|
Humane Education, Dissection, And The Law |
Students regularly encounter animal dissection in education, yet humane education receives little attention in animal law. This article analyzes the status of humane education laws in the United States. It discusses the range of statutory protections, from student choice laws to bans on vivisection. The article then analyzes the litigation options for students who do not wish to dissect, including constitutional claims and claims arising under student choice laws. The article concludes by calling for additional legislation to protect students who have ethical objections to dissection.
|
|
Humane Soc. of Rochester and Monroe County for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Lyng |
Court decided that the type of branding mandated by Secretary of Agriculture constitutes cruelty to animals because other less painful and equally effective alternatives exist and therefore freed dairy farmers to use other branding methods like freeze branding.
|
|
Humane Soc. of U.S., Inc. v. Brennan |
In this New York case, the petitioners, various organizations and individuals generally opposed to the production of foie gras (a product derived from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese who were force fed prior to slaughter) submitted a petition to respondent Department of Agriculture and Markets seeking a declaration that foie gras is an adulterated food product within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law §§ 200. The respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets refused to issue a statement to the requested declaration. On review to this court, petitioners sought a judicial pronouncement that foie gras is an adulterated food product. This court held that petitioners lacked standing because they did not suffer an injury within the zone of interests protected by State Administrative Procedure Act §§ 204.
|
|
Humane Socieities and Enforcement Powers |
|
|
Humane Society of United States v. State Board of Equalization |
Humane society and four state taxpayers brought action attacking government waste, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief that would bar implementation of tax exemptions for farm equipment and machinery as they applied to “battery cage” chicken coops that allegedly violated animal cruelty laws. State Board of Equalization demurred. Superior Court sustained without leave to amend the complaint and dismissed the case, which the Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that the plaintiffs did not allege a valid cause of action attacking government waste.
|
|
I.B. Sirmans v. State |
Defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The portion of the sentence depriving defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were abused vacated and case remanded; judgment affirmed in all other respects because the motion to suppress was properly denied, and defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to sever the trial.
|
|
IA - Cruelty - Chapter 717. Injury to Livestock |
Livestock were excluded from the definition of animal in Iowa's animal cruelty laws in 1994. These sections deal exclusively with livestock and exempt practices consistent with customary farming practices. |
|
IA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws |
Under Title XVI of Iowa's criminal code, there are several chapters that outlaw forms of animal cruelty and animal fighting. The main animal cruelty provisions are contained in chapter 717B (Injuries to Animals other than Livestock). This chapter defines "animal" as any nonhuman vertebrate. However, it excludes livestock, game, fur-bearing animal, fish, reptile, or amphibian unless a person owns, confines, or controls the game, fur-bearing animal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, and any nongame considered a "nuisance." There are separate prohibitions against animal abuse, animal neglect, animal torture, abandonment of a cat or dog, and injury to a police service dog. Under both the animal abuse and animal torture sections, a first offense results in an aggravated misdemeanor. However, animal torture requires a mandatory psychological evaluation and graduates subsequent convictions to felony status. Exclusions under the various sections include veterinary care, hunting, animal husbandry, and scientific research, among others. Other criminal chapters include chapters 717C.1 (Bestiality), 717D (Animal Contest Events), and 717E (Pets as Prizes). |
|
ID - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Idaho statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Every person who is cruel to any animal and whoever having the charge or custody of any animal subjects any animal to cruelty is guilty of a misdemeanor. "Animal" means any vertebrate member of the animal kingdom, except humans. "Cruelty" is defined as the intentional and malicious infliction of pain, physical suffering, injury or death upon an animal as well as the negligent deprivation of necessary sustenance, among other things. Dogfighting and cockfighting exhibitions are also prohibited, but the rearing of gamecocks regardless of their later intended use is not prohibited. |
|
ID - Slaughter, animal - Chapter 58. Public Health and Safety |
These Idaho statutes make certain activities involved with animal slaughter criminal. For example, it is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to put the carcass of any dead animal into any river, creek, pond or street. It is a misdemeanor to slaughter or sell any animal that has been confined for 20 hours without water or 48 hours without food. The statutes also make it a felony if a mischievous animal is allowed to run at large and the animal kills a person. |
