Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Suggest to the Chairman of the federal House of Representatives' subcommittee on Livestock, Rural Development, and Credit that important changes be made to pending H.R. 4525




HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By suggesting to the Chairman of the federal House of Representatives' subcommittee on Livestock, Rural Development, and Credit that important changes be made to pending H.R. 4525.


On April 30, 2014, Representative James P. Moran (D-VA) introduced the "Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act." Its stated purpose is "[t]o amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions." (See the entire text below.) 
  
*** 

113th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 4525

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 30, 2014

Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Chu, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. C├írdenas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture



A BILL

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that-
(1) traveling circuses are detrimental to animal welfare due to the adverse effects of captivity and transport;

(2) due to severe confinement, lack of free exercise, and the restriction of natural behaviors, animals used in circuses suffer and are prone to health, behavioral, and psychological problems;

(3) the tricks that exotic and non-domesticated animals are forced to perform require extreme physical coercion techniques, including the restriction of food, the use of elephant hooks (objects used to control and punish elephants), electric shocks, metal bars, whips, and other forms of physical abuse;

(4) the welfare of animals subject to the conditions in traveling circuses, such as constant travel, limited facilities, long periods of restriction of movement, stress, and physical coercion, will inevitably be compromised, which can lead to increased risks to public safety;

(5) animals in traveling circuses pose an additional risk to public safety because such animals have wild instincts and needs and have demonstrated unpredictability;

(6) the use of collapsible, temporary facilities in traveling circuses increases the risk of escaping exotic and non-domesticated animals seriously harming workers and the public;

(7) traveling circuses bring people dangerously close to exotic and non-domesticated animals by displaying animals in inappropriate, uncontrolled areas that are not suited for the exhibition of such animals;

(8) it is not possible to provide exotic and non-domesticated animals with facilities sufficient to maintain the optimum physical and mental health of the animals because of the suffering caused to the animals by the nature of circuses, in which restriction of movement, separation from natural groupings, restriction of food and water, and physical abuse are prevalent;

(9) due to the mobile and transitory nature of traveling circuses, law enforcement authorities cannot properly monitor the conditions of the animals or follow up on previous infractions by traveling circuses; and

(10) restricting the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in circuses is the most cost-effective and efficient way to safeguard both animal welfare and public safety.

SEC. 3. USE OF EXOTIC OR WILD ANIMALS IN TRAVELING CIRCUSES AND EXHIBITIONS.

Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(i)(1) No exhibitor may allow for the participation of an exotic or wild animal (including a non-human primate) in an animal act if, during the 15-day period preceding such participation, such animal was traveling in a mobile housing facility.

"(2) The restriction under paragraph (1) shall not apply to the use of an exotic or wild animal (including a non-human primate)-

"(A) in an exhibition at a non-mobile, permanent institution or facility, including an accredited zoo or aquarium;

"(B) as part of an outreach program for educational or conservation purposes by an accredited zoo or aquarium, if the animal used for such purposes is not kept in a mobile housing facility for more than 12 hours a day;

"(C) by a university, college, laboratory, or other research facility registered with the Secretary pursuant to section 6;

"(D) in film, television, or advertising if such use does not involve a live public exhibition; or

"(E) in a rodeo.

"(3) A traveling circus or exhibitor that fails to comply with this subsection shall be subject to the penalties provided for under section 19.".

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

***
 
Originally, there were five co-sponsors, now there are 14: Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. [R-NC-3], Rep. Henry C. "Hank," Johnson Jr. [D-GA-4], Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA-27], Rep. Adam B. Schiff [D-CA-28], Rep. Tony Cardenas [D-CA-29], Rep. Jared Polis [D-CO-2], Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA-20], Rep. Jerry McNerney [D-CA-9], Rep. Anna G. Eshoo [D-CA 18], Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA-14], Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa [D-HI-1], Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13].

ISAR is pleased to note that Section 2 contains extensive "Findings," the importance of which cannot be overemphasized. (See page 8 of ISAR's Model Statute Prohibiting Commercial Retail Sales Of Dogs And Cats Monograph) The bill's Findings are an impressive catalogue of reasons why animals in traveling circuses suffer, why they are a danger to the public, and thus why the proposed law is both moral and necessary. The last Finding, number 10, concludes with the statement that "restricting the use of exotic and non-domestic animals in circuses is the most cost-effective and efficient way to safeguard both animal welfare and public safety."

Although ISAR applauds the bill's underlying assumption that as a general proposition circus animals are treated cruelly and need protection, we strongly disagree with the bill's solution: mere regulation of their conditions, not abolition of their use. Indeed, a regrettable irony is that the bill's findings make a conclusive case for abolition, but then Section 3 ignores that case and simply imposes regulations on the suffering animals' exploited use. In other words, the bill is a typical example of tweaking practices that harm animals instead of banning them outright.

ISAR supports such a ban, and urges our supporters to communicate to the bill's sponsors and the committee's chairman that immediately banning the use in all circuses of exotic and wild animals, including non-human primates, is morally and practically required
if the bill's own findings are to be believed and not merely window dressing meant to satisfy the circuses and their lobbyists and mollify animal rights activists.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any information that comes your way in any manner concerning "Crush Videos."



HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any information that comes your way via the Internet, Email, or in any other manner concerning "Crush Videos."

  
In April 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of 8-1, in the case of United States v. Stevens, held unconstitutional the federal statute (18 U.S.C. Section 48) which made it a crime to knowingly create, sell, or possess "a depiction of animal cruelty."

ISAR had submitted an amicus curiae ("friend-of-the-Court") brief in the case and our Chairman, Professor Henry Mark Holzer, presented two audio commentaries about it--one after our brief was filed and the other following oral argument.

The Court's eight member majority ruled that the statute was "overbroad," meaning that the law could be interpreted to suppress speech of activities involving animals which, though distasteful to many (like hunting), were legal. In other words, the Court objected to the potentially broad sweep of the statute, not its laudable intention to protect animals from certain forms of unquestionable cruelty by suppressing depictions of that cruelty.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court very nearly invited Congress to craft a statute narrowly reflecting the federal legislature's substantial interest in curbing cruelty to animals that took the form of crush videos--a statute which would not be overbroad, but targeted more specifically to the goal that all members of the Court shared: ending the scourge of crush videos (and dog fighting, and similar barbaric conduct).

Accepting that invitation, effective December 9, 2010, Congress promptly reenacted Section 48 as the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. In essence, the statute now criminalizes knowing conduct that creates, sells, markets, advertises, exchanges, or distributes an animal crush video that:
  1. Depicts actual conduct in which one or more non-human animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily harm, and
  2. Is obscene. [Section 48 is actually more detailed than this. For example it specifies not only "non-human animals," but also "birds, reptiles, or amphibians." The entire statute appear below.1]
We'll spare you the gruesome details of why Ashley Nicole Richards and Brent Justice, who made crush videos, were indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, on (1) four counts of creation and one count of distribution of animal crush videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 48, (2) one count of engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1466(a), and (3) one count of production of transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1465.

Taking a page from the defense's playbook in the Stevens case, in the federal trial court Richards and Justice asked the judge to dismiss the indictment because Section was an unconstitutional abridgement of their "free speech."

The federal district judge agreed, primarily because the defendants' "free speech" was not of a type the courts have considered unprotected, such as obscenity and speech incidental to criminal conduct.

On appeal, to its credit the government argued that as written new Section 48 punished only the type of speech that is unprotected and thus the law was not overbroad, as had been the prior Section 48 ruled unconstitutional in the Stevens case.

On June 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed the district court.

The court began its analysis by observing that for new Section 48(a) (2) to apply animal crush videos must be "obscene," a crucial element of the crime but not one defined in the statute itself.

To provide that definition, the Court of Appeals accepted the one articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the 1973 obscenity case of Miller v. California.

Under that test, the Court of Appeals ruled that the requisite "obscene" element of the statute would be satisfied by "the [defendants'] wanton torture and killing that, as demonstrated by federal and state animal cruelty laws, society has deemed worthy of criminal sanction."

The court's reversal sent the case back to the federal district court for trial, which is yet to occur.

Under the facts, the defendants should be convicted. If they are--either by trial or plea--they should be sentenced to the maximum 7 years imprisonment on the Section 48 counts alone, with further punishment imposed on the two obscenity counts of the indictment. Fines should be imposed at the maximum amount allowed by law.

It should be noted that in upholding Section 48--thus condemning wanton torture and killing of animals, and speaking approvingly of federal and state animal cruelty laws--the Court of Appeals has struck a significant blow for animal rights, albeit in the limited arena of unspeakable human conduct.




[1] 18. U.S.C. Section 48 (2010)

(a) Definition.--In this section the term "animal crush video" means any photograph, motion-picture film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that--
(1) depicts actual conduct in which 1 or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 and including conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242); and
(2) is obscene. 

(b) Prohibitions.--
(1) Creation of animal crush videos.--It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly create an animal crush video, if--
(A) the person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) the animal crush video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce. 
(2) Distribution of animal crush videos.--It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) Extraterritorial application.--Subsection (b) shall apply to the knowing sale, marketing, advertising, exchange, distribution, or creation of an animal crush video outside of the United States, if--
(1) the person engaging in such conduct intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be transported into the United States or its territories or possessions; or
(2) the animal crush video is transported into the United States or its territories or possessions.
(d) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 7 years, or both.
(e) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--This section shall not apply with regard to any visual depiction of--
(A) customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices;
(B) the slaughter of animals for food; or
(C) hunting, trapping, or fishing.
(2) Good-faith distribution.--This section shall not apply to the good-faith distribution of an animal crush video to--
(A) a law enforcement agency; or
(B) a third party for the sole purpose of analysis to determine if referral to a law enforcement agency is appropriate.
(f) No preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the law of any State or local subdivision thereof to protect animals.