ANOTHER ISAR LEGISLATIVE IDEA IS COPIED

It has recently been reported that California state assemblyman Cameron Smyth is sponsoring Assembly Bill 233, which would give a $100.00 tax deduction to those who adopt a pet from a government run animal shelter.

Nearly ten years ago ISAR drafted its “Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute.”

We said then that recent Congressional action on the tax code, and revelations about the Internal Revenue Service, has focused the attention of many Americans on the subject of taxation. [Today, even more so]. That, in turn, has led us at ISAR to develop an idea which combines a modest amount of tax relief for conscientious taxpayers with our commitment to foster spay/neuter in every way we can.

Most knowledgeable people understand that the American system of income taxation, both federal and state, is only secondarily concerned with raising revenue (compared to all revenue raised by taxation, income taxes account for only a small percentage), and that the real purpose of income taxes is to stimulate certain activities and to discourage others.

For example, the federal tax code long stimulated oil and gas exploration through depletion allowances. Business is encouraged through still-generous write-offs for equipment purchase, other depreciation and even entertainment. Charitable giving is fostered by the deductibility of contributions. Home ownership is assisted greatly by deductions for real estate taxes and mortgage interest. Other activities are discouraged through taxation. Gambling losses, for example, are not tax deductible. And so it goes, with the federal tax code being driven to a considerable extent by social policy. [If there was ever any doubt about that, there should be none today].

In the states, the same is true, with tax codes encouraging certain activities and rewarding them with tax breaks, and discouraging others and penalizing them with higher tax rates and non-deductibility.

In principle, there is absolutely no reason why tax codes, federal and state alike, cannot allow tax deductions for spay/neutering of taxpayer's dogs and cats. Granted, obtaining such legislation from the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes national tax laws, might be problematic. But not impossible.

On the other hand the situation at the state level is much different. There, legislators are much closer, and typically respond more readily, to their constituents—as many animal rights activists already know from their efforts to obtain the enactment of pro-animal legislation.

ISAR's proposed legislation is a win-win proposition, and there is something in it for everyone.

First, and foremost, countless animals would be spayed and neutered who would otherwise not be, countless births would be avoided, and thus there would be a drastic reduction in the numbers of unwanted dogs and cats in shelters and roaming America's streets.

Next, although there would be a minuscule drop in tax revenues, there would be a concomitant savings of considerable taxpayer dollars that are now spent on catching, briefly maintaining, killing, and disposing of, millions of unwanted cats and dogs.

Related to this point is that fewer unwanted cats and dogs mean more time available to shelters and humane societies to do more productive work, e.g.: cruelty investigations, public education, adoption programs.

Then of course, there is the tax relief-benefit which, though not large, would be of some help financially. This, in turn, would create more paying business for veterinarians, who could then, it is hoped, afford to provide more pro bono or low-cost services to the truly needy.

An indirect, but nonetheless important, benefit of reducing the number of unwanted cats and dogs are the public health and policy aspects, e.g.: less need to vaccinate for rabies the victims of bites from stray animals; cleaner streets and public areas; fewer brutalized cats and dogs.

ISAR is making this project—obtaining tax relief for persons who spay/neuter their dogs and cats—a priority. We have prepared a flyer explaining our idea, containing arguments in favor of tax deduction legislation, and providing language for an off-the-shelf bill that can be introduced into any state legislature by a sympathetic legislator. On the Congressional level, ISAR will make its "Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Bill" available to individuals and non501 (c) (3) organizations who can carry the ball on the Hill.

Often, there is an idea whose time has come. We here at ISAR believe that for this idea— ISAR's "Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Bill"—the time has certainly come.

The language of ISAR’s statute is terse and straightforward:

1. Allowance of deduction.
Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph 2 hereof, there shall be allowed as a deduction against adjusted gross income amounts paid by the taxpayer for the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats which are maintained as pets in the taxpayer's household.

2. Limitations.
a.) The deduction herein provided shall be allowable only as to sums which have actually been paid.
b.) The spay or neuter surgical procedure shall have been performed by a duly licensed veterinarian on a live cat or dog.
c.) The amount of deduction for each cat or dog who shall have been spayed or neutered may not exceed the reasonable cost of the spay and neuter procedures in the geographical location where the surgery was performed.
d.) The deduction herein provided shall be limited to no more than three companion animals (i.e. dogs and cats) per household in any one taxable year.
Now, with the introduction of California’s Assembly Bill 233 offering a tax deduction to that state’s taxpayers for adoption of a pet from a government shelter, there is no reason other legislators cannot offer similar legislation regarding spay/neuter. Interested California senators and/or assemblypersons should contact ISAR via phone, fax or email for assistance.

International Society for Animal Rights
Phone: (570) 586–2200
Fax: (570) 586-9580
Email: Contact@isaronline.org

"Animals Today" Announcement

Program of April 19, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Dona Gosgrove Baker, Founder and President of the Feral Cat Caretakers' Coalition. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will discuss the issue of animal hoarding with Psychology Professor and Author of Compulsive Hoarding and Acquiring, Randy O. Frost. Also, Dr. Peter Borchelt will be available to answer your questions on peculiar pet behavior.

For more information on how you can participate in the ISAR-sponsored "Animals Today" radio show, please visit our blog ISAR and "Animals Today" Radio Show.

"Animals Today" Announcement

Program of April 12, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Douglas Schultz, writer and producer of the nature film, The Loneliest Animals. Mr. Schultz's documentary explores species at the brink of extinction and the challenges in preserving and propagating the lineage. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will discuss illegal whaling, seal slaughter and the abuse of sharks with animal crusader, Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

For more information on how you can participate in the ISAR-sponsored "Animals Today" radio show, please visit our blog ISAR and "Animals Today" Radio Show.

ISAR and "Animals Today" Radio Show

Beginning on Sunday, February 8, 2009, ISAR became one of the inaugural sponsors of the new nationally-heard "Animals Today" radio program.

"Animals Today" is broadcast on Knews Radio, from California's Coachella Valley, a station on which Dr. Laura and Sean Hannity, among others, can be heard.

Hosted by Dr. Lori Kirshner, founder of Southern California's Desert PAWS Foundation, "Animals Today" addresses a variety of contemporary animal-related topics. Through Dr. Kirshner's commentaries, interviews with experts, and responses to phone-ins, listeners are exposed to some of today's most interesting and important issues relating to animals, both domestic and wild.

"Animals Today" is broadcast on Sundays from 2:00 to 4:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time. Future programs will feature interviews with experts from such organizations as Animal Legal and Historical Web Center, Bighorn Institute, Coachella Valley Wild Bird Center, Animal Legal Defense Fund. Dr. Kirshner's guests will include lawyers, behaviorists, teachers, ornithologists, veterinarians, rescuers, judges, writers, and many others.

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM segment will feature veterinary orthopedic surgeon Dr. Peter Sebasteyn, who'll discuss common orthopedic problems encountered in dogs. Also in the first segment, Dr. Lori will be speaking with Bob Vitere, President of the American Pet Products Association who'll promote new products for your companion animal's enjoyment. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will discuss the issue of rabbits as pets just in time for Easter.

During "Animals Today's" popular segment with animal behaviorist Dr. Peter Borchelt, he'll try to answer as many listener questions as possible. So if your parrot is peculiar, your cat is crying, or your hound is hyper-or if you have any other animal-behavior questions-either email Dr. Lori anytime, or call into the show at about 3:45 PM, Pacific Time. Email her at drlori@animalstodayradio.com. Knews Radio/Animals Today call in lines: Local: (760) 416-8475--Toll free: (888) 589-6397.

Thanks to current technology, "Animals Today" can be heard throughout the world by anyone with access to a computer because the Southern California radio station on which the program appears will "stream" it. Streaming means a radio broadcast can be heard on the Internet while simultaneously being broadcast over the airwaves.

Some previous broadcasts of "Animals Today," are now archived at the show's website: http://www.animalstodayradio.com/. Along the left column, click "Listen to the show." A new screen will appear showing the dates of previous shows. Then click the play button on the hour(s) you want to hear.

However, your computer must be Java "enabled," meaning the Java program must be downloaded onto your computer in order to access archived broadcasts. If your computer is not already Java enabled, click the message displayed for instructions on how to do so.

To hear "Animals Today" over the Internet at 2:00-4:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time, turn on your computer and be sure the sound is at an acceptable level. Open your web browser (e.g., aol,Yahoo) and carefully type in the address bar http://www.knewsradio.com/, and then click to open that address. The Knews radio website will appear. On the top of the page, click "Listen Live." A new box will appear and the program will begin at the appropriate time. (Listeners may be asked to register, but doing so is optional and registration is not necessary to hear the show.)

"Animals Today's" toll-free call-in telephone number while the program is being broadcast is: 1-888-589-6397. (The station recommends calling from a land-based telephone rather than a cell phone.)

Through this Blog, ISAR will make available weekly broadcast schedules for "Animals Today." To be kept informed, simply subscribe to ISAR's blog by entering your email address in the subscription box on the right side of the page.

ISAR has become a sponsor of "Animals Today" because we believe that a serious nationwide (indeed, international) program addressing important contemporary animal issues has become a moral imperative.

We personally know the creators and hostess of this program, and we know their dedication to animals is profound. Thus, ISAR will do everything in our power to help "Animals Today" succeed, and we earnestly solicit the assistance of those of you who believe as we do.

Please forward this important announcement to as many individuals and lists as you can, asking the recipients to do the same.

ISAR has linked to the "Animals Today Radio" website(http://www.isaronline.org/) and we ask those who support the program to do the same. (A word to potential sponsors: Please note that advertising rates for "Animals Today" are very reasonable, given that the program can be heard by anyone having access to a computer. Interested parties should contact Peter Spiegel at (760) 285-4981 or producer@animalstodayradio.com.

As a famous broadcaster said for many years, "See you on the radio."

Only ISAR "Gets It" About Mandatory Spay/Neuter

ISAR has recently prepared a lengthy monograph entitled The Policy, Law and Morality of Mandatory Spay/Neuter, the thrust of which is that because spay/neuter of companion animals is a moral necessity, “mandatory” spay/neuter laws must actually be mandatory.

The monograph’s author, Professor Henry Mark Holzer, Chairman of ISAR, has written that: “If the previous four chapters of this monograph teach us anything, they speak loudly that there is an intractable companion animal overpopulation problem, that the only current way to alleviate it is by spay/neuter, that sterilization procedures must be made mandatory, and that legislation seeking to acknowledge and treat the overpopulation problem must be draconian, comprehensive, and free from compromises that gut the statutes.”

The principal compromise in all allegedly “mandatory” spay/neuter statutes—except ISAR’s—is the exception given to breeders, which in every statute guts the proposals.

ISAR’s Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter statute virtually puts breeders out of business. Among the provisions which accomplish that goal, are those below:

Section 4. Breeding limitations

(a) A breeding licensee may use a male dog or cat only twice to inseminate a female, which must occur within a twelve month period. No further insemination is allowed thereafter.

(b) A breeding licensee may breed a female cat only twice, which must occur within a twelve month period. No further breeding is allowed thereafter.

(c) The offspring of breeder licensee’s dogs and cats may be retained by the breeding licensee, but they shall be subject to the same restrictions as their sires and dames, as shall be succeeding generations.

(d) The dogs and cats covered by this section regarding insemination and breeding shall be at least four months old, the dogs no older than eighteen months, and the cats no older than twelve months.

(e) Once- or twice-bred female dogs and cats shall be sterilized promptly after delivery of the female animals’ final litters.

(f) Male dogs and cats shall be sterilized promptly after they have twice inseminated females.

(g) Promptly after a male dog or cat has twice inseminated a female, and promptly after a female dog or cat has delivered her final litter, the breeder licensee shall either:

(i) Relinquish such animal to a shelter, humane society, rescue group, or similar organization for adoption only, or

(ii) Directly arrange for adoption, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the nearest shelter, humane society, rescue group, or similar organization; provided, however, that the breeder licensee shall under no circumstances transfer custody of a dog or cat to any individual or entity as to whom the breeder licensee knows, or should know, that the animal will be used for scientific experimental purposes.

(h) No breeding licensee shall release from its custody any dog or cat that has not been sterilized, except to provide temporary veterinary care.

(i) No breeding licensee shall possess in any calendar year more than ten unneutered male dogs, ten unneutered male cats, ten unspayed female dogs, and ten unspayed female cats, except for newborn litters which may be kept for no more than three months at which time the provisions of this statute will apply to them.
Compare these draconian, indeed visionary, provisions of ISAR’s real Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute with HB 451, which has just been introduced in the Florida legislature:

828.35 Sterilization of dogs and cats. (1) The owner of every dog or cat in this state must provide sterilization of the animal by a veterinarian . . . within 30 days after the animal reaches 4 months of age or 30 days after the owner takes custody of the animal, whichever occurs later. This subsection does not apply to an animal exempt from sterilization under subsection (2).
On its face, this sterilization provision seems tough (but not as nearly tough as ISAR’s Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute) but as usual the exemption loopholes emasculate the bill.

For example, under the bill puppy mills can continue to grind out their “product” and completely escape the so-called “mandatory” spay/neuter law simply by moving the animals out from the mills to distributors or retail outlets before they are four months old (as if anyone can tell with certainty how old a puppy is, anyhow). Indeed, the reference to “after the owner takes custody of the animal” impliedly recognizes that the animal had come from somewhere—that “somewhere” is necessarily a breeder (who, as noted, can easily escape the four-month-old rule), or a retail seller who obtained the animal from a breeder.

As if this implicit exemption to the proposed Florida “mandatory” sterilization law isn’t bad enough, the bill contains explicit breeder exemptions as well.

(b) The governing body of a county or municipality is authorized to enact ordinances that require the licensure of the following animals that shall be exempt from sterilization: 1. A show animal registered with an established breed registration organization approved by the Division of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The department shall adopt rules under [Sections] 120.536(1) and 120.54 63 to administer this subparagraph. 2. A dog or cat that has earned, or is in the process of earning, a competitive sports or training title, including, but not limited to, agility, obedience, or herding. * * * 5. An animal for which the owner has a valid breeding permit issued in accordance with an ordinance of the county or municipality. * * *
In sum, no matter how well intentioned the proposed Florida legislation may be, it suffers from the same defects, both in principle and concretely, as do its counterparts now surfacing around the country. Yet, even that watered-down, deceptive legislation is being strongly opposed by breeders and their organizations.

For example, on January 22, 2009 the American Kennel Club alerted its supporters about the introduction of HB 451: “Legislation that seeks to prohibit persons from owning or maintaining an intact dog or cat older than four months old has been filed in the Florida House. If adopted, Florida House Bill 451 would have a profound negative impact not only on responsible dog breeders in Florida, but also on all current and prospective dog owners. It is vital that all breeders and concerned dog owners in Florida contact their elected state legislators and voice their strong opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable measure.” (Emphasis in original.)

Lest there be any question about where AKC stands concerning mandatory spay/neuter, even the loophole-ridden, the organization makes itself very clear:

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

Thus, those like ISAR who are serious about meaningful mandatory spay/neuter, rather than the cosmetic statutes that are worse than no laws at all, must work for introduction and adoption of our Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute, or one much like it. Otherwise, either loophole-ridden statutes will be enacted allowing breeders, including their depraved numbers who operate puppy mills, to argue that adequate legislation exists and henceforth they should be left alone, or no true Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statutes will be enacted.

Either way, breeders win and animals lose.

That’s unacceptable to ISAR.

Breeders and their retail outlets must be shut down, and that’s what ISAR is working hard to accomplish.

Free Speech and Cruelty to Animals

It has been said that the enshrinement of free speech and press in the First Amendment gives those civil liberties a “preferred position” in the constitutional pantheon because they make possible all other rights of Americans.

Although the “preferred position” notion has never commanded a majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, still, First Amendment rights have long been considered of paramount importance even though several exceptions have been carved into them by the Supreme Court of the United States. For example, so-called “fighting words,” obscenity and defamation are unprotected. “Commercial speech,” is sometimes protected, sometimes unprotected.

Not often do constitutional rights of free speech or religion clash in the Supreme Court of the United States with those of animal rights. They did, however, in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). The case involved an ordinance of the City of Hialeah, Florida, which prohibited the Santeria cult from sacrificing animals as part of its barbaric “religious” ceremony. (Professor Henry Mark Holzer, ISAR’s chairman, in behalf of ISAR and eleven other animal protection organizations filed amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs in the Supreme Court in support of the City of Hialeah. For copies of both briefs, CLICK HERE.)

The Hialeah Court unanimously (9-0) ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, as an infringement of the Santerians freedom of religion.

Now, another case is headed for the Supreme Court which also raises First Amendment (speech) and animal rights (cruelty) issues.

A 1999 federal law made it a crime to “create, sell, or possess” depictions of illegal cruelty to animals, especially so-called “crush videos,” the nature of which I leave to the reader’s imagination.

It’s important to understand that the law did not criminalize the illegal cruelty itself, which was and is a crime under the laws of all fifty states. It criminalized, in essence, dissemination of the depictions of illegal cruelty. To the extent that dissemination of videos, DVDs, movies, books, magazines and other graphic materials are exercises of speech (and often press) rights, the federal felony statute seemingly created another exception to First Amendment protections.

A legal search of the home of a Virginia man, Robert J. Stevens, turned up three videos depicting illegal cruelty to animals which were introduced, narrated and commented on by him, together with accompanying printed material of which he was the author.

Stevens was indicted on three counts of violating the statute, convicted, and sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in a 10-3 vote) ruled the law to be an unconstitutional abridgment of Steven’s First Amendment right of free speech, and threw out his conviction.

The court majority’s decision turned on whether the First Amendment’s free speech guaranty was outweighed by the federal government’s interest in prohibiting dissemination of depictions of illegal animal cruelty. As the dissenting three judges wrote:

The majority today declares that that the Government can have no compelling interest in protecting animals from intentional and wanton acts of physical harm, and in doing so invalidates as unconstitutional a federal statute targeting the distribution and trafficking of depictions of these senseless acts of animal cruelty. Because we cannot agree, in light of the overwhelming body of law across the nation aimed at eradicating animal abuse, that the Government’s interest in ensuring the humane treatment of animals is anything less than of paramount importance, and because we conclude that the speech prohibited by [the statute] to be of such minimal redeeming social value that its restriction may be affected consistent with the First Amendment, we respectfully dissent.
Thus, what separated the majority and the dissent—what separated the statute’s unconstitutionality from its constitutionality—was application of the test employed by the Supreme Court of the United States when “fundamental rights” such as free speech are restricted by legislation: does the law serve a “compelling government interest and, if it does, is the law “narrowly tailored” to achieve the sought goal? If it does and is, the law will be upheld; if not, not.
United States v. Stevens is headed for the Supreme Court of the United States, the government having filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on December 15, 2008.

It is common knowledge that few cases seeking Supreme Court review obtain it. Less well known is that the government’s score card is between fifty and seventy percent, odds which substantially increase when a federal court of appeals has held a federal statute unconstitutional.

If the Court grants review, International Society for Animal Rights will seek permission to submit an amicus curiae (“Friend-of-the-Court”) brief. If permission to file ISAR’s brief is granted, it will be prepared by our chairman, Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School.

ISAR’s position will be that, accepting as law of the land the Court’s “compelling interest/narrowly tailored” test, the federal statute declared unconstitutional by the Third Circuit in the Stevens case satisfied those requirements.

While the Solicitor General representing the United States (and doubtless various amici curiae) will appropriately focus on the government interest in prohibiting the dissemination of depiction of cruelty to animals per se, ISAR’s brief will address the philosophic and moral premises for animal rights, making arguments which are at the foundation for the anti-cruelty laws’ very existence.

ISAR extends an invitation to other animal protection organizations to join our brief, per the following procedure:

When a draft of ISAR’s brief is ready, it will be posted on our website.

Organizations interested in joining the brief, at no cost to themselves, will be able to do so by downloading a pdf letter of agreement, having it executed by the proper party, and returning it to ISAR. (There will be no negotiation as to the brief’s contents.)

Any organization wishing to be kept abreast of developments in this case, and to be notified that the draft brief has been posted, can do so only by signing up to receive ISAR's E-Newsletter.

Half A Loaf

The animal rights/welfare movement here and abroad is awash in proposed legislation (see ISAR's Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter statute), much of which will never be enacted or, if enacted, never enforced.

So the question is whether it is cause for rejoicing when pro-animal legislation actually becomes law.

We have seen three examples in as many months.

The Swiss have enacted a sweeping animal protection law. It includes handling guidelines for cats, dogs, sheep, goats and horses. There is a six-hour time limit for the transportation of livestock. Piglets cannot be castrated without anaesthesia.

Massachusetts has banned greyhound racing throughout the Commonwealth.

A California ballot initiative has just been approved that seeks to provide more living space to animals raised for human food: "Certain farm animals [shall] be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around."

However, the Swiss law allows dairy farmers to keep their cattle tied up in stalls for 240 days of the year. Tie-stalls for horses are to be phased out over five years. Zoo animals, like rhinos, can be confined in small winter quarters. Wild animals in circuses are still permitted (though banned in neighboring Austria).

The Massachusetts greyhound ban does not become effective until 2010.

California's "living space" initiative gives farmers until 2015 to shift to more humane animal production systems.

Yet, for some in the animal rights/welfare movement these measures are not only not enough (and they aren't!), but the laws are to be disdained because they don't go far enough.

These folks believe that when laws like this are proposed they should be fought, because passage of these useful but wholly inadequate enactiments give opponents the ability to argue that "enough is enough"--that the movement clamored for these laws, they were enacted, and that's all the affected animals are entitled to, at least for years to come.

This absolutist position is defensible, making for a hard choice: wait for perfection, while countless animals continue to suffer, or take what can be had when possible, but continue fighting for perfection?

In other words, is half-a-loaf better than none?

Much better--particularly, if you're a veal calf spending your entire life in a crate.