"Animals Today" Announcement

Program of May 17, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Patrick Ramage from International Fund for Animal Welfare to discuss whaling, the International Whaling Commission, and threats to whales, including sonar and ocean noise. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will feature Dr. Ray Greek, President of Americans for Medical Advancement to discuss the use of animals in science and medical testing.

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.

In case you have missed any of the "Animals Today" radio shows, previous broadcasts are now archived at the show's website: http://www.animalstodayradio.com/. At the top of the page, the link "Click here to listen" will take you to a new screen showing the dates and guests of previous shows. Click on the links to listen to a particular show.

Another Milestone For Animal Rights Law

Veterans of the animal rights legal movement believe that it began back in 1972 when ISAR's chairman, Professor Henry Mark Holzer, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ritual slaughter exemption to the federal Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1958, and expressly invoking the moral/legal concept of "animal rights"--as a result of which some graciously consider him "the first animal rights lawyer." (See http://isaronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Tischler_StanfordJournalVol11.pdf)

In her Stanford article, its author, Joyce Tischler, Esq., of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, credits Professor Holzer with three accomplishments crucial to establishing the field of what today is known as “animal rights law”: (1) with ISAR, having brought the first federal and first state lawsuit expressly invoking the moral /legal concept of “animal rights”; (2) with ISAR, having founded the Animal Rights Law Reporter, which became “the legal clearinghouse for animal rights law information”; and, (3) 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.”

At that conference Professor Holzer had articulated his vision for using the law on behalf of animals.

A major result of the conference was to coalesce the attending lawyers into a loose network of like-minded individuals, and to identify the tools necessary to create an entirely new, discrete field of law--one which would take its deserved place among other long-recognized practice areas such as corporate law, property law, criminal law and many others.

Over the past two decades, that vision has been almost fully realized.

Today, courses in animal law are taught in virtually every major law school in America, usually using books expressly written for that subject.

Today, conferences are frequently held for lawyers practicing animal rights law.

Today, lawyers draft animal rights legislation, and lobby for their enactment.

Today, more than one law school has nationally recognized programs in animal law.

Today, professional journals devoted solely to animal rights law are published.

Today, animal protection lawyer testify before legislative committees.

Today, laypersons with legal issues involving animals seek out lawyers who specialize in animal protection law.

Today, articles, monographs and books on animal law issues proliferate.

Today, national animal protection organizations have lawyers on their permanent staffs.

Today, more and more college students enter law school because they want to practice animal rights law.

Today, animal rights lawyers consult with lawyers in general practice who may from time to time have a case involving animal issues.

Today, state and local bar associations have animal law sections.

Today, lawyers file "friend-of-the-court" briefs in cases involving animal protection (as Professor Holzer will soon do in the Supreme Court of the United States on ISAR's behalf in the case of United States v. Stevens, in an effort to protect the constitutionality of a federal animal protection statute.)

Today, the American Bar Association, recognizes the existence of the animal rights law practice area by maintaining a subcommittee for those interested in that subject.

Today, lawyers litigate animal rights cases in federal and state, and trial and appellate, courts throughout the United States.

And today, thanks to the ABA, lawyers who litigate those cases are going to have a much easier time--and be able to achieve even better results for their human and animal clients.

That's because of a brand new 584 page book published by the ABA this year, edited by Joan Schaffner and Julie Fershtman: Litigating Animal Law Disputes: A Complete Guide for Lawyers.

The Guide was a formidable undertaking, and its editors and contributors have discharged their task admirably, as its seventeen page Table of Contents reflects.

There, one finds every imaginable topic of interest to lawyers who act on behalf of animals and their custodians: Negligence and Tort Law; Ownership, Custody and Keeping of Animals; Veterinary Malpractice; Animal-Related Contract and Sales Disputes; The Disabled, Service Animals, and the Law; Animal Insurance Litigation; Legal Issues Involving Animal Associations and Individuals Helping Animals; Remedies in Animal-Related Litigation; Criminal Law; Expert Witnesses; Practical Considerations for Attorneys Handling Animal Law Cases.

These chapter headings only suggest at the depth and breadth of information contained in the many sections and subsections of each one, and in the appendices which accompany some of the chapters and appear at the end of the book. (The appendices are also copious indexes.)

It's evident that the editors and contributors gave considerable thought to what their book should contain and, speaking as one who was in this field from the beginning--before the beginning, according to some--they've thought of almost everything. (One suggestion for the second edition: the inclusion of a chapter on the constitutional aspects of animal law, and a Table of Cases and Other Authorities cited in the Guide.)

Litigating Animal Law Disputes: A Complete Guide for Lawyers deserves to be in the library of every lawyer and law library in the United States because it is the one-stop resource for every lawyer who contemplates acting on behalf of animals and their custodians.

"Animals Today" Announcement

Program of May 10, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Dr. Elliot Katz, President of In Defense of Animals (IDA) who will discuss IDA's call on the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club to stop racing horses at the new Del Mar Race Track after seven horses died within the first few days of the track's season. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will feature Author Richard Conniff to discuss his new book, "Swimming with Piranhas at Feeding Time - My Life Doing Dumb Stuff With Animals." Conniff is a well known author and humorist who has written for National Geographic, Smithsonian, and more.

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.

In case you have missed any of the "Animals Today" radio shows, previous broadcasts are now archived at the show's website: http://www.animalstodayradio.com/shows/listen.html. At the top of the page, the link "Click here to listen" will take you to a new screen showing the dates and guests of previous shows. Click on the links to listen to a particular show.

"Animals Today" Announcement

Program of May 3, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Gene Bauer, President and Co-founder of Farm Sanctuary who will discuss the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act's history, implications and relationship to swine and bird flu. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will focus on rescue and rehabilitation with bird rescuer and Author Suzie Gilbert.

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 26, 2009

This Sunday's 2:00-3:00 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time segment will feature Professor Paul Waldau of the Center for Animals and Public Policy to discuss animals and religion. In the broadcast's second hour, Dr. Kirshner will focus on the practice and consequences of feline declawing with Dr. Jennifer Conrad of the Paws Project.

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 In The Supreme Court Of The United States

In our blog of January 12, 2009, entitled “Free Speech and Cruelty to Animals” we wrote of an important case heading for the Supreme Court, United States v. Stevens.

The Stevens case involves a 1999 federal statute which 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 statute did not criminalize the illegal cruelty itself, which was and is a crime, as it should be, under the laws of all fifty states. The statute criminalized creating, selling, or possessing depictions of cruelty to animals.

Thus, because videos, DVDs, movies, books, magazines and other graphic materials are exercises of speech (and often press) rights, the prohibitory federal felony statute seemed to create an exception to First Amendment protection.

After enactment of the statute, 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. Accompanying printed material of which he was the author was also seized.

Stevens was indicted on three counts of violating the statute, convicted in the trial court, 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 reversed 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 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.

On December 15, 2008 the government asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Our January 2009 blog promised that if the Court agreed to hear the case ISAR would submit an amicus curiae (“Friend-of-the-Court”) brief.

This week, the Supreme Court accepted United States v. Stevens for review.

Accordingly, ISAR will submit an amicus curiae brief.

Our brief will be prepared by ISAR’s chairman, Professor Henry Mark Holzer and attorney Lance Gotko, a partner in the New York law firm of Friedman Kaplan Siler and Adelman.

When ISAR’s brief is filed with the Court, we will post it on our website. Those persons and organizations who want to be informed when our brief is posted should register on our website for the ISAR E-Newsletter and simply enter in the “contact” box “Please notify about brief.”

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