Fed Animal-Related Statutes Summary Critique

Prepared by Professor Henry Mark Holzer

 

Adoption of Military Working Dogs, 10 U.S.C. § 2582

Among the mainly unknown stories of the Viet Nam War is that of the “working dogs” that aided our combat troops. When the United States departed Viet Nam, many of those animals were left behind. They suffered terrible deaths from disease, starvation, land mines, and at the hands of the Vietnamese. The United States government has used military working dogs for many years, as indeed it is using them now in Iraq andAfghanistan, and for border control, bomb detection, and various other tasks. Prior to the enactment of this statute, the fate of military working dogs was entirely a matter of chance. Although under this statute the Secretary of Defense is under no obligation to secure the adoption of “excess” military working dogs—the operative word in the law is “may—at least the statute removes any impediment to his doing so, giving these animals some repayment for their service to our country.

African Elephant Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4201-4245

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one merely regulates – rather than abolishes and/or punishes practices inimical to the rights of animals.

Agriculture Appropriations Act, 2006, P.L. 109-97 (2005)
State level legislation has shut down the slaughter plants in Illinois and Texas, but horses are still being shipped by truck and by boat outside of the USA for slaughter in Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

Airborne Hunting Act, 16 U.S.C. § 742j-1

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes to exist that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes to exist that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213

This statute does not protect animals. It benefits Americans with disabilities.

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 757a-757f

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Animal Damage Control Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 426-426c

Like other federal statutes enacted for the benefit of humans (e.g., ranchers, farmers, hunters, fishermen, vivisectors, experimenters,) and their enterprises (rodeos, circuses, zoos, laboratories), this law enlists the government on their side, to the detriment of animals.

Animal Disease Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control Act of 2001, P.L. 107-9

This is merely a reporting act.

Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, 18 U.S.C. § 43

This statute was enacted to criminalize on a federal level the acts of “animal liberationists” who engage in illegal conduct against individuals and organizations in the name of “animal rights.”

Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159

A landmark statute in the federal protection of animals. But like other federal laws concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2401-2412

This statute is one of the few federal laws that actually provides some measure of protection to animals, although, like many others, it contains loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2431-2444

This statute is one of the few federal laws that actually provides some measure of protection to animals, although, like many others, it contains loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4261-4266

This statute is one of the few federal laws that actually provides some measure of protection to animals, but it is questionable whether the Secretary of the Interior has actually used any funds for the conservation of Asian elephants.

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5108

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3608

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1851 note

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, 16 U.S.C. §§ 971-971k

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Bald And Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d

This statute is one of the few federal laws that actually provides some measure of protection to animals, although, like many others, it contains loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. On balance, however, Bald and Golden Eagles have been considerably more protected than most other animals.

Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 481C

A wonderful program, but like other federal statutes concerning animals this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. The statute is at least some recognition that the federal and state governments owe something to animals who were used for research, if they survive and become “surplus”—though there is no recognition that the research itself was immoral.

Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter,

7 U.S.C. § 1901 note

 

No matter what the Secretary’s rules and regulations provide, the fact is that the transport of horses to slaughter (let alone the slaughter itself) is inhumane. Equipment used in the transport of horses to slaughter is designed for cows. Horses often end up trampled and injured, even dead, while being transported 24 hours or more with no food, water, or rest. The equipment used to stun the horse before being slaughtered is also made for cows. Horses are often slaughtered while still conscious.  There is no way that transport can be made humane, no matter what regulations are promulgated.

Department of Defense Appropriations Acts

A long overdue prohibition, but like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1993

A long overdue prohibition, but like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights – while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Depictions of Animal Cruelty, 18 U.S.C. § 48

A long overdue prohibition, but like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 777-777l

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Disposition of Unfit Horses And Mules, 40 U.S.C. § 311b

A wonderful program, but like other federal statutes concerning animals this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes to exist that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. The statute is at least some recognition that the federal government owes something to these animals who were used until they became “unfit for service.” But note the three limitations: “subject to applicable regulations,” “may,” and “at no cost to the government.”

Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000, 19 U.S.C. § 1308

One of the best federal statutes protective of animals. An absolute prohibition.

Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1385

This statute does nothing to protect animals. It merely induces those who traffic in tuna not to misrepresent the methods by which the fish were taken.

Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment,
and Control Act of 1987, 16 U.S.C. § 1822 note

This statute does nothing to protect animals. It merely directs the government to discuss driftnet fishing with foreign governments.

Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984, 16 U.S.C. §§ 972-972h

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544

A landmark law in the federal protection of animals. But like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Export Administration Amendments Act of 1985, 46 U.S.C. App. § 466c

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604

This statute does nothing to protect animals. It merely makes an accommodation for those humans who are blind.

Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261-1275

Semi-good intentions, but the statute offers no meaningful protection to animals.

Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. § 1368

One of the best federal statutes protective of animals. An absolute prohibition.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2912

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Fish And Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667d

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Fishery Conservation Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-627

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. § 5801(a)(5)

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

Fur Seal Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1175

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. This statute is also a “conservation” law that assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000, P.L. 106-411

Good intentions, but it is questionable whether the Secretary of the Interior has actually used any significant funds “for the conservation of the great apes.”

High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5501-5509

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1831

An important and useful anti-cruelty statute. The problem, of course, is in the willingness (or unwillingness) of the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce the law.

Humane Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1906

Enacted during the Eisenhower Administration, this statute is a prime example of a federal statute concerning animals that provides a tiny, virtually meaningless amount of protection to them—while allowing huge loopholes to that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. When this statute was before Congress, Jewish groups objected to its “render insensible” requirement because, they claimed, under their religious law the animal had to be fully conscious before being killed by a ritual cutting of the carotid artery. Accordingly, those groups enlisted the help of then-United States Senators Javits and Case who prevailed upon Congress to carve an exception into the statute: livestock animals were exempted from the “render insensible” requirement if they were to die by means of a ritual throat cut. Thus, while the law spares many animals from the terror and pain of slaughter, it does not spare all of them—and those number in the tens of millions.

ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000, P.L. 106-545

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

International Dolphin Conservation Act, P.L. 105-42

Note the word “conservation,” and see the comments above regarding the true nature of statutes that aim at “conserving” animals.

Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 41-47 (see also, Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992)

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. Moreover, enforcement by various agencies and federal prosecutors is notoriously infrequent and unproductive.

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378

See above.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1883

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1421h

Like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. This statute is also a “conservation” law that assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, P.L. 100-220, Title II

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

Marine Protection, Research, & Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C §§ 1431-1445b

This statute does little to protect animals.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 715-715s

This statute does little to protect animals.

Multinational Species Conservation Fund, 16 U.S.C. § 4246

Good intentions, but it is questionable whether the government has actually used any significant funds for the statutory purposes.

National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. §§ 3191-3201

This statute does nothing to protect animals. Indeed, its effect is to harm them.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Establishment Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3709

Since the United States Fish and Wildlife service is hardly devoted to the protection of animals, this statute does nothing to protect them.

National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1701r-1

This is an important statute which affords considerable protection to household pets which, without this section of the National Housing Act, as amended, were at risk of being evicted from their homes.

National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, P.L. 106-247, 16 U.S.C. § 6108

This statute does little to protect animals.

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701-4751

This statute does little to protect animals.

North Pacific Anadromous Stocks Act
of 1992, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5001-5012

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. §§ 773-773k

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention
Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5601-5610

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3631-3645

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Partnerships for Wildlife Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3741-3744

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170(a)(3)(J), 5196(e)(4), 5196(j)(2), 5196b(g)

This statute was enacted with substantial support in Congress as a direct result of the horrendous effect of Hurricane Katrina on companion animals in the affected areas. While the intent of the statute is laudatory, its implementation depends entirely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency responsible for the response to the hurricane.

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669-669i

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Public Health Service Act

Good intentions, but like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided. This is particularly egregious because the subject is biomedical research and experimentation.

Recreational Hunting Safety and
Preservation Act of 1994, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5201-5207

This statute does nothing to protect animals. On the contrary, as a sop to hunters this law prohibits attempts by animal rights activists to disrupt hunts by peaceable means, including speech.

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
Act of 1994, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5301-5306

Good intentions, but it is questionable whether the government has actually used any significant funds for the statutory purposes.

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and
Enhancement Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3345

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Shark Finning Prohibition Act, P.L. 106-557 (2000)

Good intentions, but it is questionable whether the statute is, or can be, enforced.

Shipping Code, 46 U.S.C. §§ 3901-3902

An important law, aimed at mitigating the horrendous conditions incident to sea transportation of livestock and other animals destined for slaughter in foreign countries.

Sikes Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670o

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. §§ 973-973r

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1527

Good intentions, but like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights—while allowing huge loopholes that often swallow the protection purportedly provided.

Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. §§ 951-962

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Twenty-Eight Hour Law, 49 U.S.C. § 80502

An important statute, aimed at mitigating the horrendous conditions incident to the ground transportation of livestock animals, most of which are destined for slaughter. However, like other federal statutes concerning animals, this one goes only part of the way to protect their rights. The changed interpretation to include trucks within the ambit of the statute is good news indeed.

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century,
49 U.S.C. § 41721 (P.L. 106-181, § 710)

An important statute aimed at enabling the public to know the record of air carriers for the safety of animals transported in the planes’ cargo bays—the premise being that publication of the data will cause the airlines to be more careful and enable consumers to make intelligent choices.  Lately, several carriers have announced that they will not transport animals in their cargo holds under any circumstances.

Whale Conservation And Protection Study Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 917-917d

This statute does nothing to protect animals.

Whaling Convention Act of 1949, 16 U.S.C. §§ 916-916l

This statute is fine as far as it goes. The problem with protecting whales is at the international level.

Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, 16 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4916

This statute does protect animals, but its enforcement is a problem.

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340

An important statute, protective of animals. As with every law whose enforcement is left to government, the actual protection of the statute’s beneficiaries is problematic.

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, P.L. 106-408, Title I

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.

Yukon River Salmon Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5701-5709

This statute, like any “conservation” law, assures that certain animals will continue to exist in sufficient quantities for humans to “harvest” them.