taxpayer money to fund this institutionalized abuse.

That's why the Animal Legal Defense Fund is representing two outraged citizens who are filing a lawsuit today against the City of Seattle. The lawsuit aims to stop the City's unlawful use of taxpayer dollars to support the Woodland Park Zoo's reckless and illegally cruel treatment of its elephants.

As a result of inadequate facilities, abusive management practices, longstanding intentional neglect, and breeding practices in callous disregard for elephants' welfare, the Zoo's elephants Bamboo, Watoto, and Chai suffer from severe and chronic foot and joint injuries, unexplained physical trauma and bleeding, and sustained psychological harm. Chai's daughter, Hansa, died in 2007 when she was only six years old as a result of the Zoo's practices. A fourth Woodland Park Zoo elephant, Sri, who is currently on loan to another zoo's breeding program, has endured the horror of carrying a full-term deceased fetus in her womb for over four years.

Help win justice for Chai, Bamboo, Watoto and Sri! Here are three ways you can help right now:

• Sign the petition to urge the City of Seattle to stop funding the Woodland Park Zoo's cruel elephant exhibit.
• Watch the video of the elephants and share it with your friends.
  
• Make a special donation to the Animal Legal Defense Fund and help win the case against cruelty.

Shamefully, the Woodland Park Zoo continues to use taxpayer money to exploit its elephants for profit while failing to provide them with adequate care. Together, we can stop this abuse.

The California Spay & Neuter License Plate is Here!

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on June 25th, 2010

Here’s a fun and easy way to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering companion animals – order a California “Spay & Neuter” license plate! Proceeds from the plates provide funding for free or low-cost spay & neuter surgeries across the state.

The artwork for the plates was created and donated by Hollywood actor Pierce Brosnan and features their family dog, Shiloh, and cat, Angel Baby. Pre-order your Spay & Neuter license plate today and be among the first to sport this cool new design.

An estimated 3-4 million dogs and cats are euthanized by shelters each year in the United States. Here are additional ways to take action against the companion animal overpopulation crisis:

• Adopt your next companion animal from a shelter or rescue group rather than buying from a breeder or pet store. Adoption saves lives!
• Educate others about the importance of spaying and neutering companion animals.
• Support spay/neuter legislation in your state. Work with legislators to pass better laws that protect animals.
  

Whaling Ban Continues, But IWC Fails to Rein In Pro-Whaling Nations

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on June 23rd, 2010

Today, the International Whaling Commission announced that they are putting diplomatic efforts to end commercial whaling on hold for at least year—meaning that they have not accepted a compromise deal that would lift the 1986 ban on commercial whaling; however, regrettably, they have also put off taking any action that would improve the status quo and end Japan, Norway, and Iceland’s bloody whale hunts once and for all.

The United States had backed a compromise deal that would allow the rogue whaling nations to continue commercial whale slaughter under regulated limits, despite the arguments of scientists that in order to truly protect whale populations, whaling must come to an end altogether.

Rather than attempting to negotiate with pro-whaling countries, who have been accused of both violating the moratorium and bribing other members of the IWC for votes, the U.S. should move forward by taking the firm stance to protect whales taken by the leaders of Australia and New Zealand. As reported by the Environmental News Service,

"Lifting the moratorium on commercial whaling would have been a serious and retrograde step. That is why Australia has fought so hard against this proposal, along with many like-minded, pro-conservation nations both in the lead-up to the IWC and here on the floor of the commission," said [Australian Environment Minister Peter] Garrett.

"It is now time to close the door on that proposal and move forward, whilst building on the increased understanding that has emerged from these processes," he said.

"New Zealand is firmly committed to the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean," said Foreign Minister Mike McCully. "We want to see a significant improvement on the status quo, with an end to whaling in the Southern Ocean at the earliest achievable date."

Urgent: Tell Obama to Say No to Commercial Whaling

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on June 22nd, 2010

Update 6/23/2010:
Today, the International Whaling Commission announced that they are putting diplomatic efforts to end commercial whaling on hold for at least year—meaning that they have not accepted a compromise deal that would lift the 1986 ban on commercial whaling; however, regrettably, they have also put off taking any action that would improve the status quo and end Japan, Norway, and Iceland’s bloody whale hunts once and for all. Read more...

It’s no exaggeration to say that this week, the future of the world’s whales hangs in the balance. The International Whaling Commission is currently meeting in Morocco, where they will be voting on a proposed deal to lift the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling—despite the fact that hundreds of scientists from around the globe have presented concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of lifting the whale hunting ban. And heedless of the outcry from citizens across America and throughout the world, the Obama Administration is backing this misguided, politically motivated plan.

The arguments for lifting the ban are backed by short-sighted politics, not science, and the pro-whaling lobby bears the stink of corruption. Earlier this month, the U.K.’s Sunday Times published an investigative piece exposing Japan, the largest profiteer among the world’s three whaling nations (the others are Iceland and Norway), for bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes in exchange for their votes on the IWC.

Read “Obama’s Whale of a Backslide” for more background on Obama’s support for the “compromise plan” to resume commercial whaling currently facing a vote by the IWC at the end of this week.

And take action today by sending your urgent appeal to President Obama, urging him to reject any deals that would legalize commercial whaling.

In the Wake of the Oil Spill

Posted by Carter Dillard, ALDF's Incoming Director of Litigation on June 21st, 2010

I arrive at Grand Isle, Louisiana, a barrier island and prime beach destination for locals and tourists alike, just after lunch on Monday. There I meet up with Jeff Dorson, executive director of the Humane Society of Louisiana, who, in conjunction with Louisiana’s Clearwater Wildlife Sanctuary, has begun operation “Here to Help.”  It is an ongoing effort to survey affected areas and relay information on the location and number of animals in distress back to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jeff and others are also attempting to streamline the wildlife rescue and rehabilitation licensing process to make it easier for volunteers to receive training and authorization to assist with wildlife rescue efforts. I will accompany them today on a boat trip east of the marina – towards several bird habitats and rookeries than lay in the path of the spreading slick.

Before leaving the marina we see thick globs of reddish oil floating in the water, surrounded by a glassy sheen. I dip my hand in the water to touch one of the globules – it easily sticks to my hand and I cannot wipe away the residue. Leaving the entrance to the marina we spot a heavily oiled pelican – blackened really – sitting listlessly on a mooring. A lone porpoise, not far way, surfaced and then disappears.

After about a fifteen minute boat ride east we arrive at some of the main bird habitats and rookeries in this area – vital wetland for a variety of species, like the brown pelican and pink spoonbill.

The smell in the air as we approach one of the largest habitats is the first sign that things are not right. There is a thick petroleum odor that hangs in the air, much like the smell of crayons. And then there is the boom – the inflatable and absorbent barriers we have been seeing on television – that is meant to block the oil. As we motor up to the first habitat it is clear that the boom is not working. There is thick oil on the shore of the habitat behind the boom, and the oil is creeping up the black mangrove and smooth cordgrass that cover the island. The grass and mangrove are now literally two-tone – and will soon die. Birds float along the shore and inside the boom, wandering along the blackened shoreline - some of them covered in oil.

There are habitats like these throughout the hundreds of miles of coast stretching to the east and west of Grand Isle. Boat captains in the area explained that the oil, carried by the swift currents that run in the area (six to seven knots at times), had seeped far inland – ten or more miles – into the inland north shore of Barataria Bay. The pictures of beach cleanups are misleading – the oil has gone around the beach barrier islands, and pushed deep into the fertile wetlands that make up the coast here. Deepwater Horizon lies some fifty miles from these habitats. The oil has travelled across the Gulf – and over anything between us and it.

As we motor from one habitat to the next I am struck by how there is oil in the water that we cannot easily see. Where there is no thick crude visible, the water still has an unusual sheen to it. And then it becomes apparent. Everything floating within the water, the clumps of sea grass, the plastic bottles, the hull of our boat, eventually collects a black-brown coating. The oil is there – but largely invisible.

The oil prevents the birds from properly regulating their body temperature –normally the birds we see would not allow us to approach them, but they are trying hard to cool themselves. Sources in Grand Isle tell us that crews hired by BP are removing the dead birds early in the morning, before the daily media rush. The total number of dead animals collected – including birds, turtles, and mammals – is highly controversial, with numbers ranging from roughly 1,000 to 35,000.

We move further north to survey a normally very active rookery. On the way we pass large rust-colored slicks on the surface. Our captain explains that he has to clean his boat every day that he takes it out. When we arrive at the rookery we see a few boats idling outside of the boom. A young brown pelican darkened with oil, and a spoonbill, more brown than pink, are at the edge of the shore.

Elsewhere we see where the boom has actually washed up onto the shore – the birds step over it as they meander along. We pass several habitats like this – some with no boom at all. Grand Isle is a major focal point of the clean-up efforts. The president was here shortly before we came. We all wonder whether habitats far from any cities and towns are getting any attention at all – and whether the little effort we see here is doing any good.

On the trip back to the marina we pass an Exxon gas plant which runs right up to the edge of the water. It is ironic to find oil along the shore of the plant. A white egret flies just overhead – from the boat we can see that there is oil spreading up into its lower thighs.

Residents here describe the wildlife rescue and rehabilitation efforts here as “a show.” Local wildlife officials have said they are disorganized and woefully underfunded, unable to perform the work they know needs to be done. While the primary focus appears to be on cleaning beaches to lure back the tourists, and to compensate the fishing and other industries impacted by the spill, it seems – as in Katrina – that the animals are being left behind.

Fish Food for Thought

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on June 18th, 2010

The Earth’s fish are countless - over 30,000 species have been recorded, and unknown numbers remain to be discovered. These fascinating animals are among the most ancient, with fossil evidence dating modern fish back to the Paleozoic Era.

While fish have played a myriad of roles across human cultures for centuries, our contemporary world places an extraordinary demand on fish populations. This demand is perhaps unique in its invisibility to the public, as relatively few people “get their hands wet” with the work that affects fish and their habitats.

Whether they are kept as pets, hunted for food, photographed by divers, farmed in hatcheries, experimented on in research, or admired in koi ponds, there is law to address the endeavor. From plain language “No Fishing” orders to elaborate policy plans, the array of statutes which touch on fish seems almost as vast as the diversity fish themselves display.

The following are just a few examples of fish and their place in the law.

• Portland Man Gets Probation After Stabbing Ex-Girlfriend's Pet Fish
• The Aquatic Laboratory: Fish in Research and Testing
• Lawsuit: Hawaii Swordfish Fishery Expansion Jeopardizes Turtle Survival
• What is a Longline?
• Rocky, the Snakehead Fish, Dies of Natural Causes
• Maine Kills Illegal Goldfish in Outdoor Pond
• Herring Fishermen Join Trawler Lawsuit
• Lawsuit Raises Questions About Fish Oil Capsules and Health Benefits
• The USDA/APHIS and Live Fish Imports
• Rome Bans Goldfish Bowls
• Knox v. Massachusetts Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1981
• An Estimated 26 Million Tons Of Fish Illegally Landed Every Year, Warn Researchers
• Dynamite and Cyanide Fishing
• Fisheries: Salmon Stronghold Bill Swims Upstream
• Cruise Ships and Illegal Dumping

Canine CSI

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on June 15th, 2010

In April, attorneys, law students, professors, and activists from around the world convened at Harvard Law School for the Animal Legal Defense Fund's "Future of Animal Law" conference to explore vital issues relative to animal law and activism. Below is a short clip from the panel “Canine CSI? Advances in Investigating and Prosecuting Cruelty to Animals.” Panelists Scott Heiser, director of ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program, Steve Payne, an Oregon State Police detective and vice president of BKForensics, and Dr. Melinda Merck, a forensic veterinarian for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals discussed the latest tools attorneys have available to them when prosecuting animal cruelty cases, from DNA evidence to the data on the suspect's cell phone. I can see this outstanding ensemble of experts on an episode of the hit television series CSI already!

Check out this clip of the panel:

The entire “Canine CSI” panel, along with an additional 13 hours of conference coverage, is available to order on ALDF’s website.

Other panels include:

• Charting a Course for the Protection of Farmed Animals: Legal and Economic Approaches
• Pet Theories: Breaking New Ground with Companion Animal Law
• Almost a Person: What Lies Ahead for Chimpanzees?  

Check out the full list of panels here.

Reflections on Proposition 2 and Consumer Choices

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on June 14th, 2010

A new study published in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization raises interesting questions about the role of legal campaigns in changing consumer choices on animal protection issues. The study’s author, Dr. Jayson L. Lusk, a professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University, looked at how Proposition 2, the California ballot initiative that prohibits the use of battery cages for egg-laying hens, has affected consumer demand for eggs obtained through non-battery cage production methods.

It should be noted that Prop 2, which passed with 63% of the vote in November 2008, has not yet gone into effect, and it won’t for another five years. So the study did not look at how effective the law itself has been at eliminating battery cages. Rather, Dr. Lusk evaluated how the popular discussions about the law, such as newspaper articles and op-ed pieces, influenced consumer demand for non-battery cage eggs.

To determine whether the increased public awareness caused by Prop 2 changed the kind of eggs people buy, Dr. Lusk’s compared the changes in demand for cage-free and organic eggs in Oakland and San Francisco (cities heavily influenced by the Prop 2 campaign) with those in Dallas and Ft. Worth (cities not affected by the Prop 2 campaign) during the two-year period leading up to and immediately following the Prop 2 vote. The study found that consumers in Oakland and San Francisco increased their purchases of cage-free eggs by 180% and of organic eggs by 20%, while purchases of battery cage eggs decreased correspondingly. In Dallas and Ft. Worth, on the other hand, demand for non-battery cage eggs stayed about the same. From this data, the study concludes that the Prop 2 campaign increased public awareness about egg production methods and, as a result, changed consumer choices.

To the extent that cage-free systems increase animal welfare, this is good news. But those of us who oppose the exploitation of animals for food, regardless of how “humane” the process, have serious reservations about encouraging people to buy cage-free eggs. The bottom-line is that, although cage-free systems are marginally better than battery cages, they still require massive animal exploitation. Yet many vegans supported Prop 2, not because they support cage-free exploitation, but because getting people to start thinking about where their food comes from is an important first step. The hope was that once people understood the reality of modern food production, they might begin questioning the entire edifice of animal agriculture, eventually adopting a vegan diet.

But here’s the bad news: the study states that “while Prop 2 may have changed which eggs consumers chose to buy, the information contained in Prop 2 did not cause a decline in total egg expenditures.” In other words, consumers in Oakland and San Francisco haven’t decreased the amount of eggs they eat, just where those eggs come from.

Some have argued that this fact reflects the failure of the Prop 2 campaign to create a fundamental rethinking of animal agriculture, cages or no cages. I share this concern, but I think it’s far too early to reach this conclusion. Changes in social attitudes don’t happen over the span of a couple of years; it’s still possible the consumers who have switched to cage-free eggs could next switch to veganism. Personally, I was vegetarian for five years before I became vegan, so I know it can take years to develop a personal ethic of eating, even after being exposed to the truth of animal agriculture.

And the good news from the study is that people do change their purchasing habits in response to public education. The next step, then, is for us to educate consumers about the ongoing suffering associated with all forms of animal agriculture, including cage-free systems.

Urgent Action Needed to Protect California's SPCAs & Humane Officers

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on June 11th, 2010

Update 6/23/10: A number of amendments were agreed to in the Assembly Judiciary Committee yesterday that have improved the bill significantly. One of the more significant changes is that the previous five year waiting period for appointment of humane officers has now been reduced to two years for the most common-level humane officers. Other improvements relating to the incorporation and appointment process occurred as well. We are hopeful that more will follow. Thank you for all of your efforts over the past week in communicating with Assemblymembers about this bill.

SB 1417 recently passed the California Senate and is now before the Assembly Judiciary Committee, with a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

The bill was initiated by Placer County as a result of its long-running dispute – since resolved by the courts – with a local SPCA.

SB 1417 would unnecessarily and severely hamper the formation and operation of SPCA/Humane Societies (SPCAs) across the state, most notably by limiting their ability to appoint humane officers. This bill would force a host of new requirements and adversarial proceedings on SPCAs. Among these is an arbitrary 5-year waiting period before any newly-endorsed SPCA could appoint any humane officer to investigate and enforce California’s animal protection laws – even where a potential humane officer had completed all requirements, training and background checks.

In California, SPCAs are special non-profit corporations who must fulfill certain requirements and receive an endorsement by a court or the State Department of Justice before they may begin operations. SPCAs often provide critical shelter facilities and educational programs, and some SPCAs appoint trained humane officers to help investigate animal abuse and neglect. Not only are these humane officers responsible for the protection of animals, they are also required reporters of child abuse.

Estimates place California’s population of companion animals alone at more than 7.5 million. There is a great need for far more humane officers and SPCAs, not fewer. ALDF believes the state’s policies should encourage the formation of SPCAs, not thwart them. Yet SB 1417 would stymie new SPCAs and humane officers, thereby keeping the burden and cost of enforcing the state’s animal protection laws solely on local governments – local governments already facing tremendous pressures on their limited resources.

SB 1417 is an unneeded remedy in search of a problem. The current system already provides adequate, multiple layers of oversight by the judicial system which have proven effective. Its enactment would accomplish nothing more than to add to the taxpayer’s weight of enforcing California’s animal protection laws.

Critical Action Needed Today!
California residents: Please contact your Assemblymember and all members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee respectfully urging them to vote in the best interests of California’s animals by opposing SB 1417 unless, at a minimum, its unnecessary and arbitrary 5-year waiting period on the appointment of new humane officers is removed.

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

Mike Feuer - Chair
(916) 319-2042
Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Van Tran - Vice Chair
(916) 319-2068
Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov

Julia Brownley
(916) 319-2041
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Noreen Evans
(916) 319-2007
Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Curt Hagman
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Dave Jones
(916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Steve Knight
(916) 319-2036
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

William W. Monning
(916) 319-2027
Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Pedro Nava
(916) 319-2035
Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov

Canada's "Best Places to be an Animal Abuser"

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on June 9th, 2010

Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Quebec are the best provinces and territories in Canada to be an animal abuser, according to a new report released today by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Based on a detailed comparative analysis of the animal protection laws of each jurisdiction, the report recognizes the provinces and territories where laws protecting animals have real teeth, and calls out those like the Northwest Territories and Nunavut—tied again for worst in Canada this year for animal protection laws—where animal abusers get off easy.

ALDF’s third annual report, the only one of its kind in the nation, ranks every province and territory on the relative strength and general comprehensiveness of its animal protection laws. For the second year in a row, Ontario held the top spot in the rankings due to its wide array of animal protection laws; New Brunswick showed the most significant improvement overall, moving from the bottom tier last year to fourth best in the country this year.

Top Tier:	1. Ontario 2. Nova Scotia 3. Manitoba 4. New Brunswick
Middle Tier:	5. Yukon 6. British Columbia 7. Saskatchewan 8. Prince Edward Island 9. Newfoundland & Labrador
Bottom Tier:	10. Alberta 11. Quebec 12. Northwest Territories, Nunavut (tie)

The full report, including a rankings map and overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the animal protection laws of each province and territory, is available here.

Legislation Update: Some of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on June 7th, 2010

The Good

Alaska: Passing almost unanimously through both chambers of the Alaska Legislature, a landmark bill is currently awaiting the signature of Alaska’s governor. This legislation makes a felony penalty available on first offenses of aggravated cruelty; makes the sexual assault of an animal a separate crime; and makes animal cruelty an aggravating factor at sentencing. ALDF provided detailed legislative analyses on the state’s animal protection laws for the bill’s sponsors, and submitted testimony in support of the legislation.

New York: A new animal abuser database bill was recently introduced in New York, bringing the total number of abuser registry bills introduced across the country this year to four. New York has another pending registry bill as well. California and Louisiana are the other two states that had abuser registry bills introduced so far this year.

Tennessee: A new “Good Samaritan” law provides immunity from civil liability to rescuers, veterinarians and others who make good faith attempts to assist stray animals that are sick or injured.  

Arizona, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Minnesota joined the growing list of states and territories (now numbering 18) that have enacted laws expressly authorizing courts to include animals in domestic violence protective orders.

The Bad

California:

• SB 1277, a bill to create an animal abuser registry, failed to advance last week due to exorbitant cost estimates provided by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). While other states considering abuser registry legislation have compiled fiscal estimates ranging from $19,000 to $60,000 for costs of implementation of such registries, California’s DOJ, in stark contrast, submitted estimates to the Senate Appropriations Committee ranging from $750,000 to $2 million. Owing to legislative deadline constraints, ALDF and the bill’s sponsor were unable to successfully challenge these figures. We hope to see the legislation reintroduced next year.
  
  
• SB 1417 recently passed the Senate and is currently pending in the Assembly. It seeks to establish new requirements for the formation of SPCAs and appointment of humane officers, including an arbitrary 5-year-wait before any new SPCA could appoint humane officers to enforce California’s animal protection laws – regardless of whether a humane officer had completed all required training and background checks. ALDF opposes SB1417 as unnecessary, and believes that its 5-year-wait is both unwarranted and unprecedented. Such lengthy waits will effectively stop the formation of new SPCAs who are solely interested in enforcing the laws. ALDF believes it is in the best interests of California’s animals to have more humane officers, not fewer. If you live in California, please contact your Assemblymember today and ask that they vote to oppose SB 1417.
  

The Ugly

Kentucky: Despite being championed by the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, HB 238, a bill which sought to simply correct a law enacted last year that inadvertently stripped the ability of veterinarians to voluntarily report suspected cases of animal cruelty, was not passed by the Kentucky Legislature. For more background on this continuing fiasco, see this earlier blog post.

Sacramento County Residents: Animals Need Your Urgent Help!

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on June 7th, 2010

The County of Sacramento is in a terrible financial crisis and its leaders face tough choices...

Despite a $22 million public investment in a new state-of-the-art animal shelter, the County’s animals are now at great risk. Two years of County budget cuts have meant a 40-percent reduction in animal care staff and limited public hours for reuniting lost pets with their families and adopting out homeless animals.

These cuts have cost animals their lives. Already, three out of five animals entering the County shelter don’t leave alive. In a single day last week, 60 animals were put to sleep at the shelter.

And it could get worse. Just last month we got word that Sacramento County supervisors are contemplating yet another significant reduction to the animal shelter. Here’s what reductions would mean:

• Animals in distress or suffering from cruelty, neglect, or injury may not get timely or adequate protection from the only agency in the County that conducts humane investigations. Animals will likely suffer longer because there will be too few officers to keep up with incoming calls.
• Dogs and cats who arrive at the shelter – most often through no fault of their own – may have only 72 hours before they are put to sleep.
• The public will be at increased risk from dangers caused by slower response times to calls about animals in the road, dog bites, and dead animal removal.
• Many shelter animals will not receive the basic veterinary care that could make the difference between life and death. A simple, treatable skin condition could be a death sentence.
• The County’s staffing ratio would fall far below recommended minimum animal care standards, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks, unsanitary living conditions, and poor animal welfare.
• Current investments in efforts to prevent the births of unwanted animals will also be reduced.
  

Sacramento County’s animals will suffer more and die in higher numbers if further cuts are made to the animal shelter.

If you want to stop this from happening, if you have ever adopted an animal, if you believe that we owe homeless pets a bare minimum of welfare and opportunity… then it is not too late for you to act!

Here are three simple ways Sacramento County residents can help:

1. Attend the budget hearing and pre-hearing rally on Monday, June 14. The rally starts at 1 p.m. on the south steps of 700 H Street in downtown Sacramento. Please visit http://tinyurl.com/NoCutsRally for details. A large crowd is needed to demonstrate the community’s commitment to animal care.
2. Prior to June 14, write a firm but polite letter (or email) and send it to the County contacts listed below. Some suggested talking points are available below. Please include your own perspective and your address.
3. Share this information with your friends and neighbors in Sacramento County. Send an email, share on Facebook, make a phone call and spread the word!
   

Thank you for making your voice heard!

Talking Points

• Any further cuts will be detrimental to the community and the animals. The agency is so hampered already that any cuts to this agency means essential services will not be able to be provided.
• Sacramento County’s animal shelter plays an important role in ensuring public safety, public health, and animal welfare. 
• The shelter, volunteers and the community are working toward making the shelter more self-sustaining in the future, but General Fund support is critical this year.
• The shelter has taken more than 40 percent in cuts already, resulting in more than 20 fewer staff positions, offering far less community services, and suffering poorer outcomes as a consequence.
• The County’s commitment to animal welfare was signaled by the opening of the new, wonderful animal welfare center, and it would be a shame if its operations were not fully supported.
• Each year about 14,000 animals rely on the shelter to save them from abandonment and suffering.
  

Sacramento County Contacts

Fax Number: 916-874-7593
Mailing Address: 700 H Street, Suite 2450, Sacramento, CA 95814

District 1 Supervisor Roger Dickinson
dickinsonr@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5485

District 2 Supervisor Jimmie Yee
jyee@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5481

District 3 Supervisor Susan Peters
susanpeters@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5471

District 4 Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan
macglashanr@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5491

District 5 Supervisor Don Nottoli
nottolid@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5465

County Executive Steve Szalay
szalays@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-5833

Municipal Services Agency Director Paul Hahn
hahnp@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-874-2268

Interim Shelter Director Carl Simpson
simpsonc@saccounty.net
Phone: 916-875-5051

Remembering Sarah

Posted by Roxanna Nematollahi, Criminal Justice Program Database Manager on June 2nd, 2010

On May 24, we lost a fellow advocate in the effort to improve the legal status of animals. Sarah Scheele was not someone who sought notoriety as an animal rights activist. In fact, six years ago, she was living a fairly quiet life that was suddenly changed forever in a matter of minutes. While on her way to a family gathering in Vermont with her husband and two dogs, her dog Shadow was fatally shot. Still reeling from the shock, she called the Animal Legal Defense Fund with a lot of questions about what she could do, and she began a journey navigating the legal system, which she was surprised to find had little regard for animal victims beyond their status as property. She and her husband Denis considered their two dogs to be their children, and they were determined to seek justice and build a legacy for their beloved Shadow by improving the way the law treats animals.

First, the Scheele’s pressured the criminal justice system to convict the perpetrator on a charge of animal cruelty. Then in a heroic effort to use Shadow’s case to move the law forward for all animals, the Scheele's pursued a civil case to seek non-economic damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship. Being on the cutting edge of change in the legal system, their case had its ups and downs, and the Scheele’s were sometimes thrust into a media spotlight, which they handled with incredible grace, always focusing on their goal to improve the lives of animals. They took their case all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court where it was decided on May 21.

Although the Scheele's lost their civil case, I know if Sarah were here, she'd be sorting out why the case was lost and asking questions about what could be done now to improve the legal status of animals. And then she would have her next plan. Giving up was not part of her playbook.

Sarah’s generous spirit was evident in her private life as well. During the past six years, she adopted three more dogs and was the caregiver for her elderly father. When a neighbor moved away, abandoning his two dogs, Sarah took them in and cared for them until she could find good homes for them. She volunteered at Little Ben's Annual Cruise fundraiser for ALDF. For years she and Denis sponsored Midshipmen from the nearby Naval Academy.

I mourn her passing because she had such a positive spirit, and I know that animals would have continued to benefit from her generosity and her persistence in advocating on their behalf. She has been an inspiration for everyone whose life she touched.

Mourning Losses on Both Legal and Human Fronts

Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on June 1st, 2010

Unfortunate, but not unexpected, is how I would describe the ruling just handed down by the Vermont Supreme Court in the case of Shadow the murdered beloved family dog, also known as Scheele v. Dustin, ---A.2d---, 2010 WL 2015270 (Vt.). As I discussed in this space last December when the case was submitted to the Court, having the Court actually ignore legal precedent that family pets are property and award Denis and Sarah Scheele damages based on their loss of companionship and emotional distress would be “an unexpected victory.” And I was right, darnit.

However, all is not lost. The opinion shows that the Court was clearly bothered by the limitations of Vermont’s current precedent regarding animals, by which it felt it was bound, and created some great language in that regard, such as: “…we are not blind to the special place they hold in our lives. Indeed, pets occupy a legal realm somewhere between chattel and children.” The Court also stated “we have suggested that the emotionless economic calculus of property law may not fully compensate a mourning pet owner and that ‘there may be a different or more appropriate measure of damages for the tangible loss of pets due to the negligence of others—a measure based on the particular pet’s value to its owner’” quoting from it’s own ruling in Goodby v. Vetpharm, Inc., 974 A.2d 1269 (VT 2009) (in which the Court considered defendant’s negligent behavior, as opposed to the intentional behavior at issue in Shadow’s case).

Perhaps due to that chafing caused by existing precedent, the Court did leave open some doors for future efforts to push the law forward in terms of changing the legal status of animals and properly recognizing their value to their guardians. For instance, the Court specifically noted that when a person has suffered from an intentional and malicious tort, “punitive or exemplary damages are the proper remedy…” but stopped short of deciding whether the defendant’s conduct in Shadow’s case rose to the level of malice required to support a punitive damages award, only because the parties here did not submit that claim to the Court. In dicta, the Court made a point of citing with approval other states that have enacted laws providing the kind of recovery sought by the Scheele’s, and also noted the Vermont legislature’s willingness to pass a law providing for “damages for the intentional destruction of certain classes of property” like trees and stated there was “no reason they could not do so here.” The Court didn’t have to say that, the opinion would have been complete without it.

So the long march to improve the legal status of animals continues and ALDF will be there out front, but sadly we have lost a soldier along the way. We received news this morning that Sarah Scheele passed away after a short battle with cancer, just days after the ruling issued in their case. We remember her in a separate tribute here. 

ALDF Advancement of Animal Law Scholarship Recipients Announced

Posted by Nicole Pallotta, ALDF's Animal Law Program Student Liaison on May 28th, 2010

Congratulations to the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Advancement of Animal Law Scholarship recipients! Three students received the national scholarship this year for their outstanding work in the growing field of animal law: Katie Barnett, Vince Field, and Christina Fojas. “They are exceptional students who have demonstrated their commitment to advancing animal law, and for that ALDF is proud to award them these $5,000 scholarships,” says Stephens Wells, ALDF’s executive director.

Katie Barnett is currently in her second year at the University of Kansas School of Law, where she founded the school’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter. After years of working in animal rescue and coordinating adoptions and spay/neuter surgeries for countless animals, animal law has proved to be the natural path for Katie to pursue in law school. She has helped with large scale animal rescues, participated in dogfighting seizures, and assisted law enforcement with the evaluation of seized dogs. Among her achievements in animal law, Katie did research for the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s amicus curiae brief in the landmark U.S. v. Stevens case involving dogfighting videos and attended oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. Read more...

Vince Field is a 2L at the University of Chicago Law School, where he founded the University of Chicago’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter in 2008. Since its inception, their chapter has been very active in promoting animal protection issues at the law school. They successfully petitioned the administration for an animal law course – the first such course ever offered at the University of Chicago. Currently, Vince is overseeing two large scale service projects with his SALDF chapter. The first involves working with local shelters to provide refuge for domestic violence victims and their pets. The second is geared towards setting up a series of pet food donation boxes to regularly provide food for the pets of the homeless free of charge. Read more...

Christina Fojas attends South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas, where she is president of the school’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter, named the Animal Law Society. The Animal Law Society raised over $10,000 collectively in charity fundraising for the 2009-2010 school year, donating to an animal therapy organization, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office “Paw & Order” program, and the Spay-Neuter Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently ALS plans on sponsoring three trips of the SNAP spay/neuter bus into low-income neighborhoods to provide free pet sterilizations. Christina is also an animal rescue volunteer and is a member/volunteer with the Texas Humane Legislation Network and the Vegan Society of Peace. Read more...

Animal Law Week at Northwestern University School of Law

Posted by Nicole Pallotta, Student Liaison, Animal Law Program on May 27th, 2010

Check out the most recent Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter spotlight, submitted by Kristina Moen, president of the SALDF chapter at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago.

Here's an excerpt:

In April 2010, Northwestern Law Student Animal Legal Defense Fund hosted “Animal Law Week,” a weeklong series of events designed to educate students about the wide variety of issues facing animals in the legal system today. We hosted four lectures, one film showing, a service event, and a dinner at a local vegan restaurant. Our most well-attended event, entitled “If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls...,” focused on farm animal activism, undercover investigations, and media relations. Gene Baur from Farm Sanctuary and Nathan Runkle from Mercy for Animals delivered engaging presentations to about sixty students, many of whom learned about factory farming for the first time during this event.

Read more about Animal Law Week and how Northwestern SALDF members are helping animals.

Pennsylvania Residents: Help Stop Pigeon Shoots

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on May 25th, 2010

Pennsylvania is the last state to openly practice live pigeon shoots -- an archaic competition where live pigeons are used as shooting targets. Please help put an end to this cruel and barbaric event by contacting your Pennsylvania state legislators and asking them to support House Bill 1411 and Senate Bill 843.

During these events, the often-dazed pigeons are released from their cages and launched from spring-loaded boxes into the air. Participants shoot the pigeons with the goal of having the lifeless birds land within a specific target. Typically, seventy percent of the birds used in pigeon shoots are shot and wounded rather than killed outright, with some wounded birds left to suffer long, excruciating deaths. In a single day, hundreds to thousands of birds are shot.

In 1999, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that anti-cruelty laws apply to pigeons, yet still the shoots continue.

Please help put a stop this senseless cruelty today! Contact your legislators and ask them to support House Bill 1411 and Senate Bill 843.

With This Law School Class Ring, I Thee Wed...ALDF's Animal Law Program

Posted by Tom Linney, Animal Law Program Staff Attorney on May 24th, 2010

It’s that time of year again – suits and sun dresses, long ceremonies, gowns, decorated cars, bright flowers, people squinting in the sun as they pose for pictures, a fancy dinner and party with family members you haven’t seen in ages, proud parents, blow horns (I hope you’ve stopped thinking this blog might be about weddings) – that’s right, graduations. It’s the final ceremony that tops off many years of intense studying, stressing, schmoozing, snacking, sucking up (you know who you are) and other words that start with the letter ‘s’.

Many law students went to law school with the intention of going into corporate law, practicing family or immigration law, working abroad at an international firm, working with Brangelina or Kobe Bryant as the next great agent, or protecting the environment. Some stuck to their interests; others discovered they were bored to tears with them. Some students came to law school with the sole intention of learning how to use the law to help animals; many others found out that possibility existed along the way. Of course, despite all of the growth in the field of animal law, the reality is that there are less full-time animal protection attorney positions than there are qualified people.

So you’re one of these really smart, dedicated animal lovers that are graduating from law school and moving on to the next chapter. Odds are you’ll be working in a field other than animal law. Never fret; there are still plenty of opportunities available for you. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is offering new law school graduates free attorney memberships in ALDF's Animal Law Program for one year. We really hope you will join our pro bono attorney network!

Looking for even more ways to help animals? Visit "How Legal Professionals Can Get Involved in Animal Law" for a few ideas. Perhaps you’ll end up like Nicole Roth, one of our many great pro bono attorney members, who was heavily involved in a Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter while in law school, graduated, began working for a law firm and helping ALDF at the same time, and was subsequently honored with an Attorney Spotlight and a Future of Animal Law Achievement Award.

So if you tripped as you walked across the stage to get your diploma, consider this your chance at a fresh start. Aristotle said, "The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.” Congratulations to our SALDF members and all graduating law students this year! We hope it’s just the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship – get it? Fruit. Okay, bad joke. Congrats!  

Rescued Horse Gracie Celebrates Her First Birthday

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on May 21st, 2010

It was the dead of winter and the grass was eaten down to the ground – there was no sign of edible hay anywhere on the Wake County, North Carolina property. The eight horses being kept on the property had been eating bark off the trees in a desperate attempt to get something into their stomachs.

Lacy, an Arabian mare, was pregnant and close to death from colic and the burden of carrying a foal with no food or nutritional support. She was in such an advanced state of malnutrition and starvation that her hip bones, backbone and ribs were all protruding from her body. In December 2008, the starving horses were seized from the field and Lacy was rushed to the North Carolina State College School of Veterinary Medicine for critical care. Thanks to a combined effort by Wake County’s animal cruelty investigator, the United States Equine Rescue League and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Lacy was nursed back to health and gave birth to a beautiful foal, Gracie, on May 21, 2009.

We are delighted to celebrate Gracie’s first birthday with you, our members and supporters – the very people who made Lacy and the other horses' rescue possible, and who named Gracie.

Because of your generous support, both Lacy and Gracie are now thriving and living with loving families who adore and cherish them. Never again will Lacy feel the excruciating pain of starvation, nor will Gracie ever experience the heartbreaking neglect her mother endured.

Send a birthday wish to Gracie and enjoy these recent photos of the birthday girl frolicking with her friends!

A huge thanks to Jennifer for sending us these wonderul photos and video of the birthday girl!

Tony the Tiger

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on May 20th, 2010

Disturbing cases like Tony’s are made worse by the fact that what laws and regulations apply to the keeping of “exotic animals” are inconsistent and often under-enforced. ALDF works directly with legislators toward improving legal protections, and where there are criminal violations that can be charged, ALDF gladly provides free legal assistance to local humane investigators and prosecutors toward the best relief possible for the animal(s) in question. We gladly offer these resources to Iberville Parish and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife.

While each exploited and suffering animal should receive the benefit of a targeted campaign, their sheer numbers prevent this. No one advocate or organization can address them all, but a network of patient and committed citizens supporting each other’s efforts can and does make a difference. The organization “Born Free USA" (formerly known as Animal Protection Institute) has campaigns specifically addressing the disturbing plights of “roadside attraction” animals. Here is information from their website:
http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=439&more=1
http://www.api4animals.org/b4a_thelaw.php#exotics

Citizens are encouraged to work with their local and federal legislators toward earnestly addressing these important issues:
ALDF's information about working with legislators
Born Free USA's model laws
Get Political for Animals and Win the Laws they Need, by Julie Lewin

Pending federal legislation:
Captive Primate Safety Act
Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009

Ohio Residents: Support HB 70 – "Nitro's Law"

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on May 19th, 2010

In October 2008, law enforcement authorities found dead and starving dogs locked inside filthy kennels at Steve Croley’s High Caliber K-9 “training facility” in Youngstown. Seven dogs had died terrible deaths by starvation, and 12 others were discovered alive but severely emaciated. Ohio’s current felony anti-cruelty law is applicable only on second and subsequent offenses. With no felony provision available to them, prosecutors charged Croley with misdemeanor animal cruelty. Croley pleaded no contest, and in January 2009 he was sentenced to four months in jail with credit for 13 days served.

The Croley case illustrates all-too-well the inadequacy of Ohio law on this front.

"Nitro" was one of the dogs who died so cruelly at High Caliber K-9, and HB 70 – sponsored by representatives Ronald Gerberry and Robert Hagan – is also known as "Nitro’s Law." This bill seeks to allow prosecutors the option of filing felony charges in cases like Nitro’s. It was approved by Ohio’s House of Representatives in February 2010, and is currently being considered by the Senate.

Ohio Residents: Take Action!
Contact your senator through ALDF's website, and encourage him or her to support HB 70. Please also take the time to thank those representatives who voted in favor of HB 70 in the House (choose "details" to see votes by name). Let them know that as a voting constituent you expect them to consider animal cruelty issues in earnest, and that you appreciate their efforts toward strengthening Ohio’s animal protection laws. Please note: you must enter a valid Ohio address to complete this action.

Lessons from the Oil Spill

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on May 17th, 2010

I spent part of the summer of 1989 in one of the most pristine and beautiful wild places left in the world, Alaska’s Prince William Sound. But I was not there to enjoy its stunning natural grandeur. I was there to clean up oil – the toxic mess left by the infamous Exxon Valdez spill.

The painful memories of that life-changing experience have been resurrected by the tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. I remember occasionally looking beyond the stench of crude oil and the decaying bodies of the spill’s animal victims, and being treated to glimpses of some of the most achingly beautiful country I had ever seen. While at my feet, all over me in fact, was the poison that has become the lifeblood of our modern world.

We would learn, later, that the army of cleanup workers I was a part of did little good and no small amount of harm in Prince William Sound. It was a bitter irony that the hot water hoses and pressure washers we used to remove oil killed the very micro-organisms that, over time, break down crude oil. It is these tiny animals upon which the real cleanup of an oil spill ultimately depends.

Unfortunately, as we are now learning, while our ability to find and drill for oil in ever more remote and fragile areas has increased dramatically since 1989, our ability to deal with the tragic and predictable consequence of massive spills has changed little.

The consequences of the Exxon Valdez spill are not over for Prince William Sound or its wildlife. The estimated 400,000 birds, untold numbers of fish, 5,000 sea otters and other animals killed in the immediate aftermath of the spill were just the beginning. 21 years later, tens of thousands of gallons of oil linger just below the rocks of many beaches, oil that is, surprisingly, still as toxic as the day it was spilled. Many species hardest hit by the oil have yet to recover.

For the moment, the consequences for the Gulf of Mexico remain to be seen. As I write this, the estimated volume of the spill has been increased from 5000 barrels per day to four or five times that amount. Nobody knows when the leak will be stopped. It now appears that much of the oil is sinking below the surface, making it less visible – but no less deadly. And while the beleaguered and fragile shoreline marshes of the Gulf have, thus far, been spared, nobody knows what the effects of so much oil might be to life beneath the surface, upon which all other life in the Gulf depends.

My experience in Prince William Sound changed me profoundly. The connections between our way of life and its consequences were easy to make there. I have spent the rest of my life working to protect animals and the environment. As the tragedy in the Gulf unfolds, I cling to the hope that a new generation will be similarly affected and that there will be a silver lining of renewed calls for alternatives to fossil fuels and restrictions on drilling, perhaps even changes to the root cause: our wasteful overuse of energy.

Meanwhile, I am forced to remember the sights, sounds and lessons of a spill 21 years ago. But mostly I remember the heartbreak.

Sophie's Blue Eyes

Posted by Pamela Alexander, Director of ALDF's Animal Law Program on May 13th, 2010

I don’t like to blog, never have, don’t know why. Maybe because I’m not of generation X, Y, or Z. Maybe because the informal format feels too personal, which can be uncomfortable for a Type A lawyer. This week it feels particularly terrifying because I know there is only one subject I can write about; my beloved companion and friend, Sophie.

Whenever people ask me how I got involved in animal rights, I frequently tell an anecdotal story about the first dog I adopted in my adulthood. His name is Max and he is a wonderful gentle dog who has been with me for almost 15 years. He came from a very abusive situation before he landed at the NYC ASPCA shelter. His background and painful plight opened my eyes to the link between human violence and animal cruelty.

But I have also lived with another dog for almost as long….until last week. Her name was Sophie and she too came from a terrifying situation, where she silently suffered with abuse and neglect for over three years. When I adopted her she was afraid of me, Max, men, women, children and anything that moved suddenly. Over time, she became comfortable enough to show me and others close to me what a loving, trusting, gentle soul she was. She had huge beautiful blue eyes that never seemed to blink and just stared at you, imploring you to understand where she came from. She was polite, sweet, loyal, tolerant and most of all forgiving. She was a wonderful dog, who taught me much.

Sophie lost her battle to cancer last week. I miss her terribly. I miss her blue eyes following me everywhere, I miss her nudging me at the end of the day after everyone else in the house has gotten their needs met and have long gone to bed. People say it will get easier with time, I hope they are right. For now, I will take comfort in my memories and thoughts of her and I will squeeze and hold Max a bit tighter.

Ashley Judd Petitions Kentucky Governor to Help Homeless Animals

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on May 11th, 2010

Today, the Animal Legal Defense Fund shipped thousands of signed petitions to the Kentucky state capitol, urging better protection for the state’s homeless animals—and celebrated actress Ashley Judd is the latest advocate to join the campaign. Though Hollywood knows her for her starring roles in movies like Kiss the Girls, Double Jeopardy, De-Lovely, and Tooth Fairy, Ashley is first and foremost a Kentucky girl—which is why she has signed the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s petition to urge Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear to protect Kentucky’s homeless animals through tough enforcement of the state’s Humane Shelter Law.

A University of Kentucky graduate and avid Wildcats fan, Ashley also has a passion for protecting animals. As her signed petition makes its way to the governor’s desk, animal lovers around the country can join her by signing on their support in ALDF’s just-launched online petition drive to help the state’s suffering strays.

What’s Wrong with Kentucky Shelters?
Kentucky’s Humane Shelter Law, passed in 2004, requires each county to provide basic care for its stray cats and dogs, including food and water, shelter, and humane euthanasia—as well as a chance to be reunited with their lost families or adopted into new, loving homes. However, because the law is not being enforced, many of Kentucky’s animals continue to suffer and die in deplorable conditions. Ashley’s signed petition to Governor Beshear notes, “As a supporter of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, I strongly urge you to step in and end the suffering of all innocent animals in Kentucky by pressing the legislature to act and have the state take back responsibility for oversight of these shelters.”

Taking Kentucky Counties to Court
Over the past two years, ALDF has filed lawsuits in two particularly problematic Kentucky counties—Robertson and Estill—that helped put an end to the abuse and neglect of homeless dogs and cats in those counties, which had not been in compliance with the state’s Humane Shelter Law. Most recently, ALDF negotiated an agreement with Rockcastle County resulting in dramatically improved conditions for some of the state’s most desperately needy animals. Before ALDF’s intervention,  gravely ill and injured animals were left to languish in their cages with no medical treatment, often facing attack from other animals who are housed with them (in one instance, a large dog literally ate two puppies who were housed with him); unaltered male and female animals were housed together, resulting in pregnancies and exacerbating the overpopulation crisis; and dogs were forced to relieve themselves, sleep, and even eat their food directly off of the same filthy kennel floors.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund will not stop in our fight to push Kentucky’s 120 counties to protect their animals, but it is a long, uphill battle. That’s why we’re asking animal lovers everywhere to join Ashley by signing the petition to Governor Beshear, urging him to step in and end the suffering of Kentucky’s innocent homeless cats and dogs.

Playing With Fire

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on May 10th, 2010

Confrontation Clause Implications of Admitting Veterinary Records Under the “Business Records” Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay

At the risk of someone inviting me to “get a life,” I have to admit that I was reading a couple of appellate opinions on a Friday night while my wife was away. I should have gone sailing, but the winds were light and our two dogs and two cats all seemed glad that I was home. So, during my raucous, bachelor evening, a recent Texas case caught my eye – Holz v. State, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2017.

In Holtz, the defendant appealed her animal abuse conviction (for failing to provide food, water, or shelter to an approximately eight-year-old dog), in part, by claiming that the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause when it admitted into the evidence two sets of reports compiled by a veterinary technician and the lead veterinarian assisting law enforcement with a criminal investigation against the defendant. Neither the vet nor the vet technician was available to testify at the trial. The state offered these reports under the “business records” exception to the rule against hearsay and the defendant objected, claiming that the records were “testimonial” and therefore barred under Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004) as a violation of her right to confront the witnesses who generated the reports. I know, this is fascinating stuff, especially when one takes it all in on a Friday night… But, I digress.

The general rule is that business records do not raise a Crawford issue, because, by definition, they have been created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purposes of establishing or proving a fact at trial. Accordingly, they are generally viewed as not being testimonial in nature and as such, there is no constitutionally right to confront or cross-examine the non-testimonial declarant who generated the business records. However, if the business record at issue was “prepared specifically for use at … trial”, then we have a problem. See Melendez-Diaz, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009).

In Holz’s case, because the vet and vet tech were involved in the seizure of neglected animals for the purpose of triaging, diagnosing and treating the victims animals, the appellate court found that these reports were akin to medical records in assault cases (e.g., records compiled by E.R. staff for diagnostic or medical treatment purposes) and held the vet records to be non-testimonial. As such, they qualified under the business records exception and did not trigger a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause issue. So, the defendant lost her appeal.

What if, however, the vet and vet tech in Holz’s case where part of an “animal crimes task force” and they regularly met with police to advise and guide investigations in cases where issues of forensic veterinary medicine commonly came up and the cops needed their expert advice to work the case? That issue gets a bit murkier—a point especially well-illustrated in an Oregon case where the statements that a child abuse victim (age 3) made to a medical provider who worked at a child abuse assessment center - where that center enjoyed a close working relationship with law enforcement - were found to be testimonial and therefore subject to Crawford. State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. S.P., 346 Or 592 (2009).

While I generally agree that a well-coordinated response to criminal conduct is the preferred model (the importance of which is even more obvious when dealing with cases where the victims can’t physically testify – not to mention, in the S.P. case, was legally incompetent), one needs to be mindful of the collateral consequences of forming formal partnerships with law enforcement when it comes to Crawford issues. This is especially true with the ever-growing list of jurisdictions fielding animal cruelty taskforces that include veterinarians. Prosecutors play with fire when they fail to consider that the “testimonial” nature of hearsay statements generated by such task force veterinarians (where the declarant is not available at trial) is an open invitation to have key evidence excluded.

Check Out A Great Movie and Earn Money for ALDF!

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on May 7th, 2010

MINE the movie DVDs now available

Hailed by the New York Times as “smart, sincere, and affecting,” MINE is a documentary about the essential bond between humans and animals, set against the backdrop of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The movie takes a close and personal look at the issue of pet custody disputes, following several New Orleans residents as they attempt the daunting task of trying to reunite with their pets who have been adopted by families all over the country.

Check out the movie to watch with your family and friends - including those of the furry, feathered or scaly variety. Enter the donation code “ALDF” when you place your order, and $5 from the purcahse of your DVD will be donated directly back to the Animal Legal Defense Fund! Watch the movie trailer and order the DVD today! Remember to enter “ALDF” in the Shelter Donation Code field when you place your order, to help support our work to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. And check out ALDF’s exclusive interview with MINE filmmaker Geralyn Pezanoski. 

Additional photos and information about MINE

Honor Moms and Help Animals

Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF Founder and General Counsel on May 5th, 2010

As Mother's Day approaches, I can't help but think about a beautiful mother and her daughter, Lacy and Gracie. Gracie was born shortly after the Animal Legal Defense Fund rescued her pregnant mother, Lacy, along with six other horses who were starving, literally to death, in a cold North Carolina field. I am delighted to tell you that Gracie turns one year old this month and both mother and daughter are thriving!

Lacy and Gracie after their rescue.

Join us in honoring all mothers by making a special gift today to help ALDF continue our fight toward a society that protects animals and honors their best interests. Honor your mother, friend or fellow advocate and send them the e-card of Lacy and Gracie, or another special ALDF Mother's Day e-card.

You can also honor moms and help animals by shopping at OrganicBouquet.com. With every flower or gift purchase through this link, Organic Bouquet will donate 10% of the retail price to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Organic Bouquet flowers are grown and harvested using practices that aim to improve the quality of farm working conditions, minimize damage to ecosystems, conserve biodiversity, and enhance environmental quality for future generations.

With your generous support, ALDF can rescue more horses from the excruciating pain of starvation, more dogs from lifetimes of being bred like machines at puppy mills, and more cats from horrible suffering at the hands of hoarders. Honor moms and help animals today!

Obama's Whale of a Backslide

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on May 4th, 2010

When I was in fifth grade, each member of my class was asked to write a research report on the animal of her choice. Though my elementary school “research” technique generally involved awkwardly rephrasing entire entries from the World Book Encyclopedia, I was inspired in my selection by a National Geographic magazine with a cover feature about endangered humpback whales. Like many others, I was captivated by these gigantic, highly intelligent animals, and I mark that report as the beginning of my awareness of animal and environmental issues. At just the age most children are beginning to wrestle with the concept of mortality, I would lie awake in bed at night also pondering the deaths of entire species (making me a very popular guest at sleepover parties).

It was right around this time, in 1986, that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) declared a moratorium on commercial whaling, a horrifically devastating industry that most Americans have been happy to leave buried forever in the 80s trash bin, sandwiched somewhere between Punky Brewster and a pair of giant shoulder pads. Prior to the moratorium, a number of whale populations were on the brink of annihilation, and somewhere between six- and forty-thousand (estimates vary) of these leviathans were being slaughtered each year.

Make no mistake—as anyone who’s tuned in lately for an episode of “Whale Wars” knows, whales continue to be violently harpooned in bloody hunts. Because of loopholes in the current IWC ban, Norway and Iceland assert they have a right to essentially ignore the moratorium, and Japan exploits an exception allowing for whaling in the name of “scientific research,” which is widely regarded as a very thin cover for Japanese commercial whaling operations, which produce illegal whale meat for Japanese tables (the New York Times recently reported that a single whale can bring as much as $100,000 in Japanese fish markets). However, since the moratorium, the number of whales killed each year has dropped to something more like 2,000, and while a number of species still hover perilously close to extinction, numbers are slowly rebounding.

So often at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we see cases of laws failing to represent the sentiments of our citizenry. For the most part, as a society we believe the abuse of animals or wanton destruction of species should not be tolerated—and yet, our laws frequently lag in reflecting this understanding. Yet in the case of the commercial whaling moratorium, we have an example of a global regulation that actually speaks to the disgust so many of us feel at the slaughter of these magnificent, desperately endangered beings for the sake of profit. And slowly recovering whale populations speak to the fact that, while things could still be much brighter, and critical loopholes must be tightened up, the moratorium is having measurable success. According to National Resources Defense Council senior attorney Joel Reynolds in a recent piece published in the Los Angeles Times, the global ban on commercial whaling “is one of the singular environmental achievements of the 20th century.” OMG. It’s working, people.

So why, then, is the Obama administration backing a plan announced by the International Whaling Commission on April 22—that’s Earth Day, for those of you on irony watch—to lift the ban on commercial whaling for ten years? They argue that by legalizing whaling and bringing it out into the open, the number of whales killed will be reduced, because the whaling nations will have stricter limits placed on their whaling activity. According to The Economist, supporters of lifting the ban, “including Monica Medina, who heads America’s IWC delegation—say the deal seeks to ‘depoliticise’ the whaling that does go on, while laying the ground for a tougher conservation system.”

However, while the plan alludes to a quota in numbers of whales allowed to be killed by the whaling nations, no actual numbers have been agreed upon. And, as Mr. Reynolds lays out,

The exception for scientific whaling exploited by Japan will not be rescinded, nor will the exceptions claimed by Norway and Iceland be nullified. The agreement is fundamentally premised on an expectation that the countries signing the agreement will abide by it, notwithstanding their continuing right under the broader whaling convention to kill whales for research or pursuant to their existing exception. Thus, the fundamental problem of loopholes remains.

Frankly, I find the IWC and Obama administration’s rationale baffling, particularly given that there is absolutely no provision in their proposed deal that would require a phase-out of whaling, in ten years, or ever. And here, I’d like to offer one more block quote from Mr. Reynolds’ piece, because he gets to the heart of the belief—one that is shared by ALDF—that our moral imperative to animals must also be a legal imperative:

(L)egalizing whaling in order to eliminate it makes as little sense as allowing criminal activity in order to eliminate crime. By adopting the moratorium on commercial whaling, the world agreed that whaling, except for purposes of scientific research and subsistence, should not be allowed. Period. By suspending that global norm, the U.S. and the whaling commission will be ceding the legal and even the moral high ground to the very countries that, for decades, have been doing their best to circumvent it. Rather than a step forward in the fight against commercial whaling, this is a monumental step backward.

At the very moment Obama should be asserting the power of the law to protect whale populations from decimation, and individual whales from horrific deaths-by-harpoon for the sake of cultural palate preferences, he is, instead, yielding to a political pragmatism that seems at best myopic, and, at worst, desperately out of touch with reality.

Australia and New Zealand, meanwhile, are truly standing up for their citizens’ interest in protecting endangered whales by walking their talk and rejecting the proposed “compromise deal” outright. Days ago, the Australian government announced plans to move ahead with threatened legal proceedings against Japan for their ongoing “scientific” whale hunt, stating, ''… If we judge that we are unlikely to achieve our objectives diplomatically, the government will be ready to proceed with legal action.'' Meanwhile, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murry McCully has stated that his country is committed to ending whaling, and that a proposal that fails to improve on the status quo will not suffice. “The proposal to include (endangered) fin whales in the southern ocean is inflammatory," McCully said. "New Zealanders will not accept this."

Will Americans?

Help Prevent "Hot Car" Dog Fatalities

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on April 30th, 2010

Eloisa Asuncion Zapata was arrested on April 3, 2010 and is facing charges of animal cruelty and animal endangerment. Zapata allegedly left her dog alone in her parked car – although police attempted to save the shepherd mix, their efforts reportedly came too late and the comatose dog was ultimately euthanized.

“Hot car” dog fatalities are needless and all-too-common. While humans cool themselves by relying on an extensive system of sweat glands and evaporation, the cooling mechanisms of dogs and other animals are much less efficient and leave them extremely vulnerable to heatstroke. Parked automobiles quickly trap the sun’s heat with interior temperatures rising to dangerous levels in a matter of minutes, and “cracking the windows” does not remove the danger of heatstroke. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office launched a public awareness campaign on this issue last year, education being the key to lessening the frequency of these cruel and pointless deaths.

What You Can Do

1. Discover which state laws and city/county ordinances in your jurisdiction address leaving animals unattended in vehicles. This issue may be addressed specifically or by way of general abuse/neglect statutes (for example, from Oregon: ORS 167.325).
   Find your state’s current animal protection laws (doing a word search for “vehicle” is helpful)
   
   
2. Help your county and your local humane agencies to make the public aware of these laws by distributing flyers, asking your local newspapers to do a story on the problem, and encouraging your Department of Motor Vehicles to educate drivers on the issue of children and animals left unattended in vehicles.
   Find “Hot Car” literature and other resources
   Find your local animal protection organizations
   Find your local newspapers
   Find your state’s Department of Motor Vehicles
   
   
3. Let your local authorities know that ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program attorneys offer training and resources to law enforcement agents on this and other animal law issues.
   
   
4. Where necessary, approach your legislators toward specifically addressing the “hot car” problem and enabling emergency rescues.
   Find your local legislators
   Work with your legislators toward improving animal protection laws
   Get Political for Animals and Win the Laws They Need by Julie Lewin

Speak Out Against "Crush Videos" – Support HR 5092!

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 29th, 2010

The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 20, 2010 declaring a federal law against the creation, sale or possession of depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain to be "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment." In June 2009, ALDF filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, United States v. Stevens, and ALDF attorneys continue to be active on this legislative issue.  

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, new federal legislation has been introduced by Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) that will prohibit the sale, or offering for sale, of animal crush videos in interstate or foreign commerce. 

"Crush videos" cater to sexual fetishists who want to watch and hear animals being crushed to death – usually by women wearing spiked heels. The clandestine and anonymous nature of their filming, along with statutes of limitations, severely limits law enforcement's ability to pursue the individuals engaging in these heinous criminal cruelties at the level of conduct. A law targeting the market for these abhorrent depictions gives law enforcement a much-needed tool for stemming the proliferation of these videos. 

What You Can Do
Please send an email to your representatives in Washington through ALDF's website -- encourage them to support HR 5092 and thank those who are already cosponsoring the bill. Let them know that as a voting constituent, you expect and appreciate that they understand the gravity of animal cruelty issues in our society.

List of representatives currently cosponsoring HR 5092
Follow the bill’s progress

Background
Federal law 18 U.S.C. §48 was signed by President Clinton on December 9, 1999. This law addressed depictions of criminal animal abuse being marketed for commercial gain.  

A case charged under 18 U.S.C. §48 went to trial for the first time in 2005.  In the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on January 13, 2005, a jury convicted Robert J. Stevens on three counts of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty for the purpose of commercial gain. A 2004 federal investigation had revealed Stevens’ involvement in the production and distribution of videos that depicted dogfighting and related practices, and on March 2, 2004, a grand jury had indicted him under 18 U.S.C. §48. 

On appeal, the Third Judicial Circuit vacated Mr. Stevens’ conviction, stating in their July 2008 opinion that “18 U.S.C. § 48 is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” In December 2008, the Solicitor General’s office petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s opinion, observing that, “Because the court of appeals’ decision nullifies an important Act of Congress designed to assist the States in addressing the serious nationwide problem of animal cruelty, review by this Court is warranted.” The Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue, and oral arguments were heard on October 6, 2009.

Honor Your Mother and Protect Mothers of All Species

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 27th, 2010

On May 9th, we will be honoring and celebrating mothers everywhere. Honor your mother, friend or fellow advocate with a special gift to the Animal Legal Defense Fund and surprise your honoree with a beautiful Mother's Day e-card.

A mother's love knows no boundaries. That's why ALDF fights to win animals the legal protection they so desperately need -- from the mother sows at factory farms confined to cold metal crates that prevent them from interacting and bonding with their baby piglets, to the countless number of dogs at puppy mills living in tiny, cramped cages who are bred like machines to produce litter after litter their entire lives. Through our groundbreaking lawsuits, ALDF has reunited a mother chimpanzee and her daughter in a sanctuary after a lifetime of beatings at the hands of an abusive trainer and saved mother horses and their unborn foals from starvation.

Through ALDF's work, we're moving toward stronger laws that recognize the needs of animals, including the loving mother/child bond that is innate to so many animals.

Celebrate animals with ALDF and honor mothers of all species. Make a one-time or monthly donation in honor of the special mother in your life.

Check Out the Animal Legal Defense Fund's Newest Video!

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on April 27th, 2010

Last year, Americans spent roughly $18 billion dollars on coffee—and virtually nothing to protect animals from some of the worst abuses imaginable. Is this who we are? Check out our brand new video to see why, at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we believe that we are better than that—and we’re fighting every day to win the case against cruelty for our country’s animals. The fantastic song providing the soundtrack is “How We Operate,” courtesy of Gomez and ATO Records.



Ready to take action? Sign ALDF’s Animal Bill of Rights to let your Congresspersons know that you believe America’s animals deserve better. Sign on your support and speak out to your lawmakers today!

Now share the video with your friends to show why you support ALDF’s crucial work to help animals through the legal system. Protecting animals. Working for justice. This is who we are.

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on YouTube

Forward to a Friend

Urgent Alert for Louisiana Residents: Support the Animal Abuser Registry Bill

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 26th, 2010

Please show your support for Louisiana's animal abuser registry bill! Call, write and/or attend the hearing for HB 201, scheduled for Thursday, April 29. Please act now!

HB 201, sponsored by State Representative Walker Hines will establish an animal abuser registry in Louisiana for those convicted of certain crimes against animals. Once convicted, these offenders would be required to register with the abuser registry for ten years. This information would be available to all law enforcement agencies in the state to help in the prevention of violence and protection of animals.

HB 201 is an essential crime-reducing and cost-savings tool for Louisiana. The animal abuser registry it creates will:

• Help reduce the risk of new animal victims at the hands of repeat offenders. And owing to the strong correlation between those who abuse animals and those who are violent towards humans, it will help to reduce the risk of human victims as well.
• Save Louisiana communities money by helping to reduce the number of repeat offenses by animal abusers. A single case involving the care and rehabilitation of abused animals can easily cost a municipality tens of thousands of dollars.
  

HB 201 will be heard on Thursday, April 29 at 9:30 a.m. before the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee (Room 6, House of Representatives). Louisiana residents: please contact the members of this committee today and express your support for the bill, and, if you are able, please attend the hearing and speak in support of this important step forward for the protection of animals in Louisiana. Your elected officials need to hear from you!

House of Representatives Administration of Criminal Justice Committee:

Ernest D. Wooton (Chairman) (R)
larep105@legis.state.la.us
(504)393-5649
(504)393-5603 (Fax)

Damon J. Baldone (Vice Chair) (D)
larep053@legis.state.la.us
(985)876-8872
(985)872-2319 (Fax)

Roy Burrell (D)
larep002@legis.state.la.us
(318)676-7137
(318)676-7139 (Fax)

Mickey J. Guillory (D)
larep041@legis.state.la.us
(337)457-0194
(337)457-5649 (Fax)

Lowell C. Hazel (R)
hazelc@legis.state.la.us
(318)767-6082
(318)767-6084 (Fax)

Frank A. Howard (R)
howardf@legis.state.la.us
(318)256-4135
(318)256-4137 (Fax)

Walt Leger III (D)
legerw@legis.state.la.us
(504)556-9970
(504)556-9972 (Fax)

Joseph P. Lopinto ((R)
lopintoj@legis.state.la.us
(504)456-3806
(504)456-3808 (Fax)

Barbara M. Norton (D)
nortonb@legis.state.la.us
(318)632-5887
(318)632-5889 (Fax)

Jonathan W. Perry (R)
perryj@legis.state.la.us
(337)893-5035
(337)898-1160 (Fax)

Gary L. Smith, Jr. (D)
larep56@legis.state.la.us
(985)764-9122
(985)764-6710 (Fax)

Charmaine Marchand Stiaes (D)
larep099@legis.state.la.us
(504)942-7835
(504)942-7833 (Fax)

Ricky J. Templet (R)
templetr@legis.state.la.us
(504)361-6013
(504)361-6687 (Fax)

Ledricka Thierry (D)
thierryl@legis.state.la.us
(337)948-0369
(337)948-0384 (Fax)

Mack "Bodi" White (R)
larep064@legis.state.la.us
(225)791-2199 or (800) 408-9764
(225)791-9203 (Fax)

Thank you for supporting this important bill to protect animals and communities in Louisiana!

Animal Abuser Registry Bill Moves Forward in California

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 26th, 2010

Great news in California – the animal abuser registry bill was voted out of the Senate Public Safety Committee and is now heading to the Appropriations Committee!

Stay tuned! We will need the help of our friends in California to ensure this important bill becomes a law.

Right now, you can read this recent news article about the registry and one family’s crusade to stop animal cruelty after their puppy Karley was viciously beaten by a neighbor. Support an abuser registry law to stop dangerous criminals like Karley's killer at ExposeAnimalAbusers.org.

California Bear Hunting Expansion is Rejected

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 23rd, 2010

Thanks to a huge public outcry, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to not move forward with its radical changes to bear hunting regulations that would have allowed even more bear killing in the state.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, “the commission decided not to make changes to existing regulations after the Department of Fish and Game, which initially urged the changes, reversed its position Tuesday afternoon because it had been deluged with public comments.” Your comments really DID make a difference!

If approved, the Department’s proposal would have:

• allowed an unlimited number of bears to be killed across California during the hunting season;
• permitted the use of high-tech global positioning equipment and “tip switches” on dog collars to make it easy to locate and kill a bear at point-blank range;
• opened the first-ever bear hunting season in San Luis Obispo county and expanded the hunts in Modoc and Lassen counties; and
• significantly expanded the hound training season thereby allowing dogs to harass bears nearly all year long.
  

While the commission is expected to revisit the issue and vote on it again this summer, this week’s decision won reprieve for California’s black bears. ALDF will keep its members posted if additional action is necessary to stop the Department’s proposal from moving forward.

Oprah Magazine Article Featuring ALDF v. Woodley Wins Genesis Award

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 23rd, 2010

Tune in to the Genesis Awards on Animal Planet this weekend to catch Barry Yeoman, author of “Operation Rescue,” an in-depth account of the ALDF v. Woodley case, win an award for his outstanding article published in O, The Oprah Magazine.

The 24th annual Genesis Awards, which pays tribute to the major news and entertainment media for producing outstanding works that raise public awareness of animal issues, will air on Animal Planet on April 24 at noon ET/PT and April 25 at 1:00 p.m. ET/PT. For all other time zones, please check your local listings.

In 2005, the Animal Legal Defense Fund won the biggest civil action to stop animal cruelty in American history, rescuing more than 300 dogs from a North Carolina animal hoarder. In its June 2009 issue, O, The Oprah Magazine, caught up with a crew of the case’s spunkiest survivors. Check out “Operation Rescue” and watch slideshows and videos of the rescued dogs and their families.

Clarifying the Supreme Court's United States v. Stevens Opinion

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on April 21st, 2010

In light of recent comments, questions, and Facebook posts, I thought I’d take a moment to clarify some misconceptions about the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens. I appreciate and sympathize with the anger many people feel about the decision, and I wish the Court’s decision had gone the other way. But I think we owe it to ourselves to avoid feeling anger and despair unnecessarily. And misreading the Stevens case causes unnecessary despair. The real plight of animals is horrific enough without subjecting ourselves to the added stress that results from an alarmist description of the Stevens case. It’s important to honestly assess the case and what it did and did not actually say.

First, the Supreme Court did not hold that committing animal cruelty is protected by the First Amendment. Criminal animal cruelty was illegal before Stevens and it remains illegal after Stevens. The case had almost nothing to do with the legitimacy and enforceability of the local, state, and federal laws that protect animals. Rather, the case focused solely on the government’s ability to prohibit the depictions of cruelty themselves. Someone who abuses animals cannot avoid criminal liability simply by videotaping that cruelty. For example, dogfighters who videotape fights can still be prosecuted under the criminal cruelty laws for dogfighting, even though they can no longer be prosecuted for selling the videos, at least for now. Undoubtedly, Section 48 was an important tool for stopping animal cruelty that was produced for the sole purpose of being sold, and the Court took away that tool. But it did not equate animal cruelty itself with free speech.

Second, the Supreme Court did not hold that crush videos or animal fighting videos are protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the Court specifically reserved that question, holding only that Section 48 as written was too broad and extended to other kinds of speech that are protected. A law that criminalized the commercial creation, sale, or possession of just crush videos or animal fighting videos might still pass constitutional muster, and it is clear that that is the way forward for the animal protection movement. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other animal protection groups are urging Congress to pass a narrower law that focuses on these extreme forms of animal cruelty.

Third, the Court did not say that preventing animal cruelty is an unimportant goal. The Court could have held that the prevention of animal cruelty is not a compelling government interest, throwing the legitimacy of hundreds of animal protection laws into doubt. In fact, that’s what some of us feared would happen, especially after the lower court based its decision in part on those grounds. A holding from the highest court in the land that animal protection is less than compelling could have been devastating. But the Court did not go that route, despite the clear opportunity to do so.  

My point is not that we aren’t entitled to feel upset or disappointed by the Stevens decision. We are. But we shouldn’t burden ourselves with an unduly pessimistic view of the state of animal law. I see Stevens as a setback, but it’s also an important marker of how far we have come: not only did we win a vote from Justice Alito, but we also convinced the other eight Justices to leave open the possibility that a more fine-tuned law could be constitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on April 20th, 2010

The United States Supreme Court today issued its decision in the case of United States v. Stevens, a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 48 (“Section 48”), the federal law that criminalized the sale of depictions of animal cruelty. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, an expert on animal cruelty laws, submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to uphold the law and recognize that the prevention of cruelty to animals is a compelling government interest.

Unfortunately, by a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The decision throws out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens, who was sentenced to prison for making and selling videos of dogfights.

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenting vote, said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law, and that the ruling will probably spur new “crush” videos, because it has “the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos.” Crush videos depict women in high heels crushing small animals to death for the sake of gratifying a sexual fetish.

ALDF’s attorneys are analyzing the decision carefully to evaluate how to respond to the overturning of Section 48. We will provide a more detailed summary of the opinion on the ALDF blog in the coming days.

Because the Supreme Court is the country’s highest court, it has the final say on the law’s constitutionality, and no further appeals are possible. However, the Court’s opinion leaves open the possibility of introducing to Congress a new, narrower law "limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty." We will let our members know as soon as possible how they can help. In the meantime, please visit ALDF’s Action Alerts page to see how you can fight cruelty now.

Not sure what the Court's decision means for animals? Read "Clarifying the Supreme Court’s United States v. Stevens Opinion."

Animal Protection Laws Fifth Edition Now Available

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on April 19th, 2010

A new edition of ALDF's Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America and Canada is now available.

Now at more than 3,800 pages in length, the fifth (and tenth anniversary) edition of the compendium contains a detailed survey of the general animal protection and related statutes for all of the states, principal districts and territories of the United States of America, and for all of Canada; up-to-date versions of each jurisdiction’s laws; easy, clickable navigation; and fully searchable content.

Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America & Canada is the top resource for lawyers, law professors, law students, legislators, other legal professionals, and anyone who wants the most comprehensive animal protection laws collection of its kind available.

Download a complimentary copy or order a copy on CD.

The Future of Animal Law

Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on April 16th, 2010

Last weekend, the Animal Legal Defense Fund held its Future of Animal Law Conference at Harvard Law School, drawing a sold-out crowd of more than 300 people, with speakers and attendees coming from around the world, including Spain, Puerto Rico, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The event was a huge success.

ALDF coordinated and participated in a wide variety of panels on issues in animal law.

“Charting a Course for the Protection of Farmed Animals” brought together a fantastic group of economists, attorneys, and professors to discuss the ethical and environmental challenges posed by the future of factory farming. I talked to several attendees who told me that the panel was among the most engaging and informative they had ever attended. “Canine C.S.I.” addressed some of the legal and technological challenges of prosecuting animal cruelty cases, including the recovery of digital evidence and the emerging field of veterinary forensic science. “Pet Theories” raised groundbreaking new theories in companion animal law, including new measures of calculating the value of companion animals in injury and death cases, proposals for new legislation, and an analysis of pathways for companion animal litigation. “Almost a Person” analyzed issues in chimpanzee protection, with talks covering chimpanzee sanctuaries, domestic and foreign laws protecting chimpanzees in research, and the current status of the groundbreaking Nonhuman Rights Project, which hopes to establish legal rights for chimpanzees through litigation. “Replacing the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing” discussed the recent position paper from the National Academy of Sciences, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and A Strategy, which proposes a transition towards non-animal testing for toxicity tests. “Defining the Second Wave of Animal Law” confronted directly the theme of the conference by asking what the future of animal law holds, with talks on both strategic and theoretical next steps, and institutional and educational support systems for the growing animal law movement. “Proposing a Federal Animal Protection Commission” analyzed the possibility of establishing a body within the federal government to coordinate animal protection policy. Finally, “Putting the Critter in Critical Legal Theory” addressed the relevance of critical legal theory to animal law. Panelists discussed how basic concepts in Critical Race Theory, Critical Legal Studies, and postcolonial theory can help us analyze speciesism and how animal advocates can navigate the promises and pitfalls of legal change for animals.

I left the conference feeling energized and optimistic about the future of animal law, ready to push forward in our work to liberate animals from exploitation.

(If you missed the Future of Animal Law conference, don’t despair. You can get the entire conference on DVD here.)

Work and Family

Posted by Nicole Pallotta, ALDF's Animal Law Program Student Liaison on April 15th, 2010

I was not able to attend last weekend’s sold-out Future of Animal Law Conference, despite having planned on it for months. I was especially looking forward the SALDF Leadership Breakfast and to meeting in person several of our wonderful student members, some of whom I have exchanged so many emails with that it’s hard to believe we have never actually met in person! Well, you know what they say about the best laid plans. Unfortunately, my dog Alec suddenly became very ill last week. When I took him to the emergency hospital, they discovered he was bleeding internally from a mass on his spleen that had ruptured. The only option was surgery to remove his spleen and then, assuming he lived through surgery, to biopsy it to see if it was cancer. Spleen cancer is nasty and aggressive and common in German shepherds (the ER doc informed me as tears of shock slid down my cheeks). Now, Alec has been through a lot in the past two years and while of course I realize life is not fair, I just could not believe this was happening to him (he is only 9 – officially a “senior” but really not that old).

To make a long story short, Alec made it through surgery. They kept him for observation for two days and I was finally able to bring him home the Sunday before the conference. He had a long, jagged incision in his abdomen that was held together by a bunch of staples, and some minor cuts from where the IV and heart monitor were connected (oh yeah – and no spleen!), but Alec seemed to be doing well all things considered. However, he needed to be watched closely in case there were any complications following such a major surgery. There is simply never a good time for these things to happen, but a week before I have to go out of town for a huge work event…well that is truly awful timing!

I am so fortunate (in many ways!) to be at ALDF, where I have the privilege of working with a great group of like-minded people who also consider their companion animals to be legitimate members of the family. I don’t take that for granted for one second. When my late dog Kobi was diagnosed with cancer and needed regular chemotherapy treatments, I was able to adjust my work hours to accommodate our frequent trips to the specialty veterinary hospital. When Alec became paralyzed two years ago, I could not bring him home to my second-floor apartment in San Francisco because of the stairs. We had nowhere else to go, so we lived in the ALDF office for almost two months while he recuperated from spinal surgery. My colleagues helped us tremendously during this difficult time. How many employers would allow you to live at the office while you were nursing your injured dog back to health? How many employers would understand missing a hugely important work event at the last minute – not to take care of a sick child, but a sick dog? Unfortunately, workplaces that recognize the important place of companion animals in many families are in the minority…at least for now.

With our mission being to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals, you might imagine ALDF would be squarely in this progressive minority, and you would be right. My boss did not hesitate to tell me I could stay home and take care of Alec while he recovered, and, as much as I hated to miss our conference, I was so relieved. I needed to be with him. I am happy to report that Alec is recovering well and the best news of all is that I got his biopsy results a few days ago, and it was good news…despite the horrible odds, the mass was benign! I thought I might never stop crying tears of relief when I heard this incredible news.

So while I was sad to miss the conference, I was appreciative beyond belief that I could be with my boy when he needed me. And I am so grateful to work for an organization that walks its talk. One of ALDF’s goals is to encourage the courts recognize the special bond that can exist between people and their companion animals. We believe that all animals are unique individuals who deserve to have their best interests not only taken into account (sadly, this is not commonplace), but also honored. Second-wave women’s rights advocates taught us that the personal is political, and so it is with the animal protection movement. From what (or whom) we choose to eat (or not) to how we conduct our relationships with our animal companions, we reshape our personal lives to be a microcosm of our ideal vision for the wider society. While we may treat the animals with whom we share our homes like cherished members of the family, the sad fact is there has historically been very little cultural support for this special bond from our social institutions – including the legal system. This view is changing and I am proud to work for an organization that is at the vanguard of what is in my opinion the most important social justice movement of our time.

So I missed the conference. I traded the future of animal law for the future of one animal – mine (and I use that word with all awareness of its property connotations, but intending it to reflect a metaphysical reality: in a very tangible sense, I am his even more than Alec is mine). While I regret having missed it, I have heard great things about the conference, and I am thrilled to know so many students attended. Our wonderful and dedicated SALDF members truly represent “the future of animal law!” I hope to meet many more of them the next time around…barring any unexpected family emergencies.

To the Future and Beyond

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 9th, 2010

This evening, attorneys, law students, professors, and activists from around the world will convene at Harvard Law School for ALDF's "Future of Animal Law" conference, and all of us at ALDF couldn’t be more excited!

I really can’t decide which panel I’m most excited about – it’s a toss-up between Charting a Course for the Protection of Farmed Animals: Legal and Economic Approaches and Replacing the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing: A Mandate for the New Millennium. Or is it Almost a Person: What Lies Ahead for Chimpanzees? Okay, I can’t decide. But there’s no need to since I’ll have the honor of listening to speakers from around the world discuss these topics and many more.

We know many of you who would have liked to attend the conference were not able to for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean you have to miss out on this great event. Recordings of all the conference panels will be available for sale on DVD. You can even pre-order your copy right now!

Follow us on Twitter and get up-to-the-minute conference updates as they’re happening. You can even "direct tweet" us a question for one of the panels and we’ll try to get it answered by the experts.

Teacher Found Not Guilty of Starving Cats to Death

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on April 8th, 2010

Congress Middle School teacher Allison Dinsmore of Palm Beach County, Florida was facing felony charges of animal cruelty for allegedly abandoning her two cats for weeks, leaving them to die horrible deaths by starvation in her apartment. Dinsmore reportedly cited her busy work schedule, long commute and a camping trip as reasons for her failure to see to the cats’ needs (she had essentially moved out of the apartment and had been staying elsewhere). Seeking information as to unpaid rent, Dinsmore’s property manager discovered the cats’ bodies and notified authorities on February 23, 2009. The school district initially suspended her teaching duties – with pay – pending the outcome of the criminal case, but later announced that they would not be renewing her contract.

On April 2, 2010, a jury found Allison Dinsmore not guilty of felony animal cruelty. Despite the outcome in the courtroom, the public outcry over the Dinsmore case was a testament to our society’s ever-increasing judgment that the responsibility of animal care is a grave one, and that our children especially must learn compassion from our example. Get involved by finding out what humane education resources are available, and making sure that your community is aware of them.

Former L.A. County Fire Official Sentenced For Beating Neighbor's Puppy

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 7th, 2010

In November 2008, Glynn Johnson, a former L.A. County assistant fire chief, picked up a rock and beat his neighbor’s German shepherd puppy, Karley, so viciously that she later had to be euthanized. On January 26, 2010, Johnson was found guilty of felony animal cruelty and faced a maximum sentence of four years in prison. On April 2, he received instead a 90-day sentence and three years’ probation for beating Karley. He must also perform 400 hours of community service working with dogs, take anger management courses and repay veterinary bills.

Judges sometimes think that convicted animal abusers should carry out community service orders at an animal shelter – that this will somehow increase their respect for animals and the caretaker issues that are involved. It is ALDF’s position that convicted animal abusers have no place around a shelter’s rescued animals or its dedicated, often youthful, volunteers – not to mention that presenting animal care as a punishment (as opposed to a therapy) is more likely to induce resentment than compassion. Indeed, animal shelter administrations will often refuse to allow such orders to be carried out in their facilities.

Unfortunately, even in situations where there are felony convictions for heinous acts of cruelty, like Johnson’s vicious and fatal beating of his neighbors’ puppy Karley, light sentences can fail to deliver justice for animal victims and their families. While ALDF continues our work to push for tough sentencing in cases of animal abuse, you can take action now to protect yourself and your community by asking your legislator to support registries for convicted felony animal abusers like Glynn Johnson.

Codifying a "Compassion for Living Things"

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on April 5th, 2010

China Considers First Comprehensive Animal Protection Law

Eight years ago, my colleague Pamela Frasch represented ALDF at the first international animal law and protection conference held in China. In the years since then, committed individuals in and around China have been working to draft and build support for the country's first comprehensive legislation aimed at providing China's animals with basic protections. Their efforts appear to be gaining traction. An online poll last year found more than 80% of respondents in favor of such legislation.

The first draft of this legislation was released late last year, and its English translation just recently made available.

The proposal categorizes animals in China dependent upon their usage in society and affords them various levels of protections. Categories include: "wild", "economic", "pet", "laboratory" and "other" (e.g. animals used in zoos, for performance, sports, competition and working) animals. Among the many civil and criminal protections included in this landmark legislation are:

• Protections against cruelty and abandonment [Estimates in Beijing alone place the number stray dogs and cats there at more than 100,000 animals]
• Restrictions on the indiscriminate killing of vaccinated animals [Disease outbreaks have, in recent years, prompted mass cullings of dogs]
• Increased regulation of hunting, slaughter and transport of animals
• Reduction in the use of research animals and improvements in their handling and treatment
• Education of the public on preventing cruelty
• Prohibitions on images of cruelty 
• Prohibitions on tail docking, declawing, defanging and other alterations of an animal's appearance 
• Prohibitions against feeding live prey to animals in zoos and wild animal parks
• Prohibitions on the removal of organs or derivatives from a live animal for commercial purposes
  

China, the world's largest and most populated country, is home to over 1.3 billion people, or over 20% of the world's human population, together with billions of animals. Should this legislation be passed into law, it is arguably positioned to have an impact on more animals than any other single piece of animal protection legislation to date in the world.

California Bans Sick and Disabled Animals from the Food Supply

Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on April 2nd, 2010

Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a California law banning the use of sick and disabled (“downed”) animals in the human food supply. Last year, a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law as a result of a lawsuit brought by the National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute.

The trade groups wanted to continue to use downed animals in the human food supply despite a series of recent high profile scandals concerning downed animal abuse in the meat industry. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association intervened in the lawsuit in 2009.

California’s downed animal protection law was amended and strengthened in 2008 in response to an HSUS investigation that exposed torment and horrific abuse of downed cows at a southern California slaughter plant. The Hallmark/Westland plant, based in Chino, was the nation’s number-two supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program. The revised law was designed to prevent the abuses at Hallmark/Westland from ever happening again.

“The writing is on the wall for factory farming operations that continue to subject animals to appalling abuses despite increased consumer calls for less cruel farming methods—and increased recognition by the courts that animals have interests that should be protected by the law,” stated Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Read more...

Take Action! Teen Felon Charged With Animal Cruelty

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on April 2nd, 2010

Only two months after he was convicted for third degree felony assault in a different case, Joshua Ray Gordon, 18, of St. Louis County, Minnesota allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and severely beat a 12-week-old puppy named Griffin.

Witnesses told police that Gordon had attempted to flush the puppy down a toilet and that the puppy had been wrapped in a wet blanket and left in the basement for several days with no food or water. When police found him, Griffin was dehydrated and underweight. He had bleeding in his right eye and didn't want to lift his head or stand up.

On February 11, 2010 officers arrested Gordon for assaulting and injuring his girlfriend, cruelty to an animal resulting in great bodily harm, selling marijuana in a school zone and possession of a stun gun, all felonies.

Take Action!
Send an automatic email to County Attorney Melanie Ford on ALDF's website. Thank her for pursuing felony animal cruelty charges in this case and encourage a strong and meaningful sentence upon conviction.

The next hearing is set for April 5, 2010 at 9 a.m. Locals are encouraged to support the prosecution by attending court proceedings. Court information here.

Thank you for speaking out for animals!

Iowa "Puppy Mill" Bill Becomes Law And Illinois Pet Disclosure Bill Passes House

Posted by Tony Eliseuson, ALDF Volunteer Attorney Member on March 31st, 2010

Two previously pieces of legislation that have been discussed on this blog have had further successes. First, the Iowa “puppy mill” bill I mentioned in a previous post, has now become law after Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed the bill. This law is designed to improve the conditions for dogs and cats at commercial breeding facilities. Importantly, the law is already in effect, and it is being enforced. As the article notes, the bill gives Iowa state inspectors the ability to inspect facilities that are licensed by the USDA to ensure that they are in compliance with Iowa’s new, and more stringent, regulations. Hopefully this victory in Iowa will spread to the numerous other states that are considering puppy mill-related legislation.

Illinois is also one step closer to passing improved pet-related legislation. The Pet Disclosure Act that I previously discussed passed the Illinois House of Representatives on Friday, March 26th by a vote of 81 to 26. The bill now needs to clear the Illinois Senate, which will be a higher hurdle. Previously animal welfare-related legislation in Illinois has passed the House only to stall in the Senate. If you live in Illinois, please contact your Illinois state senator and let them know you support HB 5772.

You can find out who your state senator is through this website. The website has four tabs which allow you to search by District, by Official, by Address, or by 9 digit zip code. The easiest way to search is by 9 digit zip code if you happen to know it, otherwise searching by your home street address locates that same information for you. The results will show all your elected officials, including United States Senator and Representative. The person you should contact regarding this bill is your Illinois state senator, not the federal officials.

A Morning Well-Spent With New York's Finest

Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on March 29th, 2010

Don’t be fooled, those hard-boiled NYPD cops are pussycats with hearts of gold, at least the ones were that I met a few weeks ago while doing a presentation on animal cruelty at the New York City Police Department’s Training Academy in Manhattan. As the story was told to me, NYPD Commissioner Kelly took ALDF up on its offer of free training after receiving several of our letters also offering our expertise on some of their uglier pending animal cruelty cases, and ordered his training commanders to set it up. As (bad) luck would have it, the date selected turned out to be in the middle of the worst snow storm of the season. My flight there from Rochester the afternoon prior to the training was canceled, but I was determined not to let this opportunity to reach out to such an important audience pass by, so I boarded a train for a 10-hour(!) ride into the City. (Is there anyone out there still questioning the need for high-speed trains? If so, see me.)

While the snowstorm did affect attendance somewhat, we still ended up with about 150 training commanders (out of an expected 200 or so) who appeared hungry for the information and asked great questions that indicated they were fully engaged. I spoke to them about the link between human and animal violence, New York’s animal cruelty laws, and who to call and how to handle being first responders when coming across an abused animal. The best part is that each of these officers are now spread out across the five boroughs, bringing ALDF’s training to each and every member of each and every precinct there.

Perhaps the best part, for me, was that after I finished, a good number of officers crowded around me to ask more questions but mostly, to relate their heartwarming, and sometimes heartbreaking, stories of their animal cases.

One officer with a heavy Russian-sounding accent related how she arrived on the scene to rescue a neglected dog with a chain imbedded in her neck, only to be attacked by the scared dog as she approached. The officer got help neutralizing the dog, who was treated by a vet, and ended up going home with the officer! Now, three years later, the dog is beautiful with no sign of the neglect. I know this because the officer proudly showed me her current photos of the sweet dog.

Another officer, who looked and sounded like he stepped right out of an episode of The Sopranos, shared his anguish at turning himself nearly inside out getting four tiny adorable kittens unstuck from a gutter, only to see them euthanized at the overcrowded shelter days later. This tough guy’s eyes teared up as he talked to me about this.

I wish I had better answers for all of the officers who lamented this population control/overcrowding issue. However, I now hold out great hope that animals in trouble in the Big Apple who do cross paths with NYPD will be just fine.

Animal Abuser Registry Update

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on March 25th, 2010

Your voice is making a difference!

Since the Animal Legal Defense Fund launched our national abuser registry campaign on February 22 -- the same day California Senator Dean Florez announced an abuser registry bill for that state -- legislators from eight states have expressed interest in abuser registries, and Louisiana introduced its own offender registry bill.

The campaign to protect our animals and our families from the most dangerous convicted abusers is picking up steam -- but we still need your help. Sign the petition at ExposeAnimalAbusers.org and encourage your friends and family to do the same!

Mandatory registration of convicted abusers will help ensure that pet guardians don't unknowingly put their cats and dogs in harm's way. For example, on January 26, Glynn Johnson was convicted in a Riverside, California court for fatally beating his neighbor's puppy, Karley, with a 12-pound rock after the dog had crossed into his yard.

Johnson is scheduled to be sentenced on April 2. Meanwhile, Karley's devastated guardians, Jeff and Shelley Toole, have joined on as spokespeople for ALDF's abuser registry campaign, in hopes that mandatory registration of violent offenders will spare other families the terrible suffering they have endured as a result of Johnson's vicious attack.

12,750 compassionate citizens around the country have signed the petition at ExposeAnimalAbusers.org, urging their own lawmakers to sponsor this vital legislation in their own states. Let's keep the momentum going!

Animal abuser registries are a powerful tool to help police and animal shelters better protect our animals. We must do all we can to prevent criminals who have already been convicted of felony animal abuse from again torturing, sexually abusing, or intentionally killing animals.

Thank you for speaking up for animals and supporting an animal abuser registry in your state!

For the Love of Whales

Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on March 24th, 2010

The ocean is calm except for the lazy swell rolling up from the Gulf of Alaska. Our kayaks hug the shore, though the sheer cliffs in these fjords on the south coast of Alaska offer little comfort for terrestrial mammals like us. Barely breathing we sit snugly in our boats, binoculars trained seaward. A half mile or more away, humpback whales rise, blow and slide slowly back into the sea. We smile. We whisper to each other – as if we might scare them away like so many deer in the woods – guessing at their numbers . . . whether we see calves. We excitedly congratulate each other for the experience as if we had conjured the leviathans ourselves – trying desperately to remember every moment. And we smile, and we smile.

Without warning from just behind me an explosion! The adrenaline rush slows time just enough for me to recognize the sound as my body instinctively turns to face the threat. It is the exhalation of a humpback whale – no longer half a mile but just a few yards away.

In seconds I am aware of her size, her smooth skin . . . and her eye! Far more emotionally intense than seeing a humpback is having been seen by one on – perhaps even acknowledged. The hairs rise on the back of my neck. I am suddenly aware that, as she languidly slips back under the water, she is heading straight for me. I feel every cell in my body tuning in to record the experience ready to react. With a wisdom far older than intellect, my body freezes, waits and watches. If she raises her massive tail flukes I will not survive ten minutes in this frigid water even if I survive the blow. In fleeting seconds I know this, and I wait.

But she has done her job. Even as we spied on her family she effortless slipped into our midst and appraised us, evidently satisfied we pose no threat – perhaps even amused. Her body seems to take ages to complete its graceful arc breaking the water and sliding under my kayak. I turn to watch as she moves off back toward her family even as my kayak rolls alarmingly from the wave she generated as she went under.

It is not within my abilities to do justice to the experience. To my own ears, even saying I was humbled, sounds empty and presumptuous. How do you describe an experience that so overwhelms the senses in clumsy words?

But I feel compelled to try by the recent tragedy involving the orca whale, Tilikum, at Sea World. Because to experience whales in their homes is to never again be able to feel anything but horror and dismay at their captivity. These remarkably intelligent, sensitive and unfathomable creatures inhabit a world as rich and wonderful as any we can imagine. They deserve much better than to be penned in glorified swimming pools to perform tricks for our amusement.

My heart goes out to the family and friends of, Dawn Brancheau, the woman killed by Tilikum. By all accounts she loved the whales she worked with. But my heart breaks for Tilikum, and all captive whales, whose confinement is a tragedy that unfolds slowly day after day. It is an incomprehensible injustice that they endure for a lifetime that is, perhaps mercifully, more brief for them than the families they were stolen from in the wild.

There is no way to undo the injustice other than for people to do the right thing and end the capture and captivity of whales forever.

Want to Help Lower the Costs of Healthcare In This Country?

Posted by Tom Linney, Animal Law Program Staff Attorney on March 22nd, 2010

Ask anyone for their views on the cost of healthcare these days and you’re bound to stir some emotions. But no matter what side you are on, the good news about the current healthcare reform debate is that it has encouraged people to start thinking about the healthcare needs of this country. The bad news, most people are still overlooking the main reasons why we spend so much on healthcare – chronic diseases. These diseases include heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer and are among the most common and costly of all health problems in the U.S. Chronic diseases are responsible for seven of every 10 deaths and account for more than 70% of the $1 trillion spent on health care each year in the U.S.

But these diseases also happen to be the most preventable because they are a result of what people do, or not do, in the course of their daily lives. There are four common causes of chronic diseases: poor nutrition, tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption and lack of physical activity. So how you live your life will affect how much you (and all of us) will spend on healthcare. In July of 2009, the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes “such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.” In fact, research has shown that vegetarians are 50% less likely to develop heart disease and have 40% of the cancer rate of meat-eaters. The ADA also states that vegetarians have “lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

Political experts say that it is fear that is driving the raucous crowds and angry protesters that have turned healthcare town hall meetings into shouting matches. But for the sake of saving our tax dollars and improving the healthcare system as a whole, let’s hope people instead develop a healthy fear of bacon cheeseburgers, cigarettes and binge drinking and skip an occasional protest to attend their regular checkups or ride a bike.

Don’t get me wrong, I am excited to see that people are engaged in the political process and wishing to express their opinions on the President’s plans to reform healthcare. But let’s not overlook the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Unfortunately, most of us wait until something is seriously wrong with us before we change our lifestyle and by that time, treatment is very, very expensive. Let’s not wait America, change the course of your life and that of this country today by adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet.

Upcoming Animal Law Events

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on March 19th, 2010

If you're in or around these areas next week, we encourage you to check out these upcoming animal law events.

Muzzling A Movement: Free Speech, Animal Protection & Terrorism Prosecutions
March 23, 2010
New York, New York

The New York University Student Animal Legal Defense Fund presents "Muzzling A Movement" a speaking engagement with former SHAC 7 prisoner Andy Stepanian, and Dara Lovitz whose book, Muzzling A Movement, on the suppression of speech & first amendment protected protest within the animal protection movement, is due out this summer from Lantern Books.

Practical Applications of Animal Law
March 25, 2010
Miami, Florida

Topics to be covered at this event are: Strict Liability and Personal Injury Issues Involving Animals by Daniel D. Dolan, Esq.; Veterinary Malpractice and the Valuation of Animals as Property by Marcella S. Roukas, Esq.; and Family Law Issues Involving Animals and Family Pets by William T. Brady, Esq. Sponsored by the St. Thomas University Law School Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.

3rd Annual Animal Law Seminar - Equine Law and Legislation
March 27, 2010
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

ALDF Attorney Dana Campbell will discuss prosecuting equine abuse at this seminar, presented by the Animal Law Coalition and Duquesne University’s Department of Philosophy. Other topics to be discussed include an introduction to animal rights as a justice issue, law governing equine abuse and neglect and the slaughter of America's wild horses.

5th Annual Animal Law Conference
March 27, 2010
St. Paul, Minnesota

ALDF's Scott Heiser and Bruce Wagman will be speaking at this all-day animal law conference. Topics range from successful prosecution of puppy mill and hoarding cases to legal issues involved in rescuing abused animals. Join leaders in the animal law movement at what will prove to be an informative and thoughtful discussion of issues in animal law. Presented by the Minnesota State Bar Association's Animal Law Section and William Mitchell College of Law.

A Talk by the Mad Cowboy, Howard Lyman

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on March 15th, 2010

The University of Washington Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) recently hosted a talk by Howard Lyman, author of “Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat” as part of the conference “Crisis at the Crossroads: Animals, the Environment and the Law.”

Don’t miss this exceptional talk by an American farmer and animal welfare activist.

Mississippi Misses the Mark

Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on March 10th, 2010

Last week, a bill in Mississippi that would make torturing cats and dogs a felony died in the legislature despite its near unanimous support by the Senate. Mississippi is one of four states that does not have a felony provision for animal cruelty.

According to a report by WLBT, the Mississippi Farm Bureau voiced their opposition to the bill.

"Farm Bureau's concern is that this type legislation will be used as a vehicle to open avenues for activists to extend their reach and push other, more extreme agendas," Mississippi Farm Bureau president David Waide said in a statement released last Friday.


Mississippi residents: time to voice your opinion! Contact your legislators and demand stronger laws against those who torture and abuse animals.

Why Wi-Fi is Constitutionally Significant

Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on March 8th, 2010

In the world of animal crimes prosecutions, it is common knowledge that those who participate in the underground world of animal fighting have a very real and frequently indulged need to communicate about their illegal exploits. They do so for a variety reasons, including the need to:

• Set the terms and address the logistics of the next “match.”
• Disseminate fight results.
• Build a dog’s (or a kennel’s) “pedigree” (or brand).
• Exchange new training methods.
• Explore new techniques in providing unlicensed veterinary care to a worthy animal who may have been lucky enough to survive a fight.
• Facilitate the attendant financial crimes (e.g., money laundering and tax fraud).
• Discuss current law enforcement techniques with an eye toward avoiding detection and to otherwise facilitate their ongoing conspiracy to commit multiple felony crimes.  
  

For different reasons, the same is true for illegal puppy mill operators. The reality is that in today’s world, we all (even those who commit crimes against animals) do a huge share of our communicating over a computer network and of those networks, many if not most are wireless (a/k/a “Wi-Fi”). While a blog is hardly the venue for a detailed analysis of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a recent Federal District Court case out of Oregon (United States v. Ahrndt) prompted me to make a couple of observations about Wi-Fi and the Fourth Amendment. But first, a short summary of the Ahrndt’s case.

In Ahrndt, the defendant’s neighbor (referred to as “JH” in the opinion) stumbled on to Ahrndt’s unencrypted Wi-Fi with an SSID of “Belkin54G.” JH noticed that a “new” iTunes folder was available for browsing—the defendant had shared his iTunes library called “Dad’s LimeWire Tunes” by overriding the iTunes default setting to not share folders (Ahrndt used LimeWire to acquire the files he stored in this folder). When JH looked in the defendant’s shared folder she found filenames consistent with child pornography (oh, by the way, per the opinion, Ahrndt has a prior sex offense conviction but was still claiming to be employed as a representative with H-P—you know, the computer company). JH called the police, who duplicated JH’s steps and then completed a full investigation that identified Ahrndt as the owner of the “Belin54G” network (note the federal rule on accessing unencrypted Wi-Fi networks at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i)). Ahrndt was subsequently indicted. Predictably, Ahrndt filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence against him. However, the trial court would have none of it: in reaching his conclusion, Judge King noted that:

When a person shares files on LimeWire, it is like leaving one's documents in a box marked "free" on a busy city street. When a person shares files on iTunes over an unsecured wireless network, it is like leaving one's documents in a box marked "take a look" at the end of a cul-de-sac. I conclude that iTunes' lesser reach and limit on file distribution does not render it unlike LimeWire in terms of its user’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

* * * * *

Having failed to demonstrate either a reasonable objective or subjective expectation of privacy, defendant cannot invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment. When JH and [the investigating officer] accessed the child pornography in defendant's iTunes library, no search occurred. [Defendant’s motion to suppress, DENIED].

So, about those observations: (1) this case and the appellate authorities cited therein are excellent resources for anyone wanting to learn more about the ECPA; (2) this case illustrates just how out-of-touch Oregon is when it comes to search and seizure issues—had this case been filed in an Oregon Circuit Court, Ahrndt would have had a very good chance of getting all of the computer evidence (i.e., the child porn and thus the heart of the case) excluded. See, State v. Carston, 323 Or 75, 82, 913 P2d 709 (1996) and State v. Prew; and (3) in my experience, those who investigate animal crimes all too often overlook the wealth of evidence that is in a suspect’s “electronic record,” and an offender’s unencrypted Wi-Fi network is an excellent place to start—not to mention his cell phone bills and call logs, his text messaging history, his social networking pages and Twitter accounts (but get a warrant first, especially if you practice in a state like Oregon, that doesn’t follow the more common and rational Fourth Amendment jurisprudence).

Let Obama Know that You Support Basic Legal Protections for Animals

Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on March 5th, 2010

We have entered the final round of voting for the Ideas for Change in America 2010‏ competition on Change.org and ALDF's Animal Bill of Rights is currently in the top 10! Help us keep up the momentum by voting today!

The top 10 most popular ideas will be announced at an event in Washington, D.C. later in March and presented to relevant officials in the Obama Administration. Let Obama know that you support basic legal protections for animals by voting for the Animal Bill of Rights on Change.org!

In America, animals are still considered "property" according to the law - in most cases, no different than a table or chair. Through the Animal Bill of Rights, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is working to show Congress a groundswell of support for legislation that protects animals and recognizes that, like all sentient beings, animals are entitled to basic legal rights in our society.

The final round of voting ends on March 12 so please vote today.

To vote, simply click on the "Vote Now!" box next to our idea "Provide Legal Protections for Animals Through the Animal Bill of Rights."

If you are not already a Change.org member & signed in, you will be prompted to submit your name and email address. Please make sure to check your email’s inbox for a message from Change.org to confirm your address and then vote!

For those of you on Facebook and Twitter, after you've voted on Change.org, please spread the word about the Animal Bill of Rights by clicking on the Facebook and Twitter icons under "Share this idea!"

Thank you for supporting better rights for animals and voting today!

A Special Message from California Senator Dean Florez

Posted by Senator Dean Florez, 16th District, California on March 4th, 2010

As California's Senate Majority Leader, I take the job of protecting Californians and their animals very seriously. Experts have proven a strong correlation between violence against animals and incidents of domestic abuse. I believe we should have tough laws in place to protect both people and animals from violence.

That's why, last week, I was joined by the Animal Legal Defense Fund's Executive Director Stephen Wells in Sacramento to announce that I am sponsoring tough new legislation that will create a public registry for criminals convicted of felony animal abuse.

On the same day, ALDF launched its national campaign to push for animal abuser registries in all 50 states. Contact your own legislator asking for animal abuser legislation where you live at ALDF's special website, ExposeAnimalAbusers.org.

If someone has been convicted of animal cruelty, I believe they should be prohibited from owning any animals in the future. The animal abuser registry will be an effective tool in preventing ownership of animals by convicted animal abusers.

Like so many Californians, and Americans, my family shares our home with beloved animals - our three rescue dogs, Rusty, Cambria, and Dog-Dog. Families have a right to know if convicted abusers, who so often go on to commit more crimes against animals, or violent crimes against people, are living in their neighborhood.

That's why I worked with the experts at the Animal Legal Defense Fund to develop the animal abuser registry bill that I announced at the launch of ALDF's national campaign. Go to the Expose Animal Abusers website to watch the webcast of my February 22 press conference, where I was joined by ALDF in discussing my sponsorship of SB 1277 in California.

We'll need support in districts across the nation to protect all Americans from repeat offender animal abusers. Sign the petition at ExposeAnimalAbusers.org to show your support today.