ALDF News

Indiana Court Orders Man to Pay $96,000 for Rehabilitative Care for Eight Starving Horses Seized in 2007

Wed, 08 Sep 2010

Crucial Legal Victory Awarded in Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Case to Secure Horses’ Permanent Safety from their Abuser

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Megan Backus, Animal Legal Defense Fund

Marion, Ind.–This morning, the Grant County Circuit Court ordered Robert Collier to pay $96,000 to the United States Equine Rescue League (USERL) for the cost of caring for eight severely neglected horses who were seized from him and Rebecca Collier in Marion County in November 2007 in a case filed by attorneys at the national non-profit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in June 2009. Indiana lien law establishes that USERL has a common law lien claim against Collier for the horses’ care; $96,000—or $13 per day, per horse—represents the costs that USERL has incurred so far in providing routine and supportive care to the horses since they were seized from Collier when the Marion-Grant County Humane Society discovered dogs and horses on the Colliers’ farm in states of severe neglect and starvation. Collier was charged with two counts of animal cruelty and neglect in connection with this case.

Indiana statutes provide USERL the right to ownership of the eight horses because of Collier’s failure to pay for the costs of their care. According to today’s Court order granting USERL’s motion for partial summary judgment, “Here, there is no dispute in the designated evidentiary materials that the intervention of the USERL was necessary to maintain the care of the horses due to the emergency situation that they were in. Further, there is no dispute that $13 per horse [per] day was a reasonable cost of keeping the horses and that appropriate care had been given to them after they were discovered in their unhealthy condition suffered at the hands of Mr. Collier.” ALDF’s novel use of a lien statute in USERL v. Collier to secure safety for abused animals makes this case not only a victory for these eight horses, but an important step forward in the growing field of animal law.

“Horses suffering from neglect experience psychological trauma in addition to the unimaginable physical pain of slowly starving to death,” says ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells. “The Animal Legal Defense Fund applauds the Court for ordering that if Mr. Collier should choose to continue to fight us for custody of these horses—a fight that ALDF will wage until their safety, for the rest of their lives, is fully secured—he must first foot the bill for the diligent and compassionate rehabilitation work done by their rescuers. Our ultimate concern is that these beautiful, now thriving horses are never returned to the man who abused them.”

The Animal Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals through the legal system. Pro bono assistance in this case is being provided by the law firm DLA Piper and local counsel Rae Feller. Photographs of the rescued horses and a copy of the Court’s order granting the motion for partial summary judgment are available upon request.

Turtle Tragedy

Wed, 01 Sep 2010

ALDF files suit against BP to prevent the burning alive of endangered sea turtles

While the words “British Petroleum” may now be forever linked with “oil spill” and “environmental disaster,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund refuses to let BP add “animal cruelty” to the company’s hall of shame. In June, we joined a coalition of animal protection and conservation groups concerned about reports that BP’s cleanup efforts were resulting in sea turtles being burned alive, and together we filed a lawsuit and motion for a temporary restraining order against British Petroleum America, Inc., British Petroleum Exploration & Production and British Petroleum PLC for being in violation of federal laws.

As if the recent disaster along the ecologically sensitive Gulf Coast weren’t bad enough—with heavy crude oil gushing from the seabed, spreading across thousands of square miles and onto fragile shorelines—officials from the Coast Guard and BP had likely turned the catastrophe into a flaming nightmare for sea turtles. Weeks after the April 20th explosion and sinking of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig, which unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history, workers began corralling some of the thicker oil on the water’s surface into “burn boxes” and torching it. Experts submitted testimony that in the process sea turtles trapped in the burn boxes were likely being incinerated.

Five species of threatened or endangered sea turtles live or breed in the Gulf, and as the Deepwater Horizon oil well hemorrhaged an unthinkable (and uncountable) amount of oil from its depths, hundreds of turtles and other marine animals died from the saturation, many by suffocation. But BP and the Coast Guard’s risky clean-up methods, and the threat they posed to sea turtles, were as unconscionable. These animals surface from beneath oil slicks because they are visually similar to the long mats of sargassum seaweed they instinctively seek for food and camouflage. As BP’s cleanup vessels corralled large oil patches for burning, doomed sea turtles caught in the mess likely had no way to escape the crude oil as it was set ablaze. BP contractors preparing burn-off measures even blocked the efforts of wildlife rescuers struggling to save the turtles.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund, along with the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network, took legal action against BP, filing a suit in U.S. federal court that charged the oil giant with violating the Endangered Species Act and the terms of its lease with the United States government for the Deepwater Horizon facility, which requires BP to comply with all federal environmental laws. In addition, the temporary restraining order we sought demanded an immediate halt to any burns without sufficient precautionary measures to protect the turtles.

“As the news about the oil spill spread, we became increasingly alarmed about the impact that this disaster is having not only on endangered species, but on all of the many and varied creatures who live in the Gulf,” explains ALDF founder Joyce Tischler. “The media seemed focused on the impact on the local residents, the fishing and shrimp industries and the environment, but no one seemed focused on the plight of the animals. BP has desecrated their home and food sources and robbed them of a healthful, natural environment. We will probably never know the full number of marine creatures who die or are permanently impacted because of this catastrophe.”

BP has already likely killed or otherwise harmed hundreds of rare Kemp’s Ridley, leatherback, loggerhead and other species of sea turtles through its use of controlled burns or as a result of contamination from the oil spill itself. “We are concerned, not only about the five species of endangered turtles and the potential for their total extinction, but also for the individual turtles—their suffering and their lives are important,” adds Tischler. “Throughout the process of dealing with this oil spill, the interests and protection of the animals must be considered.”

Tischler is also alarmed by another aspect of the cleanup effort. “To add insult to injury,” she says, “BP also used unprecedented amounts of dispersants that may be causing significant additional harm to all of these living beings.” Chemical dispersants are sprayed from aircraft and break up the oil into tiny drops, making the oil more water soluble. But even if, as BP claims, the chemicals are not dangerous, by converting the thick sludge into droplets, dispersants make the oil less visible, thus masking the full environmental impact of the spill and helping to limit the company’s legal and financial liability. Tischler is among those who believe the unprecedented amount of chemicals being applied to the Gulf is reckless at best. “The use of these toxic dispersants may prove to be one of the worst decisions ever made,” she says.

The good news is that as a result of our lawsuit, BP and the U.S. government agreed to work with biologists, animal advocates and the rescue community to ensure that turtles and other marine animals are safely removed from the burn sites before any future burns are carried out. In the meantime, ALDF has filed the 60-day advance notice that is necessary to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act, in case we should have to sue again. Stay tuned, as ALDF is also exploring other needs for wildlife protection in the Gulf in the wake of this catastrophe.

ALDF's Rescue "Tails" Photo Contest

At the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we are proud to be the only lawyers whose clients are all innocent. And so many of our favorite clients are rescued animals who got a second chance after a rough start in life. In our first-ever Rescue "Tails" Photo Contest, we want to see photos of YOUR rescued animals!

Submit a photo of the animal who got a second chance from you and briefly tell us his or her story. Online voting will open for ALDF fans to vote for their favorite finalists in October, and the winning animal will be pictured on ALDF’s 2010 annual holiday card!

To enter, submit a photo of your rescued animal between September 1 and September 30, 2010 to photocontest@aldf.org or by mail. All entries must include:

A photo of your rescued animal. (Digital photos must be a minimum of 200 dpi. Your photo will not be returned. )
Your rescued animal’s story in 100 words or less.
Your name, email address and phone number so we can contact you if your photo is selected.

Your entries to ALDF’s Rescue "Tails" Photo Contest will help put a face on ALDF’s crucial work to provide legal protections to animals in need of rescue! Enter today!

Contest Rules

To Enter
To enter, submit a photo of your rescued animal during the Contest Period, between September 1 and September 30, 2010. Photos may be mailed to: Photo Contest, Animal Legal Defense Fund, 170 East Cotati Ave, Cotati, CA 94931, or they may be submitted via email to photocontest@aldf.org. The deadline for entry is September 30, 2010. Hard copy photos will not be returned to you. Finalists will be notified before the online voting period begins on October 12, 2010. The winner will be announced on November 1, 2010.

Along with your photo submission, tell us briefly about your rescued animals’ story in 100 words or less.

You must also provide us with the following information:
-Your name
-Contact email address and/or contact phone number

Failure to provide this information will disqualify your entry.

To qualify for entry, you must have taken the rescued animal photo that you submit. You are responsible for ensuring that you have the legal right to submit the photo(s) that you submit. By entering this Contest, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Animal Legal Defense Fund and its directors, officers and employees, from all third party claims for copyright infringement, or any other injury, loss, claim, action or demand arising from your submission of the photo(s) in connection with this Contest.

Eligibility
You must be 18 years or older to be eligible. The Contest is subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Void where prohibited by law. Employees and independent contractors of the Animal Legal Defense Fund and their immediate family members may not enter.

Your Rights
You retain all rights to your image(s). Hard copy photos mailed to ALDF will not be returned to you. If your photo is selected to appear on ALDF’s holiday card, you grant Animal Legal Defense Fund a nonexclusive right in perpetuity to publish the image on our holiday card, website and for other future purposes; proper credit to you will be provided for any such use. It is understood that ALDF will make no monetary payment for such use. You also grant ALDF the right to use your name, caption and other identifying information, unless you notify ALDF in writing that you do not wish to have such information published with the photo(s).

Animal Legal Defense Fund Petitions Department of Transportation to Require Airlines to Report on Deaths of Animals Shipped as "Cargo"

Thu, 19 Aug 2010

Current Regulations Ignore Deaths, Injuries to Animals Shipped by Puppy Mill Operators

For immediate release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund

Cotati, Calif. – On the heels of the deaths of seven puppies transported in the cargo hold on an American Airlines flight from Tulsa, Oklahoma to Chicago earlier this month, the national non-profit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a petition with the Department of Transportation urging them to oblige air carriers to report on the deaths of any animals in transit, and to identify the shippers and consignees involved in their “shipment.” Currently, the Department of Transportation only requires airlines to report the deaths or disappearances of animals considered “pets”—meaning that there has been no accurate reporting on in-flight harm to dogs shipped by puppy mills or other animals transported as cargo. Senators Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) have drafted a joint letter to the Secretary of Transportation, arguing that a “flawed interpretation of laws” has allowed animal death reporting to “slip through the cracks.”

Please send a letter to your senators and representatives through ALDF's website and ask them to join Senators Menendez, Durbin, and Lieberman and ALDF in amending this regulation to ensure accurate reporting about the real risks to animals shipped in cargo holds.

The current reporting requirement was created by Congress with the intention of gathering data on the safety of transporting animals as cargo—a risky, controversial practice which many air carriers today refuse to do. That data was intended to be used to inform the public of the safety of the practice and to determine whether further legislative action would be required. However, the regulation as it is currently written covers only “[p]et[s] in a family household in the United States,” which make up only part of the total number of animals transported by air carriers. Animals shipped in cargo by commercial breeders or puppy mill operators—like the seven puppies who died, likely due to overheating, after their American Airlines flight—are unaccounted for, as far as the current law is being interpreted.

“Whether an animal is shipped as a pet or as an item of commerce has no bearing whatsoever on that animal’s ability to suffer,” says Carter Dillard, ALDF’s director of litigation. “A dog who dies while being shipped by a commercial breeder may suffer just as much as one who dies while being shipped as a pet. Travelers and animal lovers have a right to know exactly how risky it is for animals to be shipped as cargo on commercial airlines.”

A copy of ALDF’s petition to the Department of Transportation is available upon request.

El Paso City Council to Vote on Puppy Mill Ban

Mon, 09 Aug 2010

Animal Legal Defense Fund Urges City to Reduce Pet Overpopulation and Protect Consumers and Animals from Cruel Puppy Mills by Banning Retail Pet Sales

Update: The vote has been delayed until October 5.

For immediate release

Contact:
Megan Backus, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Tom Linney, Animal Legal Defense Fund

El Paso, Texas – Tomorrow morning, the El Paso City Council is voting on Mayor John Cook and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s proposed ban on the sale of non-shelter dogs and cats at pet stores – effectively banning the sale of animals bred at filthy “puppy mills.” A representative of the national non-profit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), which has advised the Mayor office on the ordinance, will appear before the City Council to speak in support of the ban. The ordinance, which would be the first of its kind in Texas if passed, allows for an exemption for the adoptions of shelter and rescue animals and for people who purchase animals directly from a breeder.

When: Tuesday, August 10, 2010, 8:30 am
Where: Council Chambers, City Hall, 2 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso

El Paso joins a growing list of cities in America to consider retail pet sale bans. Since Albuquerque, N.M. passed a similar ban, animal adoptions have increased by 23 percent and euthanasia at city shelters has decreased by 35 percent. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood, Calif. have both passed bans, and other cities in Florida, New Mexico, Missouri, and elsewhere are currently considering similar bans on the sale of dogs and cats from pet stores.

Puppy mills are commercial "factories" where the "product" is puppies and dogs who are treated as machines. “Breeding” dogs are kept in overcrowded wire cages for their entire lives with little, if any, human contact or veterinary care. If the puppy mill is outdoors, the dogs are unprotected from the cold of winter and the heat of summer. They live with the stench of their own urine and feces and, if the cages are stacked on top of each other, the dogs on the lower level are hit with excrement from above. “Puppy mill puppies are sold in pet stores,” explains ALDF attorney Tom Linney, an El Paso resident who will speak before the City Council in support of the ordinance. “The simplest way to assure concerned El Paso consumers that they are not supporting puppy mills is to ban the sale of animals at pet stores, and to encourage ‘pet stores’ to serve as facilities for adoptions from shelters and rescue groups instead.”

ALDF was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals through the legal system. For more information, please visit www.aldf.org.

BP Agrees to Stop Burning Endangered Sea Turtles Alive

Fri, 02 Jul 2010

Animal Legal Defense Fund Announces Temporary Reprieve for Wildlife Being Illegally Killed in Gulf Clean-Up Efforts

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund

NEW ORLEANS - The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network achieved a temporary win for endangered turtles in federal court this morning in their lawsuit against British Petroleum and the U.S. Coast Guard for burning critically endangered sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws. The parties have agreed that on an expedited basis, the Coast Guard will convene a group of scientists, with the plaintiffs’ input, to determine the best protocol for ensuring no endangered sea turtles will be killed during burn containment practices. That protocol will be announced on a very fast track for public comment so that it can be finalized as soon as possible.

As part of BP’s efforts to contain the massive oil spill that continues to devastate the Gulf of Mexico, BP has been using “controlled burns” whereby oil is corralled by fire resistant booms dragged through the water by shrimp boats and then lit on fire. Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley, one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth, are caught in the gathered oil and unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.

BP and the Coast Guard agreed in meetings held in New Orleans this morning that, because of bad weather in the Gulf, there will be no more burning until at least next Tuesday, July 6. By Tuesday, the defendants will inform ALDF and the other animal protection groups if they will be able to have qualified scientists to act as observers for every burn boat to ensure that all turtles will be identified and removed before any burns resume; if they cannot make that assurance, the parties will be returning to federal court.

“We are thrilled to announce a temporary reprieve for these endangered turtles whose habitat has already been devastated by the Gulf oil spill,” says ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells. “BP and the Coast Guard are taking a very important step in the right direction by committing to investigate protocols that will allow them to continue in their clean-up efforts without violating the Endangered Species Act by illegally burning sea turtles alive.”

The plaintiff groups are being represented by the Washington, D.C. based public interest law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal. ALDF was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing interests of animals through the legal system. A copy of the complaint is available upon request.

Animal Legal Defense Fund Files Suit Against BP for Burning Endangered Sea Turtles Alive

Wed, 30 Jun 2010

Immediate Protection Sought for Wildlife Being Illegally Killed in Gulf Clean-Up Efforts

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund

NEW ORLEANS - The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network filed suit in federal court today against British Petroleum America, Inc., British Petroleum Exploration & Production and British Petroleum PLC (“BP”) for burning critically endangered sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws. As part of BP’s efforts to contain the massive oil spill that continues to devastate the Gulf of Mexico, BP is using “controlled burns” whereby oil is corralled by fire resistant booms dragged through the water by shrimp boats and then lit on fire. Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley, one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth, are caught in the gathered oil and unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by ALDF along with the other animal protection and conservation groups after notice was given to BP on Monday of its ongoing violations of federal law and the groups’ intent to sue. Under the suit, the plaintiffs have charged BP with violating the federal Endangered Species Act and the terms of its lease with the United States government for the Deepwater Horizon facility, which lease requires BP to comply with all federal environmental laws. The plaintiffs have asked the court to prevent BP from continuing to engage in burning activities in the Gulf of Mexico which kill or injure endangered sea turtles. The plaintiffs have also filed a Temporary Restraining Order seeking an immediate halt to the burning until, at a minimum, mechanisms are implemented that will prevent any additional sea turtles from being burned alive. BP could engage in controlled burns without killing turtles by removing as many turtles as possible from relevant areas before allowing them to be burned alive; to date, BP has taken no such measures.

“Our phones have been ringing off the hooks with calls from citizens outraged to learn that BP is burning alive some of the most critically endangered turtles on Earth,” says ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells. “This catastrophic spill has already devastated the habitat of countless animals. BP needs to stop illegally killing protected wildlife and take responsibility for a clean-up effort that addresses this environmental disaster while staying in full compliance with animal protection laws.”

The plaintiff groups are being represented by the Washington, D.C. based public interest law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal. ALDF was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing interests of animals through the legal system. A copy of the complaint is available upon request.

Seattle Taxpayers Sue the City for Supporting Illegal Cruelty to Woodland Park Zoo Elephants

Tue, 29 Jun 2010

Plaintiffs Protest Cruelty at the Zoo and the Use of City Funds to Support Facilities, Practices that Violate Animal Protection Laws

For immediate release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Megan Backus, Animal Legal Defense Fund

SEATTLE—Outraged citizens represented by the Animal Legal Defense Fund are filing a lawsuit against the City of Seattle today to stop the City’s unlawful use of taxpayer dollars to support the Woodland Park Zoo’s reckless and illegally cruel treatment of its elephants. As a result of inadequate facilities, abusive management practices, longstanding intentional neglect, and breeding practices in callous disregard for elephants’ welfare, the Zoo’s elephants Bamboo, Watoto, and Chai suffer from severe and chronic foot and joint injuries, unexplained physical trauma and bleeding, and sustained psychological harm. Chai’s daughter, Hansa, died in 2007 when she was only six years old as a result of the Zoo’s practices. Plaintiffs Mary Sebek and Nancy Farnam—both Seattle taxpayers—brought their concerns about the misuse of city funds to support illegal conduct at the Zoo to the national non-profit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), whose attorneys are representing them.

What’s wrong with the Woodland Park Zoo’s elephant exhibit? In the wild, elephants would walk and forage for many miles, but Bamboo, Watoto, and Chai’s exhibit is far too small to allow them to engage in natural behaviors, and one or more elephants are commonly confined in an area smaller than a tennis court. The outdoor surface of hard-packed sand and dirt has caused chronic, extremely painful injuries to the elephants’ feet and joints which often require medication and surgical intervention. Meanwhile, the Zoo treats its female elephants as breeding machines—Chai has been artificially inseminated at least fifty-seven times, and has suffered multiple miscarriages resulting in physical and psychological pain. Chai’s only live birth, Hansa, died an extremely painful death from an elephant herpes virus. The elephants’ stereotypic “swaying,” so often seen by visitors to the Woodland Park Zoo, is in fact an indication of severe psychological distress.

The City of Seattle uses taxpayer money to fund the Woodland Park Zoo, including its elephant exhibit—despite the fact that the Zoo is clearly violating state law and city ordinances in its treatment of Bamboo, Watoto, and Chai. “Over the last twenty years, more and more zoos have been eliminating their elephant exhibits as an increased knowledge about elephants has shown that it is difficult and costly to keep them physically and psychologically healthy in captivity,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “Shamefully, the Woodland Park Zoo continues to use taxpayer money to exploit its elephants while failing to provide them with adequate care.”

“As a taxpayer, I feel obliged to take a stand to make sure that the City of Seattle stops funding animal cruelty,” says Ms. Sebek. “It’s time for the City of Seattle to pull the plug on the Zoo’s inadequate facilities and cruel and dangerous practices in its elephant exhibit,” states Ms. Farnam. “Bamboo, Watoto, and Chai deserve better—and the taxpayers of Seattle are demanding accountability.”

Urge the City of Seattle to stop funding the Woodland Park Zoo's cruel elephant exhibit. Sign the petition today.

New Study Names Canada's "Best Places to be an Animal Abuser"

Wed, 09 Jun 2010

Northwest Territories and Nunavut Worst for Animals, Ontario Takes Top Honors in Animal Legal Defense Fund’s 2010 Report

For immediate release

Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Stephan Otto, Animal Legal Defense Fund

SAN FRANCISCO – Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Quebec are the best provinces and territories in Canada to be an animal abuser, according to a new report released today by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). Based on a detailed comparative analysis of the animal protection laws of each jurisdiction, researching twelve distinct categories of provisions throughout hundreds of pages of statutes, the report recognizes the provinces and territories where laws protecting animals have real teeth, and calls out those like the Northwest Territories and Nunavut—tied again for worst in Canada this year for animal protection laws—where animal abusers get off easy. ALDF’s third annual report, the only one of its kind in the nation, ranks every province and territory on the relative strength and general comprehensiveness of its animal protection laws. For the second year in a row, Ontario held the top spot in the rankings due to its wide array of animal protection laws; New Brunswick showed the most significant improvement overall, moving from the bottom tier last year to fourth best in the country this year.

Top Tier:	1. Ontario 2. Nova Scotia 3. Manitoba 4. New Brunswick
Middle Tier:	5. Yukon 6. British Columbia 7. Saskatchewan 8. Prince Edward Island 9. Newfoundland & Labrador
Bottom Tier:	10. Alberta 11. Quebec 12. Northwest Territories, Nunavut (tie)

Why are some provinces and territories in the dog house when it comes to getting tough on animal abusers? The legislative weaknesses seen in the jurisdictions at the bottom of the animal protection barrel include minimal fines and other penalties for offenders, a limited range of protections, and a lack of basic care standards for animals. On the other end of the spectrum, New Brunswick skyrocketed from the bottom to top tier for animal protection laws after enacting some of Canada’s stiffest penalties for cruelty offences—abusers in New Brunswick now face fines of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to eighteen months. Nova Scotia overtook Manitoba as the second best province due to a host of new laws including better standards of care for animals, stronger penalties and requiring veterinarians to report suspected offences; Yukon also showed progress, moving up from seventh to fifth place this year.

“We continue to see significant disparity across the provinces and territories,” says Stephan Otto, ALDF’s director of legislative affairs and author of the report. “Animals do not vote, but those who love and care about them do. It is our hope that these ongoing reviews continue to garner support for both the strengthening and enforcement of animal protection laws throughout Canada.”

The full report, including a rankings map and overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the animal protection laws of each province and territory, is available for download. ALDF’s latest edition of the “Animal Protection Laws of the U.S.A. and Canada” compendium (on which the report is principally based), is also available.

2010 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings^TM

Wed, 09 Jun 2010

A new study released by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) underscores the often-considerable differences that exist between the animal protection laws of the provinces and territories. ALDF’s third annual report, the only one of its kind in Canada, ranked each jurisdiction on the relative strength and comprehensiveness of their current animal protection laws. The ranking was based on a detailed comparative analysis of the animal protection laws of each jurisdiction, researching twelve distinct categories of provisions throughout hundreds of pages of statutes. Each province and territory received a numerical ranking based upon their combined score and was also grouped into a top, middle or bottom tier.

For the second year in a row, Ontario held the top spot in the rankings due to its wide array of animal protection laws. New Brunswick showed the most significant improvement overall, moving from the bottom tier last year to fourth best in the country this year. New Brunswick’s improved ranking was due to its enactment of some of Canada’s stiffest penalties for offences. Animal abusers in New Brunswick now face fines of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to eighteen months. Nova Scotia overtook Manitoba as the second best province due to a host of new laws including better standards of care for animals, stronger penalties and requiring veterinarians to report suspected offences. The Northwest Territories and Nunavut tied again for last place – a position they have jointly held since 2008.

“This report identifies what each province and territory is doing individually with respect to their animal protection laws,” says Stephan Otto, ALDF’s director of legislative affairs and author of the report, “and we continue to see a wide range of disparity across the country. While many are making substantial steps forward, others unfortunately are not. Yet irrespective of where each jurisdiction currently ranks in the report, every province and territory has ample room for improvement. It is our hope that these ongoing reviews continue to shed light on this important issue and garner support for both the strengthening and enforcement of animal protection laws throughout the country.”

Download the full report (PDF)
Download the Canadian rankings map

2010 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings
Comparing Overall Strength & Comprehensiveness

Top Tier:	1. Ontario 2. Nova Scotia 3. Manitoba 4. New Brunswick
Middle Tier:	5. Yukon 6. British Columbia 7. Saskatchewan 8. Prince Edward Island 9. Newfoundland & Labrador
Bottom Tier:	10. Alberta 11. Quebec 12. Northwest Territories, Nunavut (tie)

The full report (PDF), including a rankings map and overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the animal protection laws of each province and territory, is available to download here. ALDF’s latest edition of the "Animal Protection Laws of the U.S.A. and Canada" compendium (on which the report is principally based) and ALDF's Model Animal Protection Laws collection, is also available.

2010 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings Map Downloads

PDF, Black & White | Download Map
PDF, Color | Download Map
JPG, Black & White, 150 dpi | Download Map
JPG, Color, 150 dpi | Download Map

Annual Animal Protection Laws Rankings Reports

United States: 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Canada: 2008 | 2009 | 2010

2010-2011 Recipients of the ALDF Advancement of Animal Law Scholarship

Thu, 27 May 2010

The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s (ALDF) Advancement of Animal Law Scholarships are awarded to second- and third-year law student members of Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) chapters based upon demonstrated commitment to ALDF’s mission – to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. Scholarship recipients also act as mentors for their chapter after graduation.

Three students received the national scholarship this year for their outstanding work in the growing field of animal law: Katie Barnett, Vince Field, and Christina Fojas. “They are exceptional students who have demonstrated their commitment to advancing animal law, and for that ALDF is proud to award them these $5,000 scholarships,” says Stephens Wells, ALDF’s executive director.

Katie Barnett is currently in her second year at the University of Kansas School of Law, where she founded the school’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter. After years of working in animal rescue and coordinating adoptions and spay/neuter surgeries for countless animals, animal law has proved to be the natural path for Katie to pursue in law school. She has helped with large scale animal rescues, participated in dogfighting seizures, and assisted law enforcement with the evaluation of seized dogs.

Among her achievements in animal law, Katie did research for the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s amicus curiae brief in the landmark U.S. v. Stevens case involving dogfighting videos and attended oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. Katie has authored an academic paper published in the Animal Law & Ethics law journal entitled: “Breed Discriminatory Legislation: How DNA Will Remedy the Unfairness.” She presented the canine DNA paper at the University of Baltimore’s Animal Symposium in April of 2010.

Katie graduated from Missouri State University with a bachelor's degree in Political Science and a minor in Public Law. She worked for the City Attorney's Office in Springfield, Missouri, for several years and worked in complex litigation field for nearly five years prior to law school. Katie has been a law clerk for Best Friends Animal Society since May of 2009. She has two pit bull mix dogs, including a three-legged rescue named Leonidas. Both are both Delta Society therapy dogs who visit schools, hospitals, and participate in community outreach programs. “Every time Leonidas pulls himself up on the couch or paces himself up the stairs, I am inspired to keep working to ensure laws protect animals like him,” says Katie.

Vince Field is a 2L at the University of Chicago Law School, where he founded the University of Chicago’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) chapter in 2008.

Since its inception, their chapter has been very active in promoting animal protection issues at the law school. They successfully petitioned the administration for an animal law course – the first such course ever offered at the University of Chicago. This class is currently being taught for the second time in as many years, and it is their goal is to make it a permanent offering. As a 1L, Vince also helped plan and organize a first-of-its-kind Animal Law Week -- a weeklong series of talks on a range of animal welfare issues that attracted speakers from across the country. This month, the SALDF chapter will host the 2nd Annual Animal Law Week, centered on a series of debates on “hot topics” in animal law including the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Stevens, animal abuser registry legislation, and the proper valuation of companion animals in lawsuits seeking damages.

Currently, Vince is overseeing two large scale service projects with his SALDF chapter. The first involves working with local shelters to provide refuge for domestic violence victims and their pets. The second is geared towards setting up a series of pet food donation boxes to regularly provide food for the pets of the homeless free of charge.

Christina Fojas attends South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas, where she is president of the school’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF) chapter, named the Animal Law Society. The Animal Law Society raised over $10,000 collectively in charity fundraising for the 2009-2010 school year, donating to an animal therapy organization, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office “Paw & Order” program, and the Spay-Neuter Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently ALS plans on sponsoring three trips of the SNAP spay/neuter bus into low-income neighborhoods to provide free pet sterilizations.

Christina is also an animal rescue volunteer and is a member/volunteer with the Texas Humane Legislation Network and the Vegan Society of Peace. Christina worked in production before law school and enjoys designing advertisements for non-profit groups. Her main interests include animal rescue, vegan issues and veterinary medicine. She works part-time at a veterinary hospital. Christina and her boyfriend have five dogs, four cats and a rescued frog between them.

Ashley Judd Signs on to Help Kentucky's Homeless Animals

Tue, 11 May 2010

Celebrated actress Ashley Judd, known as much for her smarts as her gorgeous looks (she’s currently a graduate student at Harvard), has a big heart for animals, too. Though Hollywood knows her for her starring roles in movies like Kiss the Girls, Double Jeopardy, De-Lovely, and Tooth Fairy, Ashley is first and foremost a Kentucky girl—which is why she has joined the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s campaign to urge Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear to protect Kentucky’s homeless animals through tough enforcement of the state’s Humane Shelter Law.

Kentucky’s Humane Shelter Law, passed in 2004, requires each county to provide basic care for its stray cats and dogs, including food and water, shelter, and humane euthanasia—as well as a chance to be reunited with their lost families or adopted into new, loving homes. However, because the law is not being enforced, many of Kentucky’s animals continue to suffer and die in deplorable conditions.

Join Ashley and sign ALDF’s petition to Governor Beshear today!

Taking Kentucky Counties to Court
Over the past two years, ALDF has filed lawsuits in two particularly problematic Kentucky counties—Robertson and Estill—that helped put an end to the abuse and neglect of homeless dogs and cats in those counties, which had not been in compliance with the state’s Humane Shelter Law. Most recently, ALDF negotiated an agreement with Rockcastle County resulting in dramatically improved conditions for some of the state’s most desperately needy animals. Before ALDF’s intervention, gravely ill and injured animals were left to languish in their cages with no medical treatment, often facing attack from other animals who are housed with them (in one instance, a large dog literally ate two puppies who were housed with him); unaltered male and female animals were housed together, resulting in pregnancies and exacerbating the overpopulation crisis; and dogs were forced to relieve themselves, sleep, and even eat their food directly off of the same filthy kennel floors.

ALDF will not stop in our fight to push Kentucky’s 120 counties to protect their animals, but it is a long, uphill battle. That’s why we need your help—sign a petition to Governor Beshear, urging him to step in and end the suffering of all innocent animals in Kentucky by pressing the legislature to act and have the state take back responsibility for oversight of these shelters. Ashley has joined the thousands who have already signed petitions to the Kentucky governor through ALDF's mail campaign. Join her by signing the online petition today!

Pet Custody in Focus

Fri, 07 May 2010

Movie explores Hurricane Katrina’s impact on animals and their guardians

When San Francisco filmmaker Geralyn Pezanoski learned how Hurricane Katrina had devastated not just New Orleans and its displaced citizens, but the animals left behind, she organized a volunteer crew to film the efforts of animal rescue teams. “I couldn’t believe the condition of the animals they were pulling out of the flood waters and from destroyed homes,” she says. “I felt like not only did our country completely fail its people, but now we left all these helpless animals to die in an empty city. And these animals were people’s pets — pets they weren’t allowed to evacuate with. It was infuriating.”

After creating some public service announcements for the Humane Society of Louisiana and adopting Nola, a dog rescued from the disaster, Pezanoski asked herself, “What would I do if someone came forward to claim Nola?” That question led her to produce and direct MINE (minethemovie.com), the award-winning 2009 documentary that tells the stories of people whose canine and feline companions had been saved and bonded with new families. “As a result of this unprecedented tragedy, you have thousands of people who have been separated from their companions, and thousands of animal lovers who have rescued, adopted and nurtured these animals back to health,” she says. “All of them are deeply invested and many have differing views about what’s best for the animals. Having witnessed the devastation and spent time with distraught residents as well as having fostered one of these traumatized ‘Katrina pets,’ I understood some of the complexities involved in this situation. I empathized with people on both sides of the custody battles, and I felt compelled to tell their stories.”

Even before Katrina, the Animal Legal Defense Fund recognized that pet custody disputes were a growing issue. Today, many divorcing couples are more concerned about who gets the family pet than who drives off with the luxury car. But after a natural disaster, with thousands of companion animals being rescued and potentially adopted out all over the country, legislation that addresses large-scale evacuation becomes critical. One positive result of Katrina was the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (PETS), a 2006 law requiring states to accommodate pets and service animals in their evacuation plans if they want relief assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While PETS is a step in the right direction, we have yet to see how agencies will implement it in the face of a calamity.

With no such law to benefit New Orleans residents and their pets in August 2005, rescued animals were scattered across the U.S., leaving people like Jessie Pullins miserable to be separated from his dog J.J. “Jessie’s story was incredibly compelling to me,” says Pezanoski. “He had once been homeless and an addict, and it took many years for him to turn his life around. Raising J.J. from a puppy was instrumental in Jessie’s life. J.J. meant the world to him, and he took his responsibility as J.J.’s guardian very seriously. To hear his regret as he imagined what J.J. must have gone through without him after Katrina and his desire to live out the commitment he had made to J.J. left a deep impression on me.”

It’s this kind of message that has viewers pondering and animal organizations cheering. “MINE really becomes a powerful tool for animal protection groups in that it reaches mainstream audiences who don’t identify themselves as ‘animal people’ in many cases, and certainly not as animal activists,” Pezanoski explains, adding that she wants her film to be a fundraising tool for animal rescue, welfare and rights organizations. “We’ve already started organizing shelter screenings, using the draw of MINE to make a tangible difference in the lives of animals and to make life a little easier for those who love and protect them.”

Pezanoski sees the work being done by ALDF as crucial to the protection of animals in the event of future disasters. “ALDF is a trailblazer in advancing the interests of animals, and I respect their pragmatic approach of working within the current legal system to that end. I think their legitimacy makes them so successful and able to achieve tangible results in bettering the lives of animals. If animals were recognized as sentient beings and afforded basic legal rights, they would have been evacuated along with their people. It’s the work that ALDF does that could prevent another animal tragedy like Katrina from happening.”

Watch the movie trailer and order the DVD (Enter the donation code “ALDF” when you place your order, and $5 from the purcahse of your DVD will be donated directly back to ALDF.)

Additional pictures from MINE

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty

Tue, 20 Apr 2010

The United States Supreme Court today issued its decision in the case of United States v. Stevens, a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 48 (“Section 48”), the federal law that criminalized the sale of depictions of animal cruelty. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, an expert on animal cruelty laws, submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to uphold the law and recognize that the prevention of cruelty to animals is a compelling government interest.

Unfortunately, by a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The decision throws out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens, who was sentenced to prison for making and selling videos of dogfights.

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenting vote, said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law, and that the ruling will probably spur new “crush” videos, because it has “the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos.” Crush videos depict women in high heels crushing small animals to death for the sake of gratifying a sexual fetish.

ALDF’s attorneys are analyzing the decision carefully to evaluate how to respond to the overturning of Section 48. We will provide a more detailed summary of the opinion on the ALDF blog in the coming days.

Because the Supreme Court is the country’s highest court, it has the final say on the law’s constitutionality, and no further appeals are possible. However, the Court’s opinion leaves open the possibility of introducing to Congress a new, narrower law "limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty." We will let our members know as soon as possible how they can help. In the meantime, please visit ALDF’s Action Alerts page to see how you can fight cruelty now.

Not sure what the Court's decision means for animals? Read "Clarifying the Supreme Court’s United States v. Stevens Opinion."

Federal Appeals Court Reinstates California Law Banning Sick and Disabled Animals from the Food Supply

Wed, 31 Mar 2010

For immediate release

Contact: Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund

SAN FRANCISCO — Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a California law banning the use of sick and disabled (“downed”) animals in the human food supply. Last year, a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law as a result of a lawsuit brought by the National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute.

The trade groups wanted to continue to use downed animals in the human food supply despite a series of recent high profile scandals concerning downed animal abuse in the meat industry. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association intervened in the lawsuit in 2009.

“This is a major victory for both animals and consumers, and a stunning defeat for meat industry groups seeking to profit from the sale of diseased and disabled farm animals,” said Bradley Miller, national director of the Humane Farming Association.

California’s downed animal protection law was amended and strengthened in 2008 in response to an HSUS investigation that exposed torment and horrific abuse of downed cows at a southern California slaughter plant. The Hallmark/Westland plant, based in Chino, was the nation’s number-two supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program. The revised law was designed to prevent the abuses at Hallmark/Westland from ever happening again.

“We are delighted the Court of Appeals has affirmed California’s undeniable right to keep sick, injured, and abused animals out of the food supply,” said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The Humane Society of the United States. “We hope the Court’s stinging rebuke will convince the plaintiffs to abandon this misguided effort to recreate another Hallmark-type food safety disaster in the State of California.”

Downed cattle are more likely to be infected with BSE – bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or "mad cow disease." Studies suggest animals too sick or injured to stand and walk may also be more likely to harbor E. coli and Salmonella, which kill hundreds of Americans every year.

Writing for the Court, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski pointed out that public health professionals are rightly concerned about the risks from downed cows “partly because animals can become nonambulatory due to disease and partly because downer animals grow sicker as they end up rolling around in other animals’ refuse.”

“The abuse of living, breathing, feeling animals who are too sick, injured and weak to stand is incongruent with Californians’ values of mercy and compassion,” said Farm Sanctuary president and co-founder Gene Baur. “We applaud the Court for refusing to protect the interests of big agribusiness at the expense of the American people and the animals entrusted to our care.”

“The writing is on the wall for factory farming operations that continue to subject animals to appalling abuses despite increased consumer calls for less cruel farming methods—and increased recognition by the courts that animals have interests that should be protected by the law,” stated Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The suit is National Meat Association v. Brown, No. 09-15483.

ALDF was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals through the legal system. For more information, please visit www.aldf.org.