Purveyors of Foie Gras as Victims

You know you’ve crossed into the Twilight Zone when celebrity chefs who promote the sale of foie gras, a “delicacy” consisting of the intentionally enlarged livers of force-fed ducks, claim to be victims. On Thursday Mark Pastore did just that, whining about being the victim of “violent rhetoric” coming from the people that want to ban the production and sale of foie gras as cruel, people like John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party. Anthony Bourdain also felt victimized, but added the suggestion that “every time a chef is threatened, someone should skin a panda.”

When Pastore and others act like the victims, while actively promoting the force-feeding of helpless animals to induce a painful and debilitating liver disease -- all so that the livers taste better -- you know you are entering some sort of alternative universe where nothing makes sense.

In that universe the people promoting the torture of animals to make them taste better are the real victims. In that universe the animals (hundreds of thousands force-fed and killed each year to make foie gras) and the people that wish to protect those animals are the bullies. In that universe the abuse of defenseless animals has nothing to do with violence; instead, anyone calling out the abusers for their indecency and inhumanity are the aggressors.

Wake up, Mark, and join the rest of us in reality.

You and your ilk are the aggressors, sick enough to mutilate an animal’s vital organs while the animal is still alive, just to improve its taste. You are no better than animal abusers in other parts of the world who beat dogs before killing them, because they believe it makes the dog meat taste better. And you are the only ones engaging in violence. California is moving forward to a less barbaric place where we won’t tolerate that, with or without you. If not being able to serve the product of a tortured animal makes you feel like a victim you might instead try to empathize with the animals whose abuse you’ve encouraged, the real victims. Justice will never be served for those animals – and for that you should be thankful.

Making Sense of the Current Status of the Tony the Tiger Cases

We at the Animal Legal Defense Fund are committed to doing everything within our power to make sure that Tony finds his way to a reputable, accredited sanctuary where he can live out the rest of his life in an environment that caters to his needs rather than one that exploits him as a profitable spectacle.

To that end, our litigation team has been busy making sure that Louisiana’s big cat ban is defended and enforced. We are currently involved in three separate lawsuits concerning Tony, and with all the various developments, we thought it was time for a big picture overview on where things stand.

The first lawsuit is the one ALDF filed last April to have Michael Sandlin’s tiger permit revoked. In November, Judge Michael Caldwell ruled in our favor, holding that Mr. Sandlin was ineligible for a permit under the state regulations. Judge Caldwell ordered the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to revoke Sandlin’s permit and not issue any new permits. Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop have appealed that decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. We are currently waiting for the court to set a briefing schedule, which we expect in the coming months. It’s worth noting that the Department has complied with the court’s order and not issued a new permit to Mr. Sandlin, meaning that Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop continue to possess and exhibit Tony without the required permit.

In an attempt to remedy the Tiger Truck Stop’s open violation of the law, ALDF filed a second lawsuit to force the Department to enforce the state’s wildlife laws and turn Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop over to the District Attorney for prosecution.  Unfortunately, earlier this month, Judge Caldwell held that enforcement decisions by an agency are discretionary duties that cannot be compelled by the judiciary, and that our plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case. (Standing is a constant hurdle in animal law cases that limits who can bring a lawsuit. More information on standing is available here and here.) We are still considering our options on whether to appeal the decision. Supporters should understand that the decision in this second case does not undermine our victory in the first case. Judge Caldwell’s original ruling that Mr. Sandlin cannot have a tiger permit still stands, and it is still illegal for Mr. Sandlin to possess and exhibit Tony. This loss means only that we cannot force the Department to enforce the law. The Department has said publicly that it intends to enforce Louisiana law once litigation has concluded. Although that is not the timeline we hoped for (after all, Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop are violating the law at this very moment and the Department could seize Tony at any time), we expect the Department will eventually do the job entrusted to it by Louisiana’s citizens: enforce the law and protect wildlife.

The third lawsuit is one filed by Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop against the State of Louisiana, the Department, and Iberville Parish, seeking to invalidate the state ban on private possession of big cats. If successful, the case would not only allow Mr. Sandlin to keep Tony, it could also open the floodgates to captivity for countless other captive wild animals. Mr. Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop did not name ALDF as a party to the suit, but given the high stakes, we insisted on being part of the case. We filed what is called a petition to intervene, which asks the court to allow the intervener into the case with the same rights and opportunity to be heard as the named parties. Although Mr. Sandlin and the truck stop objected to our intervention, Judge Janice Clark held that ALDF had a right to intervene in the case and granted our petition. Interestingly, we are now on the same side as the Department, our adversary in the other two lawsuits. Although we wish they were more proactive in enforcing the ban, both ALDF and the Department want the Louisiana big cat ban upheld. The next step is for our litigation team to file exceptions to Mr. Sandlin’s case and an opposition to his request for an injunction against the big cat ban.

We are optimistic that we will prevail and the court will uphold Louisiana’s right to protect public safety and animal welfare by prohibiting private possession of majestic animals like Tony. Our hope is that once Mr. Sandlin’s case is over, the Department will act quickly to ensure Tony’s removal to a humane sanctuary.

If this sounds complicated and frustratingly slow, that’s because it is. In order to manage large case loads and protect the due process rights of litigants, the legal system may take a while to resolve contentious issues. We too are growing impatient with every extra day Tony spends in captivity at the truck stop, and we are doing everything we can to accelerate his release to a proper sanctuary.

Still have questions about the cases? Post them below and we will answer as best we can.

Tougher Cockfighting Penalties Proposed in California

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos and Senator Bill Emmerson, R-Hemet, recently addressed state legislators on SB 1145, which was introduced by Sen. Emmerson. The California bill seeks to increase the fines levied against participants and spectators of illegal cockfights, according to the district attorney's office.

The San Bernardino County Sun quoted a Ramos statement that read, "Right now, the penalties and fines for those who engage in cockfighting are not strong enough to discourage this type of behavior. The bottom line is we need to make it clear that animal cruelty will not be tolerated, and that those who take part in this so-called ‘sport,’ whether as a participant or spectator, will be held accountable for their actions.”

After a cockfighting bust in the city of Fontana in April, a city spokesman said community tips were vital in stemming these types of activities. The Sun article also mentioned that “Although prosecutors are concerned about animal abuse, they say highly profitable cockfighting rings also bring other types of criminal activity into communities, including gangs, drugs, guns, and prostitution.” Thus this bill is needed to help protect animals and communities in numerous ways.

Under current California law, the crime of cockfighting is only a misdemeanor and the fine for a participant and event organizer are $5,000. SB 1145 would double the fine to $10,000. In addition, the spectator fines would also increase from $1,000 to $5,000. These changes would come on the heels of a new law that became effective on January 1, 2012. That law is California Penal Code §598.1, and it allows for asset forfeiture in certain cases, meaning authorities now have the power to seize any property interest, whether tangible or intangible, that was acquired through cockfighting and/or dogfighting. That law is a definite step in the right direction. No one should be allowed to profit from such atrocities.

Unfortunately, Fontana Animal Services Officer Jamie Simmons was noted in the Sun report as saying that “despite changes in laws and tougher sentences for offenders, a slow economy has not had much impact on cockfighting locally.” That is indeed regrettable news. As such, we need to continue to do more to prevent and curtail this abuse.

Law Enforcement Officers Are My Heroes

I've long thought people misuse the term "hero." They use it to describe someone who has performed especially well, done a good job, or succeeded in accomplishing something. Most dictionary definitions seem to agree. I don't think that's what a hero is. To me, a hero is someone who risks personal harm or loss (physical, financial, societal) to do what he or she believes is right. It implicates at least the risk of sacrifice. For example, someone who saves a drowning child may or may not be a hero depending on whether or not he or she put herself in peril. Firefighters are heroes. People who defuse bombs are heroes.

Animal cruelty prosecutors and law enforcement officers are my heroes. They forsake the glamor and prestige of trying homicides and white collar crimes to defend voiceless and vulnerable non-human victims. This often comes with negative professional and financial consequences. Sometimes it even results in humiliation and ridicule. As a former prosecutor myself, how many times have I been asked, "Are you the doggy lawyer I've heard about?" How many times have judges summoned me into chambers to urge the settlement of my "Woof-Woof" case?

I recently had the honor of meeting a group of such heroes in Snellville, Georgia, when I spoke to members of various law enforcement agencies about animal cruelty and animal fighting investigations and prosecutions. These highly trained professionals were committed to the aggressive prosecutions of animal abusers despite negative peer pressure, a culture generally insensitive to animal rights, and some very unfortunate animal protection laws.* They blanched at the gory photographs I showed and proudly bragged about their personal animal rescue efforts. They included Lt. Tommy Taylor, the training officer for the Snellville, Ga., police department, his colleagues, and numerous representatives from the Gwinnett County, Ga., sheriff's office headed by Sheriff Butch Conway who, among other progressive accomplishments, offers a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person involved in dog fighting. These are my heroes.

Undaunted by the obstacles they face and the sacrifices they choose to make for the work they believe in, the heroes I met persevere. I hope some day the work they do is recognized as the essential work it is. I hope some day they no longer have to suffer for their brave beliefs. I hope some day, when they no longer have to make personal sacrifices, they no longer fit my definition of "heroes" and are, instead, given the recognition and respect they deserve for doing the valuable work they do.

*In Georgia, for example, an "animal"... shall not include any fish nor shall such term include any pest that might be exterminated or removed from a business, residence, or other structure. (Ga 16-12-4(1)) Since any creature "might" be removed from a structure, it's arguable that Georgia protects nothing. Georgia also provides a plethora of affirmative defenses to animal cruelty. Nothing in the law prohibits one from "...defending his or her person or property, or the person or property of another, from injury or damage being caused by an animal"; or "injuring or killing an animal reasonably believed to constitute a threat for injury or damage to any property, livestock, or poultry." (Ga 16-12-4(f)) Conceivably, a reasonable belief your neighbor's Chihuahua might dig a hole in your lawn would justify his summary execution. Is it any wonder that Georgia ranks in the bottom tier of the ALDF 2011 U.S. Animal Protection Laws Rankings?

ALDF Heads to Summer School

This summer Matthew Liebman and I are excited to be teaching an intensive course at Lewis & Clark Law School entitled Animal Law Litigation. It will literally cover the nuts and bolts of building strategic impact litigation. We will focus on both the theoretical and practical aspects of civil litigation in animal law cases, at both the federal and state level, and relate that to various cases ALDF is now litigating. We are especially excited to be doing it at Lewis & Clark, a truly progressive school that is forward-thinking enough to realize that the regulation of humans’ treatment of the nonhuman deserves special focus. While Matthew and I have been doing the work for a while, we expect to learn from the students, and hopefully we will all leave the course as better prepared animal law litigators. Hope to see you there!

The Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark, in collaboration with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, welcomes and encourages all perspectives. Its Summer Intensive Animal Law Program is open to visiting students in good standing at any ABA-approved law school. Please note, visiting students must supply a letter of good standing from their home institution prior to the first day of class. Courses are also open to attorneys and qualifying individuals with a bachelor's degree and may be taken as audit at a discounted rate. Legal assistants without a bachelor's degree are also eligible if they provide a letter from their employer confirming they work as legal assistants. For more information, please visit the Summer Intensive Animal Law Program webpages. Questions? Please contact CALS Assistant Director Laura Handzel at lhandzel@lclark.edu or 503.768.6960.