In March, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that judges can consider the human-animal bond in deciding who gets custody of companion animals when couples separate. This precedent-setting case centers on a seven-year-old pug named Dexter, who was purchased by Doreen Houseman and Eric Dare in 2003. The engaged couple subsequently broke up, dividing their belongings, and it was orally agreed that Houseman would keep Dexter. But things got complicated when Houseman went on vacation and left Dexter with Dare, who refused to relinquish the dog upon his ex-fiancé’s return. Houseman took Dare to court, and a judge awarded her the $1,500 value of Dexter, but refused to enforce the terms of the couple’s agreement that would have given her custody of him.
Houseman appealed, and ALDF filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing that the court should consider Dexter’s interests in reaching its final decision. In reversing the trial court, the appeals court concluded that a pet has “special subjective value” that cannot be compensated by money alone. The decision gives Houseman a chance to regain her beloved pug.
This case is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, the court acknowledged the significant bond that guardians have with their companion animals. It recognized and considered the sentimental attachment that Ms. Houseman had to Dexter. That is certainly a step forward. At the same time, however, the court refused to adopt the ‘best interests of the animal’ standard that ALDF advocated in our amicus brief. Under that standard, companion animals would be treated as sentient beings with interests that are independent of those of their owners. The question would not be ‘Who has a valid claim to own or possess Dexter?’ but ‘Which guardian will best provide for Dexter’s interests?’ The court expressed its doubt about whether courts could manage that determination. But an animal’s interests are no more difficult to ascertain than those of a child or an elderly relative, and determining which party can best provide for those interests should be fairly easy to figure out.
There is cause for hope: The court included a caveat in its rejection of the standard proffered by ALDF. It suggested that the best-interests standard might apply in cases involving animal cruelty. This means that if one of the parties to a custody dispute is likely to abuse or neglect the animal in a way that amounts to cruelty under state law, their property right to the animal could be overridden, and the animal could be placed with the party who would best provide for the animal’s interest. This qualification reflects the court’s implicit recognition that animals do in fact have interests and should be treated as more than inanimate property under the law.
Animal Cruelty, Conduct Unbecoming...
Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Executive Director on June 29th, 2009
The United States military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice is the law of the land for U.S. military personnel no matter where they are stationed. Passed in 1950 the Code applies to all branches of the military and “Punitive Articles” cover everything from burglary and writing bad checks, to malingering and mutiny. (“Forcing A Safeguard” is also illegal and may be punishable by death. If I sign up I’ll be sure to find out what that means!) Unfortunately, for the past 59 years, there has been no Article specifically prohibiting cruelty to animals. That may soon change.
According to the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, the 2009 Commission on Military Justice—“comprising law professors, private practitioners and other legal experts”—will recommend that the Secretary of Defense include an animal cruelty Article in the Code. It’s too early to say what the law would actually look like but, Walter Cox, a former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is quoted as saying, "It would model, in some fashion, some of the more progressive statues in the States." That’s good news.
The lack of a specific animal cruelty Article did not mean that the military condoned or allowed animal cruelty. In some cases, charges could be brought under a more general Article that addressed conduct that would discredit the armed forces. But including it in the Code sends a strong message to military personnel and the world about just where the U.S. military stands on animal cruelty. It will also give military police, prosecutors and courts-martial more tools with which to combat animal cruelty.
If every march for social justice has its landmarks, the case of Max
the cat is surely a milestone for animal rights. Thanks to a tireless
prosecutor, an aggressive judge, and some help from the Animal Legal
Defense Fund, Max is not only safe, but his ordeal has led to a
pioneering court ruling that may set a precedent for future cases
involving companion animals.
Last January, Dustin Teahon of
Scottsbluff, Nebraska, assaulted his girlfriend and kicked her cat Max
down a flight of stairs. Max sustained possible neurological trauma,
and the girlfriend ended her relationship with Teahon. The woman even
obtained a protection order barring Teahon from contacting her and
revealed that he had also abused another of her animals, a 10-week-old
kitten named Diddy, who died a day after Teahon struck him in the head.
As in many domestic-violence cases, the couple later reconciled. But
this time authorities recognized that allowing Max to remain with his
guardian would place him in danger—so the court placed him in a local
shelter, not even permitting the woman’s parents to adopt him.
Attention Orlando, Florida Residents: Please Attend This Hearing
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on June 24th, 2009
Witnessed by several and videotaped by at least one, Christopher Comins shot two Siberian husky dogs who had come onto a property where Comins happened to be walking in May 2008. Reportedly claiming that the dogs were harassing a calf, Comins allegedly shot both of the dogs multiple times—continuing to shoot after the dogs were already wounded and down—while ignoring the pleas of their owner who was in close pursuit of them after their escape from his control. While both dogs recovered, one of them lost an eye due to the shooting.
How You Can Help
Two misdemeanor counts of animals cruelty against Christopher M. Comins have been upgraded to the felony level. A hearing date has been continued until June 26, 2009. Locals are encouraged to support the prosecution and attend the court proceedings. Always contact the Court to confirm court dates as they are subject to change. Read why attending court proceedings is important.
Orange County Circuit Court
425 North Orange Ave.
Orlando, FL 32801
407-836-2056
case #08-CF-0017830-O
Advocates outside the Orlando area can help too! Send a letter to Florida State Attorney Lawson Lamar, encouraging that the maximum penalty be sought upon conviction.
Thank you for supporting this case and taking a stand against animal cruelty!
With Thanks to Some VIP's at VIPP
Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on June 22nd, 2009You might think that one would have a pretty thick skin after spending close to two decades in the trenches as a prosecutor, where the carnage incurred (inflicted) as part of the human experience is very real and ugly. For a host of reasons, however, animal cases (as with cases involving kids) have always gotten to me—I never managed to develop much of a “professional distance” when dealing with these crimes. So, with a steady diet of animal cruelty rolling across my desk, it was with some sense of relief and much excitement that I recently left for vacation with my wife: 10-days of sailing to go wherever the wind might take us...
With a boat based in Seattle, our first day out resulted in a strong northerly, so we went south (beam reaching on an 85 degree day in 20 knots of wind—nirvana to any sailor accustomed to year-round sailing in the pacific northwest). At the end of the day, we found ourselves anchored off Vashon Island.
My wife has family on Vashon Island (Rick and Leslie), so we gave them a call and hopped in the dingy to meet for a visit. Rick greeted us at the beach and we piled in his car to catch up with Leslie who was finishing her day doing some volunteer work at Vashon Island Pet Protectors (VIPP), a local no-kill shelter that has been in operation for 25 years. Leslie gave us a tour of this very impressive shelter where my wife and I met some of the sweetest, most loving and adoptable cats I have ever seen (we already have three cats at home, otherwise...). 
Leslie has been volunteering at VIPP for years, doing everything from raising money (including helping to organize the annual “Fur Ball” scheduled for August 8th this year) to cleaning cat boxes. Rick helps out a lot there as well, recently doing some repair work on the building.
On this particular day Leslie was working with Trevor, an impressive young man who will be turning 13 shortly. I soon learned that Trevor possessed a very strong work ethic and a truly adventuresome sprit as he recounted with some pride his host of past injuries, including a fall off a trampoline. Trevor’s love of both gravity-defying activities and animals was obvious, but even at the age of 12+, he possessed a certain wisdom and appreciation for where he lived and what he is doing with his life. Most kids can’t wait to “get off the island” and hang in the city, but not so for Trevor—he loves where he lives and what he is doing (helping animals). It was a true inspiration to see this level of insight in a kid his age. While I didn’t get to meet all the great people at VIPP, Leslie, Rick and Trevor are most assuredly a representative sampling of the quality of folks dedicated to easing the suffering of the animals of Vashon Island. With thanks for the inspiration and a wonderful visit, keep up the great work!
Less than a month ago, MLA Jody Carr took to the floor of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly and chastised the province for its weak animal protection laws. He cited ALDF’s Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings report specifically and its ranking of New Brunswick as one of the “best places to be an animal abuser” in Canada.
Today, in a rare example of cross-partisanship and cooperation, the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly unanimously approved the third (and final) reading of a bill Carr introduced following his speech. The new law raises the maximum penalty for certain forms of animal abuse to $100,000 and up to 18 months in jail. New Brunswick’s maximum fine will now be the highest for this offense in Canada.
We commend New Brunswick for adding real teeth to their laws protecting animals. Passage of this legislation sends notice that New Brunswick is serious about protecting animals and in ensuring that those who abuse them are appropriately punished. MLA Jody Carr deserves tremendous credit for championing this bill. We are also gratified to see the government and Opposition work together on behalf of animals through this legislation and hope to see continued collaboration on this important front.
MLA Jody Carr’s Floor Speech (5/21/09)
For the first time in more than fifteen years, the United States
Supreme Court will directly address the issue of animal cruelty, and
the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a brief in defense of the
animals’ interests.
On April 20, the Supreme Court granted the request of the United States Department of Justice to review United States v. Stevens,
a case involving the sale of dogfighting videos. The last time the
Court directly addressed animal cruelty was in the 1993 case Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,
in which the Court struck down a poorly-drafted municipal ordinance
targeting religious sacrifice of animals. The question before the Court
in Stevens is whether 18 U.S.C. § 48
(“Section 48”), a federal law that criminalizes the sale of depictions
of animal cruelty, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. ALDF, 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.
The defendant in
the case is Robert Stevens, who was convicted in January 2005 of
violating Section 48 by selling three videos depicting dogfights and hog-dogging,
including graphic depictions of a pit bull mutilating the lower jaw of
a live pig. Not only did Stevens sell the videos, he also narrated
them, produced them, and advertised them in dogfighting magazines.
Stevens appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. In a 10-3 decision,
the Third Circuit held that Section 48 violated the Free Speech Clause
of the First Amendment. The court declined the government’s request to
establish a new class of speech—depictions of animal cruelty—that is
“unprotected” by the First Amendment. To date, there are only a handful
of “unprotected” types of speech: slander/libel, incitement, obscenity,
fighting words, true threats, and child pornography.
Although ALDF is not a party to the Stevens case, we submitted an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief in the case. An amicus curiae
brief permits a non-party to offer its view of a case, typically
premised on either its interest in the outcome or its expertise in the
field. ALDF’s brief, which we filed on Monday, will encourage the
Court to recognize the protection of animals as a compelling government
interest and uphold Section 48. The Supreme Court will hold oral
argument in the case this fall.
When I was ten years old, my family moved out to the country, and my friend and I would play down by a big pond that both of our families shared. While playing on my family’s side of the pond one day, my friend and I discovered a nest of baby mice, hidden in the tall weeds. They were tiny and pink and hairless, and their eyes were still closed.
I had always liked mice and rats since I was very young. In fact, far from being afraid of them, I thought they were cute and quite fascinating. So, I couldn’t resist peeking at the babies occasionally throughout the day, although I knew enough not to get too close, touch them or otherwise disturb the nest. My little brother came outside and we showed the mice to him; later, he left to go hang out with the 12-year-old neighbor boy.
In the late afternoon, after my friend had gone home, I decided to check on the mice one last time before dinner. The previous ten years of my life had not adequately prepared me for what I discovered: each baby mouse had been cut open, from throat to tail, and their insides now spilled out into the nest, the place that had once been their nursery.
At first, I was frozen with fear; I could not breathe, or move, or think. Then, an odd sense of numbness began to wash over me (shock, perhaps). For I was old enough to realize that the cuts were too precise to have been made by a wild animal. No, this had been done by a human being. I slowly lifted my head up, and began to scan my surroundings. I half expected to see someone with a knife walking toward me.
By the time I made it back to the house and found my mother, I was shaking uncontrollably. She was predictably furious, both because she abhorred animal cruelty, particularly to baby animals, and because of how traumatized I was. So, my tough-as-nails mother stormed over to the neighbors’ house to tell them what their son had done. For he had indeed done it; my brother, who was only six at the time and could not have known what the older boy would do, had told him about the mice. The boy had come back to the pond alone, after we had all gone into the house, and killed the babies. He admitted it proudly to his parents, who both turned to my mother and said, “What’s the big deal? They’re just mice.” Livid, she told them that he was forbidden to harm or kill any animals on our property.
From that day forward, I’m pretty sure the neighbors thought my mother was a bleeding heart lunatic.
And from that point on, any belief I previously had that the world was a safe place was gone forever. I thought of what the mother mouse must have gone through; what kind of distress was she in when she discovered her dead babies? I thought of the pain the babies had suffered; did they die quickly, or did he purposely prolong their torture with each slice of the knife? The feeling of safety I had felt before, which had been so constant that I had never known I could feel differently, was now suddenly and jarringly in question. For if someone who lived right next door to me could do something so sadistic, what could he, or some other sociopath, do to my cat? My dog? To me?
I know how sensitive mice and rats are because I handled many while working in the animal shelter world, and I adopted two baby rats while in college. Today, when I read about animal cruelty that involves these inquisitive, intelligent little beings, I may as well be reading about medieval torture straight out of the Dark Ages. Whether I’m reading about those used in research labs (where they are excluded from even the minimal legal protection provided by the Animal Welfare Act), or those used in crush videos, or those who are the victims of sticky glue traps and other “pest extermination” techniques, the nauseous feeling I get brings me right back to my 10-year-old self on that summer day. In those instances, I try to remember that unlike that younger version of me, I am now empowered as an adult to do something about the cruelty that is perpetrated against these smallest of animals.
A good friend of ALDF and the animals, Clifford Gagel, recently told me about a time when he stood up for animals despite the tenseness of the situation. He ended the story by saying, “I don’t fear those who place cruelty above compassion.” I wish I had known those courageous words as a young girl, especially on that terrible day so many years ago. But I’ll take that battle cry with me now into the fight to win legal protection for all animals, no matter how small, or unpopular, those animals may be.
Additional reading (and reasons to be cautiously optimistic):
"An End to Toxicity Testing on Animals," June 8, 2009, ALDF blog by Joyce Tischler
There is some good news to report for animals used in toxicity testing, as Joyce Tischler explains in her recent blog.
"Animal Experiments Could End in a Generation," June 5, 2009, The Times (UK)
Scientists in the UK consider eliminating animal research.
"Their Calling is Defending Rats, Yet These Folks Aren't Lawyers," May 16, 2009, The Wall Street Journal
Recently, the plight of mice and rats in laboratories was discussed on the front page of The Wall Street Journal.
While I wouldn’t turn down gemstones, platinum, or even costume jewelry, I’m pretty sure the appropriate gift to offer me this month is tofu—I’m celebrating ten years of being vegan.
A number of our bloggers here at ALDF take advantage of the more personal format of our blog to talk about their own reasons for being vegan. Special thanks especially to ALDF attorney Matthew Liebman for sharing great tips on how to make the transition to veganism, favorite podcasts about veganism, and even the occasional recipe—hello, Chick-O-Stick ice cream! Why, though, so much emphasis on food from an organization focused on animals and the law?
Farmed animals—those raised for the meat, dairy, and egg industries—are among the most abused in the United States, in numbers that are so staggering as to be almost incomprehensible. Investigations and industry whistleblowers have discovered abuses on farms and in slaughterhouses that are so horrific, most people cannot even bear to witness them. Despite their vast numbers, and the severity of the abuses they experience, farmed animals receive only miniscule protections by our legal system today. As a result, the Animal Legal Defense Fund seeks to develop creative legal strategies that allow us to improve and expand upon current law, looking toward a day when farmed animals receive basic protections under our legal system.
Excluded by most state animal cruelty laws and the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), farmed animals are particularly at risk for large-scale exploitation and abuse since the advent of factory farms, which mechanized and exponentially expanded the production of animal products at the expense of humane animal care.
The 28 hour law, enacted in 1873 and amended in 1994, covers farmed animals during transportation only. The law states that when animals are being transported for slaughter, the vehicle must stop every 28 hours and the animals must be let out for exercise, food, and water. Animals are often tightly confined and transported in outrageous heat and cold, and the only requirement is that they receive a break every 28 hours. Many truck drivers do not adhere to this rule, especially when the trip is only slightly over 28 hours. The law is rarely, if ever, enforced. The United States Department of Agriculture also claims that the law does not apply to birds.
The Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act is similarly limited. Originally passed in 1958, the Act requires that livestock be stunned into unconsciousness prior to slaughter. This is usually accomplished through electrocution when dealing with pigs, and captive bolt stunning for cows, goats, and sheep. The Act excludes birds, who make up more than 90 percent of the animals slaughtered for food, as well as rabbits, fish and other animals routinely raised for human consumption. It also permits ritual slaughter in which the animal is not rendered unconscious before slaughter. Unfortunately, enforcement of this Act has been inconsistent, and animal protection organizations continue to uncover and expose pervasive and horrific violations of it.
Individual states all have their own animal cruelty statutes; however many states have a provision to exempt standard agricultural practices—meaning farmed animals are on their own.
As long as the law so clearly fails to protect factory farmed animals—those slaughtered for their flesh and those who are raised for their milk and eggs—the easiest way to know you are not contributing to their abuse is by refusing to economically support these industries. It’s why I’ve been vegan for ten years and counting.
Have Americans' Attitudes Towards Animals Changed?
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on June 12th, 2009
This is a question that we frequently hear from professional news reporters. Our answer is yes, they have, and it is most obvious in how Americans view their own companion animals.
According to recent surveys:
- 124 million companion animals live in American homes – nearly one for every two Americans.
- 70% of those surveyed with dogs or cats say that their companion animals are definitely family members.
- 45% of dog guardians take their pets on vacation.
- More than half of companion animal guardians would prefer a dog or a cat to a human if they were stranded on a deserted island.
- 50% of companion animal guardians would be “very likely” to risk their lives to save their animals.
- Another 33% percent indicated they would be “somewhat likely” to put their own lives in danger to save their animals.
- 9% of dog guardians throw birthday parties for their canines, and 25% of all dog caretakers buy birthday gifts for their dogs.
Another recent survey revealed that consumers are spending approximately $36 billion on an annual basis, on companion animal products and services, more than doubling the amount spent ten years earlier ($17 billion). That $36 billion spent on companion animals has made the “pet products and services” industry one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy, exceeding the dollars spent on hardware, jewelry, or candy in the same year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
This increase in spending reflects the attachment that many Americans have to the dogs and cats who share their homes. But there is something more that I want to share with you. These facts and figures point to our combined and growing potential to influence both the industries that utilize animals and the state and federal legislatures that pass animal protection laws. It is no coincidence that Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer, recently announced that it will phase out gestation crates at all of its company owned sow farms over the next decade. And the passage of Prop 2 (banning battery cages for hens, gestation crates for pigs and veal crates for calves) in California is more writing on the wall for industry.
Use the power of your wallet, of your vote and of letters to the editor in your local newspaper. Check our Action Alerts for additional actions that you can take to help ALDF create a far more just and compassionate society.
Challenging Denver's Pit Bull Ban
Posted by Megan A. Senatori, ALDF Volunteer Attorney on June 10th, 2009
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently released an important decision allowing a case challenging the City of Denver, Colorado’s pit bull breed ban to move forward. The Animal Legal Defense Fund was part of the successful effort.
The history of the Denver pit bull breed ban is long and complicated. The ban was originally enacted by the City of Denver in 1989. Shortly after its enactment, a group of dog owners and humane associations challenged the constitutionality of the ban. The case ultimately was heard by the Colorado Supreme Court, which rejected the challenges and upheld the ban. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991). Since then, numerous other legal challenges to the ban have been mounted. However, to date, those challenges have been unsuccessful.
In Dias v. The City & County of Denver, three plaintiffs sued the City of Denver, the County of Denver, and certain officials in the District Court of Colorado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the pit bull ban. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, all of whose companion dogs had been targeted by the City of Denver, alleged that the breed ban was vague on its face and deprived them of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection of the law. The plaintiffs contended that since May 9, 2005, Denver has impounded and killed at least 1,100 dogs pursuant to the breed ban. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the ban and recover damages for the expenses they incurred in moving out of the city to comply with the ban. Early in the case, Denver moved to dismiss the action. Without allowing any oral argument, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Before the Tenth Circuit, ALDF filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the plaintiffs, highlighting for the Court the close bond between humans and their dogs. The goal of the amicus curiae brief was to stress to the Court the significant and important stakes the case presented for consideration. Under the breed ban, companion dog owners in Denver have been deprived of the companionship of their dogs for no other reason than the fact that their dog either was a pit bull or was perceived to be a pit bull. The Denver ordinance requires no showing that the dog presents a danger or risk to human safety in any respect. Rather, the ban is solely based upon the breed, or perceived breed, of the dog. ALDF does not support breed bans.
Last month, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion which, among other things, reversed the District Court for dismissing the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim at such an early stage of the litigation. The Tenth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs’ legal challenge to the statute was not controlled by the numerous other decisions rejecting challenges to pit bull bans. This is because the plaintiffs contended that although pit bull bans may have been justified 20 years ago by the then-existing body of knowledge, the state of science in 2009 no longer supports continuation of the ban. The Tenth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs’ claim found some support in the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club standards themselves, which describe the American Pit Bull Terrier as an “extremely friendly” breed and “excellent family companions.” Therefore, while not ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs’ legal challenge to the ban, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the case and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Given the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, the case will now proceed in the District Court, where the plaintiffs will be able to present their case that the Denver breed ban is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In other words, the plaintiffs will be arguing that while protecting the public from dangerous dogs is an important goal, the Denver breed ban is an irrational way to serve that goal and, therefore, should be unlawful.
An End To Toxicity Testing on Animals
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on June 8th, 2009
I’m excited about a major development that could spare many, many thousands of animals from being used in agonizing toxicity testing.
In 2007, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) released a report entitled “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and A Strategy.” This Report proposes a new paradigm for toxicity testing, one that moves away from using live animals and replaces them with alternatives, such as cell cultures, tissues cultures, computer models and other methods.
The NRC Report points out that the current system of toxicity testing is a patchwork effort that relies heavily on the use of live animals. From the perspective of those of us who seek to protect animals from harm, toxicity testing is a nightmare. The NRC recognizes that in order to meet the regulatory and information demands of the 21st century, considerable additional information is needed about the toxicity of compounds used in commerce and in the environment. The current system cannot meet these demands in a cost-effective, ethical and timely manner. Only by evolving to a testing scheme that is dominated by non-animal methodologies can they meet the demands of science and protection of the public.
This is exciting, folks. This is big news. At ALDF, we don’t want to stand on the sidelines and merely hope for the best, so we are working as part of a coalition to support the changes recommended in the NRC’s Toxicity Testing Report.
Five ground-breaking symposia are currently being developed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark Law School and The Environmental Law Institute. We are inviting speakers who are experts in toxicology, risk analysis, policy implementation and all of the relevant laws, to come together and discuss the problems and opportunities involved in moving from animal testing to alternative methods. Our objective is to bring about a “win-win” for everyone – the animals, the scientists, 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 predictors of toxicity.
The first symposium entitled “The International Implications of the US National Research Council’s Report on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementation” will be held at (and with the cooperation of) the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa on June 29-30. It will focus on scientific, risk assessment and implementation challenges and opportunities. Later symposia will focus on economic issues, what laws and regulations will need to be changed and how to encourage the scientific development of alternative methods for testing. This work is complex and many layered and the change will not come as quickly as we would like, but we are feeling very hopeful.
Stay tuned, because I will report back to you on each of the symposia and will let you know where you can locate more information on this subject.
Start your summer off in style with an ALDF t-shirt, tank top or tote bag. Our seven irresistible designs make it easy to show your support and let the world know that you're a voice for animals. Now is the perfect time to treat yourself with a gift that gives back! Check out our designs here or click on one of the products below.
Help the Horses - Support These Two Bills
Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on June 3rd, 2009
Please help end the abusive practice of transporting horses by double-decker trailers and stop the slaughter of horses for human consumption! Contact your United States Representative today and ask him or her to support H.R. 305 and H.R. 503.
These two important bills have recently been introduced in Congress and need the support of your United States Representative:
The Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009 (H.R. 305) will ban the use of double-decker livestock trailers in the interstate transportation of horses. While current law prohibits the use of these trailers in transporting horses to slaughter, a loophole exists that allows their transportation to any other non-slaughter location, e.g. feedlots, auctions and other facilities. These low-ceiling double-decker trailers were not designed for horses, and horses forced onto them must endure having their heads bent over for hours upon hours in overcrowded conditions while suffering a high risk of sustaining injury or even death.
The Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act (H.R. 503) will end the slaughter of horses for human consumption and the domestic and international transport of live horses or horseflesh for human consumption. Currently, tens of thousands of horses are transported to international destinations to suffer inhumane slaughter in order to please the palates of those in other countries who consume horses. The predecessor to this bill came very close to being passed during the last session of Congress, and now is the time to ensure this bill becomes law.
Please contact your United States Representative today and ask him or her to support H.R. 305 and H.R. 503.
Let Congress know that joining your voice are the voices of over a quarter of a million people who have signed ALDF's Animal Bill of Rights, supporting the belief that horses, and all animals, should be free from exploitation and abuse by humans.
Thank you for speaking up for horses and being an advocate for all animals!
Take Action: Animal Dealer Gets a Slap on the Wrist
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on June 1st, 2009
Arrested in June 2007, Michael J. Sargeant, William R. Harmon, and Ron C. Cookson were accused of participating in an “off the books” arrangement wherein Harmon and Cookson carried out unauthorized mass euthanasias at the Tulare County, California shelter – reportedly using nonstandard and painful methods – by falsifying records to cover their actions.
Sargeant, doing business as Sargeant’s Wholesale Biologicals, buys carcasses from animal shelters and sells them to research facilities such as UC Davis’ School of Veterinary Medicine. According to an investigative report by the Sheriff’s Office, Sargeant admitted that he had not had an official contract with Tulare County Animal Control since 2002 and that contract had allowed him to take only feline carcasses, yet he had continued to acquire dog and cat carcasses frequently from the shelter whenever Harmon called to tell him that euthanized animals were ready for pick up. The report further stated that Sargeant’s company purchased $1000 worth of gift certificates to a fancy restaurant and gave them to Harmon in 2005. He used a company check to purchase another $1,000 gift certificate, which he gave to Harmon in 2006.
Cookson had been fired prior to his arrest; the single criminal count of felony animal cruelty he faced was dropped in September 2007.
Acquitted of animal abuse charges by a jury on April 1, 2009, former Tulare County animal shelter manager William Harmon was convicted on September 24, 2008 of two felony counts of accepting bribes, a felony count of embezzlement and the misdemeanor charge of accepting an unlawful gratuity. On May 12, 2009, Harmon was sentenced to 290 days in jail and 3 years probation.
Michael Sargeant was originally charged with two felony bribery charges, but on May 13, 2009, he pled no contest to one misdemeanor count of engaging in anti-competitive practices. He was sentenced to two days in jail (already served), three years of formal probation and a $150 fine.
Take Action!
Send a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service asking them to permanently revoke Michael Sargeant's Class B license.
Sargeant's conduct, as reported in the investigation, and his subsequent conviction demonstrate that he sought corrupting influence over public officials who have direct control over when and how to euthanize animals at a public shelter. Because of his corrupt activities, Sargeant's Class B license should be immediately and permanently revoked. Please send a letter to the USDA today!
The Animal Legal Defense Fund would never be able to use the law to advance the interests of animals without the support of legal professionals nationwide. Meet a few of ALDF’s pro bono attorneys and learn how each is winning the case against cruelty.
 |
Susann MacLachlan With a personality that radiates warmth, "Sunny" enthuses about rescuing animals, teaching animal law at the John Marshall Law School and coaching students for the Harvard Law School's National Animal Advocacy Closing Argument Competition. |
 |
Rene Kathawala An attorney with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Rene recently assisted with drafting an alliance agreement between ALDF and Lewis and Clark Law School, resulting in the first-of-its kind Center for Animal Law Studies. |
 |
Robert Knaier There are countless avenues by which people are prompted to give more consideration to non-human animals. For Robert Knaier, it was philosophy. |
Read more about our exceptional pro bono attorney members here!
Know an attorney who's interested in making a difference for animals? Join ALDF’s Animal Law Program!
We use volunteer attorneys to work on a variety of projects including
research and citation checking, writing legal information guides,
filing amicus briefs, litigating cases, and assisting prosecutors with animal cruelty cases.
Support Tougher Dogfighting Laws for Criminals Like Michael Vick
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 27th, 2009
Michael Vick, ex-quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was released from prison on May 20 after serving 23 months for financing "Bad Newz Kennels," his dogfighting operation, and viciously killing dogs that his kennel used in fights. Vick is returning to his home in Hampton, Virginia, to begin a period of supervised home confinement.
The Michael Vick case made headlines around the nation - and around the globe - but as we know from the number of cases reported to ALDF week after week, dogfighting is a national epidemic. Sadly, unlike the high-profile Michael Vick case, most cases of dogfighting go unnoticed by the media, and find dogfighters receiving weak sentences if convicted.
In 2008, the governor of Virginia signed into law a bill written by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and patroned by state Senator W. Roscoe Reynolds that adds organized dogfighting to the list of crimes that may be prosecuted under the state's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws. Applied to animal fighting, RICO - which was originally designed to be a weapon against a wide variety of organized criminal efforts, including drug dealing and gambling - would give prosecutors increased muscle in seeking justice for abused animals. While dogfighting was already illegal in Virginia, the ability to bring a state RICO case now provides specific advantages to law enforcement overseeing dogfighting investigations in Virginia including longer sentences and larger fines.
Take action by writing to your state legislators today about enacting or enhancing your state's RICO law. ALDF can provide our model law that was enacted in Virginia. We can also provide your legislators with a detailed legislative analysis of your state's laws to provide customized solutions for your state.
Send a letter to your state representatives and help put an end to dogfighting today!
Canada and the U.S.A. share many things in common, and a growing interest in animal law is one of them. Canada especially has been on a bit of an animal law tear recently. Last week we released our second annual animal protection laws rankings report which highlights the best and worst provinces and territories. The report received positive coverage across the country – from Prince Edward Island to the Yukon Territory.
In a dramatic move, Ontario, which last year had the infamous distinction as “the best place to be an animal abuser,” shot to the top of this year’s rankings due to the passage of a host of legislative improvements. Ontario’s newly strengthened laws were recently put to use when a convicted offender was banned for life from possessing animals. Prior to the newly enacted legislation, which took effect in March, Ontario courts had no statutory source for such a prohibition. Among many other improvements, Ontario became the first province to require veterinarians to report suspected animal abuse – a provision already the law in many states. In an encouraging trend, other provinces and territories are actively considering ways to strengthen their laws as well and may move up in next year’s rankings.
However, the emerging field of Canadian animal law is not simply limited to legislation. Currently, seven law schools are offering courses in animal law, and the very first animal law conference in Canada was held last week in Montreal at the University of Quebec. ALDF co-sponsored this successful event and our very own Dana Campbell was one of the many presenters.
A big hat tip to Canada – and our hope for continued good news on the animal law front.
Rescued Horses Lacy & Groucho are New Parents!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 22nd, 2009At 9 p.m. last night, Lacy, the pregnant mare who was close to death when she was rescued from a North Carolina field, gave birth to a healthy, beautiful baby girl. Both mother and daughter are doing great! (Stay tuned for video!)
Last December, Lacy, an Arabian mare, was close to death from colic and
the burden of carrying a foal with no food or nutritional support. Her
hipbones, backbone, and ribs were all protruding from her skin,
indicating an advanced state of malnutrition and starvation. She was
rushed to the North Carolina State College School of Veterinary
Medicine for critical care.
Read more about the rescued horses and ALDF's case against the Keatings here: http://www.aldf.org/ALDFvKeating
Here are a few pictures of the new little beauty. She doesn’t have a name yet, so help us find the perfect name for her! 
Positive Change in Puerto Rico
Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on May 22nd, 2009
Sand, sun, gently rolling waves–where better to break the spell of a long snowy upstate New York winter than on a Caribbean island? Animal lovers in San Juan Puerto Rico beckoned ALDF for a visit to observe and assist with local efforts to protect and enhance the lives of animals there, and I happily volunteered to go. 
My first stop was to meet with Edi Vazquez, a lawyer and longtime clerk for one of the federal judges there, who also happened to found an organization called Save a Sato, which rescues as many of the satos (abandoned street dogs) as they can, feeds them and cleans them up, and puts them on airplanes to shelters in the Eastern U.S. who have extra space for them so they may be adopted. (Finding out that there were shelters who actually had extra space for dogs outside their own area was a bit of a revelation in itself for me.) Unfortunately the satos could be seen everywhere as we drove across the northern edge of the island from Carolina to San Juan, though I was told they are not nearly as abundant since Save a Sato’s work began. Even my airport shuttle driver had heard of the group’s efforts and referred to the volunteers as “angels.” Edi has since moved on to a new group called All Satos Rescue, but the work continues. 
Also tragic are all the abandoned starving cats I saw at night, but apparently because they tend to stay hidden from sight during the day (unlike the dogs), and are difficult to catch, their plight is less publicized. I later leaned that there are fledgling trap-neuter-release efforts underway, but not nearly enough.
Next up was a visit with the Court Unit Executive (what we would call the Chief Clerk of the Court) for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Frances Rios de Moran, who was extremely interested in learning more about animal law generally, and ALDF specifically. A smart, elegant woman who has made dogs, specifically boxers, part of her family most of her adult life, she and I agreed to chat more about the possibility of setting up an animal law CLE there, something she could apparently facilitate arranging due to her position. 
I was fortunate to meet with two inspiring, energizing attorneys working to lead the legal efforts to protect animals, Yolanda Alvarez the immediate past president, and Cindy Badano the future president, of Puerto Rico’s Commission for the Welfare of Animals. The Commission is the group responsible for drafting and pushing through the legislature a year ago the wide slate of new animal laws based in part on ALDF’s Model Laws. There is so much work yet to be done there, and the group is now working on multiple fronts, for example to bring animal law classes to the law schools there, to draft and introduce even better laws, and to upgrade the quality of the animal shelters.
My dual speeches for the law students and public at InterAmerican University, the original purpose for my visit, were well-attended and received. The topics? Animal Law 101, which covered the basics of animal law’s development and growth, practice areas and career options; and the state of animal protection laws in the U.S., an overview of what the law does and does not cover and some trends we are seeing in new legislation. Perhaps the best moment of all was when a Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) member’s young sister, age 12 or 13, asked whether there are things that kids her age could do now to help protect animals, like write to legislators. This engaged the audience and I in a good discussion on how even kids can do so much for animals. I hope the future holds more compassionate, aware, committed persons like her.
When ALDF learned that our case, ALDF v. Woodley, was being featured in the June issue of Oprah's Magazine, O, we were thrilled that this triumphant story of 300+ rescued dogs saved from a life of suffering would reach thousands, if not millions, of people and inform them about the horrors of animal hoarding. As our own special tribute to these very special clients, we put together the two videos below. Also be sure to check out our photo slideshows of the dogs before and after the rescue. To help stop animal hoarding, support ALDF's First Strike and You're Out law—a law for those who are convicted of animal neglect or cruelty.
ALDF received tremendous community support in our efforts to rehabilitate and rehome the hundreds of neglected dogs rescued in ALDF v. Woodley. The owner of an abandoned furniture factory in Sanford, N.C. offered the building as a temporary shelter, which became known as the Halls of Hope. In the midst of caring for these very special clients, ALDF staff and volunteers were able to shoot some video of the dogs during the time they spent in the shelter.
Attorney Joyce Tischler founded the Animal Legal Defense Fund in 1979. She never had a client move in with her, though, until a Boston terrier named Edgar won her heart during his stay at the Halls of Hope, scoring a one-way ticket with Joyce back to her home in California. From the ALDF headquarters, Joyce, with her now-constant companion Edgar, shares a little bit about how both of their lives has changed since the historic ruling in ALDF v. Woodley.
Ontario's Animal Protection Laws Move From Worst to First
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 20th, 2009
The Animal Legal Defense Fund released a report today that ranks each Canadian province and territory on the relative strength and comprehensiveness of their current animal protection laws.
In a dramatic move, Ontario, which last year had the infamous
distinction of ranking lowest in the nation for its animal protection
laws, moved from worst to first this year due to a host of new laws,
including standards of care for animals, requiring veterinarians to
report suspected offences, higher penalties, and restrictions on the
future ownership of animals by offenders.
Video: Groucho's Road to Recovery
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 19th, 2009Matthew Liebman, ALDF's staff attorney, and Bruce Wagman, ALDF's chief outside litigation counsel, were back in court yesterday fighting for Groucho, a horse rescued from a North Carolina field where he and seven other horses were left to starve. Bruce and Matthew visited Groucho at his temporary foster home and Bruce gives us this report:
“Me on the Ed Sullivan show?
Me, Henry McAfee appearing with
Ed Sullivan
Ed-Ed Sullivan
Ed-Ed-Sul-Sul
We're gonna be on Ed Sullivan
I've got a wonderful wife,
Two swell kids,
A good job and now this!
Someday we'll recall
The greatest day of all
Ed, I love you!
Ed Sullivan”
-- From the musical Bye Bye Birdie
I just returned from my local bookstore, where the June issue of O (The Oprah) Magazine is available for sale. I was so excited—I bought three copies and I can’t get the “Ed Sullivan” song out of my head, because, right there, starting on page 186 is an article titled: “Operation Rescue.” It’s about ALDF v. Woodley, the case in which we successfully sued an animal hoarder in North Carolina:
- where we rescued over 300 sick and unsocialized dogs and established exciting new case law in North Carolina,
- where a community of kind and dedicated people came together to support the rehabilitation of these dogs,
- where the local veterinarians donated hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their time and heart to nurse these dogs back to health,
- where a local businessman donated the use of an old building so that we had somewhere to house and care for 300+ dogs,
- where we gave of ourselves, not only as lawyers, but, once the dogs had been rescued, as hands-on activists who cleaned and washed kennels, fed, played with, and came to know and love hundreds of dogs who were being handled by humans for the first time in their lives,
- where two very different cultures intersected: a bunch of animal rights vegans from fruits-and-nuts California and a large group of good ole’ Southern folk with hearts of gold from North Carolina—and we brought out the best in each other, and
- as ever, where one homely, old, Boston terrier came into my life and changed it in wonderful ways and forever.
As my beloved friend, Gretchen Wyler used to say: “Cruelty can’t stand the spotlight” and O Magazine will help us to shine the spotlight on animal hoarding, a horrific problem that is happening in every community in America, yet is so little known and even less understood.
Thank you, O Magazine! Thank you, Oprah.
Oh, and by the way, on page 189 of O Magazine is a photo of that old Boston, Edgar and me 3 ½ years later, inseparable soul mates.
Unfortunately, now Edgar wants his own publicist… Ed Sullivan!
Great news! The Johnston County District Court has agreed with ALDF that Joel Simpson should bear the burden of paying for the veterinary care and upkeep of Groucho, the stallion he neglected. At a hearing today, the court granted the Equine Rescue League’s petition and ordered Simpson to pay $1,831, which reflects the cost of nursing Groucho back to health. ALDF will continue to fight for permanent custody of Groucho.
ALDF is in court today in Johnston County, North Carolina to recover the costs of caring for Groucho, a neglected stallion. Groucho was originally part of ALDF’s lawsuit against Gayle, Michael, and Judy Keating, but shortly after ALDF filed the suit, the Keatings purportedly sold Groucho to Joel Simpson, a family friend, for $1. Groucho continued to suffer from neglect under Simpson’s care, so an animal cruelty investigator seized Groucho, and ALDF sued Simpson for animal cruelty. Groucho was transported to a foster home by the United States Equine Rescue League, where he has been recovering safely.
Under North Carolina law, when a shelter takes on the burden of caring for a victim of animal cruelty, it is entitled to recover the expenses it incurs in doing so. The Equine Rescue League has had to pay for Groucho’s medical bills and routine upkeep, which total almost $2,000. ALDF, on behalf of the Equine Rescue League, has petitioned the court in Johnston County to force Simpson to pay those costs, since he is responsible for Groucho’s suffering. The court will hold a hearing on the petition today; we will update our website as soon as we learn of the court’s decision.
Oprah Spotlights ALDF's Rescue of 325+ Dogs
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 15th, 2009
Want to start your weekend off right? Check out this heartwarming tribute to the 325+ dogs rescued from North Carolina hoarders Barbara and Robert Woodley. In its June issue, O, the Oprah Magazine, catches up with a crew of the case’s spunkiest survivors. Read an in-depth account of the ALDF v. Woodley case, watch slideshows narrated by four of the women who opened their homes to dogs rescued from the Woodleys and check out special bonus video and slideshows of a few of ALDF's favorite clients.
Before you head out for those weekend plans, take a minute and send a letter to your state legislators encouraging them to support ALDF's First Strike and You're Out law for those who are convicted of animal neglect or cruelty.
Hoarding is very difficult to prevent, but working together, it can be stopped!
I spend more evenings than I’d care to admit trying to divine what my dog and two cats are thinking. It is a never-ending source of amusement for me to watch them relate to each other, and to me, and see how they motivate and manipulate each other. For example, my dog Eve, a white and tan Queensland heeler mix, likes my cats, Malinki and Johnny Rotten. But when she is snoozing on the couch she doesn’t want them anywhere near her. The cats, meanwhile, never seem to get that. So, last night I watched the mounting drama as Johnny Rotten, true to his name, endeavored to cozy up to a sleeping Eve. He approached and sniffed at her from a short distance without a stir. He then began his kneading on the blanket Eve was sleeping on. (I learned that cat “kneading,” where they press with alternating front feet, is also known as “pressy-paws.” Whatever it’s called, when they do it on your person with claws extended it’s really annoying.)
Finally, Johnny Rotten moved close to Eve and brushed up against her, hoping, no doubt, to soak up some of her body heat. Eve’s eyes snapped open, and in one quick movement she threw her haunches away from the intruding cat and spun her head around to issue a savage-looking snapping growl. The message was clear: “Don’t freakin’ touch me!” Always bold and unflappable, Johnny Rotten held his ground, testing her resolve. Eve repositioned a little further away and peace was restored. They slept close together (but not touching!) the rest of the evening.
This was a pretty minor and straightforward communication, but over a lifetime of watching my own menageries of rescued animals I have learned many basic truths first-hand that I sometimes take for granted. For example, they have the same basic needs and desires that we have. They need food and water, of course, and to be warm or cool depending on the weather. They also like creature comforts, preferring my couch to the carpeted floor. And most seek out companionship and affection. I have not met a dog yet who doesn’t melt when I give them a face and head rub.
They need to play and have a sense of fun, sometimes creating fairly elaborate games. And they have a sense of fair play and justice (something I’ve always known but that science has just recently “proven”). Basically, all the things that we claim to need or desire, we share with cats, dogs and all other mammals, really. And that’s basically it; we enjoy each other’s company because we “get” each other. We can recognize shared mammalian wants and needs. Beyond that, of course, are the individual subtleties of personality and the traits that make dogs, cats and humans. All the animals I’ve ever known are certainly as distinct as all the humans I’ve ever known.
All of this commonality makes me ponder the question of why humans seem to cling so desperately to the differences between us and them. In levels of behavioral complexity there is a spectrum, but the similarities overwhelm the differences in the important matters.
Perhaps our species’ need to find differences between “us” and “them” is based in ancient, and now irrelevant, rivalry or, perhaps, in seeking justification for our often cruel exploitation. Whatever the reasoning, or lack of, the truth is that we are not so different. But our choice as a society to focus on the differences has created an artificial wall (reinforced in our laws) that robs all of us of exploring our similarities rather than exploiting our differences. Personally, immersing myself in our similarities is something that has brought more of a sense of joy and wonder to me than anything else.
For the first time in more than fifteen years, the United States Supreme Court will directly address the issue of animal cruelty, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund will file a brief in defense of the animals’ interests.
On April 20, the Supreme Court granted the request of the United States Department of Justice to review United States v. Stevens, a case involving the sale of dogfighting videos. The last time the Court directly addressed animal cruelty was in the 1993 case Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, in which the Court struck down a poorly-drafted municipal ordinance targeting religious sacrifice of animals. The question before the Court in Stevens is whether 18 U.S.C. § 48 (“Section 48”), a federal law that criminalizes the sale of depictions of animal cruelty, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ALDF, an expert on animal cruelty laws, will submit 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.
The defendant in the case is Robert Stevens, who was convicted in January 2005 of violating Section 48 by selling three videos depicting dogfights and hog-dogging, including graphic depictions of a pit bull mutilating the lower jaw of a live pig. Not only did Stevens sell the videos, he also narrated them, produced them, and advertised them in dogfighting magazines. Stevens appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a 10-3 decision, the Third Circuit held that Section 48 violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court declined the government’s request to establish a new class of speech—depictions of animal cruelty—that is “unprotected” by the First Amendment. To date, there are only a handful of “unprotected” types of speech: slander/libel, incitement, obscenity, fighting words, true threats, and child pornography.
Although ALDF is not a party to the Stevens case, we will submit an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief in the case. An amicus curiae brief permits a non-party to offer its view of a case, typically premised on either its interest in the outcome or its expertise in the field. ALDF’s brief, which we will file in mid-June, will encourage the Court to recognize the protection of animals as a compelling government interest and uphold Section 48. The Supreme Court will hold oral argument in the case this fall.
The Facts About Animal Fighting
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 11th, 2009
Animal fighting has been brought to the forefront of the nation’s attention by the highly publicized conviction of NFL star quarterback Michael Vick and three of his associates on federal and state charges related to illegal dogfighting. After serving the majority of his sentence in prison, Vick could be released to his Virginia home as soon as May 21 to serve his remaining jail time under home confinement.
To learn about the issues specific to dogfighting, state and federal animal fighting laws and prosecuting animal fighting cases, read ALDF’s newly published Animal Fighting Factsheet.
Get all the case facts with our animal fighting case studies on Michael Vick and Craig Boyd.
As a special tribute to all mothers, both human and non-human, I felt compelled to revisit ALDF staffer Paula Mullen’s blog post about the power of the mother/child bond. Here’s an excerpt:
We all cringe and can hardly stand to think about it when a human child is orphaned because of some catastrophe, illness or criminal act. “The poor kid,” we say, shaking our heads with pity, “Such a shame. Now she’ll grow up without a mother.” But many of those children have an extended family of adults who will at least be there to offer guidance, if not become surrogate parents. Possibly, they’ll even have a concerned community to support them, if the story makes the news and inspires a sympathetic public to action. And maybe they’ll even have some counseling thrown in to help them emotionally adapt to life without a mother and father.Read the entire story here.
And what do dairy calves have for support, these baby animals who are also so vulnerable, who have no way of understanding what is happening to them? And what cruel anguish do their mothers experience, having their babies torn away from them, over and over and over again? When I see the field, I’m not even directly seeing that part of the equation, or the part where those calves unfortunate enough to be born male suffer an even worse fate – forced into the lonely, tortured life of a confined veal calf. It’s terribly ironic that this cruelty happens every single day in a culture that claims to have such reverence for the mother/child bond.
Dairy Industry Pressures Cause Cornell University to Cancel Vegetarian Nutrition Course
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on May 6th, 2009
In case you need a reminder that censorship remains alive and well or that the idea of even learning about a vegetarian diet is still threatening to many industries (and academic folks who should know better), here's an article proving it. Please consider signing the petition to urge the Cornell administration to reverse their decision to cancel the course NS200 - Vegetarian Nutrition.
Dairy Industry May Have Put Pressure on C.U. to Cancel Course
Students lobby for return of 'unjustly' cancelled course
The Cornell Daily Sun, April 16, 2009
Mother's Day is just around the corner and I wanted to pass along a couple of fun ideas for gifts to honor Mom on her special day. Even better, these gifts are eco-friendly and they support ALDF's cutting-edge work for animals. Honor your mom in a special way today!
ALDF Gift Membership
An ALDF Gift Membership is a great way to let Mom know how much you care about her and animals. With a gift membership, your recipient receives a one year subscription to ALDF’s quarterly newsletter, The Animals' Advocate, while ALDF receives the support needed to continue our work towards winning the case against cruelty. Let Mom know about her special gift with an ALDF Gift Membership eCard!
Flowers and Gifts from Organic Bouquet
Choose from the wide selection of beautiful, eco-friendly flowers and gifts from Organic Bouquet. For each bouquet or gift item purchased through this link, Organic Bouquet will donate 10% of the retail price to ALDF.
You can also visit ALDF's online shop for additional items that honor Mom and help animals.
Is a Prosecutor’s Consideration of "Collateral Consequences" Cause for Concern?
I just learned that on April 28, 2009, an FBI agent, Lovett Leslie Ledger, who was off-duty at the time of the incident, pleaded “no contest” (meaning he concedes the criminal charges but his admission can’t be used against him in any subsequent civil litigation) to a state “jail felony” charge of animal cruelty. His crime? He used a pellet gun to shoot and kill a neighbor’s dog, Sassy, a three-pound Chihuahua. Under Texas law, a pellet gun can, and on these facts does, qualify as a “deadly weapon” as defined in Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17)(B), see, McMillian v. State, 2005 Tex App LEXIS 9203 (holding that defendant’s two pit bull terriers, whom he incited to attack and kill defendant’s neighbor’s dog, fell within the scope of the state definition of a “deadly weapon”). What’s the big deal? The offender’s being held accountable, so the “system” is working, right? Not so fast.
This plea was part of an agreement where, if the media coverage of this case is accurate, the prosecutor has agreed to: (a) recommend that the defendant (who still has a job with the FBI, but their investigation into this matter is “ongoing”) be placed on two years of probation and (b) not object to the defendant’s request that the court allow him to enjoy the benefits of “deferred probation.” If the trial judge allows all of this at the sentencing hearing (scheduled for June 23, 2009), at the end of two years, the defendant will get his criminal case dismissed (meaning that he will not have a formal conviction on his record). Moreover, the defendant would then be able to seal his case file, meaning nobody doing a background check on him will learn of this conduct. See, Tex Gov. Code § 411.081
Why would a prosecutor make such an agreement? The truth is, in some cases, if the state has proof problems, cutting a deal may be the best path, rather than trying the case and getting a worse result. However, it seems these days that more and more prosecutors are succumbing to a common defense argument that the state should consider the “collateral consequences” to an affluent defendant’s conviction. The truth is, folks who commit crimes at a time in their life when they have a bright professional future, a loving family and the respect of their community have much more to lose upon conviction than those less-advantaged folks who commit crimes. So, the defense argument goes, “my client will suffer much more for this than some homeless guy who shoots a dog.” The sad fact is, too many prosecutors take the bait.
If prosecutors start cutting different deals for the same conduct, based on the socio-economic ramifications for the offender, then our justice system has morphed into a class-based machine where the advantaged enjoy better plea offers than the disadvantaged. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. The offender’s conduct and the quality of the admissible evidence should control any prosecutor’s analysis, not whether the offender is likely to lose his job as a result of a plea agreement.
Here’s hoping that these corrosive forces weren’t at work in the Ledger case.
New Video of Rescued Horses Twister and River
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 28th, 2009
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 Keating's North Carolina pasture. Eight horses - one pregnant mare, three mares with babies, and a stallion - had been eating bark off of trees in a desperate attempt to get something into their stomachs.
Rain, one of the eight horses would die from the Keatings' neglect, but thanks to the action of a concerned neighbor, the seven surviving horses were seized and are now recovering at the United States Equine Rescue League sanctuary. On the heels of their rescue, ALDF filed a lawsuit against Michael, Judy and Gayle Keating, the three individuals responsible for these horses' well-being.
Watch a new video of Twister and River, two of the young rescued horses, and follow our progress in court on May 18th as our team of attorneys fights for permanent custody of Groucho - the neglected stallion who has since been brought to safety, but whose legal ownership is still in question. You can follow ALDF's blog or Facebook page to keep up-to-date with developments on this case as they happen.
Please help sustain our fight for these horses and other animals in need. Together, we can lead the fight against animal abuse across the county and ensure that people who abuse animals are brought to justice!
California Evaluates the Real Value of Companion Animals
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on April 27th, 2009
ALDF appeared before the California Court of Appeal in Santa Ana last week as an amicus curiae in a veterinary malpractice case that marks, to our knowledge, the first time a California Court of Appeal has ever considered the question of how to evaluate the real value of a companion animal.
In this case, Gail McMahon’s dog, Tootsie—whom McMahon raised, trained, and cared for since her birth—was killed because of the alleged negligence of her veterinarian and veterinary hospital. Despite the vet’s knowledge that food needed to be withheld from Tootsie for twenty-four hours after the animal’s surgery, to prevent aspiration pneumonia, Ms. McMahon claims that Dr. Craig instructed a technician to feed Tootsie water and food just two hours after surgery. Ms. McMahon’s complaint alleged that as a result of her imprudent actions, Tootsie immediately aspirated liquid and food into her lungs and died shortly thereafter. Ms. McMahon claims that Dr. Craig’s negligence caused not only Tootsie’s death, but serious emotional distress for Ms. McMahon, who had lost her beloved companion.
The basic problem courts must deal with in awarding damages in cases involving the wrongful injury or death of a companion animal is: how do we reconcile the fact that companion animals are, by law, “property” with the fact that they mean so much to us and provide so much benefit to our lives?
ALDF Chief Outside Litigation Counsel Bruce Wagman presented ALDF’s position on how this analysis should be undertaken during oral arguments in McMahon’s appeal on April 23. It’s a rare panel of judges who wants to hear much from an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court”—i.e., someone (like ALDF) who is not a party to the case, but who volunteers information or a legal point of view to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. Bruce had been allotted ten minutes to present ALDF’s argument that, in brief, because animals are who they are and give what they give to us, we can’t possibly base their value on a market standard in a case where they are wrongfully killed. As we expound on in our amicus brief:
Although this lawsuit does not involve the death of a human, it does involve real loss – the loss of Ms. McMahon’s companion animal, Tootsie. Ms. McMahon has sued the respondent veterinary medical providers for their role in Tootsie’s death. The issues here focus on the changing evaluation of the damages available when companion animals, despite their status as personal property, are tortiously killed.The panel of three judges ended up asking Bruce thoughtful questions about ALDF’s argument for a full thirty-five minutes, far beyond the initially allotted ten minutes. Perhaps when they go home to think through the issues, there are some companion animals waiting at their own doors to remind them of the very unique role that our animal “property” (a term I’m sure my own cats would take exception to) plays in our lives.
Courts across the country are increasingly finding that market value is not the appropriate measure of damages in cases involving the loss of a companion animal. These courts recognize that longtime animal companions – like Tootsie – are a special kind of property, in that they cannot be readily replaced in the marketplace. Indeed, Tootsie cannot be truly replaced at all. Therefore, reliance on a market value measure is misplaced, as such a number would simply not provide adequate compensation to Ms. McMahon.
Now, we wait for the judges to issue their opinion.
Debating Animals as Legal Persons
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 24th, 2009
Video of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Open Program on "Debating Animals as Legal Persons" is now available to watch online. This session, held on January 5, 2008 as part of the AALS annual conference, explored the legal and normative bases for personhood and why nonhuman animals have been excluded from its ambit.
The guest panelists included: (Chair) Joan Schaffner, associate professor of law, George Washington University Law School; (Moderator) Katherine Hessler, professor and director of Lewis & Clark Law School's Animal Law Clinic; (Panelists) Taimie Bryant, professor of law, UCLA Law School; David Cassuto, associate professor of law, Pace Law School; David Favre, professor of law, Michigan State University Law School; and Steven Wise, adjunct professor of law, Vermont Law School, St. Thomas University School of Law.
As a result of this Open Program and the efforts and support of the panelists, the Animal Law Section was formally adopted by the AALS Executive Committee in June 2008.Part 1 (58 minutes)
Part 2 (47 minutes)
Yet Again, the Short End of the Stick...
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF Founder and General Counsel on April 22nd, 2009
Last August, I blogged about the reports that Leona Helmsley had chosen to leave most of her huge estate to help dogs. That news was too good to be true. And therein lays the trouble. In the last line of that blog, I asked: “will those who now control her fortune use it in a way that honors her wishes?” Their answer is a resounding: NO! The latest news is that Helmsley’s trustees are undermining her clearly expressed wishes:
“Real estate baroness Leona Helmsley's estate gave away $136 million Tuesday to hospitals, foundations and the homeless and left $1 million to animal charities, prompting one advocate to accuse the estate of failing to honor the hotel tycoon's wishes.Am I to presume that protecting helpless dogs will not make a difference? To whom? Giving that money to charities that work to protect dogs could have made an enormous difference, could have helped to investigate dog abuse on a national level, could have built critically needed shelters, spayed and neutered dogs and helped bring an end to the tragedy that we kill millions of stray and homeless dogs annually. It is a supreme slap in the face, both to Mrs. Helmsley and to those hard-working, underfunded and understaffed charities to suggest that only human oriented charities are worthy of inheriting from her. It should be noted that a large chunk of the money is going to support medical research, some of which, I presume will be performed on dogs. Is that what Mrs. Helmsley’s trustees think she meant by helping dogs?! It should also be noted that most American support the proposition that you have the right to spend your money as you see fit, even if other people disagree with you, unless, of course, you spend it for something illegal or immoral. This was Mrs. Helmsley’s money, not the trustees’ money. She had every right to spend it as she wished and it is an outrage that her choice is being swept under some very expensive carpets.
“... a surrogate court judge ruled in February that trustees for the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust had sole authority to decide which charities benefit from her estate… Throughout their lives, the Helmsleys were committed to helping others through the innovations of medical research of responding to those in need during critical times and in other areas," the trustees said in a statement Tuesday… We now have the privilege of continuing their good works by providing support where it will make a difference." (emphasis added).
A fundamental principle of probate law is that the wishes of the Testatrix (Helmsley) are to be respected and carried out. And yet, as with the Doris Duke estate and several others, we continue to see a person’s wishes ignored when those wishes mean helping animals instead of people. In my earlier blog, I quoted Mahatma Gandhi, who said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Our society continues to show its utter disdain for those who are voiceless and greatly in need.
Speak Out To Help Animals In Your Community
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 21st, 2009
Speaking out against animal abuse is one of the most powerful actions advocates can take to help animals. It was the action of one woman who alerted authorities to the horrific scene of eight starving horses in a North Carolina field that helped bring them to safety and end their unimaginable suffering.
Each of us has the power to make a difference for animals and speak out on their behalf right now! By sending a letter to your local newspaper editor, you can let your own community members know how they can join in the fight against animal abuse. Send your letter today in a few easy clicks using ALDF's Letter to the Editor web form!
Your action is critical in winning the case against animal cruelty. Animals have no voice in our court system of their own, and so we must speak out for them. Send a letter to your editor today and please, make a donation to help send ALDF's team of attorneys to North Carolina to finish the fight for the surviving horses rescued from the field!
It was just another Thursday afternoon in my dreary life. My day job was with a firm that specialized in real estate, and I hated getting up in the morning. There wasn’t anything in particular wrong with the work, but the thought of spending the next 30 years in a job I cared so little about filled me with dread. When the phone rang in my law office, I had no idea that I was about to have a conversation that would change my life.
It was Larry Kessenick. Two years earlier, in 1979, we’d started a group for lawyers and law students interested in animal rights. Each month we’d meet in the cramped, flea-infested office of the Fund for Animals in San Francisco to teach ourselves about legal issues related to animals. I cared deeply about their suffering: the 200 million hunted every year for sport, the billions raised and killed for food, the 20 million used in research and testing, the eight million killed by the fur industry, the five million dogs and cats who died in shelters and pounds each year. I wished I could spend all of my time handling lawsuits that would afford them greater protections. In fact, while a law student at the University of San Diego (USD), I had written a law review article in which I argued that animals should be granted legal rights.
But when I graduated from USD in 1977, there was no such thing as “animal law,” and certainly no paying jobs.
The call from Larry was about to change all of that. He had just received a plea for help from the Animal Protection Institute, who’d fielded an anonymous call that the U.S. Navy had shot and killed over 600 feral burros at their Naval Weapons Testing Center in China Lake, Calif., and they were planning to shoot another 500 starting on Saturday morning. They would keep shooting on weekends, until they killed 5,000 burros.
I was incensed; we couldn’t allow this slaughter to continue. But it meant that I had to file a lawsuit in federal court by Friday, the next day, and convince a judge to issue a temporary restraining order. It was 1981; there was no Internet and no online legal research. “State of the art” was a typewriter with a bit of memory. I went home to my cozy little apartment in San Francisco, fed my dog and two cats, and set up my old manual typewriter, the one I had used in college and law school. All night long, I drank coffee and tried to keep my mind clear as I typed the pleadings that we would need to halt the shootings.
Early on Friday morning, I rushed to the office and cornered the firm’s most experienced litigator. I was a “baby lawyer” who’d been practicing for only three years, and I needed advice: Where should I file the case and what sort of notice did I have to give the Navy? Within hours, I was on a plane to Fresno, then in front of a federal court judge pleading my case, praying he would understand the importance of not shooting these defenseless animals. The Navy’s attorneys made their argument. Then, as if in a dream, I heard the judge issue a temporary restraining order telling the Navy to “call off the guns” until there could be a hearing to review whether the Navy’s plan violated federal environmental law.
I had no idea that such orders are rarely granted. It wasn’t until years later that I realized that —in my single-minded quest to save those burros — I’d never even considered the possibility that I could fail. Two other attorneys joined me in litigating, negotiating and ultimately settling that lawsuit eight months later. Not one more burro was shot.
In truth, when I saved those animals, I saved myself. It didn’t take long for me and my employers to realize that my heart wasn’t in real estate. I needed to leave the safety of the law firm and take the risk of doing animal protection legal work full-time, even though I had no idea how to make a living doing it. Yes, it was painful and scary, but it was also necessary if I was to become the lawyer and the person I was meant to be.
It’s been 27 years since the phone call that changed my life. In that time, my group, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, has saved the lives of all sorts of animals including dogs, mountain lions, bears, cats, and, of course, burros. While we’re not always successful, we are always seeking to provide animals with greater protections. Now, more attorneys are specializing in the field of animal law, and over 100 law schools offer animal law classes, including USD.
Over the years, I’ve learned many lessons, but the most important one was to listen closely to that inner voice. Oh, and should that phone call come for you, drop everything and answer: It just might be your authentic life on the other end of the line.
This article was originally published by the University of San Diego Magazine.
Speaking Out For the Horse Who Was Dragged From a Truck and Beat
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 17th, 2009
Animal advocates are speaking out! Many of you have written letters in response to the sad outcome of a Pinal County, Arizona case in which a man dragged a horse behind his truck and then beat her with a PVC pipe as his 13-year-old daughter kicked the horse in the head, while both yelled at the horse to get up. A jury acquitted Gordon Allen Bates, finding him “not guilty” of felony animal cruelty.
Below is a letter written by Allison Luxenberg, the former president of the Ventura College of Law SALDF chapter (Calif.) and the current SALDF Alumni Advisor to the chapter. It will be published in the Ventura Signal.
Dear Editor:Take a minute to speak out for animals and write a letter to your local editor using ALDF's Letter to the Editor action center. Thank you for everything you do for animals!
I was brought to tears when I read the story today about Gordon Allen Bates being acquitted on animal cruelty charges for beating a horse after he drug it behind his truck in Pinal County, Arizona. As if the story is not disturbing enough, the man allowed his 13-year-old daughter to kick the horse in the head while he beat it with a PVC pipe. These are not the behaviors parents should be teaching young children. It is very well known that animal abuse leads to human abuse. In fact, According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse (statistics cited from http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php).
The vicious cycle of abuse will never cease if men like Gordon Allen Bates are not punished for not only abusing animals, but teaching his children to abuse them as well. Personally, I have my suspicions that there is already human abuse prevalent in the Bates household and fear this was not an isolated incident of cruelty.
Best,
Allison Luxenberg
Man Who Dragged and Beat Horse Found Not Guilty - Take Action!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 16th, 2009
Last month, we alerted ALDF's Anti-Cruelty Team to a horrific case of horse abuse that needed their attention. We thank everyone who took action by writing letters and making phone calls!
Despite the overwhelming response and public outcry, on March 19, 2009, March 19, 2009, a jury acquitted Gordon Allen Bates of Pinal County, Arizona, finding him “not guilty” after being charged with felony animal cruelty for dragging a horse behind his truck and then beating the horse with a PVC pipe while his 13-year-old daughter kicked the horse in the head, while both yelled at the horse to get up.
According to a news report, a deputy who remained with the horse for an hour after the incident saw blood dripping from the animal's nostrils the entire time. He said the horse had new and old injuries: multiple bruises on its rump, cuts on its face and neck, cuts from a tow strap used to drag it, deep cuts on its legs and swelling under one eye where the horse was beaten with the pipe.
What You Can Do
Take action by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor using ALDF's letter to the editor online action center. While there was no justice for the horse who was savagely beaten in this case, it is a reminder that each and every one of us needs to make sure that our communities take a strong stance against animal abuse-for the sake of our animals, and the safety of our communities.
Help ALDF Keep Animals Out of the Hands of Horse Abusers!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on April 14th, 2009
As an animal advocate, no doubt you agree, no one has the right to abuse, exploit or neglect animals. That's why the Animal Legal Defense Fund is taking Michael, Judy, and Gayle Keating to court for severely neglecting eight horses whom they starved - in one case, literally to death - and deprived of all veterinary care. ALDF is heading back to court on May 18th, and we need your support!
We are happy to report that all of the surviving horses are recovering and safe, but we need your help to ensure that no other horses ever suffer at the hands of these abusers.
Help send our team of animal law experts to North Carolina to finish this fight and ensure that the Keatings are not given the chance to abuse any other animals - ever again. Your donation will help us ensure that the suffering of River, Diva, Twister, Shadow, Lacy, Groucho and Raven - and of Rain, who died of starvation before she could be rescued - was not in vain.
Watch this video of Lacy less than two months after the rescue. Then, please, make a donation of whatever you can afford to help ensure that these horse abusers are never given the chance to harm another animal again.
If you’re vegan, chances are you’ve heard someone say, “Oh, I respect what you’re doing, but I could never give up ice cream.” It’s an understandable reaction: ice cream is good. Really good. And many of us have a lot of positive associations with ice cream from our childhood. But when you consider how dairy cows and their calves are treated, it may make you scream against ice cream. Thankfully there are plenty of non-dairy alternatives. Here’s a very simple recipe for vegan ice cream. It requires an ice cream maker, but trust me, it’s an investment you will not regret. (I can personally vouch for this model, which you can get for just $50.)
Chick-O-Stick Ice Cream
Ingredients
2 cups Mimiccreme
½ cup peanut butter
2 large Chick-O-Sticks (2 oz size), crushed
Directions
- Combine the Mimiccreme and peanut butter in a blender until blended.
- Chill the mixture until cool (unnecessary if the Mimiccreme was already refrigerated before step 1).
- Follow the instructions for your ice cream maker (for mine, you just pour the mixture into the frozen drum and turn the machine on; it mixes for about 20-30 minutes).
- Add the crushed Chick-O-Sticks about 10 minutes before the machine is finished, just long enough to incorporate the pieces into the ice cream.
- Serve immediately or freeze (I prefer to freeze the leftover ice cream in several small containers because it tends to freeze too hard if you use one large container).
And for those who are not familiar with Chick-O-Sticks, they are a crunchy, peanut-buttery, coconutty, accidentally-vegan candy from my home state of Texas. They’ve been around since the Great Depression and are a staple here at ALDF. You can find them in the candy aisle of most gas stations or you can order them online.
All in all, this ice cream takes less than ten minutes to make (excluding freezing time) and, as far as I’m concerned, it can go toe-to-toe with any dairy ice cream.
Dealing with Aggressive Dogs: Community Solutions That Consider Each Dog, Not Their Breed
Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on April 10th, 2009
Across the country, many cities, counties, and even states, are attempting to address the problem of aggressive dogs in ways which are ineffective, and worse, can unfairly punish dogs who have never acted in an aggressive manner. These jurisdictions are doing this through the passage of laws that attempt to restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs.
Breed-specific bans and restrictions are extremely problematic. Dangerous dogs can be of any breed, or of mixed breeds. Such bans are not only difficult to enforce, but they also unfairly penalize those dogs and guardians who are behaving in accordance with the laws, while doing nothing to address one of the root causes of dangerous dogs – irresponsible guardians. In addition, such bans can embroil a jurisdiction in costly litigation based on claims brought by guardians of banned breeds asserting violations of constitutional protections. Fortunately, other communities are handling this issue in much better ways – by adopting responsible laws that focus on the behavior of individual dogs and their guardians, not their breed.
One successful example of such a case-by-case, dog-by-dog approach can be found in Multnomah County, Oregon. This jurisdiction, like many others, has chosen to incorporate a multi-level classification system for problem (potentially dangerous and dangerous) dogs with differing requirements. Their law provides for hearings and authorizes the discretion not to classify a dog when the dog’s behavior was due to “the victim abusing or tormenting the dog, or was directed towards a trespasser or other similar mitigating or extenuating circumstances that establishes that the dog does not constitute an unreasonable risk to human life or property.” In addition, once a dog is classified, then different types of requirements or restrictions may take effect depending upon the specifics of each case. These can include such things as guardians education and dog training for less serious cases, to secure enclosures and other safety measures to protect the community when there is a greater risk. Also, and important to note, dogs may be declassified as potentially dangerous or dangerous after a certain time period without additional violations.
Not only are laws like the one in Multnomah County, Oregon inherently more fair, they are, according to a county official, quite effective – showing low rates of recidivism.
If your community is grappling with the problem of dangerous dogs, encourage them to follow the examples of communities across the country who have adopted fair, effective laws, treating each dog and owner individually, while at the same time protecting all members of the community – both those with two legs and those with four.
Besides the Animal Legal Defense Fund, there are many other groups and resources available to help guide your community through this process, including:
Animal Farm Foundation
AVMA Report: “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention” (PDF)
Multnomah County, Oregon’s Multi-level Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dog Ordinances (PDF)
A copy of this article was published in The American Dog magazine, Spring 2009.
Just Released! ALDF's Animal Protection Laws of the U.S. & Canada, 4th Ed.
Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on April 8th, 2009
If you're a lawyer, law professor, law student, legislator or other legal professional, this is a must-have resource! As the most comprehensive animal protection laws collection of its kind available, this 3,400 page 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.
Download a complimentary copy or purchase the compendium on CD here.
Come On Down as ALDF Talks with Bob Barker
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on April 6th, 2009
Bob Barker may best be known as the beloved host of the longest running TV game show in history. But “The Price is Right” host is also a long-time advocate for animals—a passion he explores in depth in his new memoir, Priceless Memories. ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells recently had a chance to chat with Bob about his upcoming book, his work for animals—and why he is such a big supporter of animal law as the most effective means to fighting cruelty.
Hear what Bob had to say about becoming vegetarian, the “fur flap,” his support of animal law, and his dog, Jessie, who is sure not to be left out of the conversation. Come on down and enjoy, as one of America’s most iconic TV personalities returns to your screen to talk for a few minutes with ALDF! And be sure to let us know what your special t-shirt message to Bob would say!
Ask Joyce: Who Will Care For My Pets When I Die?
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on April 1st, 2009ALDF's "Ask Joyce" column appears in each issue of The Animals' Advocate, ALDF's quarterly publication.
Dear Joyce,
I’m worried about who will care for my cats, Bob and Alice, when I die. My family is gone, and I have no friends who can take care of them. What do I do?
Dear Reader,
It’s time for some planning. In a previous Ask Joyce column, I addressed the subject of creating a trust for your companion animal. Today, let’s focus on the actual day-to-day care of Bob and Alice when you can’t be physically present for them—for example, if you have to be hospitalized for some reason, or if you die without a will (which I hope you will not do!), or even if you have provided for Bob and Alice in your will but didn’t prepare instructions for their care during the period of time between when you die and when your will is admitted to probate.
First and foremost, there has to be some other human being who will take physical custody of Bob and Alice, even on a temporary basis. This could be a neighbor you trust or your veterinarian. Or, start hanging out at the local dog park and get to know the dogs owners, volunteer at the library, join a club or a church—make contact with caring humans and, for Bob and Alice’s sake, form a relationship to help you plan for their future. Develop a very specific set of written instructions about all aspects of your cats’ care: their names, physical descriptions, ages, temperaments, foods and feeding times, medications, special needs, identification of veterinarians and health records, everything that the caregiver would need. If the caregiver is not willing to take permanent custody of Bob and Alice, ask if they are willing to place them into a good permanent home and describe what sort of home you want for them.
If you cannot find an individual caregiver, you may want to contact a humane society or nonprofit animal protection group to provide care for your cats. Do research on the internet. Then, take great care to visit the facility and find out what the care is going to be like; avoid a situation in which there is overcrowding, or your cats will be confined to a cage for long periods of time. I do not recommend having your cats killed when you die—there are far better solutions, and they deserve a chance at a new, loving home.
There is a lot to think through to protect Bob and Alice—a will, a durable power of attorney, a trust and the actual hands on care. You can also read "Including Animals in Your Will" for more information on this subject.
Best regards,
Joyce
Puerto Rico? Yeah, Puerto Rico
Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on March 30th, 2009
As mentioned on our website last Fall, Puerto Rico is making some great strides in improving their animal laws, adopting a large portion of ALDF’s model laws in legislation that sailed through nearly a year ago. The island is also ranked in the top tier among states with a good slate of animal laws.
This week I am in Puerto Rico working to take advantage of the growing interest (or is it curiosity? No matter) in Animal Law there by meeting with some attorneys who have formed a coalition devoted to the welfare of animals within the local bar association. I will also be talking about the development and future of animal law in the US at the InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico’s School of Law, where we have an active and engaged SALDF chapter. There is also a meeting being arranged with some members of the District Court staff in San Juan who are curious about this developing area of law. Finally, I will be spending some time with the satos and their guardian angels, the lawyers working for the Save a Sato foundation. Check them out.
It promises to be an inspiring, energizing week seeing all the progress being made on behalf of animals in such a short amount of time in such a small place. Maybe there are things we can all learn from Puerto Rico’s example. I’ll report back here later on all the details of this amazing opportunity.
Stand Up for Rabbits This Easter
Posted by Mark Hawthorne on March 27th, 2009This post was originally published on Striking at the Roots, a blog by Mark Hawthorne, author of Striking at the Roots, A Practical Guide to Animal Activism.
You don’t need to look at a calendar to know Easter is just around the corner. The stores are already stocking pastel-colored baskets and Easter greeting cards, Easter specials are being advertised on TV and some of our pious brethren are wondering aloud what to give up for Lent. And you’ll probably be seeing another annual tradition that heralds this holiday: pet stores and breeders promoting “Easter bunnies” for kids.Thanks in no small part to children’s stories, songs and legends, rabbits have become indelibly linked to Easter. Unfortunately, rabbits are not ideal companion animals for small children. As prey animals, rabbits do not like to be picked up, for example, and children are generally too active for these gentle animals, who prefer quiet environments. Rabbits also do not thrive in backyard hutches; in fact, relegating a rabbit to an outdoor hutch constrains their natural behaviors and subjects them to the danger of predators and inclement weather. Rabbits flourish indoors, where they can run, dance and play in safety. You can even train them to use a litter box. But your home needs to be bunny-proofed, since rabbits, who are natural burrowing animals, have a strong biting instinct and will chew on your baseboard or nip through telephone cords. They also need frequent grooming.
So when well-meaning parents, unaware of what it takes to keep a rabbit healthy and happy, buy a bunny from the pet store, the frequent result is a bored or frustrated child. Soon Thumper is left at an animal shelter, or worse, abandoned in a park, where he or she will not survive.
Make Mine Chocolate!
Fortunately, rabbit-rescue organizations have begun promoting alternatives to the “Easter Bunny” problem. In 2002, the Columbus, Ohio, chapter of the House Rabbit Society (CHRS) started an awareness campaign called “Make Mine Chocolate!,” the aim of which is to educate the public about the realities of living with a rabbit and to discourage giving live rabbits as Easter gifts. The Make Mine Chocolate! campaign uses ceramic pins shaped like chocolate bunnies as conversation starters; comments about the pin provide the wearer with an opportunity to talk about rabbits as companions. These informal conversations are supported by a card that is distributed with each pin and by business cards that can be handed out to interested parties. Both the pin card and the business card list important facts that should be considered before bringing a rabbit into the home. Although rescue groups do want every rabbit to find a loving home, they’d rather someone buy a chocolate bunny for Easter if a live rabbit is only going to end up discarded after the novelty has worn off.“For this year’s Make Mine Chocolate! campaign, our goal is to increase our community outreach by doing multiple radio and television appearances leading up to the Easter holiday,” says CHRS’ Heather Dean, who has already done one major television interview. “Also, we continue to develop new partnerships both in the US and beyond. In fact, the Hay Experts in the UK have started the ‘Make Mine Chocolate!’ campaign across the pond.”
House Rabbit Society & Other Groups
Other chapters of the House Rabbit Society (HRS) have joined the bandwagon, explains Margo DeMello of HRS. “We really try to promote the hell out of Make Mine Chocolate!,” she says. “On top of that, our chapters all do different stuff. At headquarters in Richmond, California, we’re doing a spring photo day on April 11, Wisconsin HRS is doing three educational events plus an annual Easter letter to all newspapers across the state of Wisconsin, Miami HRS had an outreach event at a local chocolate festival and promoted Make Mine Chocolate!, South Carolina HRS is doing a series of children’s educational events at local elementary and middle schools, and I know other chapters are planning events as well.” And that’s just off the top of her head.
In Canada, the Ontario-based nonprofit Rabbit Rescue is busy working with local merchants to get the word out. “Our main Easter event is our paper bunny campaign,” says Haviva Lush, executive director. “We partner with stores and vet clinics, provide the paper bunnies, posters and such. They encourage people to ‘sponsor’ a rabbit for $2.00, sign their name on the paper bunny, and the stores tape them up. It’s a great fundraiser for us, and it brings about awareness and hopefully discourages people from buying that Easter bunny.”
What You Can Do
This is a great time of year to talk about rabbits. They do make wonderful companions, but they are not for everyone. Alternatives to live rabbits as Easter gifts include chocolate bunnies (preferably vegan, of course), stuffed animals and books. If you know of anyone who plans to bring home a rabbit this Easter ― or any time of the year ― please encourage them to learn about rabbits and rabbit care. (I highly recommend Stories Rabbits Tell by Susan Davis and Margo DeMello.) If they still want a rabbit, urge them to adopt from a shelter or rabbit-rescue organization.
With a little knowledge about rabbits, you can speak up for them every Easter. Please consider the following:
Letters to editors – the Letters page is one of the most highly read sections of newspapers and magazines, so a letter to the editor encouraging readers not to buy an “Easter bunny” is a great way to spread the word. For advice on how to write letters to editors, click here.
Social-networking sites – post links and information about rabbits on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other sites.
Auto-signatures in your email – include a link to a rabbit-rescue organization (see below).
Blog comments – when commenting on animal-related blogs, take the opportunity to remind people that rabbits do not make appropriate Easter gifts and that many of these animals end up in shelters or dumped in parks. Better yet, if you have a blog, why not post something about rabbits in the next few weeks?
Consider sponsoring a needy bunny – every little bit helps!
Finally, please forward this post to family and friends. You can visit these sites for more information:
House Rabbit Society
PETA (page on rabbits)
Rabbit Rescue
RabbitWise
SaveABunny
Thanks!
Putting An End To Tail Docking In California and Illinois
Posted by Tony Eliseuson, ALDF Volunteer Attorney Member on March 25th, 2009There is a little-known practice in the dairy industry called “tail docking.” According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), tail docking is a procedure by which a dairy cow’s tail is either removed or partially removed. The procedure can involve “cauterizing docking irons, application of elastrator bands, use of emasculators, and surgical excision.”
Large dairy producers began using tail docking “as an attempt to reduce the incidence of leptospirosis in milking personnel." The procedure also was allegedly designed to reduce disease and improve hygiene.
These stated benefits, however, lack scientific foundation, as the AVMA has explained in an official policy statement. The tail docking procedure can cause extreme pain for the animals, including the acute pain that occurs during the procedure, the chronic pain that results from the procedure, physiologic stress, disease (such as infection), and the extreme distress caused by the cow’s inability to effectively defend itself against biting flies. Tail docking may also have inhibitory behavioral effects because it is believed that cows use their tails to signal social behaviors.
Both the AVMA and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association officially oppose the tail-docking practice—already prohibited in many parts of Europe—as a needless, inhumane, and barbaric. Thankfully, tail-docking may be coming to an end in California and Illinois if the proposed legislation succeeds.
In California, Senate Bill 135 was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez. Tail docking is already prohibited on horses in California, and SB 135 would include cattle within the scope of that prohibition. It is hoped that the California legislation will create a domino effect in the United States and will lead to similar protections nationwide. SB 135 has been introduced and given its first reading, and could be acted on at any time.
Perhaps beginning the domino effect, Illinois Senators Antonio Munoz and Kimberly A. Lightford have sponsored Senate Bill 1336, which would amend the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act by adding a prohibition on tail docking of any living member of the bovine family. SB 1336 is currently in the Assignments Committee of the Illinois Senate.
If you live in California or Illinois, please call your state senator and urge them to support these important bills. In California you can find your senator here. And in Illinois you can find your senator through this website.
ALDF's Pamela Frasch Appointed First-Ever Dean in the Field of Animal Law
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on March 23rd, 2009
In March of 1996, attorney Pamela Frasch started working for the Animal Legal Defense Fund where, over a period of twelve years, she served in roles including general counsel and vice president of legal affairs. Last year, with the formation of the groundbreaking Center for Animal Law Studies, a collaboration between ALDF and Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, Pam shifted gears to shepherd the fledgling center as its first Executive Director.
In a sign of just how much has changed since Pam first joined forces with ALDF some thirteen years ago, she has just been appointed the first-ever dean in the field of animal law. For all the details on this tremendous development for animals and aspiring animal attorneys, check out the announcement from Lewis & Clark Law School, reposted below.
Lewis & Clark Law School creates first dean position in field of animal law
Animal legal education has reached a new milestone with the appointment of the nation’s first dean in the field. Robert Klonoff, Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School, has created the only dean-level position in the nation to head up the law school’s animal law program. Klonoff appointed Pamela Frasch as the first assistant dean for Animal Law Studies. Frasch also serves as the Executive Director of the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark Law School. The Center for Animal Law Studies works in collaboration with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and operates the country’s premier animal law program.
“Pamela Frasch’s promotion to Assistant Dean, and her assumption of duties as a member of the Dean’s senior administrative team, are tangible recognition of the relevance of this burgeoning field,” said Klonoff. “We are demonstrating our commitment to continue developing this field, pushing it in new directions, and strengthening its presence among legal education programs.”
The field of animal law has made huge strides in recent years, with over 100 law schools now offering an animal law course but Lewis & Clark Law School has long been seen as instrumental in its development and growth–setting a number of milestones in educational and clinical opportunities:
- Student Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animal law journal, Animal Law Reivew
- Full-time faculty position for an animal law clinic
- Summer animal law program
- Animal law competitions
- International animal law conference
While adding to the list of firsts, Klonoff said his decision to name Frasch an Assistant Dean benefits the animal law students the most.
“As part of the senior administrative team, Pamela will have a unique opportunity to plan for the future of our Animal Law Program in the context of the school’s overall strategic plan, budget, and mission,” Klonoff said. “This opportunity will help ensure that the Animal Law Program remains, as it is now, a central focus of the law school’s growth and commitment.”
My First Visit to Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, Cle Elum, WA
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on March 20th, 2009
A first for both of them, Joyce Tischler, ALDF’s founder and general
counsel, and Bruce Wagman, ALDF’s chief outside litigation counsel,
recently visited Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW), a facility that provides lifetime quality care for formerly abused and exploited chimpanzees.
In
a special two-part series, read about Joyce’s and Bruce’s visits to
this exceptional sanctuary and their experiences with seven rescued
chimpanzees, the “Cle Elum Seven.”
My First visit to Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, Cle Elum, WA
by Joyce Tischler, ALDF’s founder and general counsel
Leaving Cle Elum. Never Again
by Bruce Wagman, ALDF’s chief outside litigation counsel
My First Visit to Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, Cle Elum, WA
I had the time of my life for a weekend in February - cooking and cleaning for seven wonderful chimpanzees (Jamie, Burrito, Annie, Missy, Negra, Jody and Foxie) at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW) and spending precious time watching them. 
Sarah Baeckler, the primatologist/lawyer/extraordinary person who is Executive Director of CSNW, guided me through the weekend, along with the wonderful Deborah Wagman, who is a regular volunteer at CSNW. Sarah took some photos on Sunday, when we were outside with the chimps. It was cold in Cle Elum (about two hours East of Seattle) and snow was on the ground, so the chimps didn't want to stay out for too long. Neither did I.
These seven chimpanzees were treated as inanimate objects before they came to CSNW from Buckshire Corporation (see CSNW website for more information about their past lives). I’ve read much about what is done to chimpanzees in research (as well as in entertainment) and how they are warehoused. Meeting individual chimps who have lived through the experience for decades and watching them up close makes it all the more real and rekindles my sense of outrage that so many other chimpanzees continue to be exploited and abused.
What follows are my impressions of the chimpanzees at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. All I have is first impressions. Chimpanzees are so intelligent and complex that, in a mere two days, I could see only a slice of who they are. I tried to be as unobtrusive as I could be while in their living space. After all, it is their home and I was merely a visitor whom they did not invite.
Burrito was the first chimpanzee I focused on when I arrived at CSNW. I was standing at the kitchen window (which overlooks part of the chimps’ living space) and Burrito, the youngest member of the group and its only male, climbed up on the gate and swayed back and forth. His hair was piloerect (standing on end), which made him appear larger than he is. I thought he was an impressive, handsome fellow and I could tell that he was attentive to the presence of someone new. Burrito is a bit of a brat and he has a habit of causing drama with other members of the group. When mealtimes come around, Burrito can hardly contain himself.
Negra is overweight and saggy; her stomach is wide and flabby, all of which makes her more likeable to me- we have that in common. Sarah told me that Negra was much heavier when she arrived at CSNW and the weight loss is a healthy change. I presume that finally being freed from her tiny 5x5x7 foot cage and having the space to move around, go up and down stairs and out of doors is helping Negra get the exercise she always needed. Plus, the addition of fruits and vegetables to their diet is helping to shape up the old girl. However, Negra seems to spend most of her time sitting quietly, somewhat Buddha-like and observing everyone and everything around her. Often, she drapes a blanket over her head.
Negra is the oldest of the group, at 36. She was captured from the wild as an infant and has spent most of her 36 years in Hepatitis research and as a breeder in biomedical research labs. Sarah told me that, for two years, Negra was kept in an isolation unit—no contact with other chimps. Chimpanzees are so highly social; I can only wonder what two years without contact or interaction with her own kind did to Negra.
I first focused on Negra while she was eating in the dining area. She sat on top of a large black metal lazy susan that is built into the door and she piled her food in front of her. Deborah was the server and when Negra wanted to get Deb’s attention, she would bang her fist on the door and then clap once. I was impressed. Negra didn’t clap repeatedly or jump up and down as Burrito did, just one calm, confident clap of the hands, as if to say, “waitress, come at once.” I was reminded of Dame Judith Dench, when she played Elizabeth I, sitting quite still and commanding everyone around her with a stern, clear voice and few words.
Negra refused to come to the meal rooms for breakfast on Sunday morning, so didn’t get her breakfast. When she realized that she couldn’t get into the dining area, she seemed a bit miffed. Awhile later, I was at the kitchen sink washing fruit and saw her upstairs with a blanket covering her head. I nodded to her to say “hi,” but she refused to nod back, brushing me off with the back of her hand. A minute later, I tried to nod to her again, but again, she brushed me off. Perhaps, Negra, channeling her “Queen Elizabeth” was saying, “we are not amused.” At Sunday lunch, Deb was serving greens and this time, Negra came to the meal rooms, positioning herself again on top of the lazy susan. She seemed particularly pleased with the lunch menu: she hoarded her leafy greens in a pile inside her crossed legs, taking as many as Deb would give her and then sat, munching and making happy noises, as Deb tells me chimps do when they are enjoying a meal. The next time I nodded at Negra, she nodded back at me.
Jamie is formidable. As soon as I arrived, she began to display and try to intimidate me. I was warned that she likes to go over to a faucet, get a large quantity of water in her mouth and spit it at the humans, so I was prepared for that and didn’t react… well, most of the time. It was actually sort of fun, even when she got me in the ear. When she picked up some poop, I was less enthusiastic about being the recipient of such an honor and walked to the kitchen quickly, yet nonchalantly, managing to miss being hit.
Sarah explained that Jamie is showing that she’s dominant. She also said that Jamie understands the rules, both human and chimp and exploits them well. Everyone at CSNW agrees that Jamie is extremely intelligent. I could see that in her face, the way her eyes dart back and forth with such intensity, taking in everything. I wonder if she displayed that “in your face” approach during the 31 years before she arrived at CSNW and if she did, how well or poorly it served her…
At one point, Jamie was pointing at my shoes and I didn’t pick up on it until Sarah told me that Jamie is particularly fond of shoes and wanted me to show mine to her. I obliged, sticking each foot out and turning it around so she could see the shoes from various angles. Note to self: send Jamie some books that have pictures of shoes.
I like to imagine that if Jamie had been born and lived in the wild, she could have been a powerful and innovative leader of her chimpanzee community. When we served dinner on Sunday, we set out the bowls of stir fried vegetables, so that the chimps could forage. I saw then what a bully Jamie can be—she caused a ruckus and several of the chimps were too afraid to come in to eat. Then, Jamie sat on the table and used her spoon to pick through one bowl, as six other bowls lay beneath the table. She had hoarded seven bowls of dinner for herself, more than she could possibly eat. As she delicately picked through several bowls with her large black fingers, finding her favorite items and smacking her lips as she tasted each one, I felt a sense of anger at her bullying tactics and yet, at the same time, admiration for her strength and chutzpah. Jamie is some piece of work!
Foxie is easy to pick out because she is generally carrying at least one troll doll, often more than that. Those odd looking dolls, with their bright orange or purple “hair” have helped Foxie to come out of her shell after years of neglect and isolation in the lab. Foxie gave birth to five babies, only to have them all taken away from her within hours or days of their births. I saw her put one of the troll dolls on her back, as she would have done with a real chimpanzee baby. Watching Foxie with her troll dolls was bittersweet. I couldn’t help but wonder if she is nursing the babies she was never allowed to raise. It was a reminder that chimpanzees in captivity have been stripped of everything that was their birthright: their family groups, their natural habitat and lifestyle, including the rearing of their young. CSNW is a wonderful sanctuary, committed to restoring the dignity of the chimps in its care, but even the best of sanctuaries acknowledges that chimpanzees in America are caught in limbo. They cannot go back to their natural environment in Africa as they lack the survival skills they would need, and in our human world, they are indeed, strangers in a strange land. 
One of the most moving experiences for me at CSNW was watching Foxie and Jody playing with each other. These chimps bear the psychological scars of decades of isolation and exploitation in the lab. Yet, they are learning or relearning more normal chimp behaviors. Jody and Foxie were laying next to each other on the floor, each clutching part of a scarf In her teeth and gently tickling each other, their arms intertwined. And, we could hear the soft sound of chimpanzee laughter. Sarah said that she had not heard Jody laugh that much ever and it was a good sign that Jody is beginning to let down her guard. 
Missy and Annie spend most of their time together and did not come out very much while I was there. I did get to see Missy leading a game of “chase me” when the chimps went to the outdoor playground. She came out with a large blue/red and white plaid blanket and pulled Jamie into the game. It was wonderful to watch them romping around the playground, brachiating, climbing up and down the fencing and obviously enjoying themselves.
My days at CSNW included washing and drying fruits and vegetables, cooking, cleaning and washing toys and blankets for the chimps. I was more than happy to do so. On Sunday afternoon, before I left to go home, I spent close to 1 1/2 hours stuffing dried cranberries into 14 little wooden boards with holes drilled into them. I knew that these boards would be given to the chimps as an enrichment toy, so that they could push out the cranberries and eat them. Now that I am back home, I check the CSNW website blog and see pictures of the chimps and it brings me right back to the time I spent there. The March 3 blog shows Negra with a blanket over her head, Foxie examining her troll dolls and Jamie surrounded by 9 of the 14 cranberry boards that I had so carefully stuffed. From the photo, I can see how focused she was on extracting those cranberries. Oh Jamie; of course!
All images and video courtesy of Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest.
A first for both of them, Joyce Tischler, ALDF’s founder and general counsel, and Bruce Wagman, ALDF’s chief outside litigation counsel, recently visited Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW), a facility that provides lifetime quality care for formerly abused and exploited chimpanzees.
In a special two-part series, read about Joyce’s and Bruce’s visits to this exceptional sanctuary and their experiences with seven rescued chimpanzees, the “Cle Elum Seven.”
My First visit to Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, Cle Elum, WA
by Joyce Tischler, ALDF’s founder and general counsel
Leaving Cle Elum. Never Again
by Bruce Wagman, ALDF’s chief outside litigation counsel
Leaving Cle Elum. Never Again
Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW) is the paradise that I have had the honor and privilege of taking part in, from a series of angles and relationships. You are invited to read about my first trip to visit the Cle Elum Seven, the chimpanzees who have made the incredible journey from as many as thirty years of torture in a small dark barren cage (no blankets, no toys, nothing to interest them at all) to the gift of Sanctuary, in every sense of the word. Finally and forever, they are safe.
Here are a few touching examples, just from my two short days there, to elaborate, explain, get you closer.
Jamie is in her thirties and we know she was abused in a circus setting before being sent to be tortured in the research facility. She is both tough and extremely smart and, well, “proper.” The Sanctuary staff fill the playroom during the day with all sorts of great stuff for them to play with, from kids’ tables and chairs to blankets and dolls and magazines and things like plastic containers from orange juice and that kind of thing. There are nozzles coming out of the wall that they can push and get water. I watched the following scene on Saturday: Jamie first made herself a little nest of about three blankets, arranging them around herself and under her, so that she had a nice cushion, but not just a comfortable padding, but one that looked nice. She spends more time making her nest than I do getting ready for work – really. Once that was done, she got up and went to the nozzle, and carefully filled her cup with water, then brought it back to the blanket nest. She sat down, carefully put the cup down. She then reached over and picked up an empty half-gallon Tropicana container. The lid was on, so she unscrewed it. Picking up the cup next, she carefully poured the water from the cup into the container. Now please be aware that again she bested me because I would have spilled the water all over me trying to do that. She shook the water around in the juice container a bit, then slowly drank from the container until it was empty. Then did it again, went to the nozzle, filled the cup, came back, sat down, filled the Tropicana container, shook it, drank from it. When she was done she examined the container to be sure it was empty, then dropped it on the floor. (The only thing Jamie and I have in common in that event cycle is throwing the container on the floor when we are done.)
Negra is the oldest of the bunch. Beautiful, serene, reserved, moving gracefully and like royalty. But she also cherishes her rest and knows just what she wants. Yesterday morning when we came in, she was in her regular night spot, on a raised sleeping shelf in one of the rooms. Two blankets under her, one over her lower body and one over her head – with just her face sticking out. (Also just like me.) Now this is after we have come in, and they all know breakfast is soon, everyone is pretty excited. But just like some of you probably like to sleep more than me, Negra likes to sleep more than everyone. And so despite the activity, she was lying up there with a look on her face that said, “could you keep it down?” or “can’t I just sleep a little while longer?” Then, last night, as I was leaving, we walked by the same room, where she was making her bed up again. (All new blankets, since everything is cleaned and washed everyday.) And when I saw her last she had arranged two or three blankets in her loft, but realized she did not have enough, and so she had climbed down, gone into the other room, grabbed another two blankets, and was ascending to her perch again with some more bedding as I said goodbye.
Okay, one more story. The staff prepares and cooks the chimpanzees three meals each day, with snacks sometimes in between. Now I spend a fair amount of time feeding myself and the eight kids we have at home (all with tails of course), but this is different by an avalanche. We are talking about cooking, sometimes pasta primavera, or rice with tofu and apples and bananas, a smoothie to start every morning, stir fries, sandwiches, inventive stuff. There’s a vegan cookbook on the counter for ideas. Someone gets the job/joy of preparing each meal; there’s consensus and suggestion and lots of knowledge that goes into every meal, taking into consideration their needs and their likes and their desires, as well as the druthers of the chef du jour. For lunch on Saturday I decided on some fancy oatmeal with raisins and apples and some other fruit. I made it, we cooled the big pot full of oatmeal in the snow, and then put it into cups for them. Deborah handed out the cups to everyone and after that I went in to watch them eat. Jamie settled down on the floor, reclining on her side ready to eat, then she realized something. She made a motioning sign to us and Sarah, CSNW's executive director, told Deborah, “she wants a spoon.” Sure enough, Deborah handed her a spoon and Jamie sat there for about the next five or ten minutes, slowly eating from each cup, carefully getting just enough on the spoon, until each one had been finished and scraped clean with the spoon.
Oh yeah, two more quick Jamie stories. (Each one of the seven has good stories, these Jamie ones are just coming to mind.) On multiple occasions, Jamie will wipe her eyes or nose, and then signal to you. The caregivers will then hand her a paper towel or a tissue. No lies here, no exaggeration. Jamie would then wipe her nose or eyes with the tissue or paper towel and carry it around for hours, and regularly, like any proper lady, dab at her eyes and nose again. If she had on a dress, she would have tucked it in the sleeve. Hey, don’t laugh.
Last one – so we leave Saturday night, everybody is there, naked as a chimpanzee of course. When we came in Sunday, Jamie greeted us wearing a red miniskirt and carrying a black purse. I’m not making this up! They were both part of the “enrichment” we left for them to play with. But Jamie knows what to do with it. She was looking pretty cute, too...
Finally, the video. This may just look like Deborah and a chimpanzee doing some silly goofing around. It’s understandable if that is what it looks like – to the untrained eye (include mine) the language of Chimpanzee is no more discernible than any other language we do not understand – even harder to understand, in fact, because they are masters of both subtlety and simple statements. They may not have a spoken language we understand, but their communication skills are as complete and adept as ours. So in the video, you see Deborah with Foxie, first engaging in play behavior, greeting her and then Foxie indicating great glee with her. But then, the moments, two or three of them, that to you just probably seem like silly gestures – the kisses. These are magical, these are rare and they are saved only for very special people. The term “special people” there is in the eyes of Foxie, not me or you or anyone else. And just to be clear again, I won’t get the opportunity to be kissed, that is saved for those who spend days and days with them, caring for them. But even then, the kisses are special moments. They are the chimpanzees saying, “I accept you. I forgive you for being human. I love you for saving me from that hell and bringing me here where I can finally smile, where no one comes to hurt me, where I can see the sun shine and the sky.”
The title of this piece (“Leaving Cle Elum. Never Again.”) are the first words I thought when I woke up the next morning in Seattle after leaving Cle Elum. I remembered telling Sarah over the six months since the chimpanzees arrived, mainly in jest, but with knowledge of my inner machine, that I was avoiding my first trip to Cle Elum because I knew that I would be so balled up with yet another set of animal connections in this already overfilled head and heart, and I wanted to put it off as long as possible. How, I thought, can I go there and look them in the eye and feel anything but ashamed at being a member of my species, who had done to them things I could never accept, things that make me vomit and cry and rage, and had done them not once, not twice, but for decades, tens and tens of years, tens of thousands of days, millions of minutes of pain and torture and deprivation and denial, the cruelest of the cruel. And how, I thought, could I go there and not just want to move there, to be able to see them everyday, to get to know them, to do everything I could to heal the wounds, to make amends for my species, to provide whatever solace I could to them forever? I know me, and how, I thought, could I ever leave them once we met?
And now I live forever, and forever lives with me, the excited 26-year-old eyes of Burrito, the inquisitive knowledge of Jamie, the utter love of Foxie, the uncertain faith of Missy, the serene wisdom of Negra, the knowing gaze of Annie, and the knowing adjudication of Jody. I will see them from time to time in the flesh, and they may live outlive me or me they, but, to quote a prophet, no more shall we part.
All images and video courtesy of Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest.
Getting the Word Out With NASCAR Driver Nolan Wilson
Posted by Crystal Hoshaw, ALDF Blogger on March 18th, 2009
February 18th marked the beginning of this year’s NASCAR racing season, and we here at ALDF are excited about it!
NASCAR has become the second most popular televised sport in the US after the National Football League, with 75 million loyal fans and races broadcast in over 150 countries. NASCAR is sponsored by more Fortune 500 companies than any other sports league due to its unmatched advertising power.
But what does NASCAR have to do with protecting animals through the legal system?
NASCAR Camping World Truck Series driver Nolan Wilson tells us in a Q&A session during his pre-season visit to ALDF’s headquarters office. Nolan has some great ideas about utilizing NASCAR’s influence to get the word out about animal cruelty issues and to encourage fans to take action.
In his video interview with ALDF, Nolan shares some of his thoughts about NASCAR’s cruelty-fighting potential:
Not too long ago, I got a typical call from a somewhat harried prosecutor. She works as the lead attorney in the domestic violence unit of her office, loves animals and had heard that ALDF can help busy prosecutors get better results in their cases. In this situation, she recently secured convictions against a man who had assaulted his girlfriend, killed one of her two kittens and injured the other kitten. The surviving kitten, Max, was safe (for the time being) in the care and custody of the local animal shelter. The problem that this prosecutor faced was that the defendant’s girlfriend (and Max’s owner) had reunited with the defendant and was once again living with him and she wanted Max back—a not so surprising fact for those familiar with the cycle of domestic violence and the strained logic employed by victims who are seemingly trapped in abusive relationships.
The trial court entered an order banning the defendant from possessing animals in the wake of his conviction for killing one of his girlfriend’s two kittens, but that prohibition didn’t apply to the victim, as she wasn’t a formal party to the criminal case against her boyfriend (despite the widespread passage of victims’ rights acts around the country, victims have not been elevated to “party status” in criminal prosecutions). During an earlier hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that, given the possession ban applicable to the defendant, coupled with the fact that the defendant and victim (owner of the surviving cat) were once again living together, the state would oppose any attempt to release the “evidence” (i.e., the surviving kitten) back to the victim now that the criminal case was resolved. The trial court noted the state’s objection and quipped that the court likely didn’t have jurisdiction over the victim and that the court probably would be forced to overrule the state’s objection. Nevertheless, the trial judge set the case over for a short period of time to give the very busy prosecutor a chance to research the issue and substantiate her objection.
Having heard of ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program, the prosecutor called us for help. We did a fair amount of research for the prosecutor and drafted a series of legal arguments for the state to make in support of its objection to returning the “evidence” to a domestic violence victim who had resumed living with the very same man who assaulted her, killed one of her cats and injured the other. I’ll not bore you with the legal details. Rather, I’m please to simply report that this very busy, yet truly dedicated, young prosecutor took our research, coupled with her own excellent work, and persuaded the trial judge that his initial assessment of the case was incorrect and that he did, in fact, have the authority to sustain the state’s objection to entering an order compelling the return of the surviving kitten. In fact, Max was ordered forfeited to the animal shelter, where the lucky little guy will be adopted out to a loving, nonviolent home. The local media covered the story and reported the court’s ruling as “groundbreaking.”
I share this story with you for three reasons:
- to give our donors some “day in the life” insight into how their generous support of ALDF makes a difference for little guys like Max on a daily basis;
- to publicly applaud the work of Tiffany Wasserburger, Chief Deputy, Family Law Division, Scottsbluff County Attorneys’ Office, located in Gering, Nebraska; and
- to humbly boast that I have a really great job!
Texas Tech SALDF President Chosen to Represent Law School
Posted by Nicole Pallotta, ALDF's Animal Law Program Student Liaison on March 12th, 2009
ALDF received the below email from Robyn Katz, President of the Texas Tech University Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF). Robyn formed the chapter during fall semester 2007 amid doubts about the level of support she could garner for the fledgling group at her conservative law school. In spite of these concerns, Robin was pleasantly surprised when almost 20 people attended the group's first orientation meeting, which, according to Robyn, is a large number for any student law group at Texas Tech. In addition to her work directing the Texas Tech SALDF chapter, Robyn was also a closing argument finalist in the National Animal Advocacy Competitions held last month at Harvard Law School, co-sponsored by the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis and Clark Law School, in Collaboration with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Harvard SALDF chapter. It’s encouraging to see Robyn’s dedication to protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals through the legal system being recognized by her traditionally conservative school.
I just want to keep you posted. At our law school, four students were nominated to receive the Student Academic-Citizenship Award for the entire school. So, four students are nominated, and the Dean chooses one to go on to the entire Texas Tech University Awards ceremony to see who wins from the whole school. I make such a to-do about animal law at the school (a super conservative, don't disrupt the status quo kinda school), that I swore I wouldn't get chosen. But they did!!! The Dean picked me to represent the law school! And so now, the best thing is, all of Texas Tech will get to hear about my devotion to animal law and it will help spread the word. I hope, in some way, this helps the ALDF and SALDF.
Robyn Katz
SALDF Spotlight: Chicago-Kent College of Law
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on March 10th, 2009
This spotlight was submitted by Joshua Grant, Co-President of the Chicago-Kent Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.
On February 10, 2009, the Chicago-Kent Student Animal Legal Defense Fund hosted the Chicago-Kent “Foie Gras Panel” to debate the legality, wisdom, and ramifications of Chicago’s former ban on the sale of foie gras. Panelists included Chicago Alderman Joe Moore, sponsor of the city’s foie gras ban; Chicago-Kent professor Sheldon H. Nahmod, Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute for Law and the Humanities; and Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune reporter and author of The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World's Fiercest Food Fight. With over sixty attendees, spirited debate among the panelists, and coverage from the Chicago media, the event was a resounding success.
The panel focused its discussion on the recent foie gras controversy that has been in the forefront of a heated national debate involving everyone from animal rights activists to politicians, the media, and the nation’s legal scholars. On April 26, 2006 the Chicago City Council banned the sale of foie gras in Chicago’s restaurants, making Chicago the first city in the history of the world to ban the product. A lawsuit in federal court soon followed, and a federal judge in Illinois Restaurant Association v. City of Chicago upheld the law as constitutional under the Illinois and Federal constitutions. Despite this decision, the ban continued to spark heated debate. Animal rights activists argued the ban was appropriate because force-feeding causes an extraordinary amount of pain to animals and is therefore cruel. Chefs and restaurant patrons argued they had a right to serve and eat what they want without government intervention. Even Chicago’s Mayor, Richard Daley, joined the dispute, calling the ban the “silliest” law Chicago had ever passed.
Read Joshua's full SALDF Spotlight.
Obama Family Makes Plans for New Pooch
Posted by Crystal Hoshaw, ALDF Blogger on March 6th, 2009
Everyone is eager to hear the final word on the Obama family’s new dog, and it looks like we’ll get the chance in mid-April.
In a recent interview, Michelle Obama told People magazine that the new addition to the family, most likely a Portuguese water dog, would be arriving from the shelter after a spring break hiatus.
The ALDF is happy to hear that the Obamas plan to set a great example for the rest of the country by adopting a rescued dog instead of buying from a breeder or pet store.
Shelters are always full of animals waiting to give their love and affection in forever-homes, and adopting an animal companion is a much more humane choice than purchasing from pet stores, where animals often end up after enduring horrific conditions at puppy mills.
ALDF has worked hard in the past to make sure that animals neglected and mistreated by puppy mills and breeders get the justice they deserve. In a landmark case against breeder/hoarder Barbara Woodley, ALDF rescued more than 300 dogs from dismal conditions where they were forced to live in their own excrement, placing them in permanent, loving homes with caring foster families.
The increasing number of responsible pet owners choosing to adopt and spay/neuter, along with legislation like the ALDF-supported California Healthy Pets Act of 2008, helps ease the pressure on rescue groups to house continually rising numbers of homeless animals.
Of course, we couldn’t do what we do without your continued support. And having President Obama on our side doesn’t hurt, either!
Flea and tick season are fast approaching, and it's time to start thinking about how to combat these pests to keep our pets comfortable, safe and healthy. In years past, I've been diligent about regularly applying topical flea and tick control to both my cats and dogs during the time of year when these pests are at their worst. However, more and more information is coming out about the dangers of these pesticide products, which has me reconsidering my use of them.
I encourage everyone to visit the Center for Public Integrity's website Perils of the New Pesticides, which looks at the safety of flea and tick products for our pets. The site examines the potential danger flea products pose to humans and shares stories about reactions pets have had when certain products have been used. In their article "Pet Owners Find Little Comfort in Court," ALDF Founder and General Counsel Joyce Tischler talks about the legal options available when your pet had been harmed by one of these products.
So what's the answer to keeping our pets pest-free? I'm still looking into that, but I did find this information from Dr. Michael Fox helpful. He discusses natural ways to keep our dogs and cats comfortable and safe.
National Justice for Animals Week Fights Abuse, Honors Victims
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on March 2nd, 2009
Thank you so much to all of the Animal Legal Defense Fund supporters who made our first-ever National Justice for animals such a tremendous success!
We’ve got thousands of new signatures to ALDF’s Animal Bill of Rights and new fans of our Animal Bill of Rights cause on Facebook. Thousands more watched and shared our video of National Justice for Animals Week mascot Adam, a California kitten who survived a vicious attack to inspire animal advocates around the world. Meanwhile, USA Today spoke with ALDF about the boom in legislation aimed at protecting animals.
By providing Americans with the tools necessary to report animal abuse and to demand tough laws and protections for animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is helping concerned citizens fight animal abuse and honor animal victims. And people are using these resources to take action for animals. Hundreds sent letters to the editor in response to ALDF’s daily action item, showing people how to use ALDF’s letter to the editor action center on aldf.org. Check out the letter from ALDF supporter Katie Worth that was published the very next day in California’s Gilroy Dispatch.
We’ve already begun receiving submissions for nominees for next year’s National Justice for Animal Week honorees. Email your nomination to info@aldf.org with “National Justice for Animals Week nomination” in the subject line.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s work for animals happens every week of the year. Until next year’s National Justice for Animals Week, stay-up-to-date on critical action items for animals and all of our breaking news by signing up for ALDF email updates. Thank you for helping us fight animal abuse and honor animal victims.
The news out of Stamford, Connecticut that a fifteen year old chimpanzee named Travis had seriously mauled a woman and then been shot and killed by police was tragic, but predictable. And, like most people in the animal protection community, I am fuming, because this was so easily avoidable.
Let’s get a few things straight:
Stamford, CT is not the natural habitat of a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees evolved and live in equatorial Africa, generally in tropical forests. They live in large chimpanzee communities with a highly complex social structure.
Chimpanzees in Africa are wild animals. Chimpanzees brought to the United Stated are wild animals. Chimpanzees born and raised in the United States are still… yes; you’ve got it - wild animals.
There is no such thing as a domesticated chimpanzee. Some in the entertainment industry exploit chimpanzees when they are still small and young enough and to be handled, putting silly clothing on them, beating them into submission and teaching them tricks. So, when we see those baby chimpanzees on television commercials, we are misled to think that chimpanzees are far more like humans than they are.
Look at a photo of an adult chimpanzee. You will notice that most of their body mass is in their head and upper torso: their shoulders and arms are far more powerful than that of a human and they have larger jaw muscles. That bodily structure translates into strength. A chimpanzee is easily twice as strong as even the strongest human.
Chimpanzees are highly intelligent and social beings, but they are not furry humans. They don’t think like humans…they think like chimpanzees, and it bears repeating: chimpanzees are wild animals.
Chimpanzees have evolved to adapt to their natural environment in Africa, just as human beings have evolved to live in our various environments. Chimpanzees have not evolved in a way that enables them to live in our environment and a chimpanzee in suburbia is truly a “stranger in a strange land.” Primate experts all agree that private ownership of chimpanzees is huge mistake and presents an unreasonable danger for everyone involved, human and chimpanzee.
Oh, and one more thing: according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Travis was the son of Suzy, a chimpanzee who was shot to death in 2001, after she escaped from her enclosure. Travis was taken from his mother at birth and sold as a pet. In the wild, chimpanzees stay with their mothers for approximately five years. Welcome to the pet trade industry in America.
Which brings me to the point of this blog:
Keeping a chimpanzee as a pet in a private home is stupid.
Stupid… Stupid… Stupid...
Is there anything that we can do? Here are a few things that I’d suggest:
- If you live in a state that does not ban keeping primates as pets, contact your state legislators and ask them to introduce a law that makes it illegal to own, possess or keep primates as pets.
- Congress has introduced the Captive Primate Safety Act (H.R. 80) which would ban the interstate transport of primates for the pet trade. Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to do whatever s/he can to get this important piece of legislation passed.
- Learn more about the exploitation of chimpanzees by the pet and entertainment industries in the U.S. Unfortunately, chimpanzees in captivity cannot be sent back to the wild—they won’t survive. But, there are reputable chimpanzee sanctuaries in the U.S. that need your help and financial support, in order to properly care for the chimpanzees who live with them. Check out Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest, www.chimpsanctuarynw.org, which is doing a wonderful job of caring for some formerly abused and exploited chimpanzees.
Nominate Honorees for Next Year's National Justice for Animals Week!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 27th, 2009
Has
your prosecutor or other local law enforcement official taken a strong
stand against animal cruelty? Let us know! Submit your nominations for
who should be honored during next year’s National Justice for Animals
Week!
From insisting on long probations requiring that animal
abusers not be allowed to own or cohabitate with animals, to creating
an Animal Cruelty Prosecution program within the Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s office, the attorneys honored during 2009’s National Justice for Animals Week
have gone above and beyond to give real teeth to animal protection
laws. Have there been any cases in your community where a prosecutor
got real justice for animal victims of crime? Nominations for next
year’s National Justice for Animals Week honorees are now open!
- Your submission need not be formal, but there is some basic information we’ll need:
- the name of the person you’re nominating and his or her title;
- your nominee’s location (city/county and state) and, if you have it, contact information;
- a brief summary or example of the work they’ve done to fight animal cruelty and honor animal victims;
- if
your nominee has worked on a specific animal cruelty case you’d like to
note, please include the name of the case, details about the case, the
case number, and the disposition (outcome) of the case. Feel free to
include links to news coverage of any relevant cruelty cases.
- Include your own name and contact information so we’re able to follow up with you to get more details if necessary.
- Email your nomination to info@aldf.org with “National Justice for Animals Week nomination” in the subject line.
Thank you for joining the Animal Legal Defense Fund in recognizing those who work year-round to win real justice for animals.
National Justice for Animals Week: Thursday's Action
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 26th, 2009
Ask your prosecutor to enforce a Zero Tolerance for Cruelty policy in your community!
Tough
laws protecting animals are critical in fighting animal abuse—but laws
are meaningless without vigorous enforcement. The prosecutors being
honored by ALDF during National Justice for Animals Week demonstrate what remarkable power law enforcement officials have in creating real justice for animals.
There are lots of ways to contact your prosecutor, but there is still
no substitute for a letter, which goes directly to the desk of the
addressee and leaves a paper trail.
- Search online for contact information for your county’s district
attorney’s office, or contact the National District Attorneys
Association at 703-549-9222 to find out how to reach your local
prosecutor.
- Begin your letter with the proper title and salutation. For
prosecutors, use their full name, followed by their title; for example,
“Mary Black, Assistant County Attorney,” with a salutation of “Dear Ms.
Black.”
- In your first paragraph, state who you are, and explain that you
are writing to urge your prosecutor to take the crime of animal abuse
seriously in your community. Explain why animal abuse matters to you
and to your community. For example, mention how a particular issue
affects you or your community (which, of course, includes animal
members), or how you have donated time or money to a humane society, or
how an experience with an animal made a lasting impression on you or
initiated your activism.
- Keep your letter to one page, with a few concise points. Some points you might wish to include in your letter:
- Animal victims of abuse cannot speak for themselves—so it is the job of our criminal justice system to protect them.
- There is a well-established link between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Ignoring the crime of animal abuse not only endangers a community’s animals—it also endangers the people who live there.
- The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s National Justice for Animals Week , co-sponsored by Congressman Steve Cohen, is the perfect opportunity to renew your community’s commitment to fighting animal abuse and honoring animal victims. ALDF offers free resources to prosecutors handling cruelty cases, including legal research, location of expert witnesses, and sample pleadings. More information is available at www.aldf.org.
- Thank them for taking the time to read your letter and ask for a reply. Be sure to include your name and address on the letter (and the envelope, if mailed). You can send ALDF a copy too.
While the criminal justice system is there to protect all of us, very few people ever take the time to communicate directly with their prosecutors about the issues important to them. Write a short letter today—and your prosecutor might be among next year’s National Justice for Animals Week honorees!
Don’t Just Read the News — Make It!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 25th, 2009
Letters to the editor are short by design, and one of the most widely
read sections of the newspaper. If you don’t think the issue of animal
abuse is getting sufficient coverage in your local rag, or if you want
to applaud a particular reporter for going in-depth to cover a case of
animal cruelty, a letter to the editor is a great way to do it.
For today’s National Justice for Animals Week action item, let your own
community members know how they can join the campaign to fight animal
abuse and honor animal victims with a clear, concise, letter to the
editor. The ALDF website makes it easy to locate contact information
for your local papers’ editorial pages and to write your own
personalized, effective letter to the editor based on our ready-to-go
talking points in just a few clicks. Get your name out there for animals—visit the aldf.org letter to the editor action center and take action now!
- Go to the letter to the editor action center on aldf.org
and locate your local newspapers in a couple of clicks. Check off the
papers where you’d like to send your letter to the editor.
- Fill in your email’s subject line, and, beginning with “To the
Editor:” draft your own personalized letter to the editor, filling in
the talking points provided by ALDF as you see fit.
- Provide your contact information in the form beneath your letter
text—the editorial page will need this information in order to run your
letter. Just click to send your message, and you’re on your way to strengthening the fight against animal abuse in your own community.
National Justice for Animals Week: Tuesday's Action
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 24th, 2009
Celebrate ALDF's National Justice for Animals Week by taking part in today's action to help animals!
Today's action is:
Recruit 10 friends, donate $10
If you haven’t yet joined the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have signed the Animal Bill of Rights—take action now!
Help us meet the goal of adding 10,000 new signatures to the Animal
Bill of Rights petition during National Justice for Animals Week. Let
Congress and all of our elected officials know that the law should
protect the basic needs of all animals—and should provide justice for
those who are abused and exploited.
- Recruit 10 friends to sign the Animal Bill of Rights—and
ask them to tell ten friends! Our 10,000 signature goal for the week is
within reach, but we can only meet it with your help.
- Donate $10 to support the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s work to establish real legal protections for animals during National Justice for Animals Week. For the price of a couple of soy lattés, you can be a part of ALDF’s push to bring real change to America—and America’s animals.
National Justice for Animals Week: Monday's Action
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 23rd, 2009
Animals need your help every day of the week. Check back every day during National Justice for Animals Week, February 22-28, and take part in a quick and effective action to bring us closer to real justice for animal victims.
Today's action is:
Never turn a blind eye to an animal in need!
Watch ALDF’s special video profile of our National Justice for Animals Week mascot—Adam, a 2-year-old cat who survived a horrific act of cruelty to inspire animal advocates around the world. See Adam in action now, as ALDF catches up with Tina Wright, the veterinary nurse who adopted him, and Dr. Lisa Alexander, the veterinarian whose skill and generosity saved the young cat’s life. And hear a special message from ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells, who explains how one person can make a real difference in the life of an animal like Adam.
Then forward the video to five friends. Inspire the animal lovers in your address book to stand up for animals in need by sharing the story of Adam’s struggle for survival and of the brave 11-year-old boy whose courage saved his life--and brought his abusers to justice.
Check back tomorrow for Tuesday's action!
Recent Victories for ALDF's Litigation Program
Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on February 23rd, 2009ALDF’s Litigation Program scored a pair of important legal victories in the past two weeks, both of which will significantly push forward our lawsuits to protect animals. 
In Kasey v. Estill County, one of ALDF’s Kentucky animal shelter cases, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Jones denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the case. Standing is a legal doctrine that requires the plaintiff to have suffered an injury that was caused by the defendant and that the court is capable of redressing. Without proving such an injury, a lawsuit is over before it starts. Regardless of how illegal the conduct is, if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate standing, she cannot sue. Standing is almost always a major hurdle in animal protection cases, because animals themselves lack standing: their injuries are not legally cognizable. For this reason, we lawyers are forced to cast the injury as one to a human plaintiff.
So when we decided to sue Estill County for maintaining a facility that denied dogs and cats their basic needs, we needed to find a human-centered injury, because the animals themselves cannot be our plaintiffs and their injuries cannot form the basis for standing. We discovered that Kentucky permits “taxpayer standing” in certain cases; in other words, taxpayers have a legal interest in not having their tax dollars spent illegally. In our case, we argued that our plaintiff, Angelika Kasey, had paid income and property taxes for years and that, as a taxpayer, she is injured when her taxes are spent on a shelter that violates Kentucky’s Humane Shelter Law. Judge Jones agreed with ALDF and held that Ms. Kasey has standing to pursue the lawsuit.
The ruling does not mean that we have won the case, only that our plaintiff has standing to bring the case in the first place. It now falls on us to prove that the conditions and neglect at the Estill Shelter in fact violates Kentucky law. Given the conditions of the shelter, we are confident that we can do so. 
Just a few days later, we traveled to North Carolina to argue a motion for costs of care in ALDF v. Keating, a case involving eight neglected horses. North Carolina’s unique civil cruelty law permits a shelter that has taken in seized animals to recover the costs it has expended in caring for the animals. The United States Equine Rescue League, our co-plaintiff in Keating, has been sheltering the six seized horses since mid-December. It has incurred significant costs related to veterinary care, food, and shelter for the horses. Thankfully North Carolina has made the judgment that the costs of caring for the victims of animal cruelty should be borne by those who inflicted the cruelty, not by the altruistic shelters who step in to provide necessary care when the defendants have refused to do so. After a lengthy hearing, Judge Vince Rozier agreed with ALDF and awarded USERL the full amount it sought: $8,372.46. It should be noted that these funds represent the bare minimum necessary to care for the horses. The case is not over yet, but this is an important victory for these animals.
Get Ready! Next Week is National Justice for Animals Week!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on February 20th, 2009
Animal victims of abuse cannot speak for themselves - that's why concerned citizens like you must speak up for them!
The Animal Legal Defense Fund has created National Justice for Animals Week, an annual event that is dedicated to raising public awareness nationwide about how to report animal abuse and how to work within your community to create stronger laws and assure tough enforcement. Mark your calendars for ALDF's first-ever National Justice for Animals Week, February 22-28.
To help ALDF gear up for this first-ever event, get started now by adding a National Justice for Animals Week badge to your website or social network page. Spread the word to family and friends who care about making a difference for animals!
Check our website, your inbox, and your Facebook page all next week for:
- daily action items for getting involved in ALDF's national campaign to stop animal abuse;
- profiles of ALDF's 2009 National Justice for Animals Week honorees-prosecutors and others who have gone above and beyond to bring animal abusers to justice;
- a downloadable resource guide for stopping animal abuse in your own community;
- a special video profile of Adam, a California kitten who survived a vicious attack to inspire animal advocates around the world.
Check www.aldf.org, your inbox and Facebook page throughout the week to see how you can join us!
More Evidence that Connecticut Is No Place for Chimpanzees
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on February 19th, 2009
The tragic death of Travis, a Connecticut family’s “pet” chimpanzee, earlier this week, has been making international headlines. Sadly, the unfortunate result of keeping a chimpanzee as a pet comes as no surprise to us at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, where we have worked to protect the interests of Great Apes for decades. Most recently, ALDF sued Hollywood “trainer” Sid Yost for animal cruelty in a case based on the undercover work of primatologist Sarah Baeckler (Yost denies liability; Statement of Settlement). That case resulted in a landmark settlement in which ALDF rescued the chimpanzees in Yost’s care and delivered them to sanctuaries and entered into a settlement agreement with Yost. Baeckler, meanwhile, went on to Lewis & Clark Law School, with a focus on animal law, and she is now the executive director of Washington’s Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW). For more information on the sanctuary, check out the cover story from the fall 2008 issue of The Animals’ Advocate (PDF).
For an expert perspective on Travis’s death, we’re republishing a blog post by CSNW Director of Outreach Diana Goodrich:
We prefer to keep things focused on the positive and love sharing the daily lives of the chimpanzees at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. But the fact is that it is a shame our sanctuary has to exist at all. The Cle Elum Seven never should have been used in research or entertainment. Chimpanzees simply do not belong in biomedical research, entertainment or in people’s homes as pets. Period. And yesterday there was evidence for some of the reasons why this is true.
On Monday afternoon in Stamford, Connecticut a 15 year old chimpanzee “pet” named Travis attacked a woman he had known for years, leaving her in critical condition. When the police arrived at the scene, they fatally shot Travis. There are now numerous stories with greater detail about this incident all over the news, including NBC.
Travis was bred in captivity to be used by humans. He reportedly appeared in commercials for Old Navy and Coca-Cola. His owners drove him around town. And this was not the first time the authorities of Stamford had to be called in to try to contain him.
For those of us who care for chimpanzees, it is difficult not to be angry about this incident. We know that chimpanzees should not be kept as pets - we’ve seen tragedies like this before. We know that chimpanzees should only be kept in secure enclosures. We know that chimpanzees in entertainment are usually discarded after a few years because they become too difficult to “handle.” And we know that chimpanzees are intelligent, social, amazing, and, yes, sometimes violent beings.
There should be laws in place in every state banning the keeping of chimpanzees as pets. Hollywood by choice or by being forced through legislation should never use a chimpanzee in entertainment again. Our hope is that this tragedy will create action to make these things happen, and we will do our part to help.
Diana can be reached at diana@chimpsanctuarynw.org.
Some months back, I was sent a video of men taunting a crippled dog in a foreign desert. They were laughing as they pelted the dog with rocks. Their victim, already suffering miserably, tried her best to escape the vicious onslaught.
These scenes were horrifying to me on many different levels, and I instantly knew the images of this sadistic act would haunt my mind for a very long time.
Those of us working in the field of animal law invariably develop internal defenses to help us cope with the deluge of cruelty cases we encounter on a daily basis. Without these defenses, most of us would likely not be able to effectively do this type of work for very long. However, despite our best efforts -- and usually just when we think we've seen or heard of every variation of cruelty and are clinging to the hope that we are sufficiently inured -- a new case will come our way, like this poor, suffering dog in a faraway land, and vividly remind us of the utter depths of depravity found in the criminal mind. When it comes to cruelty, the criminal's capacity for it too frequently knows no bounds.
While we loathe each time our defenses fail us, in some respects, the raw emotions that these cases evoke are important reminders. Reminders that cruel, cowardly acts can and still do occur everywhere. Reminders of just how much animals desperately need our support to help make our society one where they receive the respect they so rightly deserve, and one where those who violate this respect receive the punishment they deserve.
As horrific as those images in this video were to watch, I was able take some solace in the knowledge that ALDF and our tens of thousands of supporters are here, committed, and working together to make a difference for both the animals of today and those of tomorrow.
Originally posted on Amy Breyer's Animal Law Blog.
The Center for Animal Law Studies held the 2009 National Animal Law Moot Court and Closing Argument Competition this past weekend at Harvard Law School. I am happy to report first-hand that the event was a terrific success!
This year's competition was the first time for the new formal partnership between Lewis & Clark Law School and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, under the leadership of Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) Director Pamela Frasch. Also putting in yeomans' efforts were ALDF staffers Laura Handzel, Liberty Mulkani and Pamela Alexander. Everything from the first round of competition to the banquet dinner to the presentation of the final award went seamlessly.
For the first time, three federal judges heard the final moot court rounds - thanks to Judge D. Brooks Smith of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Susan P. Graber of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas for volunteering time out of your busy schedules to be part of this event.
This year was also another first - a tie for first place in the closing argument competition. The winners were Cheyne Adam and David Lipschutz, both of the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. The moot court winners were Michele Delappe and Nicholas Hudson from the University of Washington School of Law. Congratulations to all!
Joyce Tischler, ALDF founder and general counsel, recently talked with Scott Drake of Speaking of Justice about a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States against six of the nation's largest retailers and fashion designers for engaging in false advertising and mislabeling of fur garments. The complaint, filed in December, 2008 in D.C. Superior Court, names Andrew Marc, Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, and claims that these retailers and designers misrepresent fur products by labeling and marketing them as faux fur when they are real fur. The suit also claims that those mentioned advertise and label products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit when actually made from raccoon dog, a canine species from Asia.
What It Takes to Get the Job Done, Arkansas Style
Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on February 9th, 2009Good news out of Arkansas this past week: the governor there finally signed off on a felony anti-cruelty law that will take effect 90 days after the current legislative session concludes. This is a truly remarkable feat for 3 reasons:
First, up to now Arkansas had been one of the last 5 holdout states in the country to fail to pass any kind of felony anti-cruelty bill, despite efforts by citizens to introduce such bills repeatedly over the years. According to news reports, these efforts were met with stiff opposition from the state’s farm lobby and various meat industry groups for reasons I cannot fathom, since the proposed felony laws would have had no impact on their operations. A willingness by the state’s attorney general to broker an agreement between the animal industries and pro-animal-protection legislators prior to the start of this legislative session is what it apparently took to finally get a bill introduced and passed that all sides could live with. Kudos to Attorney General Dustin McDaniel for stepping in and getting the job done.
Second, the bill contains some really good provisions. According to the Arkansas News of February 4th, the bill will make a conviction for aggravated animal cruelty punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. That’s pretty good, compared to other states. The legislation also includes a five-year sentencing enhancement for anyone convicted of torturing an animal in the presence of a child.
Third, it’s evident some planning went into the process this time, since McDaniel didn’t just draft the bill, broker the deal, and throw a new law on the books for law enforcement; he backed it up with real money. According to the same article, “…the state Criminal Justice Center will use $250,000 released by the attorney general to develop a course of study for enforcing the new law. The course will be used to train new and existing law enforcement officers.” What a fabulous idea that should be emulated in all states updating or passing new animal cruelty legislation.
Now about those 4 remaining states with no animal anti-cruelty felony law on the books...
I am lucky enough to live in the Sonoma County, California countryside. There aren’t many farms in the area where I live, because the land is divided up into smaller parcels that, while much bigger than a city lot, aren’t large enough to support a real working farm. There is, however, one parcel of land that is relatively huge. It’s a few miles away from my house and on my way to work, so I see it every day. This field is home to several dairy calves.
When I first moved here, the calves were bigger and older, almost adult-size. They all had access to each other and plenty of room. They would either lie down, sunning themselves, or graze, spread out over the field. I couldn’t help but look upon them sadly every time I drove by, as I knew they had a difficult life of near-constant pregnancy and milk production ahead of them. But in general, they were currently living in better conditions than most factory farmed animals, so I tried to put it out of my head, and instead focused on the struggle to help the ones who suffer a much crueler fate.
One day, as my car approached the field on that lone country road, I glanced over and noticed that something was very different. Then I slowed my car to a stop and stared. In the field, all of the older calves I had grown accustomed to seeing over the past several months were gone. Instead, in their place, were several very tiny new ones. All were huddled closely together, some shaking, others hiding their eyes in the fur of the calf next to them. The ones who were looking up were wide-eyed, staring around at the large empty field and huge expanse of sky. They were absolutely terrified, and I tried to imagine when they were born and how long ago they had been taken from their mothers. Weeks? Days? Could they even eat yet?
Eventually, another car approached from behind, and I needed to get out of the way. Heartsick, I forced my eyes away from the field and started heading down the road toward home. That night, I had a difficult time sleeping, imagining them out there in the dark, motherless and scared. As I tossed and turned, I wondered if they cried out for their mothers, and if they were able to sleep. The next day, I considered taking an alternate way to work to avoid seeing them. But I ended up driving by the field that day, and the next, and the next. Something pulled me to that spot, and something pulled my eyes from the road and onto the field every time I drove by.
As the weeks and months passed, the calves grew bigger, and seemed to slowly adapt. It became a little easier to drive by them, since they didn’t seem as distraught and fearful. Then one day, when the calves were about as big as the previous ones, they were suddenly gone. And soon after, yet another group of tiny, frightened calves took their place. I should have seen it coming.
This cycle has happened over and over again, for the past 3 ½ years. I now know not to get too comfortable with the growing size of the calves and their eventual acclimation. I know that new ones will be born, ripped away from their mothers at a premature, tender age, and eventually thrown together in this big lonely field. Wave after wave of orphans will come here, pressed against each other in fear. And where do they go, when they are older and leave that farm? I don’t know for sure, but I imagine this “family” farm is paid by a bigger factory farm to house the babies until they’re older and ready to start their lives as milk producers. Even if an organic, so-called “humane” dairy ends up with them, they will still suffer the fate of their mothers and grandmothers: the intense, repetitive cycle of pregnancy, recurrent separation from their babies, and premature slaughter after their bodies just can’t produce anymore.
We all cringe and can hardly stand to think about it when a human child is orphaned because of some catastrophe, illness or criminal act. “The poor kid,” we say, shaking our heads with pity, “Such a shame. Now she’ll grow up without a mother.” But many of those children have an extended family of adults who will at least be there to offer guidance, if not become surrogate parents. Possibly, they’ll even have a concerned community to support them, if the story makes the news and inspires a sympathetic public to action. And maybe they’ll even have some counseling thrown in to help them emotionally adapt to life without a mother and father.
And what do dairy calves have for support, these baby animals who are also so vulnerable, who have no way of understanding what is happening to them? And what cruel anguish do their mothers experience, having their babies torn away from them, over and over and over again? When I see the field, I’m not even directly seeing that part of the equation, or the part where those calves unfortunate enough to be born male suffer an even worse fate – forced into the lonely, tortured life of a confined veal calf. It’s terribly ironic that this cruelty happens every single day in a culture that claims to have such reverence for the mother/child bond.
Whenever I have someone ask me, “How could you ever give up cheese? I would die!”, my scared, orphaned calves immediately come to mind. I say “my” calves because they are mine, and they’re yours too. The responsibility to alleviate their suffering, and the intense suffering of their mothers and brothers, falls to each of us.
I wish that everyone who claims to think baby animals are cute, or who are devoted mothers themselves, or who feel understandable compassion for orphaned human children, or who think they could never give up a certain type of food, could see what I see repeated in that one little Californian field, week after week, month after month, year after year.
Some of the most challenging questions about our human relationship with other animals have been posed not by philosophers, but by scientists. Charles Darwin got things started when he challenged our certainty that we are fundamentally different from all other animals – indeed proffering that we share common ancestors. Since then, many of the defining characteristics that we, as humans, have claimed separate us from other animals have been scientifically disproved. One by one, the bricks in the wall between “us” and “them” have been torn loose by scientific discovery. This renaissance in understanding has brought about many positive changes in the way animals are treated, but it also raises troubling questions about the foundation of our relationship to animals and the basis for the laws we have created to protect them.
Going back to the early 1960’s, Jane Goodall showed us that we are not the only animals to use tools—once considered a uniquely human capacity—when she observed chimpanzees using blades of grass and twigs to extract termites from their nests to eat. “But,” said establishment thinkers, “we are the only ones who make tools.” Wrong again. Chimpanzees, orangutans, crows, ravens, magpies (and the list continues) are now among our family of toolmakers and users.
Compassion has also been considered a defining human trait, yet, science has taught us that humans are more likely to inflict visible suffering on other humans than rhesus monkeys are on other rhesus monkeys—even when the consequence of not harming others meant near starvation for the monkeys.
Aside from these startling but very specific findings, there are the thousands of anecdotal stories of animals rescuing humans from peril at the risk of their own lives or perceiving things well beyond our human capacity. It can no longer be accurately said that nonhuman animals are without thought, feeling or sentiment.
What does this say about how we relate to our nonhuman neighbors? Unfortunately, centuries of laws and legal precedents that were founded on outdated assumptions are still relied upon by modern courts today. There still exists a large gap between our understanding of animals, based on research and observation, and how our laws interact with and protect them.
Indeed, under the law, animals are considered “things,” or “property,” inanimate objects valued only for their utility to humans exactly like the chair I’m sitting on. It is clear that this is not representative of how most of us feel about animals today.
For 30 years, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has led the way toward changing this outdated and fundamental legal flaw. In addition to filing groundbreaking lawsuits and helping prosecutors win cases against animal abusers, ALDF has established an unprecedented network of law professionals and law students devoted to advancing the exciting new field of animal law. With over 125 chapters in law schools nationwide and in Canada, ALDF is working to assure that the next generation of lawyers, judges and politicians understand what needs to be done within the legal system to protect animals.
Please help us by signing onto ALDF’s Animal Bill of Rights and finding out more about how you can help our lifesaving work.
An Easy Way To IGive Back To The Animals
Posted by Tony Eliseuson, ALDF Volunteer Attorney Member on January 30th, 2009I was recently shopping for a birthday present for a friend, and stumbled upon the website igive.com. This website allows anyone to make purchases from a wide assortment of stores, and online retailers. Some of the featured stores include Best Buy, Gap, Nordstrom, Expedia.com, Doctors Foster and Smith (which is one of my favorite stores for my dogs), and many other major brands.
The best part of igive.com is that a percentage of any purchase you make through igive.com will go to the charity or nonprofit organization of your choice, including ALDF! This percentage donation is at no cost to the purchaser, but comes from the retailer’s side of the transaction.
The amount of the donation varies from store to store, but many are very significant as can be seen from this list. While major stores tend to provide lower percentages (for example Best Buy provides 1.2%; Gap 1.6%), other stores provide significant percentage donations (Doctors Foster and Smith is 3.6% and 1-800-Pet Meds is 4.8%). Many stores on the list offer percentage donations in the double digits (such as websites that provide magazine subscriptions, or printer ink).
So if you are looking to make an online purchase, please consider shopping through igive.com or other ALDF affiliates, so that a percentage of your purchases will help support ALDF!
The Meat Industry's Misguided Efforts
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on January 28th, 2009Many may recall seeing the gruesome video of sick and injured cows being kicked, hit and rammed with forklifts last year after the Humane Society of the United States released footage from their undercover investigation of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. in Chino, California. The scandal over the abuse of dairy cows at Hallmark exposed major gaps in food safety and humane handling, prompted the largest meat recall in U.S. history, and probably cost the meat industry and the federal government more than $1 billion. Much of the meat produced there was served to school children through the National School Lunch Program.
In the wake of the investigation, California lawmakers approved legislation to improve the state’s food safety and humane slaughter laws. In May 2008, A.B. 2098 was unanimously approved, strengthening California’s law protecting sick and disabled animals by prohibiting slaughterhouses, stockyards, auctions, or dealers from buying, selling, or receiving “downed” animals—those too ill or injured even to stand up—and also prohibiting slaughterhouses from butchering or processing any downed animals.
The new law, which took effect January 1, is already under attack by the meat industry. The National Meat Association (NMA) and the American Meat Institute (AMI)—two trade groups representing major packing and slaughter plant companies—filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn key provisions of California’s newly upgraded law banning the use of sick and disabled animals in the food supply.
It’s hard to imagine why anyone would argue to allow ill animals into our food supply, especially that which is produced for our school children. Downed cattle are more likely to be infected with BSE – bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or “mad cow disease.” Studies suggest animals who are too sick or injured to stand and walk may be more likely to harbor foodborne bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella, which kill hundreds of Americans every year.
Tuesday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association made it clear that they will defend the law, moving to intervene in the meat industry lawsuit.
Read more about the lawsuit and what ALDF is doing to uphold California’s food safety and humane slaughter laws.
Warning: disturbing footage. Undercover investigation at Chinos Hallmark/Westland slaughterhouse
Issues in Animal Neglect Cases
Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on January 26th, 2009
An all too common dilemma when serving a search warrants in animal neglect cases: “What about those animals who do not yet show physical signs of neglect?”
In mass neglect (hoarding) cases, it is common to find that the physical condition of the victim animal population spans the spectrum, from dead and near death to those animals who, for a variety of reasons, do not yet show manifest signs of neglect. Can these “healthy” animals be seized as evidence in the case?
In some states, like California, there is some favorable language from the appellate courts supporting the view that all animals should be impounded, not just the ones who are currently showing physical symptoms of neglect. In People v. Speegle, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1405 (1997), the court had this to say in the context of construing Cal. Penal Cod § 597(f) to allow recovery for the cost of caring for all seized animals, not just those subject to prosecution:
In the panoply of statutes from section 596 through 599f, the Legislature has manifested an unmistakable intent to prevent cruelty to animals (cf. People v. Untiedt, supra, 42 Cal. App. 3rd at p. 554) and to provide for the removal of animals from the custody of those not fit to keep them. We thus interpret the present statute as allowing the removal of all animals in the keeping of a defendant found to be capable of cruelty, regardless of whether the other animals have been victims of a violation of the statute, as a rational means of ensuring the safety of the other animals. To limit the impoundment power under the statute (as the defendant would interpret it) would have the result of requiring an unwieldy prosecution of a separate count for every animal (much like the initial 70-odd page information in this matter) in order to remove them from abusive conditions. We reject the proffered interpretation.” People v. Speegle, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 1418 (1997) (emphasis added).Admittedly, Cal. Penal Code § 597(f) is a post-conviction law and therefore not directly controlling of the frontend seizure issue. However, the public policies underlying the court’s reasoning coupled with the court’s finding as to the legislative intent are most certainly applicable. Moreover, when one reads Speegle in context with Cal. Penal Code § 597(b) which includes within the state’s statutory definition of for the crime of animal neglect any person who “having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering…” it’s not a giant leap of logic to conclude that “needless suffering” can, and often does, occur without any perceptible change in physical condition (at least this is true in the short run)—even if the chargeable “suffering” is currently limited to only physical rather than emotional suffering. (As an aside on the issue of animals having emotions, there’s a developing body of research now supporting the view that dogs have the capacity to understand fairness and experience jealousy—more on that topic in another blog post). So, with a basic understanding of the dynamics of a hoarder’s behavior and some careful attention to drafting both the affidavit in support of a search warrant and the warrant itself, at least in California, this issue can be easily overcome. ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program has sample language for police and prosecutors in need of assistance with this issue.
In those states that, unlike California, lack favorable statutory language and/or a helpful appellate court interpretation of the criminal code, a creative investigator or prosecutor should consider the inchoate crime of attempted animal cruelty to cover this situation. Surely one has “intentionally taken a substantial step” toward the completed crime of animal cruelty by repeatedly choosing to not supply adequate food or water for the entire population of animals under his or her charge. By simply including language supporting a finding of probable cause that all animals in a hoarding case are evidence of both the attempted and the completed crime of animal cruelty will justify the lawful seizure of all of the animals and put an end to the needless suffering of not just the worst off but all of the animals at issue.
Does An Animal Advocate Have the Ear of the President?
Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on January 23rd, 2009So, I’m going through last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine article on the key members of (now) President Obama’s staff and I see that Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein will be heading up a department in the new administration. My brain suddenly slams on the brakes and says "Whaaaat? Really?" The same Cass Sunstein who is a noted and prolific writer and speaker on animal law and Constitutional standing, among other topics? The same Cass Sunstein who spoke at the 2001 Animal Law Conference at Lewis and Clark Law School and later modified his remarks there into an article on Enforcing Existing Rights for the Animal Law Journal (Volume 8)? The one who took his dog Perry on camera for an interview with Greta Van Susteren and who later established a scholarship fund in memory of Perry for law students interested in animal welfare? That Cass Sunstein?? Surely that has to be good news for those of us working on behalf of animals.
I next checked to see what Professor Sunstein would be doing: he will be in charge of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, established in 1980 to review draft regulations and do other stuff related to regulatory policy-making and analysis. Frankly, I couldn’t really put my finger on what exactly the agency does, but it sounds boring. Nevertheless, and most importantly, I believe the animals do now have a known scholarly advocate within the executive branch of the federal government, a person who by his own statement is a longtime friend and colleague of President Obama while they were both teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. I plan to spend some time with ALDF early this year trying to figure out how to make the most of that influential connection to the President. Advice and ideas from readers will be accepted and appreciated. Let’s not squander this possible opportunity to talk about and push the welfare of animals in a national forum.
Over 50% of animal guardians would rather have their dog or cat with them than another human if they were stranded on a desert island. Is it any wonder that more and more people are willing to spend large amounts of money to fight legal battles over who gets custody of the family pets when relationships go south? On January 14, I had the pleasure of attending a panel presented by the Bar Association of San Francisco, entitled “Hot Topics in Animal Law: Pet Custody Disputes,” to get some first-hand and legal perspectives on the issue.
Panelist Bill Schoch, who had to deal with negotiating custody of his two beloved cats when he separated from his long-time partner a couple of years ago, reminded us of the crucial emotional role that animal companions can play in our lives. In particular, he emphasized, the unconditional love and constant companionship that an animal companion provides is especially necessary during times of personal crisis, such as the break-up of a relationship. It’s no wonder that couples in the throes of separation are often willing to go to the mat to maintain what may be the most stable relationship in their lives—the one they have with their cats or dogs. In Bill’s case, he and his party were able to negotiate their custody arrangement without legal intervention…and while ALDF is here to provide assistance to judges who are faced with such cases, ideally for the animals and the parties involved, amicable resolutions in the best interests of the animals can be reached without heading to court.
Watch a video of Bill's discussion here:
Also on the panel was attorney Lisa McCurdy, who emphasized some ways that couples might attempt to avoid litigation, including “pet premarital agreements,” a prenuptial agreement that would specify how custody would be determined in the event of a breakup. Such agreements are rare, but are contracts that would generally be recognized by courts.
Don't miss Lisa's discussion about what happens when the custody of a pet is disputed.
Pet custody might seem at first just another checkpoint on the list of issues to be resolved at the time of a breakup—including the custody of children, the divvying up of other property, alimony, etc.—but from the perspective of the field of animal law, it drives right to the heart of the legal conundrum that ALDF seeks to resolve. In the eyes of the law, companion animals are “property;” but in our daily experiences, they are something very different from a table, a chair, or a house. People have lasting, emotional relationships with their animals. What’s more, and even more critically, animals have their own interests—and this is something their legal status as property fails to recognize. That’s why ALDF submits amicus curiae briefs in such cases, arguing to judges not either for or against one of the battling parties, but rather, urging them to consider what is in the animal’s best interest when making a custody decision.
If you’re involved in a custody dispute, or if such a dispute is likely, be sure to check out ALDF’s pet custody resource page for helpful tips.
Inauguration Day Letter to President Obama
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on January 20th, 2009
January
20 is a historic day for America—and the Animal Legal Defense Fund is
wasting no time letting President Obama know that hundreds of thousands
of his countrymen and women will now be looking to him to help lead the
charge in making real change for Americans and for America's animals.
ALDF has sent an Inauguration Day letter of congratulations to our new president,
and we’ve included a small sample of the more than 250,000 signatures
in our campaign to provide legal protections for animals through our
Animal Bill of Rights. We have also included a legal analysis,
based on the research of volunteer law students and ALDF attorneys, of
why existing laws fail to provide real protections for animals—and why
each of the six proposed tenets of the Animal Bill of Rights is so
desperately needed.
Show your support for change for America’s animals—sign the Animal Bill of Rights!
Bob Barker Donates $1M for Animal Law Program at the University of Virginia
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on January 15th, 2009
Bob Barker, "Price is Right" legend and long time animal advocate, has donated $1 million to the University of Virginia to create an animal law program at its law school.
While a Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) chapter has been in place at the school since 2005, there was not an official animal law program until now. The new program will include: an animal law course that starts in the fall and will be taught by professor Mimi Riley; guest speakers; externship opportunities; and a writing competition focused on animal law.
The University of Virginia School of Law’s absence of an animal law program has not held some students back from pursuing this rapidly developing area of law. University of Virginia SALDF member Elisabeth Custalow, winner of the inaugural Pet JD animal law writing competition and participant in ALDF’s Animal Law Clerkship Program, will be working at ALDF’s headquarters this summer as a post-graduate clerk.
Animal Legal Defense Fund faces are not new on the University of Virginia School of Law campus. In 2006, ALDF was invited to the school to present Animal Law 101, a tutorial that focuses on fostering the growth of animal law in academia and legal practice. In 2008, under the guidance of ALDF attorney member Paul Ernest, several University of Virginia SALDF members helped produce the "Baked Dog Syndrome" protocol documents for California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee and Virginia. These documents provide specific guidance to each state’s law enforcement officers, animal control officers and humane investigators on how to respond to a call about a dog left unattended in a parked car on a hot day.
In 2007, Barker was presented with the first ever Animal Legal Defense Fund Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of a life committed to animals and achievements made on their behalf at ALDF’s "Future of Animal Law" conference held at Harvard Law School.
Barker’s passion and dedication to animals prompted him to end every "Price is Right" show with a call for spaying and neutering dogs and cats. In 1987, it impelled him to resign from a lucrative job as host of the Miss U.S.A. and Miss Universe pageants because their organizers insisted on having the contestants wear fur coats.
In 1994, he established the DJ&T Foundation with the goal of helping solve the tragic problem of animal overpopulation. The Foundation funds low cost spay/neuter clinics and subsidizes hundreds of spay/neuter voucher programs across the country in an effort to help control animal overpopulation.
When the production company that owns "The Price is Right" wanted to honor him in 2001, they allocated $500,000 to do so. Mr. Barker let them know that the money would be best spent by donating it to Harvard Law School, which established the Bob Barker Endowment Fund for the Study of Animal Rights. He has since contributed another $500,000 to the fund and has also established similar million dollar endowments at the law schools of Stanford, Columbia, Duke, UCLA, Northwestern and Georgetown.
For a list of established SALDF chapters and animal law courses, visit the Resources section on our website.
ALDF Sues to Rescue Starving Horses
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on January 14th, 2009
As feed prices continue to skyrocket, so does the number of neglected horses. On Monday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the United States Equine Rescue League, and a county animal cruelty investigator filed a complaint against three North Carolina residents for severely neglecting eight horses whom they starved—in one case, literally to death—and deprived of all veterinary care. ALDF is seeking permanent custody of the abused animals as well as the costs of caring for the animals.
On December 17, 2008, acting on an equine veterinarian’s calls for help, Wake County’s animal cruelty investigator, along with the United States Equine Rescue League, seized six horses from a field where they had been left by Michael, Judy, and Gayle Keating. The horses, who had been deprived of even minimal food and care, were in severe distress and literally starving to death. Another horse, a mare named Rain, could barely stand when she was found, and, before she could be rescued, died of starvation in a state of extremely painful stomach and intestinal cramping; her corpse was also seized from the field.
There were no signs of edible hay anywhere on the property, and no grain other than a portion Gayle Keating had brought out to Rain the night before the mare died of starvation; the grass in the horses’ enclosure had been eaten down to the ground. The horses, some of them nursing or pregnant, had been eating bark off of trees in a desperate attempt to get nourishment. The Keatings could provide no evidence of veterinary care for any of the horses at any time, and the condition of all of the seized horses indicated progressive states of malnutrition and starvation, making it clear that the Keatings had been neglecting them continuously for an extended period of time.
ALDF urges everyone to be especially aware of horses and other farm
animals this season, and to report cases where you suspect animals are
not being properly cared for. Read ALDF’s Actionline alert for
information about reporting a neglect case and ways you can help animals in need.
Visit our photo gallery for pictures of the rescued horses and a description of each horse’s condition before the rescue. Watch a before and after video of Lacy,
one of the rescued horses who was pregnant and so close to death she
was rushed to the North Carolina State College School of Veterinary
Medicine for critical care.
The Best of Times... the Worst of Times?
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on January 12th, 2009This morning, the front page of the Los Angeles Times greeted me with the news that “jobs (are) disappearing in numbers not seen since the end of World War II…” The New York Times provided no rosier outlook: “a recession poised to become the worst since the 1930s.” Born in 1953, I never expected to face the sort of economic crisis that befell my parent’s generation, and, like most people, I hope that it will not turn out to be as dire as the predictions indicate. But, it is a worrisome cloud over everyone’s head.
Nonprofit organizations, such as Animal Legal Defense Fund, are the proverbial candle in the wind. We rely on the kindness of a large number of people who care about animals. But, in economic “weather” such as this, we are all justifiably concerned.
Of course, animal abuse and neglect do not decrease during a recession. Indeed, the opposite is likely to occur: we expect to see a rise in the number of starvation and neglect cases involving horses and other large animals. Humane societies and shelters are already reporting more animals being turned in by people going through foreclosures. A member of ours who owns a janitorial service told me that in the past few months, when his company has been called to clean out a vacated home, they have increasingly found dogs or cats abandoned in the house… simply left behind.
And yet, at the same time, we are witnessing enormous growth in animal law, our collaboration with Lewis & Clark Law School to create the Center for Animal Law Studies, more and more law schools offering animal law courses, more students studying animal law and going on to practice it, and a steady stream of lawsuits building toward greater legal protections for animals. I am awed at the impressive array of talent and brains that greets me as I enter the doors of ALDF each day and feel honored to be able to work with people of such high energy, enthusiasm and commitment to the animals.
I face 2009 with a feeling of hope and the expectation of new achievements, yet it is mixed with a sense of foreboding. The animals are going to need us now, more than ever. Will we be there for them, or will we be forced to cut back our efforts? Perhaps, it will be the worst of times, probably not the best of times, most likely, a bit of both. Call me Pollyanna, but I hang on to the faith that we, as a nation and a people, will weather the storm and come out stronger because of it.
And, as I do each January, I recommit myself to finding answers to the most important question, the question that has been the centerpiece of my career: what can we do today, this week, this month… to rescue animals from a persistent state of suffering?
Wishing you a happy, healthy and humane New Year.
Sixteen years ago, an ambitious law student named Nancy Perry founded the first Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Little did she know that the birth of that chapter heralded not only the beginning of ALDF’s network of student chapters (which now number 130 in the US and Canada) but the beginning of a long and innovative relationship between Lewis & Clark and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Some other firsts at Lewis & Clark include the first annual animal law conference, publication of Animal Law, the first animal law journal, the first advanced animal law class, the first animal law moot court competition, and the first animal law legislative drafting competition. In every case, ALDF has provided resources and support for these developments.
This year the Animal Legal Defense Fund has again joined Lewis & Clark to launch the most ambitious undertaking to advance animal law yet: the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark, in collaboration with the Animal Legal Defense Fund. ALDF has committed well over $1.2 million to the Center through 2010 and will work closely to develop collaborative programs through which law students can get hands-on involvement in animal law cases and other initiatives.
The Center would not have been possible without the full support of the new dean of Lewis & Clark Law School, Robert Klonoff, an incredibly accomplished lawyer and professor, who has advanced an inspired vision for the development of animal law studies at the school. Assistant Dean Janice Weis has also consistently supported and encouraged the growth of animal law studies at Lewis & Clark for almost 15 years.
But the key to the success of all the past and future animal law education programs at Lewis & Clark, or any law school, is the students. Without their passion for animal protection and their energy and enthusiasm none of these developments would be possible.
ALDF thanks Dean Klonoff, Assistant Dean Weis, Nancy Perry (who is now the Executive Vice President for Government Affairs at the Humane Society of the United States) and the many Lewis & Clark law students who followed her path and went on to blaze new ones. I look forward to what the next 16 years of collaboration will bring.
Ask Joyce: Improving Conditions at Your Local Animal Shelter
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on January 7th, 2009ALDF's "Ask Joyce" column appears in each issue of The Animals' Advocate, ALDF's quarterly publication.
Dear Joyce,
My local animal shelter has some serious problems and I want to help the animals get better treatment. What do you recommend?
Dear Reader,
Animal shelters are intended to provide a safe haven for animals who have gotten lost, abandoned, or have been surrendered by their guardian, and I’m a big fan of theirs. Sadly, there are some animal shelters and animal control facilities that do not provide proper treatment to the animals entrusted to them. The first step to a solution is to clearly identify the problem. It could be a lack of funding, poor management, untrained staff, inadequate disease control, a physical facility that is too old, too small or in need of major repair, lack of veterinary care, lack of a volunteer program, or any number of other reasons. Gather the facts: keep careful notes on each perceived problem, including the date, time, location and animal(s) involved and take photos and videos, if you are able.
Try to work cooperatively with shelter staff and administrators to develop creative solutions. For example, two friends of mine discovered that their local shelter had very little money and the staff had low morale. They held fundraisers to raise the money needed to buy a washer and dryer, so that there was always clean bedding for the animals, and to purchase new cage doors that were safer for the animals. They volunteered to groom the animals, walk dogs and build a group of volunteers to assist the small staff at the shelter. It took time, but eventually, the shelter’s care of the animals and its adoption program improved markedly.
If shelter staff will not agree to hear your concerns, or work cooperatively, the next step is to contact their bosses and request an investigation of the shelter. If the shelter is run by a city or county, contact the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, sheriff, or other agency that oversees it. In the case of a private, nonprofit shelter, the oversight may come from a board of directors. Organize a committee of concerned citizens. Find out what minimum standards of care are mandated by state and local laws. You can obtain local laws from your City Council or local library. Once you have done all of your homework, prepare to make your case in a businesslike manner. Creating positive change will take time and effort, and the animals in your community will benefit greatly.
Let’s all pitch in!
Joyce
Vote for ALDF's Animal Bill of Rights by Midnight on December 31!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on December 30th, 2008Change.org has presented ALDF with a fantastic opportunity to help build better rights for animals and spread the word about the Animal Bill of Rights by partnering with their "Ideas for Change in America" project.
Help send our message to the Obama Administration and support the Animal Bill of Rights by voting at Change.org today! The first round of voting ends tomorrow, December 31st, at midnight Pacific Time. That means there’s still time to vote for the Animal Bill of Rights here: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/provide_legal_protections_for_animals_through_the_animal_bill_of_rights
On Inauguration Day, Change.org will hand-deliver the top 10 rated ideas to a representative of the Obama Administration and will then help turn the energy behind the ideas into an ongoing lobbying campaigns after the voting ends.
Vote now and support better rights for animals through the Animal Bill of Rights!
After you’ve voted on Change.org, spread the word by emailing friends, sharing it on social network sites or posting a widget on your web page. Pass along this link to friends and encourage them to vote!
www.change.org/ideas/view/provide_legal_protections_for_animals_through_the_animal_bill_of_rights
A Rising Tide Floats All Boats
Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on December 29th, 2008So goes the popular saying. As we advance headlong into a new year and a new presidential administration, thoughts naturally turn to the opportunities for change, the byword of both political parties’ presidential campaigns this past year. In that spirit, I’m proposing a far-reaching, but not necessarily obvious, idea that we who care about animals can all get behind: make our country a better place for children and victims of violence, and there will be no excuse not to make improvements for animals as well. I say this because during the recent media flurry surrounding ALDF’s report ranking the animal protection laws of each state, officials in states in the bottom 5 states tried to justify their lack of good animal laws by saying they can’t see increasing the penalties for animal abuse above those in place for human victims of violence. Statements like that seem to me to be incredibly short-sighted.
With the incoming Obama administration promising to devote billions to infrastructure and job creation next year, let’s make sure that roads and bridges are not the only beneficiaries—we need to make sure people and animals are in line to benefit as well. To those who say we can’t fund an animal shelter because we don’t have enough money for people shelters I say: “Get to it then!” To those who say we can’t increase the penalties for animal abusers until we increase the penalties for child abusers and wife beaters I say: “What’s stopping you? Let’s pass those measures to better protect people today.”
When animal advocates then come forward with hat in hand for a shelter or stronger legislation and meet the excuse that “we can’t provide for animals until we’ve taken care of the people” that excuse will not only be moot, we’ll be enjoying a better world where all beings are protected and taken care of properly. Let’s not compete for resources, let’s DEMAND they be made available for all. Now is the time to think big, and act big, and create the change we want to see (to borrow another popular saying). Put your vision for big change for animals in the Comments below. Join me in creating the rising tide that lifts all.
2008 Year in Review: Watch our Slideshow
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on December 23rd, 2008You've been a tremendous voice for animals in 2008 - from supporting ALDF's work with generous donations to taking action on cases that needed urgent attention. Because of you, more animals have been saved and more cutting-edge laws put in place to protect them. Your actions have made a world of difference for our clients - the animals!
Take this moment to celebrate all that you've made possible for animals through ALDF's work in 2008. Watch our 2008 Victories for Dogs slideshow, and don't miss our other slideshows spotlighting the year's successes you helped bring about for animals.
Here are just a few ways our work together has helped animals:
- ALDF helped shut down the All Creatures Great and Small "no kill" shelter in North Carolina, freeing two hundred dogs, along with fifty cats, from appalling conditions.
- A new law written by ALDF gives prosecutors in Virginia the tools they need to combat organized dogfighting. Criminals convicted of dogfighting in the state of Virginia will now face even tougher legal penalties, including up to 40 years in prison.
- ALDF filed lawsuits in Kentucky against Estill and Robertson Counties for neglecting their homeless animals, despite their legal requirement to provide basic humane care. (The cases are still pending, so our fight continues.)
As 2008 comes to an end, please, when you gather with your loved ones, also remember the animals we serve. There are just a few more days to make your year-end, tax-deductible gift to ALDF. Help us to continue winning the case against cruelty.
From everyone at ALDF, thank you for all that you do for animals!
All of us at ALDF have animals in our personal lives and many of us bring our dogs to work with us most days. My five year-old Queensland heeler mix, Eve, comes to work with me every day and holds down the little couch (which I got for her) while I work at my desk. It’s a great relief to have our animal friends with us when constantly have to read cases and news reports of the worst kinds of animal abuse on a daily basis. It’s necessary to our work but it can be painful and disheartening some days.
Without that kind of hands-on connection to the animals our work would be so much harder to bear sometimes. And, of course, our work is not limited to dogs and cats. So, for the second year, our California office had its holiday party at Animal Place, a farmed animal sanctuary about an hour away from our office.
It was such a wonderful retreat. We were greeted by pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, cows, turkeys and rabbits. There is nothing quite like spending time with animals to recharge your batteries and make you want to get back to work fighting animal abuse.
Please enjoy these photos from our outing. Happy Holidays!
 |
 |
 |
 |
Best States to be an Animal Abuser React to ALDF’s New Report
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on December 19th, 2008On Tuesday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund released its annual report ranking the animal protection laws of every state based on their relative strength and general comprehensiveness. Arkansas and Mississippi ranked among the “best states to be an animal abuser” due to their poor laws protecting animals. Watch these two news reports discussing the states’ inadequate laws and the steps each are taking to improve them.
Arkansas Ranks Poorly in Animal Protection Laws > play video |
Mississippi Ranks Low on Animal Protection > play video |
Also ranked among the worst states for its animal protection laws was Idaho. In the Times-News article, “Idaho among worst 5 states in animal cruelty,” Representative Jim Patrick, R-Twin Falls, says the following:
"We don't want a black eye but yet we have groups always pressuring us, saying we're the worst state," he said. "And if you look at the numbers we're the worst state in a lot of things. But we're also the best in a lot of things, too, if you look at the numbers differently. It's kind of an emotional issue. If you throw a cat off a bridge, you're gonna get in trouble either way."
Why are these states in the dog house when it comes to getting tough on animal abusers? The legislative weaknesses seen in the states at the bottom of the animal protection barrel include severely restricted or absent felony animal cruelty provisions, inadequate animal fighting provisions, and lack of restrictions on the future ownership of animals for those convicted of cruelty to animals.
Many state laws have improved since ALDF’s last state rankings report was released in 2007; since then, Alaska and Utah have seen progressive enough change to be bumped out of the bottom 10 percent by Idaho and Mississippi.
How does your state rank? Check out the full report here.
Tom Vilsack Appointed Secretary of Agriculture
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on December 17th, 2008President-elect Barack Obama has selected former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to head the Department of Agriculture. Vilsack has an animal-friendly record relative to some of the other candidates who had been mentioned in connection with this critical position. While Vilsack has some potentially worrying ties to Iowa agribusiness, he has shown leadership in questioning the U.S., agricultural subsidy system. According to the Mike Markarian of the Humane Society Legislative Fund:
“[Vilsack] has a solid record on animal protection. As chief executive, he didn't address the most complex issues such as the massive pollution from hog factory farms, but he advocated for bills to toughen the state's penalties for animal fighting, and he stood up to the hunting lobby and vetoed legislation that would have allowed the target shooting of mourning doves for the first time in decades.”Thank you to all of our advocates who responded to ALDF’s Actionline alert and contacted the President-elect urging him to appoint an animal-friendly Secretary of Agriculture.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees a broad range of laws directly impacting the welfare of millions of animals, has more influence on how animals in the United States are treated than any other federal Department. The Animal Legal Defense Fund looks forward to working with Vilsack to enact stronger laws that protect animals.
Also announced yesterday was the appointment of Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, a hunter and member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, as the secretary of the Interior Department. The Department of the Interior oversees such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Park Service, and is charged with overseeing oil and gas drilling on public lands and managing the nation's parks and wildlife refuges.
As a senator, Salazar received a 25% on the most recent Humane Scorecard from Humane USA. That’s way below the democratic average of 60%, and is just barely above the republican average of 24%. He scored a perfect 0 on the previous scorecard.
Salazar's animal protection record is of great concern, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund will be keeping a close eye on him to ensure that our nation's wildlife is protected.
2008 Victories for Cats: Watch our Slideshow
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on December 16th, 2008Thanks to dedicated animal advocates like you, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has been hard at work in 2008 fighting tough legal battles to rescue cats from life-threatening cases of neglect and abuse, helping to send their abusers to jail, and pushing the courts to recognize their real value.
Take a look at our slideshow and celebrate ALDF's cutting-edge efforts for cats in 2008.
ALDF couldn't be a voice for animals without your dedication and support. You, our supporters, are the true heroes and we thank you for all of your efforts to help make this a better world for animals! 2008 brought many successes and no doubt, 2009 will bring many more challenges.
Please take this opportunity to watch our 2008 Victories for Cats slideshow and help us continue our fight for animals in 2009 by making a year-end tax-deductible donation. The animals are counting on us-and we're counting on you!
Yep, I know, ‘tis the season for Xboxes, PlayStations, iPhones, mani-pedi gift certificates and all the other "stuff" that moves around this time of year, thanks to the need to feed the beast that is our “consumer based economy,” but sadly these types of headlines are considerably more pervasive in winter. It is common knowledge that the recent increase in horse starvation cases is largely a function of pure economics--rising feed costs, contracting personal incomes, layoffs and foreclosures are combining to create the “perfect storm” of suffering for thousands of horses around this nation--not to mention that the simple cold of winter, even with available food, can stress a horse to the brink.
I could squander many a column inch ranting about the problem, but what people really want are solutions. At a recent meeting with an inspired group of Animal Legal Defense Fund supporters, the idea of sponsoring equine food banks to address this problem was discussed in considerable detail. It’s a simple solution borrowed from the existing food bank model used for humans in need. Applied in areas plagued by an unending supply of horse neglect cases - and perhaps, in some situations, modified from a distribution center to a delivery service - you might just find this approach to be a simple solution to a growing problem. There are many creative ways to approach the issue of equine neglect and this is but one idea to consider. If you would like to discuss how you might go about applying this concept in your community, please give me a call or post a comment below.
Here’s hoping that you are able to find the time to relax, reflect and appreciate what you already have in this life. Happy holidays.
Watch Our 2008 Victories for Farmed Animals Slideshow
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF Founder and General Counsel on December 9th, 2008The Animal Legal Defense Fund fought key legal battles to protect farmed animals in 2008, including filing a lawsuit to stop cruel confinement of calves to speaking on Capitol Hill in support of a new federal bill, the Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act.
Watch our 2008 Victories for Farmed Animals slideshow as we look back at a few of the Animal Legal Defense Fund's greatest accomplishments and celebrate the animals whose lives have benefited from the support of ALDF members and advocates like you.
While much was gained for farmed animals this year, 2009 brings many more challenges and opportunities to better the lives of animals in our society. Today, there is not a single federal law protecting the billions of animals raised for food from the worst abuses on factory farms. Your support is desperately needed to change this!
Watch our farmed animal slideshow, and please consider making a year-end, tax-deductible gift to the Animal Legal Defense Fund so we can continue to be the legal voice for all animals.
Thank you for all that you've done for animals in 2008 and for your continued support in 2009!
The Low-Tech Fix That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on December 8th, 2008
Sorry to get all Scrooge on you so early in the holiday season, but I’d like to direct your attention to some sobering statistics for anyone who cares about animals, the environment, or the future of humans on Earth. According to the article, “As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions,” published on December 3 in the New York Times, consumption of “red meat,” i.e. cows and pigs, is expected to double globally between 2000 and 2050. The article doesn’t focus at all on what this means in terms of the net increase in suffering among sensitive, sentient creatures who share the planet with us (though I hesitate to suggest we truly “share” the Earth with the billions of animals who are living and dying as, in effect, our slaves). Frankly, figures like this are enough to lull me into the despair that all our work for animals is merely a Band-Aid on a massive, hemorrhaging wound of unspeakable suffering. I hope I’m not bringing you down.
Rather, the Times article focuses on another lighthearted aspect of this cataclysmic statistic: namely, the massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will accompany the growing global taste for blood. Because, according to a United Nations report, livestock generates 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—more than from cars, buses, and airplanes—the projected spike in meat consumption over the next few decades is a piece of the global warming juggernaut that can no longer be ignored.
Or can it? All evidence points to society’s desperate attempts to ignore this very fact, even as we’ve come to grips (most of us, anyway) with the stark reality of global warming. We can see it happening. Scientists might be sitting around smugly telling us “I told you so,” if they weren’t so busy trying to salvage their pricey research equipment from melting Arctic icecaps. Yet when I pick up my carbon footprint calculator at the local organic grocery store, there are lots of fields for how many compact fluorescent light bulbs I’ve upgraded to, but no blanks corresponding to my dietary choices. I was far from the only vegetarian to make the same admittedly self-righteous observation that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth made the same most inconvenient of omissions.
We just do NOT want to talk about the fact that the personal choice to eat animals, multiplied by several billion, is one of the single biggest factors contributing to impending environmental devastation. Do I sound hysterical? Because honestly, I feel a little hysterical here. Rather, the Times piece details, like a wish list for a sci-fi Santa, the variety of high-tech fixes that we’ve dreamed up and will dump countless millions of research dollars into to avoid prescribing people away from a meat-based diet. In one such futuristic fix for the problem of high-methane-emitting pig poop, “the refuse from thousands of pigs is combined with local waste materials (outdated carrot juice and crumbs from a cookie factory), and pumped into warmed tanks called digesters. There, resident bacteria release the natural gas within, which is burned to generate heat and electricity.” Yum. Alternatively, we might focus on “inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane.”
Who dares suggest the low-tech fix, here? Even environmental organizations have by and large shied away from the most obvious, most elegant of prescriptions to the problems caused by raising animals for food: people need to stop eating meat. Not some other, abstract people, who live in very-far-away, oh-so-polluting countries like China and India, but people like Al Gore, for example. People who read the New York Times. How about you?
I’m not suggesting people should stop eating animals because I said so, for god’s sake (I’m hysterical, remember?). But why not listen instead to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I’m not sure that the system we have for livestock can be sustainable,” the article quotes him as saying. It goes on: “A sober scientist, he suggests that ‘the most attractive’ near-term solution is for everyone simply to ‘reduce meat consumption,’ a change he says would have more effect than switching to a hybrid car.” Simple, right?
Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics humankind will resort to next.
Watch a clip of Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, discussing the link between meat eating and climate change at ALDF’s “Future of Animal Law” conference at Harvard Law School in March 2007.
Help Send Our Message to the President
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on November 26th, 2008Change.org has presented ALDF with a fantastic opportunity to help build better rights for animals and spread the word about the Animal Bill of Rights by partnering with their "Ideas for Change in America" project.
Help send our message to the Obama Administration and support the Animal Bill of Rights by voting at Change.org today!
On Inauguration Day, Change.org will hand-deliver the top 10 rated ideas to a representative of the Obama Administration and will then help turn the energy behind the ideas into an ongoing lobbying campaigns after the voting ends.
Vote now and support better rights for animals through the Animal Bill of Rights!
After you’ve voted on Change.org, spread the word by emailing friends, sharing it on social network sites or posting a widget on your web page.
Animal Abuse and Its Link to Violent Criminals
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on November 20th, 2008District Attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon, and ALDF Board Member Josh Marquis provides this insightful look at the link between cruelty to animals and violence toward humans in his article, “Animal Abuse and Its Connection to Serial Killers, Kids who Kill Kids and Other Violent Criminals.”
Here's an excerpt of the article:
Animal cruelty can be linked to the vast majority of serial killers, many habitual violent offenders, and most children and teens who kill.Read more from Josh Marquis’ article, “Animal Abuse and Its Connection to Serial Killers, Kids who Kill Kids and Other Violent Criminals.”
If we pay attention to children and youth who perform acts of cruelty on animals and take immediate action to stop their behavior, future crimes can be prevented and lives may be saved. Here is a very short list, that’s part of a very long list, of examples of adult serial killers – and young killers – who predicted their futures by torturing and killing animals in their early years. Their behavior seems to have been ignored. Had someone helped them by taking their animal abuse seriously, and sought the help of law enforcement and others who understand the seriousness of this behavior, who knows how many lives could have been saved?
- The school shootings that took place between 1997 and 2001 in: Pearl, MS; West Paducah, KY; Jonesbobo, AK; Springfield, OR; Littleton, CO; Conyers, GA; and San Diego, CA ALL contain a common element. Prior to killing their classmates and teachers, ALL of the boys involved in these school shootings had performed acts of animal cruelty such as: shooting dogs, setting cats on fire, blowing up cows and killing other small animals, prior to killing humans.
- Albert DeSalvo, The Boston Strangler killed 13 women. When he was a boy he put cats and dogs into orange crates and shot arrows through the slats to kill them.
- Ted Bundy, was a serial rapist and killer of at least 30 women. As a youth he tortured and killed animals.
- Jeffrey Dahmer, killed and cannibalized at least 17 people. As a boy, he killed and impaled the heads of cats and dogs on sticks.
- Dennis Rader, the BTK killer in Wichita, KS, killed at least 10 people. He abused and killed animals for practice prior to killing people.
Montana has had one since 1993. Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas all got on board in 2005. In fact, 39 states and the District of Columbia now have laws ensuring that trusts for companion animals are legally enforceable.
Pet trusts received a lot of attention, both positive and negative, shortly after Leona Helmsley died in August 2007, leaving a $12 million trust fund to Trouble, her nine-year-old Maltese. While some people criticized the late billionaire’s pet trust as extravagant, the story highlighted the importance of including companion animals in estate plans as a means for providing continued veterinary care, food, water and companionship.
Up until recently, a guardian who wished to provide for the support of her companion animal could create an “honorary trust,” but there was no guarantee that the animal would actually be cared for and, in fact, many companion animals were literally left out in the cold.
Pet trusts give you peace of mind but must be carefully considered. Here are a few points to remember:
- See the article “Estabishing a Trust for Your Animals” to find out if your state has passed legislation to allow trusts for companion animals. If your state is listed, consider creating a trust for the care of your companion animals. If your state in not listed, contact your state legislator and let him or her know that this issue is important to you.
- The person you select as the trustee should be someone you feel certain will do what is best for your companion animals and will act responsibly.
- In creating a pet trust, an owner must name a trustee (to handle the funds) and a caretaker (to provide the physical care of your companion animals). One person can act in both roles. Provide that person or persons with detailed, written instructions about the care of your animals.
- Don’t forget to plan ahead in writing for the care of your companion animals in the event that you become ill, hospitalized or incapacitated. Make the necessary arrangements with friends or family members: give them access to your home, contact information for your veterinarian and detailed instructions about care. Make sure your family knows that this arrangement is authorized by you.
- Do the math: what would your companion animal need in terms of food and medical expenses to continue living the life he or she currently has?
- Discuss your wishes and needs with a qualified estate planning attorney to determine the best course of action for you.
