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, 2009
ALDF'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.
ALDF attorneys are crime fighters for animals in jurisdictions nationwide
For more than a dozen years, the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Criminal Justice Program (CJP) has been fighting for stronger anti-cruelty laws and more vigorous prosecution of animal abusers. A dedicated staff of attorneys provides free legal assistance to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies around the country, helping to ensure that those working to bring animal abuse cases to court have every available resource at their disposal.
Two recent cases illustrate how CJP goes to bat for animals – and local prosecutors. In May, Mandy Trout, a deputy county attorney in Platte County, Nebraska, contacted Scott Heiser, director of the Criminal Justice Program. Mandy was preparing a case against the owner of Puddles, a 13-year-old Bichon Frise who had suffered such severe neglect that, he had to be euthanized. The little dog, who was blind and deaf, was suffering terribly from a treatable skin condition that his owner ignored, even as Puddles chewed his bleeding limbs for relief. Mandy asked Scott if he would mind reviewing the evidence and recommend how she should proceed.
Scott did better than that. He boarded a plane for Nebraska and took a hands-on approach to assisting Mandy with prosecuting the dog’s owner, whose defense was based in part on her claim that this case was a waste of the court’s time. After the defense tried unsuccessfully to exclude evidence, limit testimony and sanitize the court record, Scott outlined key portions of the State’s closing argument, which Mandy eloquently delivered to the jury. It took the jury only 32 minutes of deliberation to convict Puddles’ owner of misdemeanor animal cruelty, with sentencing to be decided.
Earlier this year, Scott assisted a city attorney in Daytona Beach, Florida, after law enforcement officials seized 32 pit bulls from a home. With fresh wounds on their faces, heads, necks and shoulders, these dogs were clearly being used in a dogfighting operation. ALDF and the city attorney’s primary goal was to ensure the defendant surrendered ownership of these exploited animals, so Scott met with the city attorney and helped prepare for and prevail at the forfeiture hearing.
“These two cases are perfect examples of the services ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program provides,” says Scott. “The cases are from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in terms of the size and the nature of the jurisdictions – rural versus urban. They demonstrate that animal cruelty knows no socio-economic boundaries and that the Criminal Justice Program will work aggressively with law enforcement to see animal abusers prosecuted.”
When it comes to cases involving animal abusers, local prosecutors can count on ALDF to be an aggressive part of the team!
Ask Joyce: Why Isn’t the Mistreatment of Farmed Animals Outlawed?
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF Founder and General Counsel on November 12th, 2008ALDF's "Ask Joyce" column appears in each issue of The Animals' Advocate, ALDF's quarterly publication.
Dear Joyce,
I recently saw a video in which cows were being mistreated. Why isn’t that sort of thing outlawed?
Dear Reader,
Farmed animals--the ten billion cattle, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, turkeys, ducks, geese and other species raised each year in the U.S. for food--have far too little legal protection. There are federal and state laws intended to provide minimum protections during transport and slaughter, but those don’t apply to the care and treatment of animals for the lion’s share of their lives on the “farm.” The majority of state anti-cruelty laws specifically exempt farmed animals from their protections. The massive factories that house these animals treat them as if they were machines and the result is a mountain of misery. Our job (yours and mine) is to speak up for these animals: we need laws that recognize that these animals are sentient and have basic physical and emotional needs. The good news is that things are slow starting to change:
- The voters of Florida (2002), Arizona (2006) and Oregon (2007) have passed statewide bans on the intensive confinement of pigs. Just this month, the voters of California passed Prop 2, banning the intensive confinement of pigs, calves and chickens.
- In 2007, Smithfield Foods, Inc., the largest pork producer in the U.S., announced it would eliminate gestation stalls (intensive confinement) in all of its facilities (Smithfield acknowledged that it was the company’s desire to be sensitive to consumers’ concerns that was in part responsible for its decision). Shortly afterwards, Maple Leaf Foods, the largest pork producer in Canada, agreed that all its operations would do also eliminate gestation stalls.
- McDonald’s and Burger King have announced that they will be steadily increasing their demand that their suppliers provide pork from pigs in group housing.
- ALDF’s lawsuit against Corcpork, a pig breeding facility in California was settled when Corcpork closed its facility forever.
When enough people care, we can change the laws and provide farmed animals the protections they need. Please speak to your state legislators about the suffering of farmed animals. And, don’t forget that each of us has the power to make personal choices. My personal choice is that I don’t eat or wear animals. I hope people reading this article will consider that choice, as well.
Best regards,
Joyce
Here’s the dilemma that some folks I know faced recently, and it’s not the first time that this issue has arisen while I’ve worked for ALDF:
Say a county has seized a bunch of neglected or abused farm animals, or an exotic animal dealer or roadside animal exhibit has shut down, leading to an auction of the animals by either the owners or the county. We can all agree that selling off the animals this way is a bad idea, especially if there are no protections in place to assure they are going to good homes instead of with questionable exhibitors, or back into the hands of their abusers or the abusers’ friends and relatives. A better practice would be to have the county or local humane society take charge of screening potential applicants and investigating their ties to the abuser, if any, and then making thoughtful placements into each new home.
Nevertheless, assume efforts to halt or restructure the auction have failed—do you and your friends or rescue group get organized to go in and buy the animals yourselves and then find them homes so you can assure them a safe, non-exploitative future? Or do you refrain from doing so to prevent enriching the sellers so they cannot then just turn around and use the money to acquire more animals, thus enabling them to stay in the animal business? [In the case of a county or court-ordered auction, the proceeds would go first to reimburse the county’s costs of sale, and then to the abuser.]
In the cases that have crossed my desk, the rescuers, though diverse, have consistently decided to do what they could to buy and save the animals they knew were in jeopardy today, and declined to speculate on how the sellers would respond tomorrow.
What would you do? Why? Let us know in the Comments below.
The Election May Be Over, But Animals Still Need Our Help!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on November 7th, 2008The day after a truly historic election, the Animal Legal Defense Fund launched a new website where you can sign on your support for animals and tell lawmakers that animals deserve basic rights!
Through the Animal Bill of Rights, ALDF is working to show Congress a groundswell of support for legislation that protects animals and recognizes that, like all sentient beings, animals are entitled to basic legal rights in our society.
More than a quarter-million Americans have already signed the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Bill of Rights.
Visit www.AnimalBillofRights.com to sign on your support and speak out to your lawmakers today!
Historic Election Day victory for millions of animals!
The citizens have spoken! On November 4, Californians voted to pass the Standards for Confining Farm Animals Act (Prop 2), which will put a stop to the practice of cramming veal calves, breeding pigs and laying hens into cages and crates so small that the animals cannot turn around. Prop 2 combats some of the worst abuses in factory farming, and abides by the principle that all animals deserve humane treatment, including those raised for food.
Here's what the historic YES! on Prop 2 means:
Preventing cruelty to animals.
Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled
in their wire cages. We wouldn't force our pets to live in filthy,
cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn't force farmed
animals to endure such misery.
Improving our health and food safety.
We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows exposed by a Chino slaughter plant investigation
this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus and
initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farmers have put our health at
risk by allowing these terrible abuses, and now are recklessly telling
us it's okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions.
Supporting family farmers.
California family farmers support Prop 2 because they believe food
quality and safety are enhanced by more humane farming practices. The
agribusiness interests opposing Proposition 2--masquerading as the
deceptively named "Californians for Safe Food"--have a record of duping the public, harming animals, and polluting the environment.
Protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment.
The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms
because of the devastating effects these operations can have on
surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground
untreated--contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and
air. Environmental leaders like Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club
support Prop 2.
A reasonable and common-sense reform.
Prop 2 provides ample time--until 2015--for factory farmers using these
severe confinement methods to shift to more humane practices. Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed similar laws.
Prop 2 is supported by the Animal Legal Defense Fund,
the Humane Society of the United States, the California Veterinary
Medical Association and hundreds of California veterinarians;
California family farmers; the Center for Food Safety, the Consumer
Federation of America, the United Farm Workers Union, the ASPCA, the
Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, and Farm Sanctuary; Republican and Democratic elected
officials, including U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
and state schools chief Jack O'Connell; Episcopal and Methodist church
leaders and the National Catholic Rural Life Conference; and many others.
Thanks to all Californians who helped to pass this critical initiative!
California: Vote YES on Prop 2 Today!
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on November 4th, 2008Calling all California citizens! Today is the day we have the opportunity to make a historic leap forward for farmed animals and affect 20 million lives. The Standards for Confining Farm Animals Act (Prop 2) will put a stop to the practice of cramming veal calves, breeding pigs and laying hens into cages and crates so small that the animals cannot turn around. If you haven't already, vote YES! on Prop 2!
How Does ALDF Celebrate Halloween?
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on October 31st, 2008With costumes and cupcakes, of course!
Here are a few photo highlights of our Halloween festivities.
Horses and livestock haven’t had an easy year. Last year, as gas prices soared to record level highs, reports of animals starving because their owners could no longer afford high hay prices flooded humane agencies. This year, with the economy in the state it’s in, neglect and abandonment cases continue to rise.
As feed prices continue to skyrocket, humane agents predict additional cases of animal neglect. ALDF urges everyone to be especially aware of horses and other farmed animals this winter - animal neglect is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Here are three ways you can help:
- Connect with a local humane agency now and see what their reporting process is so that you know who to contact should you witness neglected animals. They will likely be able to supply you with information/brochures on how to recognize animal neglect.
- Contact law enforcement. It is crucial that the various law enforcement agencies work together toward meaningful resolutions, so be sure that all of them are informed of any situation you witness.
- File all reports via formal written complaint, clearly communicating dates and locations.
Justice in Kentucky is Slippery
Posted by Scott Heiser, Director of ALDF's Criminal Justice Program on October 27th, 2008Just like doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects, Thoroughbred horse trainers have to be licensed to practice their profession. The licensing agency in Kentucky, is the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC). When licensed Thoroughbred horse trainer Joseph D. “J.D.” Crescini pleaded guilty to 16 counts of animal cruelty in Nelson County Circuit Court (for conduct that resulted in the deaths of two horses and the profound suffering of 12 other horses) this fall, I fully expected Mr. Crescini’s days as a licensed Thoroughbred trainer to be over, permanently. So, I did a bit of research before I wrote to the KHRC encouraging them to approve the maximum sanction. I was disappointed to learn that KHRC lacks the authority to permanently revoke a trainer’s license. Rather, the maximum duration of a revocation the KHRC can impose is five years. 810 KAR 1:28. That needs to be changed for future cases.
However, in the meantime, Mr. Crescini had his administrative hearing and the KHRC Stewards found Mr. Crescini in violation of 810 KAR 1:008 (breach of obligation to provide proper care) and 810 KAR 1:025(3)(15& 19) (animal cruelty & acting in a manner inconsistent with the best interests of horse racing).Their sanction: a two-year revocation of his license to train Thoroughbred horses. Wow, that’s a very generous outcome, to say the least. Is Mr. Crescini satisfied? Apparently not, because he’s served notice of his intent to appeal to the full commission.
Given the degree of suffering, the number of animals involved and the aggravated nature of these violations, to say nothing of the obvious breach of his duties as a licensed trainer, the maximum revocation term is more than warranted, even if it is only five years. As the court noted in Deaton v. KHRA, 172 SW 3rd 803 (2005), the KHRA has great latitude in setting sanctions.
It’s one thing for a trainer to be held strictly liable for an owner drugging a racehorse, where a 150-day suspension was upheld (as was the case in Deaton), but it is quite another for a licensed Thoroughbred trainer to kill two horses by starvation, while another 12 horses suffered profound neglect that is tantamount to torture via neglect by starvation. Additionally, one would hope that the full commission would opt to not allow Mr. Crescini to buy his way out of a revocation under 810 KAR 1:28(9) (authorizing a $5,000 fine in lieu of a suspension or revocation).
Say what you will about the status of the animal protection laws of Kentucky, but the legislative policy statement codified in KRS § 230.215 is unambiguous—the KHRC possesses not just the discretion, but the duty to “exclude undesirables” from this industry. Based on his admitted conduct, Mr. Crescini is one such undesirable who has no place in this industry.
Here’s hoping that the full commission agrees.
One Earth: Globalism & Animal Law
Posted by Mark Hawthorne on October 24th, 2008
I was fortunate to attend the 16th-annual animal law conference at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, last weekend. The three-day event brought together attorneys, law students, academics and animal advocates from around the world.
The field of animal law didn’t even exist 30 or so years ago, yet today it is one of the most popular fields for law students eager to make a difference for animals. Interestingly, the conference attracted activists who will likely never see the inside of a courtroom ― they simply want to learn how the law can be used to advance the interests of animals. Oh, and the food was all vegan, which means I put on about three pounds eating baked goods. I felt like Homer Simpson at a Dunkin’ Donuts buffet.
Conference speakers included Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary, Paul Waldau of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Zak Smith of the Natural Resources Defense Council and many, many more outstanding advocates.
The panel that made the biggest impression on me had to do with the state of animal law in China, which is to say none at all. Presented by Paul Littlefair of RSPCA International and Amanda Whitfort, who teaches law at the University of Hong Kong, the session covered the legal and cultural hurdles animal advocates must overcome in Asia. In mainland China, no laws exist to protect animals other than animals living in the wild. Paul Littlefair offered one example of a 22-year-old student named Liu Haiyang, who in 2002 brutally attacked bears at the Beijing Zoo with acid. Chinese officials could not charge him with cruelty to animals (since no such legislation exists in China); instead, they charged him with destruction of public property.
As Paul pointed out, a number of factors hamper the advance of animal-protection laws in China. The Chinese, first of all, regard “animal welfare” as a foreign concept incompatible with Chinese culture. They also see it as anti-human; that is, they’re reluctant to grant rights to animals when human rights are so often violated (sound familiar?). The Chinese also point out the hypocrisy inherent in working to help animals when billions of animals are slaughtered for food each year.
None of this means that animal activists should give up fighting for animals in China, of course. In fact, one bright spot Paul mentioned is that the Chinese are becoming more accustomed to having companion animals, which means they are beginning to see animals are more than simply commodities. If they can see that their dog or cat has feelings, perhaps there’s hope. That may seem like a very small advance, but it is a start.
The One Earth: Globalism & Animal Law conference was hosted by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) of Lewis & Clark Law School.
California: Help Farmed Animals and Vote YES! on Prop 2
Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF's Execuctive Director on October 22nd, 2008This November 4, please vote YES! on Proposition 2.
The Standards for Confining Farm Animals Act (Prop 2) will put a stop to the practice of cramming veal calves, breeding pigs and laying hens into cages and crates so small that the animals cannot turn around. Prop 2 combats some of the worst abuses in factory farming, and abides by the principle that all animals deserve humane treatment, including those raised for food.
Here's what voting YES! on Prop 2 means:
Preventing cruelty to animals.
Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn't force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn't force farmed animals to endure such misery.
Improving our health and food safety.
We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows exposed by a Chino slaughter plant investigation this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farmers have put our health at risk by allowing these terrible abuses, and now are recklessly telling us it's okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions.
Supporting family farmers.
California family farmers support Prop 2 because they believe food quality and safety are enhanced by more humane farming practices. The agribusiness interests opposing Proposition 2--masquerading as the deceptively named "Californians for Safe Food"--have a record of duping the public, harming animals, and polluting the environment.
Protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment.
The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground untreated--contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. Environmental leaders like Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club support Prop 2.
A reasonable and common-sense reform.
Prop 2 provides ample time--until 2015--for factory farmers using these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed similar laws.
Prop 2 is supported by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, the California Veterinary Medical Association and hundreds of California veterinarians; California family farmers; the Center for Food Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the United Farm Workers Union, the ASPCA, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Farm Sanctuary; Republican and Democratic elected officials, including U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and state schools chief Jack O'Connell; Episcopal and Methodist church leaders and the National Catholic Rural Life Conference; and many others.
Join the broad coalition supporting Prop 2. Vote YES! on Prop 2 and encourage your friends and family to do the same.
"We clasp the hands of those that go before us, and the hands of those who come after us."
Those words, written by Wendell Berry, summarize my feelings about the 16th Annual Animal Law Conference held at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, this past weekend.
I had the opportunity to spend time with two dear friends, Steve Wise and David Favre, both of whom I first met in 1981, both of whom have served on the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s board of directors and both of whom have distinguished themselves as giants in the field of animal law through their law review articles and books. I also spent time with some of the second generation stars of the animal law movement: Professor Paul Waldau, Professor Rebecca Huss, who served as the Special Master in the Michael Vick case, Kathy Hessler, Nancy Perry of HSUS, and attorney/author Bruce Wagman, among others. And, I met many eager and committed law students who are attending law school in order to practice animal law in the future. Three generations of animal law enthusiasts met at the beautiful wooded campus of Lewis & Clark Law School to share our ideas, discuss the latest issues and form the bonds that will enable us to work together to protect the interests of animals.
It was an excellent conference, by any standard, with sophisticated topics and top of the line speakers. Soon, you will be able to download podcasts of the conference panels at the Center for Animal Law Studies website. (Stay tuned for details!) Lewis & Clark Law School has been a leader in animal law education since 1992, when Nancy Perry, then a law student at the school, founded the first student chapter of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Nancy and her classmates quickly followed that accomplishment with the founding of an animal law class and finally the creation of the first scholarly journal devoted to animal law issues. Each of those groundbreaking programs is still thriving and growing at Lewis & Clark. ALDF has proudly supported these efforts from the start, providing funding to print and mail the law journal and working with the students to assure a high quality conference. Pam Frasch, who was part of ALDF’s senior management staff, has taught the animal law class at Lewis & Clark for ten years.
This conference heralded an exciting new collaboration between Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lewis & Clark Law School and a new era in the field of animal law: the establishment of the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark. The center will expand the teaching of animal law far beyond what presently exists today. It will provide clinical opportunities in litigation and legislative drafting, fellowships and visiting scholar programs. Pam Frasch has transitioned from her role at ALDF to serve as the Center’s executive director, and Professor Kathy Hessler, former associate director of the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Conflict and Dispute Resolution at Case Western Reserve School of Law and a former board member of ALDF, will serve as the Center’s clinical director. Laura Handsel will round out the staff of the center, providing administrative support. Robert Klonoff, the dean of Lewis & Clark Law School has committed himself to help build the Center, so that Lewis & Clark will be the preferred destination for all law students who wish to study animal law. Frankly, if I were starting law school today, Lewis & Clark would be my first choice!
It has been a very special weekend. My voice is hoarse from talking to so many people in the last two days and my body is tired, but my mind is racing through “to do” lists of the many activities we are planning. I can’t wait to share with you all that the Center for Animal Law Studies, Lewis & Clark and ALDF will achieve over the next few years. Stay tuned, because we will be reporting on some very exciting developments in the near future!
Free Shipping on ALDF Merchandise This Weekend Only
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on October 17th, 2008Have you checked out ALDF's new merchandise designs yet? If not, now is a good time to do so! Our merchandise partner, Cafe Press, is offering FREE SHIPPING on all orders $50 or more, now until Sunday, October 19th. Use coupon code: WEEKEND50
You can choose from our classic designs like our logowear or Innocent Clients, or get tatted-up with our new tattoo inspired ALDF Sparrow, Lover Not A Fighter, and Innocent Puppy designs. Our Innocent Puppy design is also available on childrens apparel.
Whatever your flavor, take advantage of this special offer and show your support for animals with these ALDF designs.
Jamie returned to the water spigot and I prepared for my third consecutive dousing. She delights in getting a rise out of visitors by taking mouthfuls of water and spitting on them. I decided to take it as a sign of affection.
Watch this video of Jamie delighting in her water games.
Jamie is one of seven chimpanzees recently arrived at the brand new Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest (CSNW). Jamie and her six companions will live out the rest of their lives in this safe, caring and comfortable home. In August, I was visiting my good friend and colleague Sarah Baeckler, who is now the executive director of the sanctuary, and had an opportunity to visit with the chimps as well. In keeping with the desire of the sanctuary to let the chimps be chimps with limited human interference, I sat just outside the chimps’ indoor pen. I watched them play with toys, including a fire truck sent by a caring donor from Ireland, and chase each other around, reveling in their newfound space and companionship.
Also new is the chimps’ diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and grains -- quite a change from the monotonous “monkey chow” biscuits they were fed daily in captivity. I volunteered to prepare dinner for the seven chimps and was told to be creative. So I made them some pasta noodles with fresh coconut chunks, tomatoes and peanut butter. This was accompanied by fresh vegetables and fruit. I was informed later by the staff that the chimps loved their dinner, and that Burrito, the only male of the group, took a second bowl while making noises of delight.
The CSNW staff--Sarah; J.B. Mulcahy, director of operations; Diana Goodrich, director of outreach, and Keith LaChappelle, founding director--are among the most caring and dedicated people you could possibly meet. I left realizing the magnitude of their commitment and of the need to provide a home to the hundreds of chimps who languish in abusive or neglectful situations in cages barely big enough for them to take a step in.
ALDF is committed to working with CSNW and other sanctuaries to make sure that every chimpanzee who needs safe haven finds one.
Watch this ABC World News report about CSNW and its seven rescued residents.
Double Your Impact For Animal Protection
Posted by Joyce Tischler, ALDF's Founder and General Counsel on October 15th, 2008
The horror is finally over. This summer, the Animal Legal Defense Fund helped rescue hundreds of dogs and cats, who for years were hoarded, abused, and neglected at All Creatures Great and Small "shelter" in Henderson, North Carolina.
Help us continue saving animals' lives and double the impact of your support for animal protection through the Animal Legal Defense Fund's 2008 Matching Gift Challenge! Between now and November 1, every contribution ALDF receives up to $30,000 will be matched, dollar-for-dollar.
Your gift will help us to continue to systematically fight animal abuse and neglect for the animals who are so desperately in need of our protection.
After months of relentless advocacy and with the threat of an ALDF lawsuit, All Creatures Great and Small was finally shut down earlier this year and will be demolished. Hundreds of dogs and cats have been freed from the filthy "shelter" that once held them thanks to ALDF's unique expertise and exceptional team of attorneys.
Your support enables us to put all of our legal muscle into the fight to help animals like the dogs and cats abused at All Creatures Great and Small. With additional resources, we can help even more animals - and that's what makes this matching gift opportunity so exciting.
Please don't let this matching gift opportunity slip by - double the impact of your support today!
ALDF T-shirts & Animal-Loving Tough Guys Sport Tats
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on October 14th, 2008
In late August, the time of year I can conjure nights spent outside as a teenager shouting with friends and feeling the steam creep off of Manhattan sidewalks, The New York Times published a story about an unexpected breed of New York denizens. “Heaven’s Angels” told the tale of a gang of animal-loving, tattooed bikers who go by the name Rescue Ink and put their substantial muscle and, presumably, their not-insubstantial powers of intimidation into protecting the city’s animals from abuse. It’s such a heartwarming feature, and even if you don’t have time to read it, I really suggest you at least check out the corresponding slideshow “Tough Guys with Puppies” where you’ll see, among other “awww” inducing sights, a 74-year old biker named Batso with a tattooed face, snuggling with a pit bull puppy.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is also getting in on the ink-for-animals act this month, with some fun new designs available at our online Café Press store. The three new designs were hand drawn by local tattoo artist Lewis Gold, and include our “Lover, Not a Fighter” rooster, a lovely sparrow holding up the “Animal Legal Defense Fund” banner, and, for the kids (human and canine), 
an “Always Innocent” puppy making mischief in a Radio Flyer wagon.
Whether you’re a tatted-up animal advocate yourself, or just looking for a satisfyingly subversive gift for your nieces and nephews, check out our new designs—and let us know what you think!
Ben's "Cruise for Compassion" Raises $10,500 for ALDF
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on October 10th, 2008After a lifetime of suffering in horrific conditions on the property of convicted animal abusers in the small town of Sanford, North Carolina, a Jack Russell Terrier named 
Ben who was rescued by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in a groundbreaking lawsuit cruised with his Annapolis-based adoptive family in a gala fundraiser for the animal organization. Michelle and Larry Kownacki, owners of Paws pet boutique, host Ben's Cruise for Compassion fundraiser "to show their appreciation to ALDF." “We thought what better way to raise money and awareness for this worthy cause than to rent a boat and cruise around Annapolis with other animal-lovers and their dogs” explains Michelle. It was a reunion of sorts when two other dogs rescued by ALDF from the same case joined as guests on this year's cruise.
The three hour cruise on Watermark’s Harbor Queen left the Annapolis city dock on September 12th with over one hundred people aboard, and nearly as many dogs. With live entertainment by the Dan Haas Trio Band and food donated by many local businesses, all aboard enjoyed a night to remember. Prizes donated by generous merchants for the silent auction kept a good number of guests glued to the prize table on the lower level of the boat. “This year, with the help of my friend Madeline Davis, we added a pre-cruise raffle with two round-trip tickets on Southwest Airlines as the grand prize. Many Annapolis visitors and those who were not able to make the cruise appreciated the opportunity to participate in the ALDF fundraiser,” states Michelle.
As a result of these fundraising efforts, a donation of over $10,500 was made to ALDF to help stop animal abuse and neglect. “Ben inspires us and makes us smile every day. His life is priceless, so it’s the least we can do to thank ALDF for all their efforts as they continue to fight for animals so they have a chance live a life they deserve,” concludes Michelle.
ALDF sends a huge thank you to Michelle, Larry, Madeline, and all who supported Ben's Third Annual Cruise for Compassion fundraiser!
A Major Victory for Animal Guardians
Posted by Matthew Liebman, ALDF Staff Attorney on October 7th, 2008The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington just released a published opinion in an important case brought by ALDF member and animal lawyer Adam Karp, and in which ALDF attorneys filed an amicus brief. The case, Sherman v. Kissinger, No. 60137-7-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2008), stemmed from the death of Ruby, a toy poodle, following an unauthorized procedure by her veterinarian. Represented by Karp, Ruby’s guardian Arlene Sherman sued the vet and the hospital, bringing claims for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, trespass to chattels, breach of bailment contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
At issue in the appeal was whether Washington’s medical malpractice statute, chapter 7.70 RCW, applied to lawsuits involving allegations of malpractice by veterinarians. Although one might assume that applying a human health statute to veterinarians would be a good thing for animals and their guardians, in fact, the opposite is true. Chapter 7.70 establishes a number of impediments to malpractice suits, including mandatory mediation, a shorter statute of limitations, and the elimination of alternative causes of action, many of which are relied on by animal law practitioners to enhance claims on behalf of animal guardians. The Court of Appeals agreed with Sherman’s position, holding that the medical malpractice statute did not apply to veterinary malpractice suits, and that Sherman was entitled to pursue the alternative causes of action that the trial court had thrown out.
The second issue, the one on which ALDF submitted an amicus brief, was how to put a value on Ruby to compensate Sherman for her loss. ALDF argued that Ruby was a unique individual who was irreplaceable; the only way to even approach adequately compensating Sherman was to give her the special value that she placed on the dog, also known as “intrinsic value.” The defendants position, which was supported by an amicus brief from pet industry organizations including the American Kennel Club, was that Sherman was only entitled to the market value of Ruby, an amount of $100-$200. Under Washington law, an individual is entitled to the intrinsic value of her companion if she can show the animal has no market value. The court held, importantly, that the question of whether an animal has any market value is one left to the jury to decide. All the plaintiff must do is present evidence that the animal lacks a market value and a replacement value (perhaps because of her age, mixed breed status, or health), and the question goes to the jury on the animal’s value. Because juries are often sympathetic to the real value people place on their animal companions, this is a major victory for guardians.
ALDF send its hearty congratulations to Adam Karp and Arlene Sherman for this significant victory, and to Claire Davis at the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who assisted with ALDF’s amicus brief.
While many in this country like to exalt with nationalist zeal how “advanced” our systems of government are, the sad truth is we remain far behind the curve when it comes to enshrining the protection of nature and animals in our legal system. In order to gain standing to sue in American courts, attorneys are forced to convert every assault against the Earth and its nonhuman inhabitants into an offense against human beings. This anthropocentric narcissism prevents us from addressing the injuries suffered by the Earth and animals unless these injuries happen to impinge on the interests of some human being. When we do succeed in getting standing to sue, it is premised on the aesthetic interests of the humans who view suffering animals or the tourists who enjoy recreating in wild places; the independent interests of the animals and the Earth count for nothing.
Yet while our legal system languishes in this myopic speciesism, the people of Ecuador just last week approved a sweeping new constitution that makes that country the first in the world to give legally enforceable constitutional rights to nature. The new consititutional provision states:
“Nature or Pachamama [an indigenous term for Mother Earth], where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognition of rights for nature before the public bodies.”
There are a few things that are especially remarkable about the Ecuadorian constitutional provision.
First, it explicitly recognizes nature in terms of indigenous worldviews, using the term “Pachamama” as well as “nature.” By invoking the indigenous term, the constitution acknowledges alternative conceptions of the Earth and our place in it. Dr. Martin Melo, an environmental attorney, stated his belief that “the new constitution reflects the traditions of indigenous peoples living in Ecuador, who see nature as a mother and call her by a proper name, Pachamama,” in contrast to the purely instrumental worldview that dominates American environmental law.
Second, the constitution not only recognizes the rights of nature, it also seems to provide a cause of action to enforce those rights, permitting “[e]very person, people, community or nationality . . . to demand the recognition of rights for nature before the public bodies.” Animal law attorneys are acutely aware of the frequency with which our animal protection laws are violated, yet we are often unable to enforce those laws. This provision seems to permit anyone to go into court to “demand” enforcement of nature’s constitutional rights.
Finally, it is very interesting to note that this provision was drafted with input from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a public interest law organization based in the U.S. When it was founded in 1995, CELDF spearheaded a domestic initiative to encourage municipalities to grant rights to nature, and now it has gone international. Several other countries have also reportedly contacted CELDF to ask for its assistance in drafting constitutional provisions for ecosystem rights. This gives hope that other U.S. non-profits, including those in the animal law realm, can work with local and indigenous activists to encourage governments to recognize the rights of nonhumans. (It should go without saying that these indigenous and local peoples must be recognized as the leaders of these reforms.)
Of course, there are plenty of reasons to be cynical. Some critics have argued that the provision will be subservient to the will of Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who has favored extractive economic development and overridden some forms of indigenous control of the land base. And like any legal provision, the devil is in the interpretive details and the degree of respect accorded to the constitution by those in power. It remains to be seen how seriously the rights of nature will be taken by the Ecuadorian government. After all, the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution have not thus far prevented the U.S. government from denying basic decency to the people in its control.
Cyril Mychalejko’s article sums it up well: “Despite any shortcomings, the eyes of the world should stay on Ecuador . . . . If history is any indicator, Ecuadorians will fight for the Rights of Nature, with or without President Correa.”
Dancing (In Celebration) With Wolves
Posted by Tony Eliseuson, ALDF Volunteer Attorney Member on September 30th, 2008As reported by CNN and other sources, United States District Court Judge Paul Friedman ruled yesterday that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Fish and Wildlife Service”) may have improperly removed the Great Lakes Gray Wolves from the endangered species list. The court found that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to address critical statutory ambiguities in the Endangered Species Act in promulgating a final rule that had delisted the Great Lakes Gray Wolves. Importantly, the court not only disagreed with the agency’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, it also exercised its discretion to vacate the rule they promulgated before remanding. This means the Great Lakes Gray Wolf will remain protected while the agency reconsiders its position. A PDF copy of Judge Friedman’s opinion can be found here, and the case is entitled The Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, Case No. 07-0677 (D.D.C. 2008).
The court’s decision in Kempthorne is the second recent victory for the gray wolf. Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service was allowed to voluntarily return the Rocky Mountain gray Wolf to the endangered species list after the judge in that case had enjoined wolf hunts in several Rocky Mountain states in response to a challenge by animal rights groups to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to delist the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
These are important victories not only for the gray wolf, but for endangered species more generally. In recent years the Fish and Wildlife Service had been more aggressive in delisting endangered species. According to CNN, an attorney from the Center for Biological Diversity pointed out that “[t]he Bush administration's repeated attempts to push the limits of the Endangered Species Act [toward delisting] have been decidedly rejected by the courts,” including this most recent ruling by Judge Friedman.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to list endangered or threaten “species,” and the term “species” is defined to include a “distinct population segment” or DPS. (Op. at 1-2.) Accordingly, courts have held that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to recognize that a specific DPS is endangered or threatened, and to list only that DPS as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. (Id. at 7.)
In Kempthorne, however, the issue was whether the Fish and Wildlife Service could do the opposite: create a specific DPS of an otherwise endangered species, and then enter a rule finding that such DPS should be delisted even though the “species” in general remained endangered. (Id. at 1-2, 6-7.) Specifically, in Kempthorne, the gray wolf was a listed “species.” The Fish and Wildlife Service then decided to designate a specific cluster of the gray wolf, the Great Lakes Gray Wolf, as a DPS. The Fish and Wildlife Service then found that this DPS of the gray wolf was no longer endangered or threatened and delisted it. (Id.)
The plaintiffs in Kempthorne raised several arguments as to why the Fish and Wildlife Service’s action in this regard was in error, including the argument that a DPS could not be created in order to delist that DPS under the Endangered Species Act. (Id. at 10-11.) The court found this argument dispositive because it disagreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination that the use of the DPS as a delisting tool was unambiguously supported by the text of the Endangered Species Act. The court rejected the Fish and Wildlife Service’s reading of the Endangered Species Act, and remanded the issue to the agency because the Endangered Species Act was, at best, ambiguous on this point. (Id. at 13-24 (discussing the text and legislative history of the Endangered Species Act with regard to this issue).) Accordingly, the court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to “at a minimum . . . explain how its interpretation of the statue conforms to the text, structure and legislative history of the Endangered Species Act; how its interpretation is consistent with judicial interpretations of the Endangered Species Act (if there are any on point); and how its interpretation serves the Endangered Species Act’s myriad policy objectives. It must also address any legitimate concerns that its interpretation could undermine those policy objectives.” (Id. at 24.)
Thus, the next step lies with the Fish and Wildlife Service to justify its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. But in light of the court’s decision, it will be difficult for the Fish and Wildlife Service to justify its policy of delisting subsets of endangered species under an act that was designed to protect species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Hopefully this time the Fish and Wildlife Service will actually consider that purpose before reaching a decision on the gray wolf.
I’ve decided that I’m going to be like Angelina Jolie. [If you’ve seen what I look like, you’re likely asking “how ya gonna pull that off?”] What I mean is, in terms of politics. Remember a few weeks ago when she responded to reporters’ requests to reveal which presidential candidate she would vote for, and she demurred, saying she was waiting to hear the candidates’ position on the issue closest to her heart--international refugees and orphans--before deciding? Now, I don’t believe Angelina is a single-issue voter, and neither am I, but let’s just say we are for today, in case the media comes clamoring to our doorstep again. My heartfelt issue? Animal welfare of course. Where do the candidates stand on protecting animals and their habitats?
Barak Obama’s position is basically outlined here, under the Issues section of his website in a subsection called Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen:
Here you can see his take on gun control, hunting and conserving wildlife and fish, national forests, wetlands, and climate change. (PDF)
John McCain covers the same territory as Obama but in 2 separate sections of his website, one called Natural Heritage and one called Climate Change.
Perhaps the most helpful comparison may be found on the Humane USA website, which has a scorecard containing the above Senators’ votes on animal-related legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate during the past year. Humane USA bills itself as the nation’s largest animal protection political action committee.
However you vote, inform yourself with the facts that matter most to you, and vote. Now, I must touch up my lipstick in case the media comes calling, mistaking me for Angie.
David Foster Wallace Dies at 46
Posted by Lisa Franzetta, ALDF's Director of Communications on September 17th, 2008Like so many of us, I opened my newspaper this weekend to read in shock about the suicide of noted author David Foster Wallace. I wouldn’t presume to comment on the life or the written achievements of a man widely considered one of the literary geniuses of his generation, other than to express my own sadness at the tragedy of his premature death. I’ll echo the sentiment of a radio commentator I heard memorializing him earlier this week, who suggested that when such a brilliant mind takes his own life, the rest of us are left to wonder, darkly—“what did he know that we don’t?”
Many in both culinary and animal protection circles will remember Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster,” in which he explored the moral issues raised by inflicting suffering on even the primitive lobster—“basically giant sea-insects”—for the sake of a palate preference. In 2003, Wallace had been sent by Gourmet magazine to cover the Maine Lobster Festival. However, instead of reporting back solely on the myriad ways of preparing lobster and serving it on Styrofoam trays to 80,000 tourists hopped up on melted butter, his essay treaded unapologetically into much deeper waters:
So then here is a question that’s all but unavoidable at the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, and may arise in kitchens across the U.S.: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure? A related set of concerns: Is the previous question irksomely PC or sentimental? What does “all right” even mean in this context? Is it all just a matter of individual choice?Wallace used his characteristic candor to pull-no-punches with his flawless prose, even as he recognized that his take on the subject was likely to unsettle the unsuspecting Gourmet reader:
The more important point here, though, is that the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it’s also uncomfortable. It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me, and for just about everyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel or unfeeling. As far as I can tell, my own main way of dealing with this conflict has been to avoid thinking about the whole unpleasant thing. I should add that it appears to me unlikely that many readers of gourmet wish to think hard about it, either, or to be queried about the morality of their eating habits in the pages of a culinary monthly. Since, however, the assigned subject of this article is what it was like to attend the 2003 MLF, and thus to spend several days in the midst of a great mass of Americans all eating lobster, and thus to be more or less impelled to think hard about lobster and the experience of buying and eating lobster, it turns out that there is no honest way to avoid certain moral questions.His voice will be missed by so many, including the many whose eyes were first opened to considering the ethical meaning of our interactions with even the maybe-not-so-simple-after-all lobster. You can read the full text of David Foster Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster” here.
Next month, Animal Legal Defense Fund staff will be meeting law students at the Equal Justice Works conference in Washington, DC. Equal Justice Works (EJW) is a pioneering organization founded by law students and dedicated to “creating a just society by mobilizing the next generation of lawyers committed to equal justice.” (That’s a mission ALDF can get behind!) But, until recently, that vision had not included the concept of justice for animals.
In 2001, when she was in law school, our own Pam Hart, now the director of ALDF’s Animal Law Program, had sought a fellowship through EJW to work to find ways to provide shelter to victims of domestic violence and their companion animals. At the time, the project was considered not focused enough on human beings.
Four years later, in 2005, Pam Hart and I attended the EJW conference and hosted a table for ALDF. It was the first time an animal protection group had attended. Our goal was to offer new opportunities to EJW for students whose own vision of justice included nonhuman animals. Our reception was a mix of enthusiasm from students at the event and some puzzlement from many of the other organizations in attendance.
One student, Tom Linney, had never heard of animal law before talking to us. What he heard made him very excited. So excited that he went back to his school, the University of Texas School of Law, formed a student chapter of ALDF and successfully petitioned the school to add an animal law class too.
With that kind of potential, it’s a given that ALDF will be back at EJW next month. Like EJW, ALDF is committed to mobilizing the next generation of lawyers to work for the cause of equal justice. For us, of course, that vision includes justice for nonhuman animals. Our hope is that we can provide opportunities -- eventually to include paid fellowships -- for those law students who share our vision.
Stunningly Great News Out of Puerto Rico
Posted by Stephan Otto, ALDF's Director of Legislative Affairs on September 12th, 2008With very little fanfare in the rest of the U.S., Puerto Rico has enacted a landmark animal protection law, based, in large part, directly on Animal Legal Defense Fund's Model Laws!
Included are felonies for neglect, abandonment, cruelty and fighting; statutory recognition of the link between cruelty to animals and violence toward humans through increased penalties for those with prior animal abuse, domestic violence, child/elder abuse, or who commit the acts in front of minors; "abuse" includes emotional harm; protective orders; duty to enforce -- and much more.
Also, an interesting aside -- this bill sailed through their legislature. It was introduced in May -- in the Governor's hands in early July -- signed into law and went in effect last month. That feat, in and of itself, is very remarkable.
Until we receive the officially-translated version, below is a draft overview of many of the new provisions. Still seemingly absent from the law, are mental health, better cost management/mitigation, possession bans and forfeiture provisions. That said, a very big advance for Puerto Rico.
Here's to Puerto Rico!
Overview of Act 154 (P S. 2552)
* = directly from (or closely based on) ALDF Model Laws
- Comprehensive definitions, including the establishment of minimum care standards*:
- Quantity and quality of food sufficient to allow the growth or maintenance of normal body weight
- Open access to adequate water of a safe temperate and in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an animal
- Access to a barn, house or other structure that can protect the animal from inclement weather and a place to sleep that is protected from cold, excessive heat and humidity
- Veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person
- Continuous access to an area of adequate space necessary for the health of the animal, of a suitable temperature, adequate ventilation, regular cycles of light, an environment free and clear of excess waste or other pollutants that may affect the health of the animal
- Definition and use of "guardian" = a person who has control, custody, possession or title of an animal*
- Definitions for "physical injury" "serious physical injury" "torture" "physical trauma"*
- Definition of "abuse" includes any act or omission whereby a person, whether or not the guardian, puts an animal at risk of physical or emotional harm
- Duty to respond/enforce: Includes an order that municipalities must comply with the law and give "priority attention" to cases of abuse and neglect. Cities, in coordination with the territorial government, must respond to cases of abuse, and seize and care for abused. Joint planning services, public education and information, training of law enforcement are also all mandated.
- Duty on municipalities to respond to animals in emergency situations.
- Emergency planning: Municipalities shall, within one year's time, develop management plans to deal with animals in emergencies
- Coordination and cooperation with NGOs: Government and citizens at every level are encouraged to coordinate and cooperate with NGOs in planning, development and services related to reducing animal abuse and thwarting community violence.
- Animal abandonment is established as a crime* and is punishable as a 4th degree felony carrying a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment and fines -- and a 3rd degree felony with a maximum of 8 years imprisonment and fines if the animal suffers severe physical injury or death as a result.
- Confinement of animals without adequate space or with restriction of movement is an offense punishable by fines and a maximum of 90 days on a first offense and up to 6 months on any additional offenses
- Animal Neglect is established as a crime and means a failure to provide minimum care.* It is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Animal Neglect also includes a duty of a motorist to assist and notify law enforcement when an animal is struck by their vehicle.*
- Aggravated Animal Neglect is established as a crime and means a failure to provide minimum care to an animal resulting in severe physical injury or death of the animal.* It is punishable by a maximum of three years imprisonment and fines.
- Animal Abuse II means to cause any physical injury or suffering to an animal.* It is punishable as a 4th degree felony with a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment and fines. Notwithstanding this sentence, if an offender has a prior record of animal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse or elder abuse, or commits the offense in the presence of a minor, the penalty is a 3rd degree felony with a maximum sentence of 8 years.*
- Animal Abuse I means causing severe physical injury or death of an animal.* It is punishable as a 3rd degree felony with a maximum sentence of 8 years imprisonment and fines. Notwithstanding this sentence, if an offender has a prior record of animal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse or elder abuse, or commits the offense in the presence of a minor, the penalty is a 2nd degree felony with a maximum sentence of 15 years.*
- Aggravated Animal Abuse means to torture an animal or kill it under circumstances demonstrating serious malice or willful disregard for life.* It is punishable as an aggravated 2nd degree felony with a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment and fines. Notwithstanding this sentence, if an offender has a prior record of animal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse or elder abuse, or commits the offense in the presence of a minor, the penalty is a 2nd degree felony without the possibility of parole.*
- Animal Fighting, including among other things, possession of fighting animals and equipment and spectatorship (but not including cock fighting) is a 2nd degree felony, however, if an offender has a prior record of animal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse or elder abuse, or commits the offense in the presence of a minor, or if as a result of the fight, an animal dies, the penalty is a 2nd degree felony without the possibility of parole.* In addition, all animals, equipment, material and/or money seized are confiscated. Seized fighting animals may be euthanized if deemed hazardous, or delivered to a shelter for the possibility of adoption.
- Inhumane Transport of Animals is an offense punishable by a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment and fines.
- Animal Abuse by Legal Entities is punishable with the same penalties as for individuals. In addition, the owner of a company convicted may not engage in any future management of animals.
- Animal Poisoning is a punishable as offense, 4th degree felony or 3rd degree felony depending upon the circumstances.
- Use of Traps or Devices to Capture Animals without taking necessary steps to prevent an injury or unnecessary suffering of an animal is an offense on first offense and a 4th degree felony on subsequent offenses. Notwithstanding, if an animal is severely injured or dies from the trap, the penalty is a 4th degree felony on first offense
- Euthanasia guidelines: AVMA guidelines and by a veterinarian or adequately trained staff; animal should be "cared for though out the process" and death must be certified by a vet. Violation of this is a 3rd degree felony.
- Protective Orders must be given by courts when requested by petitioner in domestic violence cases. They may also be issued to protect shelters holding animals seized pursuant to abuse charges.
- Seizure of Animals: Animals may be seized when a person is charged with animal abuse.
- Animal Breeder Regulation
- Reimbursement of Costs/Lien: Costs of care for a seized animals is a lien on the animal and must be satisfied before an animal is returned to an owner following an acquittal or dismissal of charges.* If such costs are not satisfied within 30 days following the resolution of the criminal case, the animal is forfeited. Costs may be still be collected in such cases, through a separate civil action.
- Experimentation on Live Animals: Restrictions on scientific research at universities -- "absolutely essential" criteria; experiments are prohibited for educational purposes at the elementary, intermediate and higher levels.
- Pay Fines or Go to Jail: If an offender cannot pay a fine imposed, they must go to jail and earn an offset of $50 per day served
Versions of the new law is available here in English and Spanish. (PDF)
As you may know from my biography on this blog (which features a picture of me with Dylan, a precocious one-and-a-half-year-old golden retriever), my girlfriend Kirsten and I are proud parents of one dog. But we always wanted Dylan to have another dog to play with, and Kirsten has always wanted a beagle, so we decided to find Dylan’s beagle-brother.
Kirsten and I were limiting our search for Dylan’s beagle-brother to rescue organizations. There are many beagles available for adoption at shelters--especially in light of flooding in the Midwest and current economic conditions in general--and we wanted to save one of those rather than creating more demand for breeder-raised beagles. We began our search on petfinder.com, a website that lists dogs (and other animals) that are available from many rescue organizations all over the country. We looked at pictures of potential puppies for weeks before finally deciding to get serious about adopting and contacting one specific organization when we saw an adorable picture of a beagle named Lil’ Lincoln.
Lincoln was being cared for by a great group of volunteers at BREW Beagles. BREW was founded in 1999 and is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to rescuing and re-homing beagles, primarily saving beagles from kill shelters. BREW’s volunteers provide foster homes to these beagles until they find their “forever family.” BREW also does an excellent job of supporting new and potential families by providing them with an adoption counselor that guides them through the adoption approval process, including answering questions. BREW also provides a supportive community to help adoptive families after they have adopted. Kirsten and I found this process to be smooth and painless, as well as very helpful.
We were approved by BREW, but we found yet another puppy that we fell in love with on petfinder.com. This beagle (or more likely beagle-mix) was available from a local rescue organization that saved him and his liter-mates from a kill shelter. The rescue group, named Animal House Shelter, Inc., did not know the background on this beagle, but that didn’t matter to us. We submitted an online application and were called back the next day and told to come out over the weekend and meet the puppy that we had been looking at. We all piled in the car on Saturday morning, including Mr. Dylan (who had the ultimate authority to approve or disprove of his beagle-brother to be).
Although Dylan was a bit tentative at first about the little guy that wanted to play with him, the two quickly hit it off and we decided to adopt the puppy that was to be named Watson. One of the volunteer vets at Animal House Shelter made sure that Dylan and Watson were compatible (and they passed with flying colors), and we were on our way to having a new member of the household. We brought Watson home that same day and he quickly adjusted to his new environment (including the quick realization that all toys, even the really little ones, were going to be Dylan’s toys until he got bored with them!).
In short, I wanted to write this post to share our experience in adopting a rescue puppy so that people would know how easy the process can be. As we quickly discovered, there are many great dogs (and other animals) looking to be rescued and to find their “forever family.”
The Third Circuit all but dares the Supreme Court to update First Amendment jurisprudence, but will the Feds petition for Cert?
Back in 1999, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, H.R. 1887 (now codified at 18 USC § 48) creating the federal crime of “Depiction of Animal Cruelty.” This law was originally intended to address the problems commonly associated with identifying and prosecuting the producers of “crush videos.” The “test case” as to the constitutionality of this law has finally worked its way up from the trenches and into an en banc opinion from the Third Circuit, United States v. Stevens. In light of the legislative history of H.R. 1887, the facts of this case are quite unfortunate, making the holding in Stevens anything but surprising. In short, Stevens was indicted for three counts of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty. In all three counts, the depictions were of pit bulls either fighting each other or in one case being trained for “hog-dog fighting” (the pit-on-pit fights were filmed back in the 1960s and 70s from within the United States, while the more recent footage was from dogfights held in Japan)—no crush videos involved. Stevens advertised these videos for sale in Sporting Dog Journal and was ultimately sentenced to 37 months of prison after a federal jury unanimously convicted him on each of the three counts. The defendant appealed the US District Court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment on defendant’s claim that 18 USC § 48 violated the First Amendment.
The majority opinion opens with this gem: “The Supreme Court has not recognized a new category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment in over twenty-five years. Nonetheless, in this case the Government invites this Court to take just such a step in order to uphold the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 48 and to affirm Robert Stevens’ conviction [footnotes omitted].” The majority opinion ultimately agreed with the defendant, striking 18 USC § 48 as a violation of the First Amendment.
If the facts in Stevens weren’t so weak, I would be the first to argue that the Government should file a petition for certiorari, but on these facts, and this record, despite the best efforts of the good people in the U.S. Attorney’s office (Western District, Pennsylvania) one must hold firm and wait for one or two more Circuits to rule, perhaps generating a split of opinion among the Circuits on a case with better facts than in Stevens. Otherwise, it’s time to go back to Congress for a redraft. The 90-day clock on the Government’s Petition for certiorari is running (Rule 41 of Federal Rules Appellate Procedure). Odds are, the Stevens opinion stands… For now.
Dogfighting Raid in Bronx, NY - Show Your Support on September 8th
Posted by April Nockleby, ALDF's Online Content Manager on September 5th, 2008In June, a team of New York and New Jersey authorities rescued 16 pit bulls and arrested seven men after raiding a Bronx neighborhood dogfighting ring allegedly run by defendant Alexander Estephane. For one embattled dog, rescue came to late despite veterinary intervention. The men face felony and misdemeanor charges of animal fighting as well as gambling.
If you are local resident or plan on being in the Bronx area, please show support your community and the prosecution by attending court proceedings on Monday, September 8th. The Court opens at 9:30am, however, no set start times are
scheduled for individual hearings. (Always contact the Court to confirm
court dates as they are subject to change.)
Bronx Supreme Court
12th Judicial District
265 East 161st Street
Bronx, NY 10451
718-618-3100 (choose 7)
Additional court information online at: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Login
Docket Number #02688-2008
Criminal Case Numbers are #36620C-2008 through #36626C-2008
Thank you for all that you do for animals! Your efforts truly make a difference!
Please spread the word to others and let us know if you attend the hearing. We would love to know how many people attend and show their support. Thank you!
