LEGAL - New Alaska Legislation Considers Best Interests of Pets in Divorce

A ruling late last year in Saskatchewan found that pets should not be treated like children, with custody determined by the courts.

This decision is in line with the historical treatment of pets as personal property, and although the judge in that case acknowledged that pets are not exactly like the family butter knives, he also said that "To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.”

However, judges in the United States have recently taken a different view of the situation.

Some courts have addressed issues of custody, visitation, and even alimony.

In one San Diego case, a couple was granted joint custody over their pointer-greyhound mix, Gigi.

Both owners wanted sole custody, and a court battle ensued.

The courts ordered a “bonding study” and one of the owners made a videotape of “A Day in the Life of Gigi.” That owner, Linda Perkins, was eventually granted sole custody.

The court litigation took two years, and cost around $150k in legal fees.

That case was settled in 2000, and in the interim years the number of pet custody cases has increased significantly.

Alaska is the first state to introduce pet-custody legislation, which will allow the courts to make rulings based on the well-being of the animal.

The legislation was sponsored by Republican representative Liz  Vasquez, who said that, “Our pets are members of our families. …[W]e have to remember that we’re sent here to Juneau to represent people; real human beings, many of whom have pets they love as much as their friends and family.”

The Alaska legislation also addresses the issue of pets in domestic violence situations.

Vasquez said, “Imagine being a domestic violence victim with an abuser who uses your pet as a weapon to keep you from calling the police or Troopers. This bill takes that threat away with its victim’s privilege.”

This is a critical issue, since there is a well-established link between pet abuse and intimate partner violence.

Treating pets as property can have unintended negative consequences for victims of abuse.

Similar legislation has been introduced in Rhode Island, where state representative Charlene Lima says, “People can get really vicious in divorces, and using emotional attachment to a pet is something they can use to gain leverage.”

Her bill states that judges should “consider the best interest of the animal.”

It’s unclear whether legislation like this will gain traction in other jurisdictions, but Jeff Pierce from the Animal Legal Defense Fund told the New York Times that, “We totally welcome this development in the law, and we think it’s going to accelerate.”

Canada’s judges may disagree for now, but if the rulings make a change in the safety of human abuse victims, maybe that will change.

About Tiffany Sostar

Tiffany is a published academic, an editor with the Editors Association of Canada, an independent scholar and researcher, and a self-care and narrative coach. She is particularly interested in the intersection of technology and identity - how our tools shape our selves and change our stories, and in how the nature of work is changing as we incorporate more technology into our daily lives.

WELFARE - Bill Tabled to Compel Transparency as USDA Reposts Some Animal Welfare Data

The backlash from the USDA’s removal of animal welfare information from its website has resulted in the organization restoring some of that information to its site.

Still missing are the majority of reports from regular inspections of animal-holding facilities that are monitored under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including puppy producers and zoos.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, stated in a release: “This is an important turnaround and a good start, but the USDA has a lot more to do here. Lawmakers, the press, animal advocates, and even the regulated community want transparency and accessible records.”

The USDA’s purging of its site resulted in a variety of organizations suing them.

A group of 18 senators wrote a letter to the USDA voicing their concerns about the removal of information and 101 members of congress sent a letter to the President stating: “We join a broad coalition of organizations - from animal welfare groups to pet store chains, biomedical research groups, and accredited zoos and aquariums - in urging the agency to restore comprehensive online, searchable access to these documents immediately in order to maintain ongoing transparency.”

This week the Animal Welfare Accountability and Transparency Act was introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

This bill would compel the USDA to restore open, online access to information detailing the quality of animal care in facilities regulated by the Animal Welfare Act and Horse Protection Act (HPA).

The bill takes an additional step for animal protection by preventing AWA and HPA violators from taking advantage of certain tax benefits.

Individuals who are concerned about the removal of the information are still being urged by the ASPCA to sign their petition as they watch the progress of the bill. 

LEGAL - California Bill to Allow Tax Credit for Veterinary Costs

Most every pet owner has received a vet bill and wondered how they were going to afford it.

The American Pet Products Association estimates that pet owners spend $16 billion per year on veterinary care.

To help pet owners in California, Assemblyman Devon Mathis, R-Visalia introduced a bill that would allow dog and cat owners to claim veterinary expenses.

If passed, Assembly Bill 942 will give dog and cat owners in California an income tax credit that allows them to write off 50% of the amount paid for qualified veterinary medical expenses, up to a maximum of $2000 per year.

Mathis said almost everyone he knows has a tragic story about a family dog or cat that had to be euthanized due to a serious and costly medical issue.

“What if you don’t have to put them down?” Mathis said. “This is an incentive to do the surgery and keep them in the family.”

This is not the first such bill to be proposed.

In 2009, then Michigan State Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R) proposed a bill that would allow for pet owners to deduct up to $3500 per calendar year for veterinary health care expenses.

That bill was stalled in the Ways and Means Committee and never passed.

California’s Bill 942 was proposed on February 16 and may be heard as early as March 19.

HEALTH - Veterinarians Invited to Apply for AVMA Congressional Fellowship

Veterinarians interested in shaping public policy around issues such as animal welfare, food safety, and public health are invited to apply for the AVMA Congressional Fellowship Program.

The AVMA brings veterinarians to Washington, D.C., as congressional fellows, to spend a year in the office of a member of Congress advising on policy issues.

Applicants should have the following qualifications:

• Be an advocate for veterinary medicine
• Have an interest in public policy and/or politics
• Demonstrate competence in an area of veterinary medicine
• Exhibit an interest in applying scientific knowledge to address societal/public policy issues
• Have the ability to analyze, identify, and easily explain core scientific issues to a variety of audiences
• Be an AVMA member and U.S. citizen
• Possess the ability to pass a government background investigation.

The fellowship program provides an opportunity to help animal health and welfare on a national scale, not just local.

The selection process is conducted in 3 phases that occur between February and April.

• Phase 1: Selection Committee reviews applicant's application materials and selects individuals to move to Phase 2.
• Phase 2: Participants are given a case study that must be completed over two days. Selection Committee reviews and selects candidates for Phase 3.
• Phase 3: In-person interview with the Selection Committee at the GRD offices in Washington, DC.

The fellowship program is sponsored through the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which works to place qualified, scientific experts in congressional offices where they are needed.

To date, more than 60 veterinarians have participated in the AVMA program.

The application deadline is Friday, February 10th.

WELFARE - New Regulation Aims to End Horse Soring

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has announced the final version of a rule that will help protect horses from the practice of soring.

(Soring image and x-ray, USDA)

Soring has been viewed as a controversial practice by people within and outside of the horse world.

The Humane Society of the United States says, “Soring involves the intentional infliction of pain to a horse's legs or hooves in order to force the horse to perform an artificial, exaggerated gait. Caustic chemicals—blistering agents like mustard oil, diesel fuel and kerosene—are applied to the horse's limbs, causing extreme pain and suffering.”

They go on to describe a particularly egregious form of soring, known as pressure shoeing, that involves cutting a horse's hoof almost to the quick and tightly nailing on a shoe, or standing a horse for hours with the sensitive part of his soles on a block or other raised object. This causes pressure and pain whenever the horse puts weight on the hoof.

The final rule, which is part of the Horse Protection Act, will be published soon in the Federal Register and become effective by next January.

It will ban many of the devices used for soring, such as stacked shoes, ankle chains, foreign substances and other “action devices,” and force horse industry inspectors to become trained and licensed through the USDA.

The horse industry is currently responsible for training its own inspectors.

Under the final regulation:

• APHIS will license, train, and oversee independent, third party inspectors, known as Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs), and establish the licensing eligibility requirements to reduce conflicts of interest.
• To allow sufficient time to train and license HPIs and ensure an adequate number before the start of the 2018 show season, current Designated Qualified Person (DQP) licenses will remain valid until January 1, 2018.  Beginning January 1, 2018, management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that elect to use inspection services, must appoint and retain a HPI to inspect horses.
• Beginning January 1, 2018, the regulatory provisions applicable to Horse Industry Organization and Associations are removed and are no longer effective.
• Beginning 30 days after the publication of the final rule, all action devices, except for certain boots, are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.  All pads and wedges are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction on or after January 1, 2018, unless such horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic, veterinary treatment using pads or wedges.  This delayed implementation allows ample time to both gradually reduce the size of pads to minimize any potential physiological stress to the horses and prepare horses to compete in other classes.
• Beginning January 1, 2018, management of HPA-covered events must, among other things, submit certain information records to APHIS, provide HPIs with access, space, and facilities to conduct inspections, and have a farrier physically present to assist HPIs at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that allow Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads and wedges if more than 150 horses are entered, and have a farrier on call if 150 or fewer horses are entered.

“Horse soring is a stain on Tennessee’s reputation, and (Friday’s) move by the USDA begins to wipe that stain away,” Humane Society president and CEO Wayne Pacelle said in a statement.

“Hurting horses so severely for mere entertainment is disgraceful, and I put this abuse in the same category as dogfighting or cockfighting - practices that betray our humanity and that cannot stand the light of day.”

Not everyone is on board with the new legislation, however.

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) believes the new rules are overreaching, stating in a release, “I am in favor of wiping out the contemptible and illegal practice of horse soring, not wiping out the century old tradition of showing Tennessee Walking Horses as this rule could do.”

“I would hope the new Secretary of Agriculture will not concur with this overreaching rule announced during the last few days of the Obama administration and instead will work with Congress to enact legislation that punishes trainers, owners and riders who abuse horses while preserving the opportunity for law abiding horse enthusiasts to participate in competitions that are the basis of the Tennessee Walking Horse industry.”

Mike Inman, president of the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, said he plans to challenge the regulatory action. The Celebration is the largest Tennessee walking horse show in the nation.

Pet Ownership, Guardianship, and the Unintended Consequences for Abused Women

Are pets property?

According to a recent ruling by a Saskatchewan judge, they are. This is in line with other rulings regarding how pets should be treated during the dissolution of a marriage or common-law relationship.

Pets are property, and the courts do not get involved in who gets “custody” of the toaster.

It seems straightforward, and many people agree with the judge’s line of thought.

Following up on his ruling, Justice Danyliuk stated that, “To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.”

But the issue of whether pets should be treated as sentient beings who have guardians, or property that is owned, is fraught.

Many organizations that investigate incidents of animal cruelty support laws recognizing that animals feel pain (sentient beings) and subsequently have penalties reflect this.

Pets have been gaining legal rights over the last several years, and although large organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Kennel Club oppose any move towards granting pets legal personhood, the issue continues to come up in North American courts.

Vets worry that the move to personhood could impact their ability to perform veterinary medicine.

As the AVMA points out, could it become illegal to spay or neuter pets because of “reproductive rights”? Could vets or pet guardians be sued for providing what someone else might consider inadequate care?

There are fears that a shift to guardianship from ownership would leave people at risk of egregious state intervention, and would violate their human rights and interfere with their relationships with their pets.

And there is the concern expressed by Justice Danyliuk in the recent Saskatoon case, that treating pets as sentient beings more akin to children than to toasters, would clog up a court process that already faces frequent delays.

Treating pets like children and asking the courts to determine their care after divorce would add yet another strand to the Gordian knot of relationship dissolution.

But there are two critical aspects to the guardianship vs. ownership debate that must be addressed, even if it does add time and complication to divorce proceedings.

The first is whether non-human beings can be persons at all.

India has taken steps towards granting dolphins personhood (though these are first steps only), and the Nonhuman Rights Project in the United States is also pursuing personhood status for some animals.

Corporations, of course, have been granted legal personhood throughout the United States.

Although it has yet to be determined whether nonhuman animals will be granted personhood rights, the door is creaking open.

The other aspect relevant to treating pets as sentient beings rather than owned property, regards the well-established link between domestic abuse and the abuse of pets.

Pet custody has a significant impact on women’s ability to leave abusive situations.

Abused women are 11 times more likely to witness their pets being abused, according to a large 2007 study.

As Kerri Froc at the Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine reports, threats of violence against pets “one tool in abusers’ arsenal of emotional abuse and control.”

The issue of personhood, and of whether the relationship with pets is one of owner or guardian, intersects with other legal issues.

While it is clear that pets are not children (no matter how much they are loved and doted on), it is also not clear if treating them as property is the best way to continue.

About Tiffany Sostar

Tiffany is a writer, editor, academic, and animal lover who came late to her appreciation of pets. At 18, a rescue pup named Tasha saved her from a depression and she hasn't looked back. She has worked as the canine behaviour program coordinator for the Calgary Humane Society, and was a dog trainer specializing in working with fearful and reactive dogs for many years. She doesn't have any pets right now, but makes up for it by giving her petsitting clients (and any dogs she comes across on her frequent coffee shop adventures) extra snuggles.

LEGISLATION - Law Lets Shelters do Background Checks on Adopters

A new law in Michigan can provide greater protection for animals.

House Bill No.4353 gives shelters the ability to do criminal background checks on potential adopters.

If the adopter has a criminal history of animal abuse, the organization can refuse the adoption.

Earlier versions of the bill would have required a criminal background check, but the bill that passed simply gives the organization the ability to use the Internet Criminal History Access Tool (ICHAT).

Adoption Centres "may choose not to allow an individual who has been convicted of an animal abuse offense to adopt an animal unless a period of at least five years has elapsed since the date of his or her conviction."

The legislation was called Logan's Law after a March 2012 incident in which a Wales Township husky named Logan was blinded by an acid burn. The dog died a few months later.

Unlike earlier revisions of Logan’s Law that included an animal abuse registry, using the ICHAT system for criminal background checks will come at little to no cost to the state.

WELFARE - Why Does Canadian Animal Cruelty Legislation Keep Failing?

Canada’s animal cruelty laws are far behind the global standard, and in fact Canada received a “D” on the global animal protection index.

A private member’s bill attempting to modernize Canadian animal cruelty legislation recently failed, the latest in a long string of proposed updates to the law that have failed to pass.

Why do proposed bills to update and modernize Canadian animal cruelty laws keep failing?

Canada is a country that prides itself on being progressive.

A recent Globe and Mail article said that, “The Canadian mandate that might have been called passive is now recognized as a policy of deliberate kindness and inclusion. Polite, maybe, but not without purpose.”

But this kindness seems not to extend to animals, a fact that stands in stark contrast to Canadian values in other areas.

According to the Canadian Federation of Human Societies, Canadian animal cruelty laws are positively Victorian, with current legislation that has not kept up with global standards since its introduction in 1892.

Cathy Thomas, past Executive Director of the Calgary Humane Society, worked with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies for over a decade while they attempted to spearhead an initiative to update the legislation.

She remembers struggles finding a champion in the Justice Minister, and bills dying during parliamentary prorogation or being caught up in omnibus bills.

But it wasn’t just process and procedure that got in the way.

Thomas says, “[One] issue was finding wording that would recognize the use of animals by all the various user groups - livestock, research, hunting, competition, etc. If you think of things like trapping, laying hens, feed lots, transportation, veal crates, gestation pens for sows, research practices (think of all the rats and mice), zoos, chuckwagon racing and rodeo, movies, show jumping, and more, a huge range of interests. [As well as] regional differences across the country, and the urban/rural divide.”

Even this doesn’t capture the full extent of complexity and resistance, or explain why bills continue to fail despite the fact that, according to Animal Justice, 92% of Canadians polled support updating the animal cruelty legislation.

Particularly given the link between animal abuse and domestic violence, strengthening these laws would help Canadians in multiple ways.

A 2012 study, by Antonio Verbora, of the politics of animal cruelty legislation in Canada found “the Canadian legal system continues to struggle in terms of how animals should be conceptualized in the law (i.e., as property or as sentient beings)” and this difficulty in conceptualization became a polarizing issue between political parties.

Resistance to animal cruelty legislation seems to frequently hinge not just on the concerns noted by Thomas regarding diverse stakeholders, but also a more visceral anxiety about the humanization of animals if legislation moves more towards treating animals as sentient beings rather than property.

This theme was, according to Verbora’s study, apparent in the majority of the parliamentary debates regarding bills to modernize the legislation.

Perhaps federal legislators can follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec where, in 2015, legislation declared animals sentient beings with biological needs. 

While this is a giant step forward for Quebec, the law does have some weaknesses as it
completely excludes wildlife in captivity, farm animals, exotic species and zoo animals.

Whether the resistance comes from industry groups, parliamentary processes, or existential anxieties, if the majority of Canadians support change is it time for Canada to catch up when it comes to animal cruelty legislation?

By Tiffany Sostar

Tiffany is a writer, editor, academic, and animal lover who came late to her appreciation of pets. At 18, a rescue pup named Tasha saved her from a depression and she hasn't looked back. She has worked as the canine behaviour program coordinator for the Calgary Humane Society, and was a dog trainer specializing in working with fearful and reactive dogs for many years. She doesn't have any pets right now, but makes up for it by giving her petsitting clients (and any dogs she comes across on her frequent coffee shop adventures) extra snuggles. 

 

WELFARE - City of Montreal Can Appeal Suspension of Pit Bull Ban

The City of Montreal has been granted permission to appeal a lower court ruling that suspended its controversial pit bull bylaw.

(bestfriends.org)

Quebec's top court will hear arguments Nov. 25. The two sides will be given 30 minutes each to present their case.

The SPCA had argued the law was discriminatory toward dogs that are not dangerous, overly vague in its definition of pit bull-type dogs, and could lead to the euthanasia of hundreds of healthy, well-behaved animals.

Mayor Denis Coderre's administration wants to see the rules restricting pit bulls go ahead despite a legal challenge to its law.