|
Brief Summary of Welfare Standards for Animals Used in Zoos and Exhibition |
This brief summary explores laws regulating zoos and other animal exhibitions. Zoos, aquariums, and animal sanctuaries are subject to federal, state, and local laws. On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act and Endangered Species Act protect captive animals at these facilities. However, these statutes only provide minimal welfare requirements and are limited in terms of scope and enforcement. Beyond these federal laws, there are laws that protect specific species and states have adopted their own laws further regulating possession and exhibition of wild animals. In addition to increased regulation, there have been a number of organizations offering accreditation for exhibiting facilities, holding these facilities to a higher standard of animal welfare than the minimum requirements set out by federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act. |
|
Chile - Animal Welfare- Animal Protection Act (in Spanish) |
Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years. Labs, zoos, circuses, and other establishments that keep animals for exhibition and entertainment are allowed, so long as they have the adequate facilities according to the species and adequate safety for people. Animal experimentation in schools is allowed under this law. Rodeo, rein-back and equestrian sports are excepted from provisions of this law.
|
|
Chimpanzee Laws |
|
|
Chimps, Inc., International Primate League, and Marguerite Gordon v. Primarily Primates, Inc. |
|
|
Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of State University of New York |
Citizens wanted access to University records dealing with biomedical research using cats and dogs.
These records were created, as required by federal Law, but access to the records was requested under state law.
According to the New York Freedom of Information Act (FOIL), documents held by an “agency” should be disclosed.
The lower Appellate Division held that s
ince the University did not fall under the definition of “agency" under New York Public Officers Law, it was not required to turn over such documents. The New York Court of Appeals, however, found that the Appellate Division's rationale for denying FOIL disclosure was inconsistent with precedent, and that the legislative goal behind FOIL of was liberal disclosure, limited only by narrowly circumscribed specific statutory exemptions. Thus, in reversing the Appellate Division's decision, the Court of Appeals held that the records were subject to disclosure.
|
|
Comparative National Animal Welfare Laws |
This paper compares the strengths and weaknesses of the animal welfare legislation in four countries: Portugal, the Philippines, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Following the discussion is a chart that illustrates the main components of each piece of legislation, showing how each defines terms and to which animals the requisite legislation applies.
|
|
Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
USDA had suspended a kennel owner’s license for 90 days and imposed a fine on the owner for violating AWA regulations.
These violations included delivering dogs for transportation in commerce, that were under eight weeks old, failing to hold dogs for at least five days after acquiring them, and refusing APHIS inspections.
Owner claimed that such sanctions were excessive.
However, the court found that there was willful violation of the AWA, since inspections were refused.
Also, ignorance is not considered a defense, and although the owners claimed they did not know the age of the eight-week old puppies, they could have found out.
Thus, the sanction was appropriate.
|
|
CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only.
|
|
Daul v. Meckus |
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has brought this Bivens action seeking to hold government agents liable in their individual capacities for alleged constitutional violations under the AWA. Plaintiff lost his Class A license of a dealer under the AWA, due to failure to submit the required license fee and annual report. The court held that, even construing plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to him, Mr. Daul appears merely to allege without proof that each of these defendants exceeded the scope of his authority. Thus, plaintiff's conclusory allegations failed to show that any defendant violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory right.
The named defendants from the USDA were also granted both absolute and qualified immunity in the decision.
|
|
Dehart v. Town of Austin |
The breeder was in the business of buying, breeding, raising, and selling of exotic and wild animals. The town passed an ordinance making it unlawful to keep certain wild animals, and the breeder filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a local ordinance. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the town because: (1) the ordinance was not preempted by the Animal Welfare Act; (2) the ordinance was not an impermissible attempt to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; and (3) the town did not deprive him of his property interest in his federal and state licenses without due process.
|
