\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Nancy R. Hoffman & Robin C. McGinnis* FEDERAL LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 A. Animals in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 1. Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 2. Chimp Haven is Home Act (Amendment to the CHIMP Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 3. Great Ape Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 B. Farm Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 1. Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 2007 . . . . 273 2. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 STATE LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 A. Animal Fighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 1. Dogfighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 2. Cockfighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 B. Animal Hoarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 1. Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 2. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 C. Antifreeze Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 D. Greyhound Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 1. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 2. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 E. Puppy Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 1. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 2. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 3. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 It is my pleasure to introduce the eleventh annual edition of Animal Law’s Legislative Review. This review discusses the animal-related legislation that the federal and state legislatures consideredduring the 2007–2008 legislative sessions.
*  Nancy R. Hoffman and Robin C. McGinnis 2009. Ms. Hoffman and Ms. McGin- nis are both second-year law students at Lewis & Clark Law School, and each has alifelong concern for animal welfare. They also both earned their B.A. degrees from theUniversity of California at Davis. Ms. Hoffman would like to thank her husband, Rich,for his loyal support and Jeff and Drew for their dedication to animal rights. Ms. Mc-Ginnis would like to thank her mother, Mary McGinnis, for always making anythingseem possible. She would also like to thank her cats, Fletcher and Tenaya. Both authorswould like to thank Legislative Review Editor Rita Yonkers for patiently guiding themthrough the process.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Ms. Nancy R. Hoffman reports on federal legislation from the 110th Congress, including proposed amendments to the Animal Wel-fare Act that would eliminate Class B dealers; the Chimp Haven isHome Act, which closes a loophole in the Chimpanzee Health Improve-ment, Maintenance and Protection Act (CHIMP Act) that allowed re-searchers to test on retired chimpanzees; the Great Ape Protection Act,which would prohibit invasive research on the great apes; the Agricul-tural Protection and Prosperity Act, which would exempt manure fromconsideration under the Comprehensive Environmental ResponseCompensation and Liability Act; and the Preservation of Antibioticsfor Medical Treatment Act, which would eliminate the nontherapeuticuse of certain antibiotics in animals produced for human consumption.
Reporting on state actions, Ms. Robin C. McGinnis covers recent state legislative developments, including laws that increase the penal-ties for persons engaged in animal fighting; laws that attempt to ad-dress the underlying mental illnesses that lead to animal hoarding;laws that protect companion animals and wildlife from antifreezepoisoning; laws that ban the practice of greyhound racing; and lawsthat regulate large scale dog breeding operations commonly known aspuppy mills.
In addition to these important legislative developments at the state level, in November 2008, California voters passed Proposition 2,heralded as “the most important legislation for farm animals in U.S.
history.”1 Proposition 2 also made history by receiving more “yes” votesthan any other citizen initiative in the history of the state of Califor-nia.2 Proposition 2 prohibits the use of farm animal confinements,such as gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages, which are sosmall that the animal is unable to move around.3 Violations of the lawconstitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than$1,000, imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.4 For a thor-ough discussion of the campaign to get Proposition 2 passed, see Cali-fornia Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law.5 This review is intended to serve not only as a review of the legisla- tive developments that occurred in the past year, but also as an educa-tional tool for anyone interested in learning more about animal lawissues. We hope that our analysis of this year’s legislative develop- 1 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., Californians Deliver Decisive Victory to Pre- vent Factory Farm Cruelty by Passing Proposition 2 (Nov. 5, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
2 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., Prop 2 is Most Popular Citizen Initiative in California History (Dec. 8, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (also noting that “[proposition] 2won by a wider margin than [Barack] Obama’s landslide victory over [John] McCain inCalifornia”).
3 Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 25990, 25991(d) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009).
4 Id. at § 25993.
5 Nancy V. Perry & Jonathan R. Lovvorn, California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law, supra pp. 149–69.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt ments provides readers with valuable information regarding the pro-cess of getting animal-related legislation passed and will help to assistthe development of the field of animal law. As always, Animal Law welcomes any comments or suggestions for future editions of Legisla- The 110th Congress ended work on January 4, 2009. If legislators of the 111th Congress wish to consider any bills from the previous ses-sion, they must reintroduce those bills during the current session.
While Congressional sponsors and active proponents may intend topursue the same issues, as of this writing it is not known which billsthe 111th Congress will consider again. The following discussion high-lights legislation that was introduced during the 110th Congress,along with issues raised by supporters and opponents.
Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2007 More than ten years ago, during the 104th Congress on September 24, 1996, Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) first introduced legislationproposing to amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to ensure that alldogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.6 SenatorAkaka has introduced similar legislation during every subsequentCongress, all of which died in committee.7 This year he introducedSenate Bill 714 in conjunction with Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA)who introduced the companion measure, House Bill 1280.8 Research laboratories use many different kinds of animals, includ- ing domestic dogs and cats.9 These laboratories obtain dogs and catseither from Class A dealers that usually breed animals for researchpurposes, or from Class B dealers, otherwise known as “random 6 Sen. 2114, 104th Cong. (Sep. 24, 1996) (available at 104search.html; select Bill Number, search “s2114,” select Text of Legislation) (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009).
7 Off. Legis. Policy & Analysis, Legislative Updates, Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2007, Background, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2008).
8 Sen. 714, 110th Cong. (Feb. 28, 2007) (available at 110search.html; select Bill Number, search “s714,” select Text of Legislation) (last ac-cessed Feb. 24, 2009); H.R. 1280, 110th Cong. (Mar. 1, 2007) (available at; select Bill Number, search “hr1280,” select Text ofLegislation) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
9 Humane Socy. U.S., Class B Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats: A White Paper Prepared by the Humane Society of the United States (available at animals_in_research/class_b_dealers/class_b_dealers_of_random.html) (July2007) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt source” dealers.10 Licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), Class B dealers obtain animals from a variety of sources in-cluding shelters, auctions, newspaper advertisements, and privateparties—hence the term “random source.”11 Researchers argue thatthey need dogs and cats obtained from random source dealers whengenetic diversity or aging conditions including heart disease, orthope-dic studies, and drug and therapy research are the subject of theirstudies.12 Researchers also use random source dealers when animalsare needed to train surgeons and to be research models because fewerand fewer animal shelters will release animals to these researchfacilities.13 Senator Akaka’s concern under the current AWA is that Class B dealers frequently violate the Act by obtaining the animals they sell toresearch facilities via questionable methods. Examples are respondingto “free to good home” advertisements, obtaining animals from shel-ters, and even stealing animals left unattended by their owners.14When he introduced the legislation, Senator Akaka stated that manyrandom source dealers not only used “deceit and fraud” to obtain fam-ily pets, but they kept hundreds of animals “in squalid conditions withjust enough food and water to keep them alive until sold.”15 For exam-ple, the USDA recently shut down a Class B dealer who had been oper-ating for fifteen years in Arkansas, committing hundreds of AWAviolations for extreme cruelty to animals and illegal acquisitions.16 Bymaking funds unavailable to research facilities using Class B dealers,the legislation effectively prohibits procurement through all randomsource animal dealers.17 Supporters of the legislation are also concerned about “bunchers,” people operating without any USDA license, who gather stray and sto-len animals and sell them to Class B dealers.18 The AWA requires thatClass B dealers maintain documentation allowing the USDA to tracean animal back to its original owner, ensuring that it was intended forresearch.19 However, bunchers often provide fraudulent informationmaking such trace backs impossible.20 Senator Akaka noted that eventhough there are only seventeen remaining Class B dealers, hundredsof unregulated suppliers sell to those dealers.21 The legislation introduced by Senator Akaka and Representative Doyle would prohibit research facilities from purchasing animals from 10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Off. Legis. Policy & Analysis, supra n. 7.
13 Id.
14 Humane Socy. U.S., supra n. 9, at “Background.”15 153 Cong. Rec. S2365 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 2007).
16 151 Cong. Rec. S10221 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 2005).
17 153 Cong. Rec. at S2365.
18 Humane Socy. U.S., supra n. 9, at “Background.”19 Id. at “Animal Welfare Concerns.”20 Id.
21 151 Cong. Rec. at S10221.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Class B dealers.22 Instead, sources of research animal subjects wouldbe limited to original breeders, publicly owned shelters, donations bypeople who have owned the animal for at least one year, and licensedresearch facilities.23 Opponents of the legislation point out that manyshelters no longer release animals to research facilities, thus eliminat-ing sources of “outbred/mongrel” animals often needed in research.24The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), however, arguesthat most research facilities have stopped using animals for whichthey lack genetic and health histories, such as random animals ob-tained from Class B dealers.25 In addition, proponents of the legisla-tion argue that if researchers need genetically diverse animals, theycan still obtain them from Class A dealers and those shelters that con-tinue to provide animals for research.26 Senator Akaka’s most recent legislation was referred to the Com- mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on February 28, 2007,and Representative Doyle’s bill was referred to the Committee on Agri-culture, with no further action occurring on either bill prior to the endof the session.27 After twelve years of consideration, through six ses-sions of Congress, it might be expected that Senator Akaka will intro-duce similar legislation to the 111th Congress.
Chimp Haven is Home Act (Amendment to the CHIMP Act) President George W. Bush signed the Chimp Haven is Home Act, an amendment to the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenanceand Protection Act (CHIMP Act), into law in 2007.28 In 2000, Congresspassed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the CHIMP Act.29The CHIMP Act was designed to deal with an enormous surplus ofchimpanzees that are housed in research facilities and are no longerused for research.30 One cause of the surplus was a breeding program initiated by the National Institutes of Health in anticipation of testing AIDS vaccineson “our closest genetic kin.”31 However, researchers soon discoveredthat even though chimpanzees can contract HIV or AIDS, they do not 22 Sen. 714, 110th Cong. at § 7.
23 Id.
24 Off. of Legis. Policy & Analysis, supra n. 7.
25 Humane Socy. U.S., supra n. 9, at “Impact on Biomedical Research of a Ban on 26 Id.
27 Sen. 714, 110th Cong.; H.R. 1280, 110th Cong. (Mar. 1, 2007) (available at http:// thomas.loc .gov/bss/110search.html; select Bill Number, search “hr1280,” select Text ofLegislation) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
28 Pub. L. No. 110-170, 121 Stat. 2465 (2007).
29 42 U.S.C. § 287a-3a(a) (2000).
30 Id.; Charles Siebert, Planet of the Retired Apes, N.Y. Times Mag. 28, 30 (July 24, 2005) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
31 Siebert, supra n. 30, at 31.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt develop the effects of the virus.32 They also discovered that maintain-ing large numbers of chimpanzees was prohibitively expensive.33 Thefederal government was spending $20 to $30 per day to keep eachchimpanzee in a laboratory cage, even though the chimpanzees nolonger had any value as research animals.34 While the CHIMP Act was being considered on the Senate floor, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) rejected euthanasia as an option for reduc-ing the chimpanzee population, citing an extensive report by the Na-tional Research Council suggesting that the best scientists would ceasedoing medical research for both personal and emotional reasons if eu-thanasia were allowed.35 Instead, the CHIMP Act called for the estab-lishment of a series of permanent, lifetime sanctuaries for thoseanimals no longer deemed useful by research scientists.36 SenatorSmith noted that the costs of care for a single chimpanzee in a sanctu-ary setting would not exceed $8 to $15 per day.37 Indeed, the Congres-sional Budget Office concluded that the sanctuary system wouldactually save the government money once the sanctuaries wereconstructed.38 Opponents of the sanctuary system raised some concerns, how- ever. For example, Patrick Hof, a neuroscience professor at Mount Si-nai School of Medicine, noted that the aging chimpanzees are valuablesubjects for studying arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and other con-ditions of the similarly aging human population.39 Also, Stuart Zola,director of the Yerkes National Primate Center, expressed concernthat the sanctuary system would remove chimpanzees from the pool ofresearch animals so that when a new epidemic arrives, this “uniqueanimal model” would no longer be available.40 An AIDS researchersuggested that the sanctuaries serve as colonies from which research-ers could remove a chimpanzee to a medical facility for six months,perhaps to test a new vaccine, and then return the chimpanzee hometo the sanctuary when testing was completed.41 To address these con-cerns, the House of Representatives added an amendment to theCHIMP Act while it was still under consideration in 2000 in order toallow for the temporary removal of retired chimpanzees for medicalresearch.42 For example, the amendment provided that an individualretired chimpanzee might be removed from the sanctuary because of 32 Id.
33 Id. (stating that “each chimp costs roughly $10,000 a year to maintain”).
34 146 Cong. Rec. S11654 (daily ed. Dec. 6, 2000).
35 Id. at S11655.
36 Id. at S11654.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Siebert, supra n. 30, at 61.
40 Id.
41 David Berreby, Unneeded Lab Chimps Face Hazy Future, 146 N.Y. Times A1, C8 (Feb. 4, 1997) (available at ?sec ➚ °alth) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt that chimpanzee’s specific prior medical history if no unretired chim-panzee with a similar history was available in a research facility.43 Chimp Haven, the first facility completed, consists of 200 acres in Louisiana.44 In April 2005,45 two female chimpanzees that had partici-pated in the NASA space program were the first to arrive at the sanc-tuary.46 Since then, more than 100 retired research chimpanzees havebeen relocated to Chimp Haven, which has the capacity to house asmany as 200 chimpanzees.47 Seven years after Congress passed the CHIMP Act, Representa- tive Jim McCrery (R-LA) joined Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) in intro-ducing the “Chimp Haven is Home Act” to eliminate the CHIMP Act’smedical research exception.48 House Bill 3295, introduced by Repre-sentative McCrery, was companion legislation to Senate Bill 1916,which passed both houses and became Public Law 110-170 of the 110thCongress on December 26, 2007.49 Representative McCrery noted thatbecause scientists had determined that the chimpanzees were nolonger useful as experimental subjects, the legislation would not ad-versely affect research into human health issues.50 Instead, while thechimpanzees would be available for noninvasive behavioral research,such as studies of their natural social interactions, they would remainin the safety of the sanctuary for the rest of their lives.51 On April 17, 2008, Representative Edolphus Towns (D-NY) joined a bipartisan group of seven co-sponsors to introduce the Great ApeProtection Act, House Bill 5852.52 On the same day, the bill was re-ferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and then to theSubcommittee on Health, the Committee on Ways and Means, andthen to the Subcommittee on Trade, and also to the Committee on For-eign Affairs.53 By the end of the 110th session of Congress, twenty- 43 42 U.S.C. § 287a-3a(d)(3)(A)(ii)(I) (2000).
44 Chimp Haven, Our History, (last 45 Id.
46 Siebert, supra n. 30.
47 Chimp Haven, supra n. 44.
48 153 Cong. Rec. E2670 (daily ed. Dec. 28, 2007).
49 Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summary and Status for the 110th Congress,, select Bill Number, search “hr3295,” select AllInformation (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summaryand Status for the 110th Congress,, select BillNumber, search “s1916,” select All Information (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Pub. L. No.
110-170, 121 Stat. 2465 (2007).
50 153 Cong. Rec. at E2670.
51 Id.
52 Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summary and Status for the 110th Congress,; select Bill Number, search “hr5852,” select AllInformation (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt nine sponsors signed onto the bill, but the legislation died in commit-tee.54 Because of the strong interest by proponents such as HSUS,55the legislation will likely be reintroduced in the next session.
The purpose of the Great Ape Protection Act is to prohibit invasive research on the great apes,56 including chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos,orangutans, and gibbons.57 Most countries already have such a ban inplace.58 In Great Britain, for example, citing issues of morality and thecognitive capacities of the great apes, the British Home Secretaryceased granting licenses for such research in 1997.59 New Zealandamended its Animal Welfare Act in 1999 to prohibit the use of gorillas,chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans in research unless it is in theinterest of the specific animal.60 Austria, Japan, Sweden, Australia,and the Netherlands have similar limitations.61 Opponents of the legislation argue that medical research on the great apes is necessary because it reduces future danger to humans.62For example, arguably the drug reaction in chimpanzees, in terms ofabsorption, distribution, and excretion, is more closely predictive ofhuman drug reaction than the reaction in nonprimates.63 In addition,the chimpanzee is the only nonhuman animal that provides for effec-tive testing of hepatitis B and C viruses.64 Thus, some researchers areconcerned by the rapid decline in the number of chimpanzees availablefor breeding or medical research caused by a federal moratorium onbreeding and the international bans on invasive research.65 Theyworry that future epidemics will occur, making the chimpanzee evenmore valuable as a research subject while largely unavailable for thatresearch.66 Proponents of the legislation counter that the ethical concerns as- sociated with testing on the great apes override the other issues. “The 54 Id.
55 Humane Socy. U.S., Legislation and Laws, 56 H.R. 5852, 110th Cong. § 3 (Apr. 17, 2008) (available at 110search.html; select Bill Number, search “hr5852,” select Text of Legislation) (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
57 Id. at § 5.
58 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., Federal Bill Introduced to End Invasive Re- search on Chimpanzees (Apr. 17, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
59 New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Release and Restitution for Chimpanzees in U.S. Laboratories, International Bans, country-bans/ (Dec. 18, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 John L. VandeBerg & Stuart M. Zola, A Unique Biomedical Resource at Risk, 437 63 Id.
64 Id. at 31.
65 Id. at 32.
66 Id.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt remarkable cognitive ability of chimpanzees makes this an urgentmoral issue,” stated Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO.67 Rep-resentative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), one of the co-sponsors, added,“[as] a scientist who worked with chimpanzees on research projects,I believe the time has come to . . . rigorously apply existingalternatives.”68 The cost of maintaining the great apes is another important factor driving this legislation. The National Center for Research Resources, adepartment of the National Institute of Health, estimates that it willcost $325 million to care for an estimated 650 chimpanzees duringtheir lifetimes.69 Great apes survive in captivity much longer thanthey do in the wild, generating lifetime costs for a single primate ofbetween $300,000 and $500,000.70 The federal government can guar-antee the care and protection of the same animal in a sanctuary ratherthan in a research lab for approximately $275,000, saving money forother research.71 In a statement of findings and purpose, the text of the legislation notes that the great apes are intelligent and sentient animals that suf-fer greatly from being in laboratory environments, often experiencingprofound depression and distress.72 Therefore, the law would not onlyphase out and ban federal funding for invasive biomedical research butalso permanently retire all of the federally owned great apes that havebeen used in such research.73 As of this writing, HSUS promises tomake great ape protection a priority in its upcoming legislativeactivities.74 Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 2007 On March 8, 2007, House Bill 1398 and Senate Bill 807 were in- troduced.75 These bills exempt manure from consideration as a haz-ardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant requiring notification tothe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local emergency re-sponders under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compen- 67 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., supra n. 58.
68 Id.
69 Andrew Knight, The Beginning of the End for Chimpanzee Experiments?, 3:16 Phil., Ethics & Humanities in Med., ¶ 4 (June 2, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
70 Id.
71 H.R. 5852, 110th Cong. at § 2(a)(7).
72 Id. at § 2.
73 Id. at §§ 3–4.
74 Humane Socy. U.S., supra n. 55.
75 Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summary and Status for the 110th Congress, http://thomas.loc .gov/bss/110search.html; select Bill Number, search “hb1398” (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009); Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summary and Status for the110th Congress, http://thomas.loc .gov/bss/110search.html; select Bill Number, search“sb807” (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt sation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).76 Proponents contend thatthe legislation is necessary to protect farmers from unnecessary law-suits because CERCLA was never intended to apply to agriculture.77Instead, CERCLA was intended to address the “cleanup of dangerousabandoned industrial sites and chemical landfills.”78 They argue thatfarmers are not polluters and that manure is a healthy and organicfertilizer.79 Opponents, such as the Sierra Club and HSUS, distinguish be- tween small farms and factory farms, noting that large industrialfarms produce as much as 500 million tons of manure every year.80According to the Sierra Club, “[spills] and runoff of manure from fac-tory farms can destroy rivers and contaminate downstream communi-ties’ drinking water supplies.”81 One study suggests that the manurefrom large dairies, feedlots, and other factory farm operations threat-ens the water quality in thirty states.82 Therefore, opponents of thelegislation argue that factory farms should be treated like “all othermajor polluting industries.”83 Although this legislation died in committee during the 110th Con- gress, the EPA issued a final rule exempting farm animal wastes fromCERCLA reporting requirements on December 18, 2008.84 Thus, untila successful judicial challenge to the final rule, a rule change, or theintroduction of alternative legislation, farm animal wastes will remainexempt from CERCLA requirements.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act In February 2007, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) intro- duced House Bill 962, and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Olym-pia Snowe (R-ME), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)introduced matching legislation, Senate Bill 549.85 The legislation 76 Sen. 807, 110th Cong. (Mar. 8, 2007) (available at 110search.html; select Bill Number, search “s807,” select Text of Legislation) (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009); H.R. 1398, 110th Cong. (Mar. 8, 2007) (available at; select Bill Number, search “hr1398,” select Text ofLegislation) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
77 152 Cong. Rec. E2211 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2006).
78 Id.
79 Id.
80 Sierra Club, Protect Communities’ Air and Water From Factory Farm Pollution: Stop the Tyson Dirty Water Bailout Bill, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
81 Id.
82 Humane Farming Assn., Factory Farming, factory/index.html 83 Humane Socy. U.S., Factory Farms: Polluting the Environment and Getting Away with It, (May 25,2006) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
84 73 Fed. Reg. 76948, 76951 (Dec. 18, 2008).
85 H.R. 962, 110th Cong. (Feb. 8, 2007) (available at 110search.html; select Bill Number, search “hr962,” select Text of Legislation) (last ac-cessed Feb. 24, 2009); Sen. 549, 110th Cong. (Feb. 12, 2007) (available at http:// \\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt aims to eliminate the nontherapeutic use of important antibiotics,86including penicillin and tetracycline, in farm animals used for humanconsumption.87 These antibiotics are used on healthy animals to pro-mote growth and ward off infections.88 Representative Slaughterpointed out, however, that this “habitual” use of antibiotics contributesto the growing development of antimicrobial resistant infections inpeople.89 Therefore, people are becoming potentially less capable offighting life threatening diseases.90 While conceding that the legisla-tion will not prevent the use of antibiotics on sick animals or familypets, Senator Kennedy also noted that the United States and Canadaare two of the last developed countries in the world that have notbanned the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics on healthy animals.91 Similar legislation has been introduced in prior sessions of Con- gress, and HSUS has urged citizens to support it.92 In fact, early ef-forts resulted in the restaurant chain McDonald’s convincing its meatsuppliers to cut back on the unnecessary use of antibiotics.93 As withthe earlier versions, however, this legislation never left committee andwill need to be reintroduced to the 111th Congress if it is to becomelaw.94 The legislative processes of the states are generally the same as the federal legislative process.95 Any bills that do not become law dur-; select Bill Number, search “s549,” select Text of Leg-islation) (last accessed Feb. 24, 2009).
86 153 Cong. Rec. E309 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2007).
87 Id.
88 Suzanne Millman, Humane Socy. U.S., The Emerging Threat of Antibiotic Resis- tance: A Hidden Cost of Factory Farming, accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Humane Socy. U.S., Factories and Farmers’ Markets, .html (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
89 153 Cong. Rec. at E309.
90 Id.
91 153 Cong. Rec. S1853 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2007).
92 Humane Socy. U.S., Urge Congress to Just Say No to Nontherapeutic Antibiotic Drugs, (Oct. 22, 2003) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
93 Id.
94 Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summary and Status for the 110th Congress,; select Bill Number, search “hb962,” select AllInformation (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Lib. Cong., THOMAS, Search Bill Summaryand Status for the 110th Congress,; select BillNumber, search “sb549,” select All Information (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
95 See e.g. Charles W. Johnson, How Our Laws Are Made (U.S. Govt. Printing Office 2003) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (providing an updated overview of the ferdeal legisla-tive process); N.J. Legis., Our Legislature, \\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt ing the current session expire and cannot be reconsidered by the sub-sequent legislature unless they are reintroduced.96 Humans have forced dogs to fight for entertainment since Roman times.97 Dogfighting was first outlawed in England in 1835, and al-though it became a part of American culture, most states outlawed itby the 1860s, and all states eventually outlawed the practice by1976.98 Despite its illegality, dogfighting has remained a part of Amer-ican culture because law enforcement officials did not aggressively en-force the laws against dogfighting until recently.99 Dogfighting wasonce confined to rural areas of the South, but it has now become wide-spread with an estimated 40,000 people participating in organizeddogfighting rings and another 100,000 participating in informaldogfighting.100 One survey found that one in five children in Chicagohas seen a dogfight, while other estimates are as high as four out offive.101 Dogfighting is associated with other crimes and gang activitiesincluding drug dealing, drug use, gambling, theft, and violence.102 Law enforcement agencies began enforcing dogfighting laws more aggressively after a grand jury indicted former Atlanta Falconsquarterback Michael Vick on federal dogfighting charges.103 However,at the same time, the Vick case generated more interest in dogfightingamong urban youth because they saw an affluent role model involvedin an activity that “[shows] . . . toughness.”104 our.asp (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (providing general information on New Jersey’slegislative process); Ohio Legis., The Legislative Process, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (explaining how a bill becomes a law inOhio).
96 See generally N.J. Legis., supra n. 95; Ohio Legis., supra n. 95 (explaining how a bill becomes a law in these states).
97 Animal Leg. & Historical Ctr., Dog Fighting Detailed Discussion, http://www (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
100 Humane Socy. U.S., A Nation in the Ring (Part 1: The Dogs and the Territory), acf/news/dogfighting_national_epidemic_1.html (Sept. 7, 2007) 101 Humane Socy. U.S., A Nation in the Ring (Part 3: Pit Bulls as Currency), http:// acf/news/dogfighting_national_epidemic_3.html (Sept. 7, 2007) (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009).
102 Animal Leg. & Historical Ctr., supra n. 97.
103 Humane Socy. U.S., Dogfighting Raids Increase After Vick Indictment, http://www news/dogfighting_raids_increase.html (Aug. 21, 2007) (last accessed Apr.
12, 2009); see Rebecca J. Huss, Lessons Learned: Acting As Guardian/Special Master inthe Bad Newz Kennels Case, 15 Animal L. 69 (2008) (providing an in depth discussion ofthe role of the special master in the Michael Vick dogfighting case).
104 Sharon L. Peters, A Fight to Save Urban Youth from Dogfighting, http://www (Sept. 29, 2008) (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Although dogfighting is a crime in every state, the states vary in how severely they treat the crime and whether they criminalize differ-ent aspects of the activity.105 HSUS ranks the states in tiers based onthe individual state’s legal response to dogfighting.106 In first-tierstates, participating in dogfighting, being a spectator at a dogfight,and possessing dogs for fighting are all felonies.107 In second-tierstates, participating in dogfighting and possessing dogs for fighting arefelonies, but being a spectator at a dogfight is a misdemeanor.108 Inthird-tier states, participating in dogfighting is a felony, but possess-ing dogs for fighting and being a spectator at a dogfight is a misde-meanor.109 There are three states in the fourth and lowest tier.110 InMontana and Hawaii, participating in dogfighting and possessing dogsfor fighting are felonies, but being a spectator at a dogfight is legal.111In Nevada, participating in dogfighting is a felony, being a spectator ata dogfight is a misdemeanor, and possessing dogs for fighting islegal.112 The more stringent the laws are, the easier it is for law enforce- ment officers to arrest individuals engaged in dogfighting.113 For ex-ample, when possession of fighting dogs is legal, police have to catchdogfighters in the act of dogfighting to make an arrest.114 Thus, even ifit were clear that a person is a dogfighter and that a prosecutor wouldbe able to prove as much in court, police could not arrest that personsimply because he owned fighting dogs. In addition, when the law doesnot criminalize the act of observing a dogfight, police have to differen-tiate between dogfighters and spectators at dogfighting events to makearrests.115 Thus, it may be easy for dogfighters to avoid arrest at adogfighting raid by claiming they are only spectators.
In 2008, many states considered legislative changes to strengthen their dogfighting laws. Delaware and Iowa each moved up a tier in theHSUS ranking. Delaware made it a felony to be a spectator at adogfighting event.116 In Iowa, the first offense for a spectator is still amisdemeanor, but a subsequent offense is now a felony.117 In the be- 105 Humane Socy. U.S., Ranking of State Dogfighting Laws, fighting/ dogfight/ranking_state_dogfighting_laws.html (last updated Feb. 1, 2009) (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 Id.
111 Humane Socy. U.S., Ranking of State Dogfighting Laws, supra n. 105.
112 Id.
113 Id.
114 Humane Socy. U.S., Animal Fighting Laws: Where Does Your State Stand?, http:// (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
115 Id.
116 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1326(b) (Lexis 2008).
117 Iowa Code §§ 717D.1(8), 717D.2, 717.D4 (2008).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt ginning of 2008, Idaho and Wyoming were the only states that stillconsidered dogfighting a misdemeanor.118 Both states passed lawsthat moved them up to the second tier of the HSUS ranking by passinglaws that make participating in dogfighting and possessing dogs forfighting felonies.119 Other states considered different types of penalties to deter dogfighting and other tools to streamline the prosecution of animalfighting cases.120 Oregon added advertising dogfighting equipmentand possession of dogfighting paraphernalia to its list of felonies asso-ciated with dogfighting.121 Michigan considered making it a felony toengage, solicit, or possess images of animals fighting, although this billdid not become law.122 New Hampshire and Ohio enacted laws al-lowing police to confiscate animals used in illegal fights.123 The NewHampshire law also prohibits a person convicted of animal fightingfrom having custody or control over certain animals.124 Virginia en-acted a law streamlining the process of forfeiture and bonding, requir-ing the alleged animal fighter to provide financially for the care of theanimals or lose his right to own the animals.125 Virginia also addeddogfighting as a qualifying predicate offense under the Virginia Rack-eteer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.126 In 2008, a numberof states strengthened their animal fighting statutes and momentumin this direction seems to be increasing.
Cockfighting is a centuries old sport where two specially bred birds fight for the gambling and entertainment purposes of their own-ers and spectators.127 Cockfighting often involves “breeding birds forviciousness, drugging them to heighten aggression, and fitting theirlegs with razor-sharp knives or gaffs, which resemble curved ice 118 Jared Miller, Casper Star-Tribune Online, Poll: Make Dogfighting Felony, http:// (Jan. 30, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12 2009).
119 Idaho Code Ann. § 25-3507 (Lexis Supp. 2008); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-3-203(c)(ii)(n) 120 Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 167.360, 167.370, 167.372 (2007); Mich. Sen. 1405, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. (June 24, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Mich.
Sen. 1406, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. (June 24, 2008) (available at Senate/pdf/2008-SIB-1406.pdf) (last accessedApr. 12, 2009); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:8-a(IV-V) (West Supp. 2008); 2008 OhioLegis. Serv. L-1882-1885 (West); Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6571 (West 2008).
121 Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 167.360, 167.370, 167.372.
122 Mich. Sen. 1406, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. at § 2; Mich. Sen. 1405, 94th Leg., Reg.
123 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:8-a(IV); 2008 Ohio Legis. Serv. L-1883.
124 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:8-a(V).
125 Va. Code Ann. § 3.1-796.124.
126 Id. at § 18.2-513.
127 Humane Socy. U.S., Cockfighting Fact Sheet, animal_fighting_the_final_round/cockfighting_fact_sheet/ (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt picks.”128 An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people in the United Statesparticipate in cockfighting.129 Cockfighting is sometimes associatedwith other criminal activity.130 In 2003, fighting roosters were respon-sible for spreading Newcastle disease in the Southwestern UnitedStates.131 Newcastle disease “is a contagious and fatal viral diseaseaffecting most species of birds.”132 It is spread through direct contactbetween uninfected birds and infected birds as there are high concen-trations of the virus in infected birds’ bodily discharges.133 Although cockfighting is illegal in every state, as with dogfighting, the states vary with regard to the penalties they impose and theircriminalization of different aspects of the activity. The penalties forcockfighting itself, possessing birds for cockfighting, being a spectatorat a cockfight, and possession of cockfighting implements varywidely.134 Participating in cockfights is still common, mostly in thesouthern states that punish the crime as a misdemeanor.135 Louisianabecame the last state to outlaw cockfighting when its 2007 legislationbanning the practice took effect on August 15, 2008.136 Also in 2008,some states considered changes to their cockfighting laws. Hawaii,Ohio, and South Carolina all considered changing cockfighting from amisdemeanor to a felony, although none of them ended up making thechange.137 128 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., The HSUS Praises Hilo Police Department for Cockfighting Bust (Mar. 7, 2008) (available at (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009).
129 Winston Ross, Cracking Down on Cockfighting, 128842 (Mar. 24, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
130 See id. (During a series of raids of cockfighting operations in Oregon and south- west Washington, federal agents found $100,000 in cash, fifty guns, 2.5 pounds ofmethamphetamine, 1.5 pounds of cocaine, 6 pounds of marijuana, forty-eight marijuanaplants, and arrested fifty-one people.).
131 Id.
132 Avian Biotech International, Newcastle Disease Virus, http://www.avianbiotech .com/diseases/newcastle.htm (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
133 Id.
134 Humane Socy. U.S., Ranking of State Cockfighting Laws, fighting/cockfight/state_cockfighting_laws_ranked.html (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009);Humane Socy. U.S., Cockfighting, (last ac-cessed Jan. 5, 2009).
135 Humane Socy. U.S., Ranking of State Cockfighting Laws, supra n. 134.
136 Ed Anderson, Louisiana’s Ban on Cockfighting Takes Effect Friday, http://www (Aug. 12, 2008)(last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); La. Stat. Ann. § 102.23 (2008).
137 Haw. Sen. 2552, 24th Leg. (Jan. 18, 2008) (available at http://www.capitol.hawaii .gov/session2008/bills/SB2552_.htm) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Ohio H. 415, 127thGen. Assembly (Dec. 18, 2007) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); S.C. H. 4021, 117th Gen. Assembly (May2, 2007) (available at accessed Apr. 12, 2009); S.C. Sen. 1041, 117th Gen. Assembly (Jan. 30, 2008)(available at (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Hawaii has conflicting cultural attitudes toward cockfighting.
Some Hawaiians view cockfighting as a cultural tradition.138 Its prac-tice dates back to plantation days.139 One cockfighting enthusiast, whoserved five days in jail in 1989 after he was arrested at a cockfight,continued to write letters to lawmakers urging them to legalize thepractice, comparing it to sportfishing and golf.140 In 2008, while somestate senators considered changing cockfighting from a misdemeanorto a felony, other state representatives submitted resolutions request-ing that the General Assembly of the United Nations commemoratecockfighting as a global sport.141 Resolutions express the position ofthe state’s legislature or a single house of the legislature and do nothave the force of law.142 The resolutions were referred to committeesand did not pass.143 HSUS defines an animal hoarder as a person who has a quantity of animals for which he cannot provide adequate care.144 Animalhoarding causes the suffering of animals and humans alike.145 Thereare approximately 1,500 new cases of animal hoarding in the UnitedStates each year, and each case involves substantial costs to society forcare of the animals, prosecution of the animal hoarder, and cleanup ofthe property.146 Animal hoarding is often associated with psychologi- 138 Jean Christensen, Isle Cockfighting Persists Despite Laws Against It, http:// (Mar. 4, 1997) (last accessed Feb.
21, 2009).
139 Id.
140 Id.
141 Haw. Sen. 2552, 24th Leg.; Haw. H. Con. Res. 180, 24th Leg. (Mar. 10, 2008) (available at (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009); Haw. H. Res 153, 24th Leg. (Mar. 10, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009);see Christensen, supra n. 138 (Although the practice is illegal in Hawaii, some citizenswould like it to be legalized).
142 Haw. St. Legis., Types of Bills and Resolutions, site1/info/guide/process02.asp (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
143 Haw. St. Legis., Bill Status HR. 153, lists/getstatus2.asp?billno=HR153 (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Haw. State. Legis., BillStatus HCR 180, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
144 Humane Socy. U.S., Behind Closed Doors: The Horrors of Animal Hoarding, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
145 Id.
146 Animal An In-Depth Look at the Phenomenon, Inside Animal Hoarding, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); see,Animal Hoarding AKA Collecting, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (The community may have to cover the costsof veterinary care and housing resulting from the inability of the hoarders to afford topay for the spaying and neutering and the order of the local Department of Health toraze the hoarders’ homes to the ground.).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt cal disorders, particularly the more severe disorders.147 Early researchsuggested that animal hoarding was most likely associated with obses-sive-compulsive disorder.148 However, more recent research suggeststhat the psychological disorders behind animal hoarding are morecomplex, sometimes including a history of childhood abuse, trauma, ordysfunction that leads to compulsive caregiving.149 Some argue that the criminal justice system is ill equipped to han- dle animal hoarding cases.150 Prosecutors usually charge animalhoarders under animal cruelty laws, an approach that some say is toosimple for animal hoarding cases because it does not address the un-derlying mental health issues or recognize different types of animalhoarders.151 Critics of this approach point out that it leads to almostcomplete recidivism.152 Furthermore, animal hoarders usually act without intent to harm the animals.153 Because the cases involve neglect instead of deliberateabuse, the acts of hoarders are not generally crimes under animal cru-elty statutes.154 To address this issue, legislators in Michigan’s Houseof Representatives introduced a bill to amend its animal cruelty stat-utes to provide that a person’s affection for animals or humanita-rian purpose in acquiring them is not a defense to animal cruelty.155This bill died in committee.156 Two other states considered changes totheir animal cruelty statutes in 2008 to more effectively deal with theunderlying causes of animal hoarding.157 Hawaii amended its animal cruelty statute to include animal hoarding and provide enforcement mechanisms to deal with animal 147 Gary J. Patronek, Animal Hoarding: What Caseworkers Need to Know 1, http:// (2007) (last accessed Apr. 12,2009).
148 Id. at 3.
149 Id. at 23.
150 Gary J. Patronek, Lynn Loar & Jane N. Nathanson, Eds., Animal Hoarding: Structuring Interdisciplinary Reponses to Help People, Animals and Communities atRisk 21–22, (2006) (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
151 Id. at 12.
152 Id. at 1.
153 Id. at 21.
154 Id.
155 Mich. H. 5946, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. § 3(E) (Apr. 8, 2008) (available at http://www accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
156 Mich. Legis., House Bill 5946, cq5q0h45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2008-HB-5946 (last accessed Apr.
12, 2009).
157 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1109.6 (2008); N.J. Sen. 1989, 213th Leg. § 2 (June 16, 2008) (available at (last ac-cessed Apr. 12, 2009); N.J. Assembly 2981, 213th Leg. § 2 (June 16, 2008) (available at (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt hoarding offenses.158 The amendments make animal hoarding a mis-demeanor and allow law enforcement officials to impound animalspending forfeiture unless the alleged animal hoarder posts a bondwithin seventy-two hours to reimburse the facility caring for the ani-mals for the animals’ care.159 The bond and forfeiture process allowsfacilities to avoid incurring costs for the care of the animals pendingthe prosecution of the alleged animal hoarder.160 If the alleged animalhoarder does not post a bond within the specified period, he forfeits hisrights to the animals, allowing the facility to take ownership ofthem.161 During the 2008–2009 session, legislators introduced companion bills in New Jersey’s Assembly and Senate to add animal hoarding tothe state’s animal cruelty statutes as a criminal and civil offense.162The bills prohibit possession of animals in such quantities that theperson cannot provide minimum care for them and “at least some ofthe animals experience death, bodily injury[,] or other serious adversehealth consequences.”163 The crime of animal hoarding would be pun-ishable by a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to eighteenmonths.164 The proposed law imposes a civil penalty between $1,000and $3,000.165 Legislators introduced the bill in both houses of the legislature on June 16, 2008, and the bills were referred to committees.166 NewJersey is currently in its two-year legislative term for 2008–2009,which is split into two annual sessions.167 Unfinished business fromthe first year is continued in the second year.168 Unless these bills passby the end of the 2009 annual session, they will expire.169 Ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in most antifreeze formula- tions, not only smells and tastes sweet, but it is also poisonous to pets 158 Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 711-1109.6, 711-1110.5.
159 Id.
160 Patronek, supra n. 150, at 22.
161 Id.
162 N.J. Sen. 1989, 213th Leg. at §§ 2(a), 3(dd); N.J. Assembly 2981, 213th Leg. at 163 N.J. Sen. 1989, 213th Leg. at §§ 2(a), 3(dd); N.J. Assembly 2981, 213th Leg. at 164 N.J. Sen. 1989, 213th Leg. at § 2(a); N.J. Assembly 2981, 213th Leg. at § 2(a); N.J.
Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:43-3(2), 2C:43-6(4) (West 2005).
165 N.J. Sen. 1989, 213th Leg. at § 3(dd); N.J. Assembly 2981, 213th Leg. at § 3(dd).
166 N.J. Legis., Bills 2008-2009 S1989,; search “s1989”, select S1989 (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); N.J. Legis., Bills 2008-2009 A2981,; search “a2981”, select A2981 (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
167 N.J. Legis., supra n. 95.
168 Id.
169 Id.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt and wildlife, even in small quantities.170 Thus, spilled antifreeze posesa serious risk of death to animals.171 In an effort to reduce instances ofethylene glycol poisoning, as of early 2008, five states172 had alreadypassed legislation requiring antifreeze manufacturers to add a bitter-ing agent to ethylene glycol antifreeze to make it less palatable to ani-mals and children.173 During 2008, Washington and Tennessee passed antifreeze safety laws, and New Jersey is still considering making the change.174 Ten-nessee’s legislature passed the Haley Ham Law due to the diligent ef-forts of an 11-year-old girl.175 Ms. Ham began her campaign to get anantifreeze safety law passed in 2007 after someone poisoned her dogSam and another neighborhood dog with antifreeze.176 The antifreeze safety laws considered and passed during 2008 are similar to antifreeze safety laws in other states.177 They require manu-facturers to add a bittering agent to antifreeze containing 10% or moreethylene glycol.178 The penalty for violating Tennessee’s law is a $50fine.179 Washington’s law and New Jersey’s proposed law do not pro-vide for penalties.180 Greyhound racing has its origins in the ancient sport of coursing, where two or more dogs raced each other on a straight track in pursuitof a game animal.181 The first circular track was built in Salt LakeCity, Utah, in 1907.182 Attendance at greyhound races in the UnitedStates reached an all time high of 3.5 million in 1992.183 170 Humane Socy. U.S., Fatal Attraction: Antifreeze Is a Sweet but Deadly Poison for Pets, (last updated Feb. 5, 2009) (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
171 Id.
172 Id. (Arizona, California, Maine, New Mexico, and Oregon).
173 Id.
174 Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-131-113 (Lexis 2008); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.94.540, 19.94.542, 19.94.544 (2008); N.J. Assembly 1577, 213th Leg. (Jan. 8, 2008) (available at; search “a1577,” select A1577) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009);N.J. Sen. 979, 213th Leg. (Jan. 28, 2008) (available at;search “s979,” select S979) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
175 Haley Ham, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
176 Id.
177 See generally Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 17582(a) (West 2008) (“Any engine coolant or antifreeze . . . that contains more than [10%] ethylene glycol, shall includedenatonium benzoate . . . as a bittering agent within the product so as to render itunpalatable.”).
178 Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-131-113(a); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.94.540(1); N.J. Assembly 1577, 213th Leg. at § 2(a); N.J. Sen. 979, 213th Leg. at § 2(a).
179 Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-131-113(d).
180 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 19.94.540, 19.94.542, 19.94.544; N.J. Assembly 1577, 213th Leg.; N.J. Sen. 979, 213th Leg.
181 The Greyhound Racing Assn. Am., Inc., The Most Exciting Dogs in the World, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt States perceive greyhound racing as a way to raise revenue.184 Animal advocacy groups argue that “greyhound racing constitutesanimal abuse because of the industry’s excessive surplus breedingpractices, the often cruel methods by which unwanted dogs are de-stroyed, the daily conditions in which many dogs are forced to live, andthe killing and maiming of bait animals, such as rabbits, during train-ing exercises.”185 In 2006, approximately 14,800 greyhounds were res-cued and adopted, while an estimated 8,567 were killed, including dogsthat were bred but were not suitable for racing and dogs that could nolonger race.186 Those involved in the greyhound racing industry argue that the alleged abuse of racing dogs “defies logic” and “financial feasibility” be-cause racing dog owners must spend “hundreds of thousands, and evenmillions of dollars on the breeding, raising[,] and acquisition” of theiranimals, and thus they would not “deliberately or ignorantly subjectthem to” physical abuse.187 With attendance at greyhound races drop-ping, seven states188 banned live greyhound racing in the 1990s.189 Asof November 2008, there were thirty-two live racing greyhound race-tracks in eleven states.190 Two of these states considered changingtheir dog racing laws in 2008.191 Massachusetts has two operating greyhound tracks.192 During Massachusetts’ 2007–2008 legislative session, the legislature consid-ered a bill to ban commercial dog racing, but it died in committee.193 184 Humane Socy. U.S., Greyhound Racing Facts, fecting_our_pets/running_for_their_lives_the_realities_of_greyhound_racing/greyhound_racing_facts.html (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
185 Id.
186 Greyhound Network News & the Greyhound Protection League, U.S. Greyhound Racing Fact Sheet ¶ 13, (April 2007) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
187 Dennis McKeon, The Greyhound Racing Assn. Am., Inc., As Nature Designed Them – Greyhound Racing, (last accessed Feb. 24, 2009).
188 Humane Socy. U.S., Greyhound Racing Facts, supra n. 184 (Idaho, Maine, North Carolina, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).
189 Id.
190 Greyhound Network News, Greyhound Racetracks Operating in North America as of November 2008, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (the thirteen states with greyhound tracks areAlabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).
191 Mass. H. 320, 186th Gen. Ct. (Dec. 18, 2006) (available at legis/185history/h00320.htm) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:8(West 2008).
192 Stephanie Ebbert, Bid to Ban Dog Racing Succeeds on 2d Try, .com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/bid_to_ban_dog_racing_succeeds_on_2d_try/ (Nov. 5, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
193 Mass. H. 320, 186th Gen. Ct.; Mass. Legis., House, No. 320, legis/185history/h04638.htm (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt The people of Massachusetts, however, banned dog racing by ballotmeasure in November 2008.194 The ban will take effect in 2010.195 Op-ponents of the ballot initiative argued that banning greyhound racing“put[s] the needs of dogs before the needs of people” because some1,000 people working at greyhound racetracks in the state would losetheir jobs.196 After voters approved the ban, one Massachusetts representative stated that he plans to urge Governor Deval Patrick to install slot ma-chines at the former greyhound racetracks so that they do not have toshut down, and the state’s economy will not suffer.197 Another issue iswhat to do with the racing greyhounds once the ban becomes effec-tive.198 Owners can either put their dogs up for adoption or move to astate that has not yet banned greyhound racing.199 Adoption is a read-ily available option because many greyhound rescue organizations of-fer services for people who want to adopt former racing dogs.200 Like Massachusetts, New Hampshire also has two greyhound rac- ing tracks.201 In 2008, New Hampshire passed a bill removing the ex-emption for dog and horse racing in its animal cruelty laws andallowing law enforcement officials to take dogs and horses from race-tracks into protective custody in cases of animal cruelty.202 Two NewHampshire legislators plan to propose further changes in 2009.203 Oneproposes a ban on dog racing to take effect over two years.204 The otherwants to change the state’s current law so that race tracks can showtelevision simulcasts of dog racing without being required to have livedog races.205 194 Ebbert, supra n. 192.
195 Id.
196 Id.
197 WBZ, What’s Next for Greyhound Race Tracks?, tion.3.greyhound.2.856279.html (Nov. 5, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
198 See generally Greyhound Network News, Mile High Greyhound Park Ends Live Racing; Hundreds of Greyhounds Displaced, 57 Greyhound Network News 8 (Spring/Summer 2008) (when one racetrack closed in Colorado in 2008, approximately 700 grey-hounds were displaced).
199 Hannah Lally, Closing Tracks in Mass. Could Leave Greyhounds Homeless, http:// 200811283255.html (Nov. 28, 2008) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009). 200 See GREY2K USA, Adoption Links, .html (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009) (providing links to agencies adopting retired grey-hounds in each state).
201 N. H. Bus. Rev., Lawmakers Set Sights on Dog Racing, apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081231/NEWS06/812299971 (Dec. 31, 2008) (last accessedApr. 12, 2009).
202 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:8.
203 N. H. Bus. Rev., supra n. 201.
204 Id.
205 Id.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt Puppy mills are “breeding operations that mass produce puppies in factory style settings for sale at pet stores, directly to unsuspectingcustomers, and over the Internet.”206 The federal AWA provides over-sight for commercial breeders, but specifically exempts operations thatsell directly to the public, including pet stores.207 Dogs that live in puppy mills are continuously bred to produce two litters of puppies during each of their reproductive years from the ageof 6 or 7 months until the age of 8 years.208 During this time, the dogsare often kept in rows of cages.209 The dogs are given basic care including food, water, and shelter, but receive only the basic level of veterinary care, leaving the dogswith “untreated bite wounds, pneumonia, heat stroke, ear infections,blindness, malnutrition, splayed and swollen feet, rotted teeth[,] andmange.”210 The puppies are often shipped across the country in tractortrailers where many die en route.211 Those that arrive alive often havehealth and behavioral problems.212 Some states have passed laws regulating these businesses.213 HSUS notes that an effective breeding facility law should include thefollowing provisions: [Applies] to all breeding operations with animals or animal sales num- [Requires] a licensing fee and pre-inspection.
[Includes] routine, unannounced inspections at least twice yearly.
[Is] enforced by an agency with adequate funding and properly trained [Rotates] inspectors to cover different areas of the state.
[Is] equipped with strong penalties when facilities are in repeated non-compliance, including but not limited to cease and desist orders.214 206 Humane Socy. U.S., Approximately 300 Dogs Rescued from N.C. Puppy Mill, 6, 2009) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
207 7 U.S.C. §§ 2133, 2143 (2006).
208 Main Line Animal Rescue, Puppy Mills, mills/factory-farming-dogs (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
209 Id.
210 Id.; Humane Socy. U.S., Stop Puppy Mills, FAQs, quently_asked_questions.html (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
211 Main Line Animal Rescue, supra n. 208.
212 Id.
213 Humane Socy. U.S., State Puppy Mill Laws, legislation/ puppy-mill-laws-chart.pdf (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
214 Humane Socy. U.S., Puppy Mill Laws: Where Does Your State Stand?, http://www (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt In 2008, three states passed bills to regulate puppy mills moreeffectively.215 Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed House Bill 538 into law on April 23, 2008.216 The bill defines the category of “commercial dogbreeders” under state law and provides for licensing, penalties, andother provisions to regulate the industry.217 Breeders who have thirtyor more adult females during any twelve-month period are subject toregulation and must have a business license.218 They may not havemore than fifty adult dogs at one time, they are subject to two inspec-tions per year and ad hoc investigations, they must dispose of deceasedanimals legally, and they must keep records on each dog for fiveyears.219 In addition, pet shops may only sell or offer to sell dogs ob-tained from breeders licensed by the USDA pursuant to the AWA.220Violations of these provisions constitute Class I misdemeanors.221 Thisis the first law to limit the number of dogs that a breeder may keep.222 Louisiana’s House Bill 1193 became effective without the gover- nor’s signature on August 15, 2008.223 The bill amends the state’s li-censing requirements, limits the number of dogs breeders can have,and imposes penalties for violating these requirements.224 The statenow requires any individual or business with five or more dogs thatbreeds and sells the dogs retail, wholesale, or to the public, to obtain akennel license, instead of just having licenses for the individualdogs.225 In addition, it is now illegal to have more than seventy-five 215 3 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. § 459-207 (Westlaw current through Reg. Sess. Act 2008- 132 and 2007–2008 Sp. Sess. No. 1 Act 2); La. Stat. Ann. § 3:2772 (2008); Va. Code Ann.
§§ 3.2-6507.1–3.2-6507.6 (Lexis 2008).
216 Va. Gen. Assembly, HB 538 Commercial Dog Breeders; Definition, Requirements, Penalty, (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
217 Va. H. 538, 2008 Reg. Sess. (Jan. 7, 2008) (available at ul+CHAP0852¶df) (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
218 Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6500, 3.2-6507.1 (2008).
219 Id. at §§ 3.2-6507.2, 3.2-6507.3, 3.2-6555.
220 Id. at § 3.2-6511.1(A)–(B).
221 Id. at §§ 3.2-6507.5, 3.2-6511.1(C).
222 Press Release, Humane Socy. U.S., States Pass Record Number of Animal Protec- tion Laws in 2008, (Dec. 4, 2008) (available at (lastaccessed Apr. 12, 2009).
223 La. St. Legis., HB 1193-2008 Regular Session (Act 894), .us; select Session Info, select 2008 Regular Legislative Session, search “1193,” select History (last updated July 9, 2008) (last accessed Feb. 19, 2009).
224 La. H. 1193, 2008 Reg. Sess. § 2772(G)–(I) (Apr. 21, 2008) (available at http://www (last accessed Apr. 12,2009).
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt dogs over the age of one year for breeding purposes.226 A violation ofthese provisions constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to$500, imprisonment up to six months, or both.227 In response to a billboard asking her to cover the topic near her studio in Chicago, Oprah Winfrey aired an investigation of puppy millson her show in April 2008.228 The show had a dramatic and direct im-pact, causing adoption rates at shelters to increase and sales and prof-its at commercial breeders to decrease.229 During the episode, hiddencameras toured puppy mills in Pennsylvania.230 Ms. Winfrey askedPennsylvania residents to contact their state legislators to urge themto support bills to update the state’s regulation of puppy mills.231 On October 9, 2008, Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell signed House Bill 2525 into law.232 The bill amended the Dog Law, thestate’s comprehensive law concerning companion animals,233 to in-clude provisions relating to puppy mills.234 The Dog Law now requireslicenses for kennels, and the licensing fee varies depending on howmany dogs the kennel houses or sells, from under fifty to more than250.235 There is no limit on how many dogs a kennel can house.236 Thekennel owner must keep records on each dog for two years.237 Underthe Dog Law, in-state and out-of-state dealers must also be licensed.238 Many of the provisions originally found in House Bill 2525 were lost during the legislative process.239 These included classification as a“commercial kennel” if the kennel sold or transferred more than sixty 226 Id. at § 3:2772(H).
227 Id. at § 3:2772(I).
228, Investigating Puppy Mills, show/slideshow1_ss_global_20080404/1 (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009); Main Line AnimalRescue, Oprah Asks Residents of Pennsylvania to Contact Their State Legislators andUrge Them to Support House Bills 2525 and 2532, (last accessed Apr. 12, 2009).
229, supra n. 228.
230 Id.
231 Main Line Animal Rescue, supra n. 208.
232 Pa. Gen. Assembly, Bill Information, bill_history.cfm?syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2525 (last accessed Apr.
12, 2009).
233 3 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. § 459-101.
234 Penn. H. 2525, 2007–2008 Reg. Sess. § 206 (May 13, 2008) (available at http:// (last accessedApr. 12, 2009).
235 3 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. § 459-206.
236 Id.
237 Id. at § 459-207.
238 Id. at § 459-209.
239 Compare Penn. H. 2525, 2007–2008 Reg. Sess. at §§ 459-102, 459-207 with 3 Pa.
\\server05\productn\L\LCA\15-2\LCA206.txt dogs in a calendar year.240 House Bill 2525 authorized the State Secre-tary of Agriculture to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desistorders.241 The bill allowed a person who received a cease and desistorder to keep twenty-five of the dogs, but required him to divest theothers in the manner prescribed by the State Department of Agricul-ture in its cease and desist order.242 Originally, House Bill 2525 also required commercial kennels to provide enclosures for the dogs that meet minimum standards, includ-ing space and lighting requirements, and to provide veterinary careaccording to a written program including examination and vaccinationschedules, a protocol for disease control and prevention, pest and para-site control, nutrition, emergency care, and euthanasia.243 The origi-nal bill also provided for creation of a Canine Health Board todetermine standards for kennels.244 Under the enforcement scheme proposed in House Bill 2525, au- thorities could pursue civil or criminal penalties.245 Courts could alsoorder the equitable remedies of preliminary injunction, special injunc-tion, or issuance of a temporary restraining order.246 Instead, viola-tions of the provisions of House Bill 2525, as passed, are enforcedunder the preexisting penalty scheme of the Dog Law.247 A violation ofthe Dog Law is punished as a summary offense, and if the person vio-lates the Dog Law a second time within a year of the first violation, theviolation is a third degree misdemeanor.248 240 Penn. H. 2525, 2007–2008 Reg. Sess. at § 459-102.
241 Id. at § 459-207.
242 Id.
243 Id. at § 459-207.
244 Id. at § 459-221.
245 Id. at § 459-903(g).
246 Penn. H. 2525, 2007–2008 Reg. Sess. at § 459-903(e).
247 3 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 459-903.
248 Id.


Microsoft word - 2009-251-ec_dmf_emergency_ban_20090521.doc

2009/251/EC DIMETHYL FUMARATE (DMF) EMERGENCY BAN The biocide dimethylfumarate, commonly known simply as DMF, is set to be prohibited in consumer products asof 1 May this year, while stocks of such products that are already placed or made available on the market on thatdate will have to be withdrawn, with recalls from consumers also becoming necessary.  BACKGROUND NOTES: Since 2008,

Family caregiving statistics

FAMILY CAREGIVING STATISTICS Published by: More than one quarter (26.6%) of the adult population has provided care for a chronically ill,disabled or aged family member or friend during the past year. Based on current census data,that translates into more than 50 million people. Source: National Family Caregivers Association (NFCA) RandomSample Survey of 1000 Adults, Funded by

Copyright © 2010 Medicament Inoculation Pdf