Accused Animal Abusers to Pay Care Costs of Seized Animals

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has signed into law a bill that will require alleged animal abusers, under certain circumstances, to pay reasonable costs for the care of their seized animals.

Reasonable costs of care are $15 per day per animal, in addition to necessary medical care, as determined by a licensed veterinarian.

The law will help reduce the enormous burden placed on non-profit animal shelters across the state that provide food and veterinary care for abused animals while cruelty cases are pending, often for a lengthy period.

The legislation will allow the appropriate authorities to bring an action in the Court of Common Pleas. The statute should provide an incentive for reluctant defendants to get into court promptly, thereby alleviating expenses, eventually charged to the defendant, incurred by animal shelters in caring for abused animals.

For the full text of the bill, click Here.

Where Have All the Volunteers Gone?

ISAR first announced its Stop Devocalization Now Project (for a description of the brutal practice of devocalization, see www.stopdevocalizationnow.org) in our Blog of September 18, 2012. Since its inception, there have been 54, 078 page visits.

Following that announcement, ISAR has taken the following actions in support of our Stop Devocalization Now Project:

• We created a website devoted exclusively to our Stop Devocalization Now Project.

• We snail-mailed our quarterly newsletter to thousands of our supporters emphasizing the Stop Devocalization Now Project, included a Stop Devocalization Now bumper sticker, and offered to provide unlimited quantities at our cost. (We received a single request, for 100 bumper stickers.)
  
  
• We announced the Stop Devocalization Now Project to thousands of our supporters in our E-newsletter.
  
  
• We issued a press release about the Stop Devocalization Now Project.
  
  
• We posted information about the Stop Devocalization Now Project on Facebook.
  
  
• We produced an Xtranormal video about the Stop Devocalization Now Project, and received thousands of views.
  
  
• We distributed a YouTube video about the Stop Devocalization Now Project.
  
  
• We interviewed Dr. Nicholas Dodman--world renowned animal behaviorist, and bestselling author--about devocalization and posted it on our website.
  
  
• We appeared on "Animals Today," a weekly online streaming radio show also heard on more than 30 markets around the country, where ISAR's president Susan Dapsis discussed devocalization.
  
  
• We advertised in Best Friends Magazine in connection with the Stop Devocalization Now Project.
  
  
• We solicited interest in the Stop Devocalization Now Project from the Fraternal Order of Police.
  
  
• We reached out to various political action committees concerning the Stop Devocalization Now Project.

In every one of these actions ISAR earnestly and explicitly sought the assistance of volunteers whose sole responsibility would be to obtain state or local legislative support for ISAR's anti-devocalization model statute.

How many expressions of interest did ISAR receive from the countless people throughout the United States who had learned about our Stop Devocalization Now Project?

How many individuals even sought further information about how through little effort on their part they might help end the practice of devocalization?

Exactly none.

There are several ironies here. A major one is that while reasonable people can disagree in good faith about various issues in the animal rights/protection field, no one can honestly quarrel with the proposition that devocalization is a brutal anti-animal procedure that must be ended.

Yet among the countless people who agree with ISAR's position, and doubtless laud our efforts, not one of them has come forward to find out how they could help volunteer their time and efforts to work legislatively to end devocalization.

As ISAR mentioned in our previous publications, a volunteer's task is not difficult:

• The ISAR volunteer should identify a sympathetic legislator(s) on a municipal, county or state level;
• The ISAR volunteer should make the legislators aware of and provide to him or her the material contained in this website, especially ISAR's Model Anti-Devocalization Statute;
• The ISAR volunteer should encourage the legislators to solicit as many co-sponsors as possible in support of ISAR's Model Statute;
• The ISAR volunteer, once the bill is introduced and assigned to a committee, should identify sympathetic members of that committee and seek their support for the bill.

Ideally, the bill's sponsor and/or at least one co-sponsor will have some leverage with the committee chairperson and legislative leadership so that the proposed legislation will get out of committee and obtain a majority vote of the legislature.

We have provided a lengthy Table of Contents for NIFAA president and author, Julie Lewin's book entitled Get Political for Animals and Win the Laws They Need, which contains detailed information and instruction about how to lobby on behalf of animals.

As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, ISAR cannot lobby for or against the enactment of legislation. However, we can support those who are willing to fight for legislation that will end devocalization throughout the United States. ISAR knows there are willing anti-devocalization advocates in legislative bodies throughout the United States, but we can't find them. But volunteers can.

And, as we have learned, in Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere, there are powerful legislative enemies of efforts to end the barbaric practice of devocalization.

With the help of likeminded people, whose volunteer participation we sincerely solicit, this is one battle dogs and cats can win.

Won't you please help us help them?

Not one of our projects, but..................

As ISAR's supporters know, using law, legislation, and publications our organization's mandate is humane education to foster the recognition and advancement of animal rights. Our most recent involvement with the ugly subject of dog fighting was ISAR's attempt to prevent the dog fighting Michael Vick from being reinstated in the National Football League (See Michael Vick and the Presidential Seal of Approval).

After our anti-Vick campaign, we continued to attack breeding and puppy farms, to fight for mandatory spay/neuter and anti-devocalization laws, and to advance our other programs through law, legislation, and publications.

And now a new twist on the reprehensibly barbaric practice of dog fighting has come to our attention -- apparently engaged in by the same kind of human savages who fight dogs in other ways.

Apparently gaining momentum in Florida, there's a new twist on dog fighting. Two dogs, often pit bulls, are thrown into the trunk of a car. The driver turns up the radio, either to aggravate the dogs and/or to muffle the ensuing barking and screaming. About fifteen minutes later, the driver stops, dumps the dead or wounded dog out of the trunk, and proceeds on his way. Police in the southern part of Florida see an increase in this activity.

A newspaper recently reported that "[p]erhaps the worst case of trunking so far was recently uncovered in Miami-Dade County. Five pit bulls and four puppies were discovered at a residence . . . after animal services received an anonymous tip. In the back of the home cages were covered in urine and feces. The dogs exhibited clear signs of fighting and are currently being treated for open wounds and broken bones. The face of the oldest dog of the group, Max, is obscured by cuts and scars."

Trunking is criminal under Florida law, the police have a low tolerance for it, and they make arrests when they can. Prosecutors will enforce the law if the police bring a case to them. Normal citizens can, and should, report evidence of "trunking." Laws raising the penalty upon conviction can, and should be, strengthened. Vehicles used to perpetrate such crimes should be seized and forfeited.

And one last thing can be done: Petitions to the Governor of Florida can heighten his awareness that barbarians are loose in his state, venting their sick psychologies on defenseless animals.

A SILVER LINING FOR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE "FISCAL CLIFF" LAW

Unnoticed while the smoke cleared from the "fiscal cliff" is an important provision.

The "IRA Charitable Rollover" has been reinstated for 2012 taxes.

This means that if you are 70½ years or older, you may donate up to $100,000 from your traditional or Roth IRA (any 501(c)(3) should be so lucky!) directly to ISAR until January 31, 2013. Your contribution will count against your mandatory 2012 IRA withdrawal, and the amount of your contribution can be a 2012 charitable deduction.

Please consult your personal financial advisor for confirmation and to obtain more specifics.

Oh yes! - there's another benefit: you'll be helping ISAR carry on its work in furthering animal rights.

ISAR's Stop Devocalization Now Video

Recently, ISAR has brought to the attention of our supporters and others, the widespread cruel practice in the United States of surgically cutting the vocal cords of canines (and, less often, felines) known formally as ventriculocordectomy. Synonyms often include "debarking," "devocalization," "silencing," "bark softening," and "cutting the vocal chords."

In 2012, ISAR launched it's newly-created, one-stop, educational website aimed at exposing and prohibiting the barbaric practice of dog and cat devocalization, www.stopdevocalizationnow.org. In addition to the creation of our new website, ISAR produced an Xtranormal video entitled, Silence is Not Golden, and drafted an exceptional and informative Model Statute entitled, ISAR's Model Statute Restricting Devocalization.

Now, to continue our educational efforts against devocalization in 2013, ISAR is kicking off our Stop Devocalization Now project with our latest Youtube video. With this recent video, ISAR further solicits the help from our friends and supporters while encouraging them to help us spread the word against devocalization.

To view ISAR's Stop Devocalization Now video, click on the image below or click on this link.

If you like it as much as we do, please forward it to as many people as you can, asking them to do the same.

Once you are on the video page, the share button will enable you to email or repost ISAR's video on your Facebook, Twitter and other social media pages.

If you have a website or blog and would like to embed our latest video on your homepage, ISAR encourages you to do so by copying and pasting the embed link found on our Youtube video page.

Together we can accomplish great feats to help companion animals and one very simple way to do that is by keeping ISAR visible to the public eye.

WANTED - VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR ISAR's AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF PROGRAM

ISAR has long used the legal system in behalf of animal rights.

The first federal case ever to use the phrase "animal rights" was Jones v. Butz, 374 F.Supp. 1284 (SDNY, three-judge court, 1974). ISAR's chairman, Professor Henry Mark Holzer,[1] on behalf of a wide-range of plaintiffs challenged sections of the federal Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act on the ground that its religious exemption -- which effectively nullified the act's protection for countless livestock animals -violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The first state case ever to use the phrase "animal rights" was Jones v. Beame, 45 N.Y.2d 402 (1978). Professor Holzer on behalf of ISAR's then-president, Helen Jones, and ISAR itself sued to close the Central Park zoo in New York City on the ground that the treatment of the animals confined there violated the anti-cruelty statutes of the State of New York.

As long ago as the early 1970's ISAR sued the United States government to stop the slaughter of millions of blackbirds.

In the decades since, Professor Holzer has provided tactical and strategic legal advice to a wide range of animal rights/welfare organizations and their lawyers in cases involving the protection and advancement of animal rights. As of the beginning of January 2013 ISAR has begun offering strategic and tactical advice to a California law firm in connection with its case seeking to reform an animal shelter.

We've filed amicus curiae briefs in state and federal courts, for example:

• O'Sullivan v. City of San Diego, 2007 WL 2570783 (2007) -- a case that sought to protect the federal recognized seal rookery at Casa Beach in La Jolla, California, from depredation by swimmers and fishermen. Professor Holzer on behalf of ISAR and several other animal protection organizations consulted with the lawyers for the plaintiffs and submitted amicus curiae briefs in the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the State of California.


• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), in which Professor Holzer on behalf of ISAR and eleven other animal protection organizations filed amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States in support of Hialeah's ordinance that prohibited the Santeria cult from sacrificing animals as part of an alleged religious ceremony.


• United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) in which ISAR and Professor Holzer (together with Lance Gotko, Esq. of the New York City law firm Friedman Kaplan Siler & Adelman) filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the government's argument that the federal statute criminalizing the making, selling or possessing depictions of "crush videos" and other torture and killing of animals was constitutional.

Increasingly, there are animal-related cases in appellate courts all over the country, involving experimentation, hunting, farming, sport, education, spay/neuter, and more -- cases needing amicus curiae briefs from a pro-animal perspective.

There's a lot of appellate work for lawyers who would use the legal system in behalf of animal rights. Unfortunately, virtually all of it is pro bono publico.

Lawyers interested in volunteering to work with Professor Holzer and ISAR to perform amicus curiae appellate services in aid of animal rights are encouraged to contact ISAR via email (contact@isaronline.org), phone (570-586-2200), fax (570-586-9580) or through the USPS at ISAR, P.O. Box F, Clarks Summit, PA 18411, and provide us with the following information:

1. Name.

2. Firm name.

3. Office address.

4. Telephone and fax number(s).

5. Email address.

6. Year(s) admitted to practice, and jurisdiction(s).

7. Specialization(s), if any.

8. Post-law school judicial clerkship(s).

9. Judicial experience.

10. Experience with animal-related cases.

11. Amount of time available annually.

12. Whether you and/or your firm has a formal pro bono program.

Although at the initial stages of the amicus curiae brief process -- issue analysis, research, tactics and strategy -- Professor Holzer will be involved and will be named on the brief with volunteer counsel, the work product will be entirely theirs. (It will be the responsibility of volunteers to obtain permission to file the brief, and for filing it. ISAR will pay printing and filing costs.)

Thank you.

[Please forward this request to any lawyer(s) who might be interested in participating].

***

[1] In The Birth of Animal Rights Law: The Role of Lawyers in the Animal Rights/Protection Movement from 1972-1987, Joyce Tischler, Esq., founder and president of Animal Legal Defense Fund, set out to "explore the roots of a large scale, organized movement, which started in the early 1970s in the United States, spearheaded by attorneys and law students with the express purpose of filing lawsuits to protect animals and establish the concept of their legal rights, regardless of the species of the animals or the ownership interest of humans."

In that article, Ms. Tischler graciously names as "the first animal rights lawyer" ISAR's chairman, Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School.

She credits Professor Holzer, then a practicing attorney professionally associated with ISAR, with three accomplishments crucial to establishing the field of what today is known as "animal rights law": with ISAR, having brought the first federal and first state lawsuit to invoke the moral concept of "animal rights"; with ISAR, having founded the Animal Rights Law Reporter, which became "the legal clearinghouse for animal rights law information"; and, again with ISAR, having organized the "First National Conference on Animal Rights Law"-an undertaking, in Ms. Tischler's words, "[t]he significance of which cannot be overstated."

Another "Half a Loaf"

Colorado Springs is the county seat of El Paso County, Colorado. The county is the most populous of the 64 counties in the state.

Recently, by a 3-2 vote of the county commissioners, the following law was adopted: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, trade, barter, lease, rent, give away, or display for any purpose a pet animal on any public street, road, highway, alley, sidewalk, or any other public place, or in open areas where the public is invited by the owner or person controlling such areas, including commercial parking lots, outdoor special sales, sap [sic] meets, flea markets, parking lot sales, or similar events.”

Violation can result in a fine.

ISAR certainly approves of the law’s intention, and has long disapproved of, and fought against, so-called “roadside sales” of companion animals.

That said, however, the El Paso County law raises once again the problem we have addressed in the past: “Half a loaf.” (Half a Loaf, Half a Loaf, Revisited and The "Half a Loaf" Problem Rises Again)

While Section (a) of the law, quoted above, could have been better drafted, it would probably get the job done standing alone.

The problem is that it doesn’t stand alone. Section (b) is shot through with exceptions which take much of the punch out of Section (a).

Section (b) does not apply to:
1. Agents of state licensed pet stores.
2. Events for the sale of agricultural livestock.
3. Shelters.
4. Sales of pet animals on private property who have the owner’s permission.

Cumulatively, these exceptions allow for many animals to be sold at the “roadside,” gutting to a considerable extent the intent and express language of Section (a).

Although ISAR has long approved of, and fought for, mandatory spay/neuter laws, several years ago we opposed one introduced into the California legislature because it, too, was gutted by exceptions (Mandatory Spay/Neuter Beat Goes On.)  We believed that its enactment would have allowed the opponents of mandatory spay/neuter to resist further, proper legislation on the ground that the pro-mandatory spay/neuter forces had already received enough and that no further laws were necessary or appropriate.

Since the El Paso law was narrowly passed on a 3-2 vote of the county commissioners, it is unlikely that a tougher law without some or all of the Section (b) exceptions would have been enacted. So the majority obviously accepted the exceptions.

In other words, they accepted “half a loaf.”

In ISAR’s view, that is not “better than none.”