SAOVA Friends,
Chimps are still property and not legal persons. Last week New York
Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe rejected a claim that two chimpanzees in a
New York research laboratory have a right to bodily liberty. The Nonhuman
Rights Project had filed a petition for the two chimps, Hercules and Leo, for a
writ of habeas corpus freeing them from unlawful imprisonment. In her decision, Jaffe stated, "some day
[such campaigns] may even succeed," because the status of "legal
person" doesn't necessarily equal "human being." But for now,
she said, she has to follow precedent set in a case from December, when another
New York judge upheld the longstanding principle that "legal persons"
have duties and responsibilities to go along with rights — duties and
responsibilities that chimps can't perform.
The chimpanzees at the center of the case will no longer be used for
research. A spokeswoman for Stony Brook told reporters that the research
project had concluded several weeks ago and the chimps would no longer be used
for any research at the university. She said the court ruling did not impact
the timing of the animals' retirement.
Following Judge Jaffe’s ruling, Steven Wise posted, “That’s one small
step for a judge, one giant leap for the Nonhuman Rights Project in its fight
for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals. The Nonhuman Rights Project is
greatly encouraged by Judge Jaffe’s opinion. However, we intend to appeal her
judgment to the First Department and then, if required, go again to the Court
of Appeals.”
Thank you for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.
The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the
best informed and most motivated.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
REMOVING LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN FROM THREATENED LIST
In a letter to US Fish and Wildlife Services Director Dan Ashe, Senator
Jerry Moran (R-KS) asked that the bird be removed from its listing under the ESA
in the wake of a recent report that suggests the species is rebounding. A recent aerial survey by the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Association found an estimated 29,162 lesser
prairie chickens, an increase from 19,643 in 2013 and 23,363 in 2014. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has said the “threatened” listing last year was the result
of a steep decline in the bird’s population in recent years. Five states are
home to the lesser prairie chicken: Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas.
“Strong evidence exists indicating the dramatic rise in the lesser
prairie chicken’s population can primarily be accounted for by increased
rainfall in the habitat area,” Moran wrote. Moran also cited conservation
efforts by local officials in the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat area for the
population rebound.
The Kansas congressional delegation helped pass an amendment to the
Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, H.R. 2822, on July 7. That bill could be voted on after Congress returns
from its August recess in early September. In June the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved a Moran amendment that would bar enforcement of the listing,
attaching it to a $30 billion measure to fund the Department of the Interior
and Environmental Protection Agency.
HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON AVIAN FLU PREPAREDNESS
July 30, 2015 Rep. David Rouzer (NC-7), Chairman of the House
Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, held a public
hearing to examine the federal and state response to avian influenza. Identified as one of the worst animal disease
outbreaks the U.S. has ever experienced, the disease infected more than 220
farms in 21 states. As a result, nearly 48 million chickens and turkeys have
been depopulated and millions of dollars have been spent to aid in response
efforts. Members heard from representatives from the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and state officials who have taken part in the response
effort and discussed the successes and challenges of the process.
“The impact of the avian influenza outbreak has been devastating, and
it is essential that we learn from the outbreak this past spring and put in
place the proper steps to minimize the impact of a possible outbreak in the
Southeast when the temperatures decrease this fall. Today, we heard what was
done right during the response and where there are still opportunities for
improvement. As we continue our oversight, we will certainly consider any
suggestions to modify our policies in order to expedite and improve the
efficacy of our animal disease response capabilities. I want to thank our
witnesses for testifying today and for providing their insight on this very
important issue,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer.
“The outbreak of this highly pathogenic disease is one of the worst we
have ever seen in the U.S. It is absolutely vital that USDA and vulnerable
states are prepared to respond quickly if this outbreak returns in the fall, as
is expected. Both USDA and the states have put forth great effort to isolate
this disease and mitigate loss these past few months, and I thank them for
their hard work,” said Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway.
Written testimony provided by witnesses from the hearing and the
archived webcast can be found at this link http://tinyurl.com/p2x6l56
FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN IDAHO’S UNDERCOVER VIDEO LAW
A federal judge ruled Monday that an Idaho law making it illegal to
secretly film animal abuse at agricultural facilities violates the right to
free speech. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled Monday that the statute
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, marking the first time a court
has declared such a law unconstitutional. Six other states have similar rules,
including Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.
Lawmakers in 2014 passed the statute — dubbed the ag-gag law — after
Mercy for Animals, a Los Angeles-based animal-rights group, released a video
showing workers at Bettencourt Dairies in Hansen abusing the cows. A coalition
of nonprofit groups sued, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and
Center for Food Safety, claiming the law criminalizes whistleblowing and
violates freedom of speech.
“The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover
investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance:
the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the
treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on
the environment. Indeed, private party media investigations, such as
investigative features on 60 Minutes, are a common form of politically salient
speech.” U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in his 29-page ruling.
ALDF’s complaint also challenged the state’s violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Winmill wrote, “ALDF has
come forward with abundant evidence that the law was enacted with the
discriminatory purpose of silencing animal rights activists who conduct
undercover investigations in the agricultural industry. Under the Equal
Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may
not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but
deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.”
(Mosley, 408 U.S. at 96). Although the State may not agree with the message
certain groups seek to convey about Idaho’s agricultural production facilities,
such as releasing secretly recorded videos of animal abuse to the Internet and
calling for boycotts, it cannot deny such groups equal protection of the laws
in their exercise of their right to free speech. Far from being tailored to a
substantial governmental interest, § 18-7042 classifies activities protected by
the First Amendment based on content. Therefore, under the Equal Protection
Clause, it cannot stand.”
Case No. 1:14-cv-00104-BLW Memorandum Decision And Order http://tinyurl.com/phnm3sb
COURT UPHOLDS PET SHOP SALES BAN
A federal court has upheld a city of Phoenix ordinance banning
retail sales of dogs and cats in stores unless the pets come from animal
shelters or nonprofit rescues. Puppies ‘N Love, which has a store at Paradise
Valley Mall and other Arizona locations, sued the city arguing the 2013
ordinance was unfair and violated the interstate commerce clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
In his opinion, U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell wrote,
“Puppies ‘N Love appears to be an exemplary pet store. The store avoids buying
from puppy mills and works hard to ensure that its puppies have been raised in
a humane and caring environment. No doubt, the burden of the Ordinance will
fall hard on the Puppies ‘N Love store in Phoenix. But the Court’s place is not
to judge the wisdom or fairness of the City’s decision to pass the Ordinance.
Rather, the Court may judge only whether the Ordinance conflicts with the
constitutional provisions Plaintiffs have cited. There being no conflict
between the Ordinance and the United States and Arizona Constitutions, the
Court must uphold the Ordinance and grant summary judgment for the Defendant
City of Phoenix and the HSUS.” http://tinyurl.com/nms6d9c
Maureen Beyers, a Phoenix attorney representing the Humane
Society of the United States in the case, welcomed the ruling. “The ruling is a
great victory, not just for the city of Phoenix, but also for the Humane
Society of the United States, which has worked tirelessly to help
municipalities throughout the U.S. enact these laws (and defend challenges to
them) to stem the trade of puppy and kitten mill animals and decrease animal
euthanasia and overpopulation,” said Beyers, one of the Osborn Maledon attorneys
who worked on the case.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment