big neWs_ spotLight announCeMents

Document Sample
big neWs_ spotLight announCeMents Powered By Docstoc
                                                                                                             wInter 2008
                                                                                                                                    t h e a n i m a l l aw p r o g r a m A N I M A L L E G A L DE F E N S E F U N D

   ALDF Update is a bi-annual        spotLight
      publication of ALDF’s
     Animal Law Program.
                                Meet aLDF’s Criminal Justice program Director
         stephen Wells
       executive Director       Former Elected District Attorney Now Criminal      Law Conference at Harvard Law School in                                                                                                volume xI number 4 • wInter 2008
                                Justice Program Director for ALDF                  April 2007. Scott previously served as an
          joyce tischler                                                           Oregon prosecutor, with nine years as a
                                                                                                                                      in this issue:

                                                                                                                                                                                      big neWs!
                                After earning a reputation as an animal’s
            Founder             advocate while working as a prosecutor for
                                                                                   deputy district attorney and over eight years

        Pamela Alexander        more than 17 years, Scott A. Heiser accepts
                                                                                   as the elected district attorney of Benton
                                                                                   County, Oregon. He personally prosecuted
                                                                                                                                      bIg news                          1
                                the duty full-time for ALDF
            editor                                                                 thousands of cases, ranging from aggravated        Prosecutor Puzzler                3       appeals exhausted in aLDF v. Woodley, Lee County, north Carolina puppy Mill Case
                                After signing on in February of 2007, Scott        murder to shoplifting. Scott was well-known                                                  North Carolina Supreme Court declines to hear appeal; Permanent injunction is finalized
         nicole Pallotta
        assistant editor
                                has been providing a host of services to
                                prosecutors all over the United States who
                                                                                   for consistently taking a strong position in
                                                                                   all of the animal cruelty cases he handled.
                                                                                                                                      law uPdate                        4
                                                                                                                                                                                        Sanford, NC – After a protracted            was the refusal of the NC Supreme Court to
        stephanie Ulmer
                                litigate animal cruelty cases. He also regularly
                                conducts training for law enforcement
                                                                                   Further, as a leader in the Oregon District
                                                                                   Attorneys Association (ODAA), Scott served
                                                                                                                                      the story contInues...            4               and intense legal battle, the North         hear the Woodleys’ appeal. Lisa Franzetta, a
      senior Legal analyst                                                                                                                                                       Carolina Supreme Court delivered the news          spokesperson for ALDF, said the dogs who
                                officers and prosecutors on how to achieve         on the ODAA’s executive committee for              In the headlInes                  7        in October 2007 that the fight was finally         were seized can now be officially adopted by
                                the best possible results in animal cruelty        over seven years, including a term as the
        niemann Design                                                                                                                                                           over. The Court declined to hear the appeal        the foster owners who have been caring for
        graphic Design          investigations and prosecutions, and he            President of the ODAA in 2006.                     sPotlIght                         8        filed by Barbara Woodley in the civil case         them since their rescue. The final piece of
                                presented topics at the Future of Animal
                                                                                                                                      announcements                     8        brought by ALDF in connection with the care
                                                                                                                                                                                 and custody of over 300 dogs who used to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    the puzzle was the signing of the final order
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    by the trial court judge on November 20,
                                                                                                                                                                                 belong to Woodley. In 2005, ALDF filed suit        2007. The case cannot be heard on appeal
                                     announCeMents                                                                                    DEnotEs ALDF sUPPortED ProjECts
                                                                                                                                                                                 against Woodley and her husband, Robert,
                                                                                                                                                                                 as owners of a backyard breeding/hoarding
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    in the United States Supreme Court because
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    there are no federal issues at stake. Along
                                                                                                                                                                                 operation where the dogs were confined in          with the civil case, Barbara Woodley was also
                                new Release!                                                                                                                                     horrendous conditions. Initially the Woodleys      found guilty of eight counts of animal cruelty
                                                                                                                                                                                 sought review in the Court of Appeals of North     in criminal court, but those convictions
                                                                                                                                                                                 Carolina in Fall 2006, seeking relief from a       are pending appeal. ALDF v. Woodley, 640
                                Animal Protection Laws of the United               statutes for all of the states, principal
                                                                                                                                                                                 trial court injunction in which all their rights   S.E.2d 777 (N.C. App. 2007); Anderson,
                                States of America & Canada – Third                 districts and territories of the United States
                                                                                                                                                                                 to the animals were forfeited and the animals      Gordon, Court Won’t Hear Appeal from Woman
                                Edition by Stephan K. Otto, Director               of America, and for all of Canada. Find up-
                                                                                                                                                                                 removed from their control. The appeals court      Accused of Animal Cruelty in 2005, Sanford
                                                                                   to-date versions of each jurisdiction’s laws
                                of Legislative Affairs for ALDF                    with easy, clickable navigation and fully
                                                                                                                                                                                 found the Woodleys’ contentions on appeal          Herald, Oct. 14, 2007; ALDF Update, Winter
                                                                                                                                                                                 to be without merit and it affirmed the trial      2007, p. 8. ALDF 212.20
                                This publication is the must-have resource         searchable content. Categories, presented
                                                                                                                                                                                 court’s order and injunction. The final step
                                for lawyers, law professors, law students,         in a quick reference table and in full-
                                legislators, other legal professionals, and        text statutory sections, include Animals
                                anyone who wants the most comprehensive            covered by definition, Classification of                                                     California supreme Court Denies Review in Cat Declawing Dispute
                                collection of animal protection laws available.    crimes, Penalties (including a table of                                                      West Hollywood’s ban on nontherapeutic declawing of companion animals is intact
                                At almost 2,900 pages in length, the third         maximum penalties), Exemptions, and
                                edition of the compendium contains a               more. A complimentary copy is available for                                                          California Supreme Court – The City of      was not preempted by the State’s regulation
   Animal Legal Defense Fund    detailed survey of general animal protection       download at                                                          West Hollywood enacted an ordinance         of veterinary medicine through the California
      170 E. Cotati Avenue                                                                                                                                                       prohibiting the declawing of domestic cats.        Veterinary Medical Practice Act. The court
    Cotati, California 94931                                                                                                                                                     The California Veterinary Medical Association      ruled that the City ordinance did not directly
                                                                                                                                                                                 (CVMA) then sued the City, claiming it was         conflict with or contradict the Act. Because
  Phone: 707-795-ALDF (2533)                                                                                                                                                     getting involved with the practice of veterinary   the CA Supreme Court denied review of the
       Web:                                                                                                                                                         medicine by regulating the declawing of cats.      CVMA’s appeal, the decision by the Court of
                                                                                                                                                                                 The CVMA argued that the City was barred           Appeal will now stand as the final word in the
                                                                                                                                                                                 from passing such an ordinance. The CVMA           case. California Veterinary Medical Association
                                                                                                                                                                                 won at the trial court level, and the Court of     v. City of West Hollywood, 2007 Cal. LEXIS
                                                                                                                                                                                 Appeal of California found that although the       10704 (Cal. 2007); California Veterinary
volume xI                                                                                                                           volume xI
                                                                                                                                                                                 City’s adoption of the anti-cruelty measure        Medical Assn. v. City of West Hollywood, 152
                                                                                                                                                                                 had incidental impact on veterinarians             Cal. App. 4th 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007); ALDF
                                                                                                                                                                                 practicing within City limits, the ordinance       Update, Winter 2007, p. 2. ALDF 730.00

number     4                                                                                                                        number      4
                                                                                                                                                                               a newsletter for attorney members of the anImal legal defense fund
                                                                                                      wInter 2008
                                                                                                                 2              3wInter 2008

                       Jury in Washington awards $2,500 to Couple for the Loss of                                              Cobb County, georgia, Will no Longer use gas Chamber                                                     aLDF, along with Wake County,
                       their Cat by boarding Facility                                                                          for euthanasia at its animal shelter                                                                     Files Cruelty suit against
                       But judge refused any recovery for search costs associated with looking for the escaped cat             Decision comes after state officials are found in contempt for allowing continued                        north Carolina breeder
     Mr. and Mrs.             Clark County, WA – A 6-person jury           bailment, but the clinic argued that it was
                                                                                                                               use of gas chamber                                                                                       ALDF seeks permanent custody of over
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        100 animals, as well as the county’s cost
  Danton received             was empaneled in the Clark County
                       Superior Court to hear the animal death/
                                                                           not liable for the cat’s loss, asserting that the
                                                                           cat, through feline guile, opened a securely
                                                                                                                               Fulton County, GA – On March 26, 2007,               giving it a passing grade for euthanasia, the       for caring for them
   a call from the     escape case brought by Marilyn Danton
                       against St. Francis 24 Hour Emergency
                                                                           latched cage door, hid in the shadows, and
                                                                           escaped out an open door never to be seen
                                                                                                                               the Superior Court of Fulton County issued
                                                                                                                               an interlocutory injunction “enjoining
                                                                                                                                                                                    state officials had sanctioned the violation
                                                                                                                                                                                    of the law. The court further stated that                   Wake County, NC – On October 19,
 clinic stating that   Clinic. The clinic was hired to board the           again. The judge instructed the jury on res
                                                                                                                               and restraining the Commissioner of the
                                                                                                                               Department of Agriculture, the Department
                                                                                                                                                                                    the officials could purge themselves of the
                                                                                                                                                                                    contempt violation by rescinding a favorable
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2007, approximately 106 dogs and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        nine birds were seized from Janie Conyers’
                       Dantons’ cat for a week while they were on          ipsa loquitur and rebuttable presumption for
  the cat had left     vacation, but a few days before the end of          bailment breach, as well on intrinsic value of
                                                                                                                               of Agriculture, and employees of the
                                                                                                                               Department of Agriculture from advocating
                                                                                                                                                                                    inspection report issued on May 25, 2007,
                                                                                                                                                                                    and by issuing a new report indicating that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        house pursuant to a duly-authorized warrant
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        on the belief that the animals were subjected
    the premises.      the trip, Mr. and Mrs. Danton received a call
                       from the clinic stating that the cat had left the
                                                                           the cat. However, an instruction on reckless
                                                                           breach of bailment contract was denied. Mrs.
                                                                                                                               and sanctioning violations of O.C.G.A. 4-
                                                                                                                               11-5.1 by state-licensed animal shelters.”
                                                                                                                                                                                    the shelter did not meet the requirements
                                                                                                                                                                                    for euthanasia as required by law. It appears
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        to cruel and neglectful conditions. In a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        civil complaint filed on October 31, 2007,
                       premises. The Dantons immediately changed           Danton was ultimately successful on her
                                                                                                                               Plaintiffs in the case, Chesley Morton and           that by the end of October, the gas chamber         it was alleged by ALDF, the county, and
                       their air travel plans, lost a hotel night stay,    liability claim and was awarded $2,500 for
                                                                                                                               Jennifer Robinson, then asserted that the            was finally taken out of commission by the          veterinarian, Kelli Ferris, that the animals
                       and flew immediately back to search for the         the intrinsic value of the 4-year old, neutered
                                                                                                                               state officials intentionally violated the court’s   shelter, as it was directed by state officials to   were experiencing constant, chronic pain
                       cat, curtailing their vacation. For almost the      male Siamese whom the couple adopted for
                                                                                                                               order by approving a Cobb County shelter’s use       “begin taking whatever steps are necessary          and suffering, caused by Conyers’ knowing
                       next 2 years, the Dantons spent hundreds            free in 2002. Danton v. St. Francis 24 Hour
                                                                                                                               of an illegal gas chamber. Plaintiffs sought         to make arrangements for alternative means          neglect and failure to provide the animals
                       of hours searching, numerous miles driving,         Emergency Clinic, Clark Co., WA, Super. Ct.,
                                                                                                                               an order compelling the state officials to           of euthanizing.” The county has stated that         with even the most basic care. The suit was
                       and thousands of dollars on lost cat ads. Mrs.      No. 06-2-01172-8. ALDF 287.70
                                                                                                                               undertake enforcement activities with respect        it will seek help in changing the law to allow      filed in Wake County District Court under N.C.
                       Danton sued for negligence and breach of
                                                                                                                               to the gassing at the shelter. On October 3,         use of the gas chamber. Morton, et al. v. State     Gen. Stat. §§ 19A-3, 19A-4, the state’s Civil
                                                                                                                               2007, the court found that the Cobb County           of Georgia Dept. of Agriculture, et al., Super.     Remedy for Protection for Animals statute,
                       successful appeal in new Jersey halts bear hunt                                                         shelter’s operation of a carbon monoxide
                                                                                                                               chamber that was first purchased in 1995
                                                                                                                                                                                    Ct. of Fulton Co., GA, No. 2007CV130839;
                                                                                                                                                                                    Opdyke, Tom, Cobb County on Thursday Will
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        which allows a private citizen or organization
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        to file suit to stop animal cruelty. Pending the
                       The New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance (NJARA) and the Black Bear Education and Resource Group had       was a violation of O.C.G.A. 4-11-5.1 and that        Stop Using the Gas Chamber to Kill Unwanted         outcome of the case, the animals have been
                       appealed from the approval of the 2005 Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP)               continued inspections and approval of the            Pets at its Animal Shelter, The Atlanta Journal-    placed in foster care. ALDF, et al. v. Conyers,
                                                                                                                               use of the gas chamber by the state officials        Constitution, Oct. 24, 2007; ALDF Update,           Wake Co., N.C., Dist. Ct., No. 07CV017739.
                                                                                                                               was improper. By inspecting the shelter and          Summer 2007, p. 2.                                  ALDF 213.90
                       Trenton, NJ – The CBBMP was approved                remand, both the Commissioner and the Fish
                       on November 14, 2005, by the then-                  and Wildlife Council concluded that there
                       Commissioner of the Department of                   should be no bear hunt in 2007, although
                       Environmental Protection (DEP) as a                 no formal action was taken in that regard by
                       response to a New Jersey Supreme Court
                       opinion. NJARA then unsuccessfully sought
                                                                           rulemaking. NJARA then filed a challenge to
                                                                           the adoption of the 2005 CBBMP and the
                                                                                                                                     pRoseCutoR puZZLeR
                       a stay of the 2005 bear hunt following the          sportsmen challenged the Commissioner’s
                       adoption of the CBBMP. In November 2006,            November 2006 withdrawal of approval of             How good are your state’s laws for                   company, stopping removal of the chickens.
                       several New Jersey sportsmen’s clubs filed a        the 2005 and 2006 bear hunts. Both parties          prosecuting animal cruelty? The ALDF                 A prospective buyer for Cypress Foods backed
                       challenge to the new DEP Commissioner’s             asserted that the respective actions were                                                                out. By early March, inspectors documented
                                                                                                                               invites you to examine your state’s laws             that the chickens were dying of starvation.
                       failure to implement the process under              arbitrary and capricious. NJARA also argued
                       the CBBMP to enable a 2006 bear hunt.               that the CBBMP was not properly adopted             via the following “puzzler” scenario to              The receiver determined that the chickens
                       Subsequently, on November 15, 2006,                 under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)        consider new ways your laws could be                 remaining at the facilities were in such poor
                       the Commissioner withdrew her approval              and that the DEP violated the public trust                                                               condition that they should be euthanized.
                                                                                                                               improved. The following is an actual                 20,000 chickens starved to death at the
                       of the CBBMP. The sportsmen sought                  doctrine. The NJ Supreme Court ultimately
                       emergent relief to enjoin the Commissioner’s        agreed with NJARA, invalidating the 2005
                                                                                                                               case of animal cruelty reported to ALDF.             facilities; authorities euthanized a total of
                       withdrawal and reinstitute the hunt. The New        CBBMP because the APA was not honored,                                                                   980,000 chickens and 500 chickens were
                       Jersey Supreme Court denied emergent relief         as was required, to validly promulgate the          For 40 years, James R. Biggers operated              rescued.
                       as did the United States Supreme Court. In          CBBMP. Therefore, all agency actions taken          egg farms in two neighboring states under
                       March 2007, on motion of the DEP, the               subsequent to the adoption of the CBBMP             the name Cypress Foods Inc. In December              Your challenge: Would this constitute a crime
                       NJ Supreme Court remanded the pending               were invalid, since the initial 2005 CBBMP          2001, during a protracted drop in egg                according to your state’s laws? Do your state’s
                       appeals from the 2005 and 2006 final                did not lawfully exist. The court ruled that the    prices, Biggers admitted that he had run             anti-cruelty laws exclude farmed animals
volume xI              administrative decisions to the agency for          APA had to be followed in promulgating the          out of food for his one million chickens. A          or poultry? What charges could you bring
                       further consideration, but retained jurisdiction    CBBMP. New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance            court-appointed receiver requested court             against the suspect? What kind of sentence
                       and ordered briefing of all outstanding issues      v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 2007 N.J.      permission to give away the chickens,                would be possible upon conviction? For the
                       regarding 2005 and 2006 decisions, as well          Super. LEXIS 324 (App. Div. 2007).                  but Biggers declared bankruptcy for his              actual disposition of this case, see page 6.
number   4             as any action taken on the remand. During the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     the anImal law Program anImal legal defense fund
                                                                                                                                 wInter 2008
                                                                                                                                            4             5
                                                                                                                                                          wInter 2008

       LaW upDate                                                                                                                                              the stoRy Continues...
  Recent Victories noted against horse slaughter in the united states                                                                                    9th Circuit Court of appeals Dismisses primate psychological                                          ...officials converged
  2007 a banner year for horse slaughter opponents
                                                                                                                                                         Well-being Case after Rehearing en banc                                                              on the 75-acre property
                                                                                                                                                         All parties had declined to request rehearing after a favorable decision to the animals
  U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit         Washington, D.C. – On May 21, 2007, the            However, the Court of Appeals ruled that                                                                                                               owned by PPI to secure
                                                                                                                                                                 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit   § 706(2) of the APA to review the USDA’s
  – Illinois had been home to the only horse
  slaughterhouse remaining in the United
                                                    United States Supreme Court denied a
                                                    petition for writ of certiorari to the United
                                                                                                       ch. 149 had not been repealed, was not
                                                                                                       preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection                  – Plaintiffs, who included ALDF,            decision not to adopt the Draft Policy             the decrepit facility,
  States after the other two in Texas were closed
  as a result of the Empacadora case. However,
                                                    States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
                                                    in the case of Empacadora De Carnes De
                                                                                                       Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C.S. § 678, and did not
                                                                                                       violate the dormant Commerce Clause. As
                                                                                                                                                         initially challenged a decision of the United
                                                                                                                                                         States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             because the USDA’s withdrawal of the Draft
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Policy constituted final agency action. The        rescue the animals,
  the Illinois plant was closed permanently after
  the September 21, 2007, decision in Cavel
                                                    Fresnillo, S.A. De C.V., et al. v Curry. In
                                                    the Court of Appeals, District Attorney of
                                                                                                       such, the district court’s permanent injunction
                                                                                                       barring the prosecution of slaughterhouses
                                                                                                                                                         not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have
                                                                                                                                                         provided guidance to zoos, research facilities,
                                                                                                                                                                                                             case was remanded to the district court to
                                                                                                                                                                                                             determine whether the USDA’s withdrawal           and turn over animal
  Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan. The foreign-owned
  slaughterhouse had appealed from an order
                                                    Tarrant County, Texas, Tim Curry, appealed
                                                    the decision in Empacadora De Carnes De
                                                                                                       for processing, selling, and transporting
                                                                                                       horsemeat for human consumption was
                                                                                                                                                         and other regulated entities on how to ensure
                                                                                                                                                         the psychological well-being of nonhuman
                                                                                                                                                                                                             of the Draft Policy was in fact arbitrary and
                                                                                                                                                                                                             capricious. However, in January 2007, the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 care and financial
  of the United States District Court for the       Fresnillo, S.A. De C.V., et al. v. Curry, 2005     vacated, and the case was remanded with           primates in order to comply with the federal
                                                                                                                                                         Animal Welfare Act. Plaintiffs challenged
                                                                                                                                                                                                             parties were ordered by the Court of Appeals
                                                                                                                                                                                                             sua sponte to submit simultaneous briefs as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               operations to a court-
  Northern District of Illinois, which declined     U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18261, in which he had            instructions to grant the district attorney’s
  to issue a preliminary injunction barring the     been enjoined from prosecuting horsemeat           motion for summary judgment. Empacadora           the decision not to adopt the Draft Policy
                                                                                                                                                         under the Administrative Procedure Act
                                                                                                                                                                                                             to whether the case should be reheard en
                                                                                                                                                                                                             banc. On April 6, 2007, the court granted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 appointed receiver.
  enforcement of an amendment to the Illinois       slaughterhouses under Tex. Agric. Code             de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de C.V. v. Curry,
  Horse Meat Act (Illinois Act), 225 Ill. Comp.     Ann. ch. 149 (2004). The district court had        127 S. Ct. 2443 (U.S. 2007); Empacadora           (APA) as arbitrary and capricious. After some       an en banc rehearing pursuant to Circuit
  Stat. 635. The slaughterhouse argued              found that the State of Texas did not have         de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de C.V. v. Curry,    legal maneuvering and an appeal by the              Rule 35-3. After the rehearing, and without
  that the law violated both the federal Meat       the authority to enforce a law prohibiting the     476 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2007); ALDF Update,        plaintiffs, on November 22, 2006, the 9th           an opinion, on June 4, 2007, the court
  Inspection Act and the Commerce Clause.           sale, possession, and transfer of horsemeat.       Summer 2006, p. 5.                                Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion          dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal, and the initial
  The Court of Appeals rejected the arguments                                                                                                            that reversed a district court’s dismissal of       favorable ruling made in November 2006
  made by the slaughterhouse and dismissed                                                                                                               the action. It held that at least one of the        was vacated. ALDF v. Veneman, 490 F.3d
  its case with prejudice. Cavel Int’l, Inc. v.     Springfield, IL – On May 24, 2007, Illinois        or exporting horsemeat if any horsemeat           plaintiffs had standing under Article III of        725 (9th Cir. 2007); ALDF v. Veneman, 482
  Madigan, 500 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007).            Governor Rod R. Blagojevich signed                 will be used for human consumption. The           the U.S. Constitution based on the aesthetic        F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2007); ALDF v. Veneman,
                                                    legislation that bans the slaughter of horses      legislation is in line with 48 other states       injury she had described. It also concluded         469 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2006). ALDF Update,
                                                    in Illinois for human consumption. House           that also ban using horses for the purpose        that the district court had authority under         Winter 2007, p. 7. ALDF 611.00
                                                    Bill 1711, sponsored by State Rep. Robert          of human consumption. The horsemeat had
                                                    S. Molaro (D-Chicago) and State Sen. John          traditionally been shipped to foreign countries
                                                    Cullerton (D-Chicago), bans importing              such as Belgium, France and Japan.                after texas ag settles Cruelty action against primarily primates,
                                                                                                                                                         inc. (ppi), sanctuaries that Care for Rescued animals are Forced
                                                                                                                                                         to File suit to Declare permanent Legal guardianship
                                                         the stoRy Continues...                                                                          Guardianship dispute centers upon agreements for transfer
                                                    California supreme Court Victory in Kangaroo Leather Case gutted by subsequent state Law             Eugene, OR – Initially, People for the Ethical      PPI in May 2007. PPI then sought to recover
                                                    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs bill allowing importation and sale of kangaroo leather for shoes    Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a                 the rescued animals placed with the other
                                                                                                                                                         complaint with the Texas Attorney General’s         care-givers. Plaintiffs Chimps, Inc., Int’l
                                                          Sacramento, CA – State law had               practices. On July 23, 2007, the California       Office in May 2006 concerning PPI’s failure         Primate Protection League, and Marguerite
                                                          prohibited the importation into or sale      Supreme Court ruled that as § 653o posed          to meet its charitable mission on behalf of         Gordon balked at returning the animals to
                                                    within California of products made from            no obstacle to any current federal policy,        the animals confined at its compound, which         PPI, whose facilities had remained largely
                                                    kangaroo skins, Calif. Pen. Code § 653o. To        it was not preempted, and it reversed a           exhibited classic signs of “animal hoarding.”       unchanged, and asserted that they had
                                                    enforce that law, Viva! International Voice for    contrary judgment by the California Court         In October 2006, Texas law enforcement              permanent legal guardianship of the animals
                                                    Animals and a state resident filed suit against    of Appeal. The victory was short-lived,           officials converged on the 75-acre property         in their care. To protect their interests, and
                                                    Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc.,        however, when the Governor signed SB 880          owned by PPI to secure the decrepit facility,       those of the animals, plaintiffs filed suit
                                                    a large importer and seller of such products.      into law in October 2007. The new law             rescue the animals, and turn over animal            June 25, 2007, to declare their rightful
                                                    Adidas conceded in court that it imported          effectively lifts the kangaroo-skin ban. Viva!    care and financial operations to a court-           ownership. PPI has filed a motion to dismiss
                                                    into and sold in California athletic shoes         Int’l. Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional    appointed receiver. From there the animals,         on jurisdictional grounds and the parties are
                                                    made from kangaroo hide, but argued that           Retail Operations, Inc., 41 Cal. 4th 929 (Cal.    many who were in tragically declining health,       awaiting a decision on that motion. Chimps,                     volume xI
                                                    the state law was preempted because it             2007); ALDF Update, Summer 2006, p. 1.            were placed in quality care facilities and          Inc., et al. v. Primarily Primates, Inc., U.S.
                                                    conflicted with federal policies intended to       ALDF 720.70                                       sanctuaries. But a dispute developed over           Dist. Ct., Dist. of Oregon, No. 07-6149-HO;
                                                    influence Australian kangaroo management                                                             the care and ownership of the animals when          ALDF Update, Summer 2007, p. 6.
                                                                                                                                                         the AG’s office abruptly settled the case with                                                                     number       4
the anImal law Program anImal legal defense fund
                                                                                                                                    wInter 2008
                                                                                                                                                6               7wInter 2008

  hawaii becomes the 43rd state to get a Felony Cruelty Law                                                                                                         in the heaDLines
  New law, passed in June 2007, to take effect immediately                                                                                                                                                                                                               Plaintiff contends that
  Hawaii – On June 1, 2007, Gov. Linda                 by a year in jail and/or a $2,000 fine. Under     psittaciformes only) that are not bred for            nJ supreme Ct. agrees to Review Lower Court Decision in                                                 the circus employs abu-
  Lingle signed SB 1665 into law creating
  a felony offense for cruelty to companion
                                                       the new law, cruelty in the first degree
                                                       occurs when a person “intentionally or
                                                                                                         consumption.” Cruelty in the second degree
                                                                                                         applies to “every living creature except
                                                                                                                                                               historic Farm animal Welfare Case                                                                        sive training and disci-
                                                                                                                                                               Superior Court of NJ Appellate Division deferred to judgment of NJ Dept. of
  animals. The new law makes it a Class C
  felony for “cruelty to animals in the first
                                                       knowingly tortures, mutilates or poisons or
                                                       causes the torture, mutilation or poisoning
                                                                                                         a human being.” It includes torturing,
                                                                                                         tormenting, beating, starving, overloading or         Agriculture (NJDA) regarding farm practices
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      pline methods, including
  degree,” punishable by a maximum fine
  of up to $10,000 and up to five years of
                                                       of any pet animal resulting in serious bodily
                                                       injury or death to the pet animal.” The bill
                                                                                                         overdriving an animal. For more information,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       the use of sharp instru-
                                                                                                                                                               New Jersey – In a court fight involving             While the appellate court conceded that
  imprisonment. The bill also renames the              defines pets as “dogs, cats, domesticated         php?pid=62&tpid=4; ALDF Update, Summer                a challenge to New Jersey factory farm              there was “support in the literature and in           ments, subjecting the
  existing misdemeanor provisions as “cruelty          rabbits, guinea pigs, domesticated pigs, or       2006, p. 8.                                           practices brought by the New Jersey Society         the veterinary community” that the NJDA
  in the second degree,” which is punishable           caged birds (passeriformes, piciformes, and                                                             for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals            practices were in fact inhumane, it still             elephants to cruel and
                                                                                                                                                               and other animal protection groups, the             deferred to NJDA. But on July 3, 2007,
                                                                                                                                                               Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate              the New Jersey Supreme Court granted                 inhumane confinement
        CoNTiNuED FRoM PAGE 3
                                                                                                         some Claims Dismissed in                              Division declined to interfere with practices       a petition for certification. New Jersey
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      conditions...and separat-
                                                                                                         aLDF, et al. v. Corcpork, inc.,                       sanctioned by the NJDA. The groups alleged          SPCA v. New Jersey Dep’t of Agric., 192
       pRoseCutoR puZZLeR                                                                                et al. swine Cruelty action
                                                                                                                                                               that the NJDA allowed industrialized
                                                                                                                                                               factory farms and that countless animals
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   N.J. 292 (N.J. 2007); http://www.hsus.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ing mother elephants
                                                                                                         But consumer plaintiffs are allowed                   were forced to endure inhumane and                  new_jersey_regs.html.                                    from their babies.
  Disposition                                        Ga. Code. §16-12-4(a)(3) states “’Willful
                                                     neglect’ means the intentional withholding          to continue their case in fight against
                                                                                                                                                               intolerable conditions as a consequence.

                                                     of food and water required by an animal to          inhumane treatment of sows
  The Biggers/Cypress Foods case occurred in
  Florida and Georgia. Florida’s and Georgia’s
                                                     prevent starvation or dehydration.”
                                                                                                                                                               Ringling brothers and barnum & bailey Circus to stand
  animal protection laws include chickens in
                                                     Ga. Code. §16-12-4(b) states “A person
                                                     commits the offense of cruelty to animals
                                                                                                                Sonoma County, CA – In January 2007,
                                                                                                                ALDF, East Bay Animal Advocates, and
                                                                                                                                                               trial for elephant abuse
  the definition of “animal.”                        when he or she causes death or unjustifiable                                                              Circus accused of abusing its Asian elephants in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act
                                                                                                         three Bay Area consumers filed a complaint
  Fla. Stat. §828.02 states “…’animal’ shall be      physical pain or suffering to any animal by an      against CorcPork, Inc., California’s largest
  held to include every living dumb creature…”       act, an omission, or willful neglect. Any person    industrial pig farming operation, alleging            Washington, D.C. – In an action brought             trial for more than five years. The court
                                                     convicted of a violation of this subsection shall   that CorcPork houses its thousands of                 in a federal district court by the American         also rejected the circus’s Motion for Leave
  Fla. Stat. §828.12(1) states “A person who         be guilty of a misdemeanor …”                       pregnant and nursing pigs in violation of             Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to            to Amend Answers to Assert Additional
  unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments,                                                         California’s anti-cruelty laws. Clougherty
                                                     Ga. Code. §16-12-4(e) states “The provisions                                                              Animals and other animal welfare groups,            Defense and Counterclaim, and the court
  deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or                                                        Packing Company, which sells products
                                                     of this Code section shall not be construed                                                               as well as a former circus employee, it is          admonished the circus to stop harassing the
  unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or                                                       under the trademarked “Farmer John”
                                                     as prohibiting conduct which is otherwise                                                                 asserted that the circus violates the Act in        plaintiffs with irrelevant discovery requests.
  causes the same to be done … is guilty of a                                                            brand, was also named as a defendant. The
                                                     permitted under the laws of this state or of the                                                          numerous ways. Plaintiff contends that              In making its decision, the court wrote of the
  misdemeanor of the first degree …”                                                                     consumers, who claim to have purchased and
                                                     United States, including, but not limited to,                                                             the circus employs abusive training and             “overriding public policy in favor of protecting
  Fla. Stat. §828.13(2) states “Whoever: (a)                                                             consumed “Farmer John” products, accuse               discipline methods, including the use of            the animals from unlawful harassment or
                                                     agricultural, animal husbandry, butchering,
  Impounds or confines any animal in any place                                                           Clougherty of fraudulent business practices           sharp instruments, subjecting the elephants         harm.” Discovery to be completed by the
                                                     food processing …”
  and fails to supply the animal during such                                                             by advertising that the pigs were raised in           to cruel and inhumane confinement                   end of 2007, and a trial date is expected
  confinement with a sufficient quantity of good     In September 2002, the Florida State                “a family tradition since 1931.” California’s         conditions, chaining them for long periods          soon. ASPCA v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum
  and wholesome food and water, … is guilty of       Attorney declined to file criminal charges          penal code makes it clear that all animals            of time, and separating mother elephants            & Bailey Circus, 244 F.R.D. 49 (D.D.C.
  a misdemeanor of the first degree, …”              against Biggers because the State found no          must be given adequate room to exercise;              from their babies. In deciding a motion             2007); Ringling Brothers will Stand Trial
                                                     evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Similarly, no      given the size of their crates, and the fact          brought by the circus, the court chastised          for Elephant Abuse, PR Newswire-US
  Fla. Stat. §828.125(5) states “This section        criminal charges were initiated in Georgia.         that the CorcPork sows can barely even move           it for using several delay tactics, postponing      Newswire, Aug. 23, 2007.
  shall not be construed to abridge, impede,                                                             in them, ALDF claims that CorcPork is clearly
  prohibit, or otherwise interfere in any way with   The next step: Would the case have been
                                                                                                         committing thousands of violations of this
  the application, implementation, or conduct        prosecuted if the victims had been dogs or
  of recognized livestock husbandry practices or     horses? How could laws in your state be
                                                                                                         law. ALDF’s suit seeks to put an immediate            City of Chicago pays $27,000 to Man whose Dog was shot by a Cop
                                                                                                         end to these abusive practices, and it hopes
  techniques by or at the direction of the owner     changed to facilitate prosecution of similar        to do so through the continued consumer               Police officer killed the dog in 2006 while chasing a suspect
  of the livestock so husbanded …”                   cases? The ALDF has resources to help               protection claims brought by the remaining
  Ga. Code. §16-12-4(a)(1) states “’Animal’          you make changes to your state’s animal             plaintiffs. ALDF, et al. v. CorcPork, Inc., et al.,   Chicago, IL – After admitting no wrongdoing         pursuing a suspect. And even though Lady
  shall not include any fish nor shall such term     protection laws. Go to and             Sonoma Co., CA, Super. Ct. No. SCV 240050;            in a lawsuit filed by Calvin Hale, the City of      had never exhibited any aggressive behavior,                      volume xI
  include any pest that might be exterminated        click “Resources” to find current Animal            Doyle, Jim, Big Pork Producers Accused of             Chicago settled the suit with the owner of Lady,    she was shot and killed by the officer while
  or removed from a business, residence, or          Protection Laws, Model Animal Protection            Cruelty to Sows, San Francisco Chronicle,             a 10-year-old Akita. Hale had alleged in his        he continued his pursuit. City Pays $27,000
  other structure.”                                  Laws, and much more.                                Jan. 19, 2007; ALDF Update, Winter 2007,              suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, that an   to Man who Says Cop Shot his Dog, Chicago
                                                                                                         p. 2. ALDF 401.20                                     officer had run into his dog on the street while    Tribune, Sept. 23, 2007.                                          number        4
the anImal law Program anImal legal defense fund

Shared By: