Animal law issues canvassed at Harvard conference
By Dr Ian Robertson
"Remember When You Thought You Could Change the World? You Still Can." That was the theme of a conference sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and hosted by the prestigious Harvard Law School in April 2007.
The approximately 400 attendees included lawyers, professors, doctors, veterinarians, CEOs and students considering cutting-edge approaches to issues of animal protection.
Dr Bernard Rollin (who spoke on animal ethics at a New Zealand poultry science conference in 2005), Bruce Wagman, Professor David Favre, Paul Waldau, Chris Green and Adam Karp were among the list of speakers who addressed the conference, along with Professor Song Wei from China, Katrina Sharman from Australia, and Dr Ian Robertson from New Zealand/England.
In addition to the use of animals in agriculture and research, the conference addressed issues of animal hoarding, legal strategies, successes and developments in litigation, and the increasing role and opportunities for lawyers in the area of animal protection.
Global legislative model of animal welfare based on 'best practice'
Speaking at the conference, animal law specialist Dr Ian Robertson explained that animal law considers the legal issues in all human interactions with animals, taking into account the unique nature of animals while considering the human relationship with them.
In view of animal welfare developments such as the proposed United Nations Declaration on Animal Welfare, the latest animal welfare initiatives of the European Union, and enactment of updated animal welfare legislation by a number of states, Ian suggested it was timely to develop a global model of animal welfare based on 'best practice'.
He compared definitions, standards, procedures and content of equivalent animal welfare law from different jurisdictions to illustrate the inconsistencies and gaps within contemporary animal welfare legislation. He said issues of sustainability and sentience belong in animal welfare legislation, and that legislators may need to consider perspectives outside traditional western concepts of animals.
Reminding the audience of the BSE experience, Ian said that in view of increasing interdependence in a global community, systems based on best practice – rather than currently accepted minimum standards – were an important legal step to implement the advances made by organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and to avoid significant risks to humans and animals alike. He said a global model would serve both as a guide for future animal welfare developments by governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and as a blueprint for the future of animal protection.
Legal valuation of an animal and veterinary practice
While the black letter law may vary between jurisdictions, the legal issues are usually very similar. A number of speakers addressed the issue of the level of compensation in the event an animal is injured or dies.
The law currently classifies animals as personal property. In the event of damages to a pet resulting in costs of treatment or even a pet's death, then the law's usual starting point is to compensate the owner based only upon the 'fair market value' of the animal as property. The owner of a pet that has special uses or services (e.g., breeding), or if the animal is specially trained, could argue for higher compensation on the basis of lost potential earnings. In general, there is no compensation for emotional damages.
Given the key role of veterinarians in animal welfare and health care, they are increasingly the focus of consumer enquiries and potential claims. Two speakers provided important insights to cases where lawyers were either defending or prosecuting a case involving the standard of veterinary care.
Chris Green, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and a member of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association, recently wrote The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Companion Animals. He has also participated in the California Veterinary Medical Association's Non-Economic Recovery Task Force, helping the organisation explore legislative options to address the profession's increasing liability exposure. He later acted as an adviser to the American Veterinary Medical Association's Task Force on the Legal Status of Animals, addressing those same issues at the national level.
Adam Karp exclusively practises animal law. He is a vice-chair of the American Bar Association's Animal Law Committee, and his presentation included cases and insights into legal issues involved in prosecuting or defending veterinarians who were the subject of a veterinary malpractice enquiry.
The issues addressed by the speakers were as applicable to New Zealand veterinarians as they were to any other vet from around the world. Practical perspectives were provided on issues such as informed consent, veterinary records, confidentiality, judicial review, and the practice by some vets of holding on to pets (or pets ashes in the event of cremation) until owners settled outstanding accounts.
Animal activists and terrorist laws
The definition of an 'animal activist' may vary and their activities can fall on either side of the law. England, for example, has enacted laws to address the illegal activities of animal activists (The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005).
The United States recently enacted the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which authorises the Department of Justice to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.
The US law states that is an offence if an individual 'interferes' with the operations of an animal enterprise. There are legal concerns that the definition of 'interfere' is vague and may restrict activists' freedom of speech, and raises questions about what constitutes legal or illegal activity. Similarly, given that the penalties vary according to the extent of economic damages, there are legal concerns with the definition and breadth of the term 'economic damages'.
In view of conflicting perspectives of the uses of animals, activists, industry and the legal profession should be interested in the approach of English and American legislators, whereby certain activities of animal activists may be classified as terrorism.
Animal law in practice
The conference illustrated the diversity of approaches to issues involving animals. Professor Song Wei, an animal law professor from the University of Science and Technology of China, spoke about the recent occurrences in China where the Government organised 'dog-killing teams' in response to the deaths of three people from rabies. More than 55,000 dogs were killed throughout Mouding County in China. The dogs were hung, electrocuted, beaten to death, or 'humanely' euthanised. Reportedly, dog owners were offered five yan (about 65 cents) for killing their own animals. Concerns for public health prompted the establishment of further dog-killing teams in other Chinese counties.
Other speakers illustrated the involvement of NGOs and businesses which are incorporating animal welfare standards into their terms of practice. For example, Marks and Spencers, one of the largest retail stores in the United Kingdom, considers animal welfare standards in its purchases. It now only offers free-range eggs, both in shell and as an ingredient. McDonald's in the United Kingdom has changed egg suppliers to those that provide only free-range eggs, and recently won an RSPCA award for its commitment to improving animal welfare. Similarly, the World Bank has listed animal welfare standards in its list of criteria for lending on certain ventures.
- www.animal-law.biz
- Dr Ian Robertson LLB, MRCVS, BVSc is a qualified veterinarian and barrister specialising in the area of animals and the law. He has taught animal law at the University of Canterbury Law School in New Zealand, and at the University of Leeds Law School in England, and is scheduled to teach the subject as part of the Massey University Veterinary School Masters course in 2008.
Return to:
Page last updated: 30 April 2008