Cattle

Summary: Harris was convicted for twenty-two counts of cruelty to animals after dozens of malnourished animals were found on her property by employees of the Humane Society. On appeal, Harris raised two main issues: (1) that the animal protection agent who was an employee of the Humane Society was not authorized to obtain a search warrant to investigate her property and (2) that the mistreatment of the twenty-two animals constituted one continuous course of conduct and that the lower court violated her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause by entering a judgment on twenty-two counts of animal cruelty. The Court of Appeals reviewed the issue of whether the animal protection agent had the authority to obtain a search warrant to investigate the property and determined that the agent did not have the proper authority. The Court looked to the state statute that specifically stated that only “state employees” were able to investigate livestock cases. In this case, the animal protection agent was employed by the Humane Society and was not a state employee; therefore, he did not have the authority to obtain a search warrant to investigate the property. However, the Court found that there was no constitutional violation with regard to the search warrant because it was still obtained based on probable cause. For this reason, the Court denied Harris’ request to suppress evidence that was submitted as a result of the search warrant. Finally, the Court reviewed Harris’ argument regarding her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court found that under the statute dealing with animal cruelty, the phrases “any animal” and “an animal” suggests that a person commits a separate offense for each animal that is mistreated. Essentially, the Court held that the language of the statute “demonstrates that the legislature perceived animal cruelty not as an offense against property but as an offense against the individual animal.” As a result, Harris’ rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause were not violated and the Court upheld the lower court’s decision.

Summary: In this case, Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County after Cotton’s cattle was seized for alleged animal cruelty and roaming at large. Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department arguing that he had been deprived of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the violation of the Constitution of Georgia. The court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of Ben Hill County and the Sheriff's Department. The court granted summary judgment because Cotton was unable to establish that his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cotton was unable to establish that his Due Process rights were violated because he was unable to provide any evidence that the allegations against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department were “the result of an official policy, custom or practice of the county or that the County acted with deliberate indifference to these rights.” Also, the court found that there was not a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause because under state law, Georgia provided for a “post deprivation remedy for the loss.” Lastly, the court found that Cotton’s claims against the Sheriff's Department failed as a matter of law because Cotton was unable to establish that anyone from the Sheriff’s Department actually participated in the seizure and impoundment of the cattle. For those reasons, the court held in favor of Ben Hill County and granted summary judgment.

Summary: The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submits this petition for rulemaking in compliance with United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation 9 C.F.R. § 392 and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. AWI respectfully requests USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to amend labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to require independent third-party certification for the approval of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims on meat and poultry products. This action is necessary to 1) prevent the misleading and deceptive use of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims, 2) provide for consistency and transparency in the label approval process, 3) meet consumer expectations for the label approval process, and 4) protect from financial harm those farmers making legitimate use of these value-added claims. Read the Federal Meat Inspection Act regulation in effect at the time the AWI petitioned.

Summary: The purpose of this commentary is to respond to the question, “Should laws criminalizing animal abuse apply to animals raised for food?” The simple answer to the question is “yes,” but the reality is not simple. It requires analyzing both the science of raising livestock and the current legal framework, which we must understand before discussing what to require and how to implement those requirements. Continued improvements in the livestock and meatpacking industries and the rising expectations of consumers add to the complexity of the issue.

Summary: This study aims to give an overview of the legal framework that applies to animal welfare in the EU and a group of non-EU countries. It focuses specifcally on beef cattle, pigs, broilers (the chickens reared for meat) and egg-laying hens while they are on the farm, in transit and at slaughter. Animal welfare standards of four international organizations, as well as a number of private standards established by major food businesses and animal welfare organizations are also analyzed.

Summary: This ballot issue, entitled the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2, appeared on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The amendment proposed creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. Ohio Issue 3 was approved by voters approved by 63.66% to 36.34%.

Summary: This 2008 California initiative measure would add to the Health & Safety Code with a law entitled, "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act." Specifically, the proposed law requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions are made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. The law provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days and would go into effect on January 1, 2015. It was approved in November 2008 by a margin of 63% to 37%.

Summary: This comprises Proposition 204 also known as the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act. A "yes" vote shall have the effect of establishing misdemeanor fines and penalties for tethering or confining a pregnant pig or a calf raised for veal for all or a majority of the day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely but excepts transportation of the animal, rodeo and fair exhibitions, lawful slaughters, research, veterinary purposes and the seven day period before a pig's expected date of giving birth. The measure passed with 62% voting "yes."