PETA's Orca Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

Well, it's still historic and precedent-setting. Here's hoping we see more of these legal challenges. Full story posted on Global Animal and from the Huffington Post.

Do whales deserve constitutional protection against slavery? On February 8, a federal judge said ‘no,’ stopping a historic case filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals against SeaWorld for violating the 13th Amendment on slavery. Five orcas were listed as the plaintiffs.

PETA filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Diego last October, complaining that the whales “were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude.” PETA went on to request that the whales be freed and released to a habitat better suited to their needs.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller dismissed the case, writing in his ruling that “the only reasonable interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to non-persons such as orcas.”

Before the ruling, PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr told HuffPost that the animal rights group’s argument was based on the belief that “slavery doesn’t depend upon the species of the slave, any more than it depends upon the race, gender or ethnicity of the slave. SeaWorld’s attempts to deny [orcas] the protection solely based on their species is the same kind of prejudice used to justify any enslavement. And prejudice should not be what determines constitutional rights in this country … Because they can suffer from the prohibitive conduct of being enslaved, the 13th Amendment protection against that conduct should be extended to them.”

New Laws to Start in California

From Hometown Station AM 1220.....

New legislation in California increases the misdemeanor penalty for animal neglect and makes it a crime to sell a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, or carnival. California SB 917

Two new laws in Oregon and California prohibit the possession, sale, trade or distribution of shark fins. The California law specifies that a person must hold a license in order to possess shark fins for scientific purposes. In addition, restaurants may possess and sell shark fins purchased before Jan. 1, 2012, until Jan. 1, 2013. California AB 376.

Lawsuit to Challenge Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Read the full article in the Washington Post....

A group of animal rights activists sued the U.S. government Thursday to challenge the constitutionality of a rarely used law they say treats them like terrorists if they cause a loss in profits for businesses that use or sell animal products.

Five activists represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit in federal court in Boston, asking that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act be struck down as unconstitutional because it has a chilling effect on lawful protest activities

I wish them luck!

West Hollywood, CA, Approves Fur Ban

It's the first fur ban in the United States.

Yay! Here's hoping there are many more to come!

Legal Issues Arise Surrounding Dogs in Court Cases

Now this is an interesting legal issue! Can dogs be allowed into court rooms as comfort animals for traumatized witnesses or would they be swaying the jury?

Animal Rights Lawyers Continue to Emerge

Interesting article in the Gazette, a Canadian publication.

Ringling Brothers Wins Court Case Over Elephant Abuse

Pretty heavy blow.

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan signed the December 30 ruling in favor of Ringling's owner, Virginia-based Feld Entertainment Inc. (FEI) at the outset of a nine-year-old suit brought by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) that culminated in a six-week trial in March.

The ASPCA, Born Free USA (Animal Protection Institute), Animal Welfare Institute, Fund for Animals along with former Ringling animal trainer Tom Rider had accused the circus of shackling, confining and striking elephants with bullhooks, which have a sharp steel hook at one end.

Sullivan dismissed the star witness's testimony, saying Rider lied about receiving payments from animal activists and about his personal attachment to the giant animals.

"The court finds that Mr Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony," Sullivan wrote in his ruling.

"Mr Rider's self-serving testimony at trial about his personal and emotional attachment to these elephants also is not credible because he did not begin to make complaints about how FEI treated its elephants until after he began accepting money from animal activists."

Update on National Meat Association vs. Brown

Did anyone know this was going on?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently heard arguments in National Meat Association v. Brown, a case in which the meat industry is attempting to invalidate a California law designed to reduce animal suffering and protect public safety.

At issue is Section 599f of the California Penal Code, which, among other things, prohibits slaughterhouses from purchasing, receiving, selling, dragging, or pushing non-ambulatory animals, also known as “downers,” and requires immediate euthanasia of such animals. The industry sued California, arguing that Section 599f is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. A coalition of animal protection groups consisting of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association (HFA), intervened in the case to ensure that the interests of animals and the public were represented.

Supreme Court to Review Legality of Animal Abuse Videos

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but no.

The justices said they would review, at the request of the federal government, an appeals court decision that said Congress's broad attempt to discourage animal cruelty by outlawing its depiction violates the First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia voted 10 to 3 last summer to find unconstitutional the rarely used law passed by Congress in 1999. The appeals court said the goal of protecting against animal cruelty was a worthy one, but one already accomplished by laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia outlawing the practice.

The appeals court noted that the Supreme Court is resistant to removing First Amendment protections of depictions even of illegal actions. The last time the court did so was over child pornography.

"Preventing cruelty to animals, although an exceedingly worthy goal, simply does not implicate interests of the same magnitude as protecting children from physical and psychological harm," the appeals court said.

I am incredibly angry at the last statement. That's just BS.

Thanks to Animal Law Online for the catch.

2009 Animal Rights Conference Scheduled for July 16-20

It's in Los Angeles this year.

ABA has Animal Law Committee

The American Bar Association has an animal law committee. Here's the link.

From the webpage....

Animal law is broader than laws pertaining to animals. It is the body of law reflecting the efforts of people to create a just world through the rule of law. The status of animals in our legal system is in flux and attorneys are discovering creative and interesting ways to use legal arguments in the face of increasingly complex scenarios. Our clients are legally impacted by a vast array of human/animal interactions. They range from the legality of estate planning for companion animals, to changing liability standards and insurance coverage in dog bite cases, to compensation beyond fair market value when an animal is killed, to public and private conflicts about where an animal can be, and finally, to the competing interests of wild animals and urban, farming, and recreational land use.

Animal Legal Defense Fund Ranks States on Animal Protection

The ALDF has released a report on how different states' animal protection laws stack up.

Among the best: California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon.

And the worst: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, South Dakota, Wyoming

You can check out the whole report on their web site.

Ontario Updates Animal Welfare Law

Finally. It's the first update since 1919. That's right 1919. Yeesh.

Bill 50 makes it a provincial offence to abuse any animal, and it establishes the strongest penalties in the country for those charged with animal cruelty -- including the potential to prohibit offenders from owning animals ever again. The Ontario SPCA now has the ability to inspect facilities that keep animals for exhibition, entertainment, boarding, hire or sale. For the first time, animal care standards will be established and failure to comply with these standards will be an offence.

Glad they're finally doing something, but really, why has it taken this long?

Need an Animal Law Talking Guy?

In Washington State, Adam Karp is your man.

But, he also has a list of referrals for lawyers in other states that do this kind of thing.

Animal Law Podcasts

Here's a link to some podcasts from the Animal Legal and Historical Center. The topics they have so far:

* Pet Sales Gone Bad
* Does My State Have a Leash Law?
* Can I Put My Pet in My Will?
* Lost and Found Pets
* The police shot my dog after it escaped. Do I have any recourse?

Lewis and Clark's Animal Law Conference

I received this notice a few days ago in my email.

The Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Lewis & Clark and the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark are pleased to announce this year's Animal Law conference on October 17, 18 and 19, 2008. Please join advocates and others from the animal law community for One Earth: Globalism & Animal Law! The conference showcases prominent legal minds from the United States and around the world to discuss recent trends and future developments in animal law. In addition to feeding your minds, the conference features a variety of vegan food highlighted at the Friday evening reception and the banquet on Saturday.

Additional information about this exciting event is provided on the conference website: www.animallawconference.com. Register today to receive an early bird discount!

Animal Law Gaining Popularity in Australia

At least according to this article. I think it needs to be done. And, I'm not talking about whether a chimp, for example, should be declared a "person".

I think that in the wake of the pet food scandal in the US and Canada, there are issues that need to be worked out. Is a companion animal "worth" only the replacement value, or is there an additional value that can't be easily quantified? I think that and other issues need to be explored.

There used to be a blog about that kind of stuff called Animalblawg, but they are no more :-(.

Vermont High Court Considers Non-economic Damages for Lost Pets

The Vermont Supreme court is taking on the issue of whether pets have a value over and above their economic one.

Vermont's Supreme Court will hear a case about whether a pet owner has the right to compensation for the emotional pain and loss of companionship when the animal dies as a result of negligence.

Sensing the importance of the case, veterinary associations—including the AVMA—animal rights groups, and other interested parties are weighing in. Although limited to the state of Vermont, the court's decision has the potential to reshape animal jurisprudence in this country as well as the practice of veterinary medicine.

The plaintiffs, Robert and Susan Goodby, were having their two cats treated for hypertension in December 2002. The veterinarians had prescribed 1.25 mg amlodopine chew tabs, which had been dispensed by a veterinary pharmacy to treat the condition. The concentration of the drug dispensed was allegedly much higher than the labeled dosage, which the plaintiffs claim caused their pets to become ill and die within days of one another.

In 2005, the Goodbys filed suit against the veterinarians and the compounding pharmacy, citing breach of contract and negligence as well as loss of companionship and society, severe emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Animal Law a Growing Field

The Chicago Tribune has a good (and long) article on the rise of animal law as a specialty. More schools are teaching it, and there are more people out there practicing in this particular area.

I won't pretend it's not a pretty controversial area. I think what concerns most people is the question on standing. Do they have certain legal rights? Is not being beaten or killed a right for an animal, or is it the humane treatment that we owe them as stewards of the planet? It's a question that needs answering. Every time I see something dealing with animal law, I see comments from people talking about being sued by a German shepherd. Yes, it's silly, but that's how many people view this stuff.

If you can leave your estate to a dog, does it become a property owner? Doesn't that open up a can of worms. Next thing you know they'll be barking at you to get off their lawn!

Little Change for Puerto Rico's Animals

You'd think the Puerto Rican government would move immediately to repair the international public relations damage resulting from last year's animal cruelty scandal. Remember? The one where hundreds of unwanted dogs were thrown over a bridge and left to slowly die?

Well, Puerto Rico is taking its sweet time in implementing reforms.

Activists in Puerto Rico who were outraged by the massacre of dozens of dogs hurled from a bridge last year say the government has been slow to deliver on promised measures to protect stray animals from abuse and abandonment.

In response to an outcry over allegations of inhumane killings, the government pledged in December to build shelters and create animal protection units inside the police. Authorities say they are making progress despite bureaucratic obstacles.

But advocates say that dogs are still being abandoned in large numbers, some of them starving or battered, on the streets and beaches of this U.S. Caribbean territory.

“It seems to me that the situation for the animals is continuing basically the same,” said Eugenio Crespo, president of the Animal Protection Federation and owner of shelters in Mayaguez and Ponce.

As for punishment of the animal control company responsible for the massacres...

The owner of the animal control company and two employees have been charged with animal cruelty, but they have denied involvement. A judge has been hearing evidence to decide whether the case should go to trial.

The case focused new attention on treatment of animals in Puerto Rico, which has no pet registration law and little spaying or neutering.

Photo by ElizabethKracht.