Committee on Animals and the Law

After the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a lot of organizations are trying to sue BP on behalf of animals that lost their lives and their habitat. The task is far from easy. Animal advocates argue that things would be much easier if animals had more legal protection. The following article from the ABA Journal discusses their fight to see animals legally treated more like humans.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/their_day_in_court/
What do you think? Are existing laws enough to efficiently protect animals?

Effective May 5, 2010, New York State amended its Pet Trust Law by eliminating the twenty-one year maximum duration which was included in the original legislation. See http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/estate- elderlaw/blogs/topcases/archive/2010/06/01/2010-n-y-laws-70-effective-may-5-2010.aspx. The statute now provides that a pet trust “shall terminate when the living animal beneficiary or beneficiaries of such trust are no longer alive.” New York State E.P.T.L. §7-8.1(a).

Do you think it will help people or animals to have the twenty-one year limit removed?

Also, consider the current language of the statute that a trust will terminate upon the death of “the living animal beneficiary or beneficiaries.” Does this imply that offspring of the animal are not covered? What about pets acquired after the trust is created? Would multiple trusts be needed to cover them?

What is your overall opinion of the new statute?

Once again, a case of animal hoarding has been publicized in the New York metropolitan area. (See story at http://www.news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=258185&position=1&news_type=news .

Once again, this raises the questions of whether animal hoarding should be an independent criminal offense, handled under existing animal cruelty laws or handled otherwise as a mental or emotional problem which requires treatment rather than punishment.

If hoarding in general has been recognized as a mental illness, does this change if the items being hoarded are sentient beings? The only difference is that the hoarder is hurting the "things" which being hoarded instead of just himself or herself.

It is that very fact which allows animal hoarding to cross over from a private matter into the public domain, and hoarders are often prosecuted for animal cruelty. Do you think that prosecution of animal hoarders is appropriate? Or should animal hoarders be treated as mentally ill people in need of treatment.

If hoarders are prosecuted, consider the sentencing of a convicted hoarder: Should the goal be punishment or mandatory treatment and education?

Do you think a convicted hoarder should be prohibited from owning or possessing other animals (or more than one animal) in the future? If so, should there be a way for a hoarder to be rehabilitated? For instance, if a treating professional asserts that person has overcome that particular addiction to the point of being able to function "normally," should the prohibition against future possession of animals, be lifted?

This month Delaware’s Governor, Jack Markell, signed into law new standards for the care of animals in its shelters. As the below article states, “[t]he regulations direct shelters to maintain records on animals they intake, including how many are adopted, reclaimed, transferred or euthanized. Those records must then be posted online. The law also sets up standards mandating vaccinations and veterinary care procedures. The regulations also call for animal shelters to take steps to make adoption as convenient as possible, including opening their facilities on nights and weekends.”

http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2010/07/23/delaware-establishes-standards-for-animal-shelters/42484

The Governor noted the State’s goal not to “kill animals.”

Should shelters in New York post its records online, and why?

Approximately three months ago in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a federal law which bans the sale of videos that show animal torture. The Supreme Court held that the law was too overbroad and thus violated free speech. See the article here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J3IO20100420

Now, Congress had voted to, once again, ban the sale and distribution of videos that show animal torture. This time, Congress believes it addressed the concerns of the Supreme Court by not banning videos of, for example, hunting and fishing. The article mentions that the House of Representatives vote was 416 for and 3 against. Please see the following article for more information:

http://www.animalconcerns.org/external.html?www=http%3A//www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/21/house-passes-galleglys-new-animal-crush-video/&itemid=201007211807410.159643

Do you believe that Congress should ban these videos, and why?

Should there be any first amendment protection for videos or pictures for that matter depicting the torture of animals? If so, under what circumstances?

Yesterday Massachusetts became the first US state to ban surgery that devocalizes dogs and cats. The controversial procedure cuts or removes a pet’s vocal cords so that the dog cannot bark and a cat cannot “meow”. California is considering a similar law, and Congress may provide the states with a financial incentive to enact similar laws.

As the article below states, supporters of the law “see as a cruel and unnecessary procedure”, and prevents the animal from communicating with the owner. Opponents of the law argued that people would have to give up their dogs and cats to shelters because neighbors complained that they were too noisy, a fact which supporters say is incorrect.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38345707/ns/health-pet_health/

Do you think that New York should enact a similar law, and why?

Under New York State law, it is illegal to legislate a ban on pets based on breed. Notwithstanding, Rockville Centre had recently enacted a law banning pitbulls and rottweilers. But, yesterday the public voted to reverse this ban. Please see this article for more information:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38343683

This ban reverses a similar ban by the New York City Housing Authority. Last year, NYCHA banned pets over 25 pounds, which happens to include pitbulls and rottweilers. Residents at the Baruch Houses in New York City now also face a similar ban. See http://www.thevillager.com/villager_375/caninecrackdown.html

Some think that these dogs are too dangerous for people to keep. Others say that these dogs pose no more of a threat than others dogs like a golden retriever and publicly supported shelters will be inundated with these dogs.

Do you think legislators should have a say in what type of dog you may own? And, why?

Do you think that pitbulls or rottweilers are too dangerous to keep? And, why?

Do you think a dog’s weight has anything to do with a propensity for aggression? Or, do you believe that the weight limit is just an easy way and a pretext for NYCHA and other authorities to really target ban pit bulls and rottweilers?

Since breed specific legislation is in direct violation with NYS law, do you think a weight limit is a legitimate way to get around that law since fully grown pitbulls and rottweillers just so happen to be over 25 pounds?

Please see our other breed restriction blog topics at http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/breed_restriction/

Since our last posting on the West Hollywood Ordinance (http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/02/in_an_attempt_to_end_puppy_mil.html#comments) more cities have considered banning pet stores from selling animals. San Francisco and New York also have considered this ban.

The San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare tabled (or, perhaps, postponed indefinitely) the ordinance, as expressed by this article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15476512?nclick_check=1

People in New York have considered the possibility of a similar ban. The following article states that hundreds of animals who are adopted from pet stores are soon thereafter surrendered to New York shelters.

http://gothamist.com/2010/07/10/could_nyc_be_next_to_ban_pets_from.php

One view, as expressed by this article, is that people “treat animals like disposable commodities and the pet trade just feeds into that”. The opposing view, as expressed by one person in the article, is that the small pet store owners would likely not be able to survive such a ban.

Is this ban justified?

A recent SPCA raid on a property located on Long Island has received more than the usual amount of attention usually provided to situations in which animals are seized from what are alleged to be deplorable conditions. While it was reported that the animals were malnourished and living in poor conditions, http://wcbstv.com/local/house.of.squalor.2.1742586.html , there has also been backlash to the raid with multiple people going out of their way to defend the property’s owner and the work she was doing.

http://wcbstv.com/local/house.of.squalor.2.1742586.html;

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/opinion-in-defense-of-herding-dog-rescue-1.2013748

This situation highlights an issue which some people believe should receive more attention, namely the motivation behind reports of alleged cruelty made to SPCAs and other agencies charged with enforcing animal cruelty statutes. Other people would defend any reporting of alleged cruelty, believing that the instances of misuse of the animal protection process are far outnumbered and justified by the need for vigilance in seeking to protect and remove animals from situations in which animals are being mistreated.

What do you think about this issue? Consider that such seizures of animals usually precede the due process hearing to establish if the seizure was determined to be justified; how does that factor into your opinion?

If you wish to comment on this, please go to our Blog: http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/ .

Responding to evidence that people who abuse animals often go on to attack humans, states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and developing better methods for tracking convicted offenders, the New York Times reports.

Legislators are paying close attention to animal hoarders because such offenders are prone to recidivism and can cost counties huge sums for cleanup costs and the care of rescued animals.

At least 27 states allow courts to bar convicted animal abusers from owning or coming into contact with pets, nearly double the number a decade ago, and 3 other states are considering similar measures.

States are also pushing for improved tracking of offenders. Tennessee and California are considering bills to create online registries of animal abusers. Advocates for the registries say they will be useful because they will allow animal shelters to screen potential adopters, alert law enforcement to the presence of residents with a history of hoarding and warn communities about violent offenders. But opponents argue that once people have served their time and paid their fines, they should not be punished indefinitely for their crimes.

What do you think? Should animal abusers be registered like sex offenders on a website?

The article of interest is located at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18animal.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Update: 67th District Assembly member Linda Rosenthal has proposed an animal abuser registry for NY. See: http://wcbstv.com/seenat11/animal.abuse.registry.2.1790973.html