With the commencement of the new federal legislative session, many new bills have been introduced in the House of Commons. Among those bills is Bill C-247: An Act to Prohibit Fur Farming. The private member's bill by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, would ban fur farming in Canada. Specific prohibitions include prohibiting owning or operating a fur farm, breeding fur-bearing animals for the purpose of fur farming and slaughtering a fur-bearing animal to use its pelt for commercial purposes. The bill has now passed first reading. Read the text of the proposed Bill C-247 here.
Legislative Updates
Private Member's Bill Introduced Would Ban Fur Farming in Canada
New Federal Bill Seeks to Phase Out Open Net Aquaculture Practices
A private member’s bill proposed by Lisa Marie Barron (New Democratic Party member from Nanaimo-Ladysmith British Columbia) seeks to address growing threats that open-net fish farms pose to the Pacific Coast wild fish populations, surrounding ecosystems, and coastal communities. Bill C-258: An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act (closed containment aquaculture) would amend the Fisheries Act to transition from open net fish farming practices to closed containment systems, which are characterised by solid walls that do not allow any fish, parasites, waste, and other pollutants from escaping and contaminating the surrounding waters. Bill C-258 has passed first reading. Read the text of the bill here and view the bill’s status here.
A private member’s bill proposed by Lisa Marie Barron (New Democratic Party member from Nanaimo-Ladysmith British Columbia) seeks to address growing threats that open-net fish farms pose to the Pacific Coast wild fish populations, surrounding ecosystems, and coastal communities. Bill C-258: An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act (closed containment aquaculture) would amend the Fisheries Act to transition from open net fish farming practices to closed containment systems, which are characterised by solid walls that do not allow any fish, parasites, waste, and other pollutants from escaping and contaminating the surrounding waters. Bill C-258 has passed first reading. Read the text of the bill here and view the bill’s status here.
Saskatchewan Ag-gag-Style Bill Passes Third Reading
Saskatchewan’s Bill 40: The Trespass to Property Amendment Act, 2021 has passed Committee consideration and its third reading. The bill seeks to increase penalties for trespassing from the previous $2,000 fine to $200,000 for corporations who aid, counsel, or direct persons to commit trespass, as well as impose individual liability for directors or officers of such corporations. The bill also establishes a statutory right to bring civil action for trespass, elaborates that the action can be brought without proof of damage, and places a reverse onus on the defendant to prove they had a reasonable belief of consent. Provisions similar to these are often used in ag-gag laws, which punish and deter animal activists from trespassing onto farms to expose conditions of the farmed animals. Read the text and status of the bill here and read more about ag-gag laws here.
Saskatchewan’s Bill 40: The Trespass to Property Amendment Act, 2021 has passed Committee consideration and its third reading. The bill seeks to increase penalties for trespassing from the previous $2,000 fine to $200,000 for corporations who aid, counsel, or direct persons to commit trespass, as well as impose individual liability for directors or officers of such corporations. The bill also establishes a statutory right to bring civil action for trespass, elaborates that the action can be brought without proof of damage, and places a reverse onus on the defendant to prove they had a reasonable belief of consent. Provisions similar to these are often used in ag-gag laws, which punish and deter animal activists from trespassing onto farms to expose conditions of the farmed animals. Read the text and status of the bill here and read more about ag-gag laws here.
Quebec Plans to Ban Cosmetic Surgery for Companion Animals
After a petition with nearly 22,000 signatures was submitted to the National Assembly of Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture, André Lamontagne, has indicated by letter that he is working to draft legislation that would ban cosmetic surgeries for companion animals. Examples of popular cosmetic surgeries include devocalization, tail docking, declawing, and ear cropping. The only exception will be for procedures deemed medically necessary by a veterinarian. The legislation will propose to amend the province’s Animal Welfare and Safety Act. The petition was started by a Montreal-based health technician named Alexandra Yaksich, who was motivated by seeing the declawing of cats and young kittens in her work at veterinary clinics. Read more here.
After a petition with nearly 22,000 signatures was submitted to the National Assembly of Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture, André Lamontagne, has indicated by letter that he is working to draft legislation that would ban cosmetic surgeries for companion animals. Examples of popular cosmetic surgeries include devocalization, tail docking, declawing, and ear cropping. The only exception will be for procedures deemed medically necessary by a veterinarian. The legislation will propose to amend the province’s Animal Welfare and Safety Act. The petition was started by a Montreal-based health technician named Alexandra Yaksich, who was motivated by seeing the declawing of cats and young kittens in her work at veterinary clinics. Read more here.
Jane Goodall Bill Reintroduced in the Senate
The Honourable Murray Sinclair first introduced the Jane Goodall Act in November 2020 during the 43rd Parliament, and delivered a speech on the bill’s legal proposals. The legislation did not proceed past second reading in the Senate due to the 2021 federal election. With former Senator Sinclair’s retirement, and his and Dr. Jane Goodall’s blessing, Senator Marty Klyne has sponsored the Jane Goodall Act, now re-introduced as Bill S-241. As outlined in the text of Senator Klyne’s speech, Bill S-241 contains new legal protections for over 800 species of captive non-domesticated animals, including big cats, bears, wolves, hyenas, pinnipeds (marine mammals such as seals, sea lions, and walruses), certain primates, and dangerous reptiles, including crocodilians, giant constrictors, and venomous snakes. The new bill also includes a legislative framework to exempt some “animal care organizations” from restrictions (e.g. sanctuaries, rescue centres, and some zoos); a call in the preamble for measures to further address the unsustainable global wildlife trade through regulation; and an observation in the preamble that Ontario may grant civil standing to Canada’s last captive orca, Kiska, allowing for orders in her best interests by her own right. Like the original legislation, Bill S-241 would lead to a national phase out of elephant captivity; allow for the continuation of great ape conservation and science programs; and establish limited legal standing for affected species in sentencing for captivity offences, such as illegal breeding or use in performance for entertainment, allowing for the relocation of animals with costs. It also sets up a framework for governments to extend the bill's legal protections to additional wild species by executive order, through what is being called by some the "Noah Clause." As with Canada’s 2019 whale and dolphin captivity laws, the bill essentially prohibits new captivity of affected species, subject to the legislation’s licensing framework. Notably, Bill S-241 has received support from five Canadian zoos: the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Granby Zoo, Assiniboine Park Zoo, and the Montreal Biodome. The bill is also broadly supported by Canadian animal advocacy organizations, including the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Humane Canada, Animal Justice, World Animal Protection Canada, Humane Society International/Canada, and Zoocheck Canada. You can watch Senator Klyne’s speech here.
The Honourable Murray Sinclair first introduced the Jane Goodall Act in November 2020 during the 43rd Parliament, and delivered a speech on the bill’s legal proposals. The legislation did not proceed past second reading in the Senate due to the 2021 federal election. With former Senator Sinclair’s retirement, and his and Dr. Jane Goodall’s blessing, Senator Marty Klyne has sponsored the Jane Goodall Act, now re-introduced as Bill S-241. As outlined in the text of Senator Klyne’s speech, Bill S-241 contains new legal protections for over 800 species of captive non-domesticated animals, including big cats, bears, wolves, hyenas, pinnipeds (marine mammals such as seals, sea lions, and walruses), certain primates, and dangerous reptiles, including crocodilians, giant constrictors, and venomous snakes. The new bill also includes a legislative framework to exempt some “animal care organizations” from restrictions (e.g. sanctuaries, rescue centres, and some zoos); a call in the preamble for measures to further address the unsustainable global wildlife trade through regulation; and an observation in the preamble that Ontario may grant civil standing to Canada’s last captive orca, Kiska, allowing for orders in her best interests by her own right. Like the original legislation, Bill S-241 would lead to a national phase out of elephant captivity; allow for the continuation of great ape conservation and science programs; and establish limited legal standing for affected species in sentencing for captivity offences, such as illegal breeding or use in performance for entertainment, allowing for the relocation of animals with costs. It also sets up a framework for governments to extend the bill's legal protections to additional wild species by executive order, through what is being called by some the "Noah Clause." As with Canada’s 2019 whale and dolphin captivity laws, the bill essentially prohibits new captivity of affected species, subject to the legislation’s licensing framework. Notably, Bill S-241 has received support from five Canadian zoos: the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Granby Zoo, Assiniboine Park Zoo, and the Montreal Biodome. The bill is also broadly supported by Canadian animal advocacy organizations, including the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Humane Canada, Animal Justice, World Animal Protection Canada, Humane Society International/Canada, and Zoocheck Canada. You can watch Senator Klyne’s speech here.
Federal Bill S-5 on Animal Testing Scrutinized During Second Reading
The Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Bill has passed second reading in the Senate. The proposed bill generally seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment and that the Government of Canada must protect that right. The preamble of the bill states that the Government should work to reduce testing on animals. During the second reading debates on April 6th and 7th, Senator Pierre J. Dalphond highlighted the critique that although the preamble drew attention to animal testing, there ought to be specific provisions seeking to phase-out animal testing in Canada. Senator Dalphond reported that four Canadian animal protection organizations - Animal Justice, the Canadian Society for Humane Science, Humane Canada and Humane Society International/Canada - are working cooperatively to develop amendments to Bill S-5 that would address scientific testing on animals. He gave some examples of what the provisions may include, pointing to last-resort use of animal toxicity testing and asking whether protection should extend beyond vertebrates so as to “recognize evolving scientific knowledge about creatures like the amazing octopus, as profiled in the Academy Award-winning Netflix documentary My Octopus Teacher.” He referred to the provision in the Civil Code of Quebec recognizing animals as sentient, as well as initiatives in the Senate to protect animals such as the legislation precluding the future captivity of whales and dolphins, a promised ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing, and the proposed Jane Goodall Act, noting that “as scientific knowledge about animals increases, the circle of empathy towards them widens. In that regard, the Senate has played, and I hope will continue to play, an important role in enhancing respect for the species around us and in recognizing that, in the ecosystem that sustains us, they deserve our respect, as First Nations peoples understood long before us.” Read the text of the bill here, the status of the bill here, and Senator Dalphond’s speech here.
The Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Bill has passed second reading in the Senate. The proposed bill generally seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment and that the Government of Canada must protect that right. The preamble of the bill states that the Government should work to reduce testing on animals. During the second reading debates on April 6th and 7th, Senator Pierre J. Dalphond highlighted the critique that although the preamble drew attention to animal testing, there ought to be specific provisions seeking to phase-out animal testing in Canada. Senator Dalphond reported that four Canadian animal protection organizations - Animal Justice, the Canadian Society for Humane Science, Humane Canada and Humane Society International/Canada - are working cooperatively to develop amendments to Bill S-5 that would address scientific testing on animals. He gave some examples of what the provisions may include, pointing to last-resort use of animal toxicity testing and asking whether protection should extend beyond vertebrates so as to “recognize evolving scientific knowledge about creatures like the amazing octopus, as profiled in the Academy Award-winning Netflix documentary My Octopus Teacher.” He referred to the provision in the Civil Code of Quebec recognizing animals as sentient, as well as initiatives in the Senate to protect animals such as the legislation precluding the future captivity of whales and dolphins, a promised ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing, and the proposed Jane Goodall Act, noting that “as scientific knowledge about animals increases, the circle of empathy towards them widens. In that regard, the Senate has played, and I hope will continue to play, an important role in enhancing respect for the species around us and in recognizing that, in the ecosystem that sustains us, they deserve our respect, as First Nations peoples understood long before us.” Read the text of the bill here, the status of the bill here, and Senator Dalphond’s speech here.
Federal Government Threatens to Use Species At Risk Act to Protect Quebec Caribous
With a recorded 5,252 woodland and mountain caribous remaining in Quebec, Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of protections from the Quebec government. Minister Guilbeault has given the province until April 20th to share an adequate plan to protect the caribous. If an adequate plan is not produced, Minister Guilbeault is considering using the safety net provisions of the Species At Risk Act (SARA) to issue an order to impose federal protections. The safety net provisions under section 34 and 35 of SARA allow federal authorities to impede on provincial jurisdiction where provincial laws do not effectively protect the species at risk. This would be the first use of the safety net since SARA came into force in 2002. Read more here.
With a recorded 5,252 woodland and mountain caribous remaining in Quebec, Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of protections from the Quebec government. Minister Guilbeault has given the province until April 20th to share an adequate plan to protect the caribous. If an adequate plan is not produced, Minister Guilbeault is considering using the safety net provisions of the Species At Risk Act (SARA) to issue an order to impose federal protections. The safety net provisions under section 34 and 35 of SARA allow federal authorities to impede on provincial jurisdiction where provincial laws do not effectively protect the species at risk. This would be the first use of the safety net since SARA came into force in 2002. Read more here.
Ontario Introduces New Regulation For Dogs Tethered Outdoors
The Ontario government has introduced Ontario Regulation 351/22 pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019. The new Regulation updates the previous Regulation 444/19, and addresses the standards of care for dogs kept outdoors, including: (i) size of outdoor shelters, which now vary by the size of the dog (s. 4.4(3)); (ii) the quality of the shelters is updated to include structural soundness, adequate ventilation, and dry bedding that is regularly changed (s. 4.2(1)); (iii) sufficient protection from the elements includes protection from heat or cold-related distress and the provision of adequate shade (s. 4.1(1)); (iv) water and food regulations have been upgraded to state that food must be fit for consumption, and water must be replaced every twenty-four hours and must not be frozen (s. 4.1(3-4)); and (v) tethers must not create an undue risk of distress to the dog and harmful collars are not to be used for dogs who are tethered (s. 4.3). Animal Justice called the updates “significant progress” but criticized the failure to address harm done to dogs in dog sledding operations such as near-continuous tethering and the failure to protect other dogs from being chained outdoors continuously. The new Regulation comes into effect July 1st, 2022. Read the Regulation here, and Animal Justice’s response here.
The Ontario government has introduced Ontario Regulation 351/22 pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019. The new Regulation updates the previous Regulation 444/19, and addresses the standards of care for dogs kept outdoors, including: (i) size of outdoor shelters, which now vary by the size of the dog (s. 4.4(3)); (ii) the quality of the shelters is updated to include structural soundness, adequate ventilation, and dry bedding that is regularly changed (s. 4.2(1)); (iii) sufficient protection from the elements includes protection from heat or cold-related distress and the provision of adequate shade (s. 4.1(1)); (iv) water and food regulations have been upgraded to state that food must be fit for consumption, and water must be replaced every twenty-four hours and must not be frozen (s. 4.1(3-4)); and (v) tethers must not create an undue risk of distress to the dog and harmful collars are not to be used for dogs who are tethered (s. 4.3). Animal Justice called the updates “significant progress” but criticized the failure to address harm done to dogs in dog sledding operations such as near-continuous tethering and the failure to protect other dogs from being chained outdoors continuously. The new Regulation comes into effect July 1st, 2022. Read the Regulation here, and Animal Justice’s response here.
Litigation Updates
Animal Justice Argues on Legal Standing at the Supreme Court of Canada
Animal Justice intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (AG) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Lawyer Kaitlin Mitchell highlighted the difficulties that public interest groups representing animals face under all three branches of the current public interest standing test. Mitchell also argued the importance of access to justice for vulnerable groups such as animals. Read more and view the webcast here.
Animal Justice intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (AG) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Lawyer Kaitlin Mitchell highlighted the difficulties that public interest groups representing animals face under all three branches of the current public interest standing test. Mitchell also argued the importance of access to justice for vulnerable groups such as animals. Read more and view the webcast here.
British Columbia Mink Farmers Sue Provincial Government
A group of British Columbia mink breeders are suing the provincial government, claiming the ban on mink fur farming during the pandemic was not within the government’s powers. Following positive cases of COVID-19 among both employees and mink on several mink farms in BC, on July 26th 2021, an Order of the Provincial Health Officer prohibited new mink farms and new mink breeding until January 31st 2022. In November 2021, the province announced a phase-out of mink farming by 2025. The lawsuit filed on February 15th 2022 claims that the province’s order was ultra vires and that they failed to meaningfully consult with mink farmers before making the order. The lawsuit also comes weeks after the Federal government introduced Bill C-247: Prohibition of Fur Farming Act. Read more here.
A group of British Columbia mink breeders are suing the provincial government, claiming the ban on mink fur farming during the pandemic was not within the government’s powers. Following positive cases of COVID-19 among both employees and mink on several mink farms in BC, on July 26th 2021, an Order of the Provincial Health Officer prohibited new mink farms and new mink breeding until January 31st 2022. In November 2021, the province announced a phase-out of mink farming by 2025. The lawsuit filed on February 15th 2022 claims that the province’s order was ultra vires and that they failed to meaningfully consult with mink farmers before making the order. The lawsuit also comes weeks after the Federal government introduced Bill C-247: Prohibition of Fur Farming Act. Read more here.
Animal Organizations Sue Ontario Government Over Coyote Killing Contest
Animal Justice, Coyote Watch Canada, and the Fur-Bearers have launched a lawsuit against the Ontario Government for their inaction concerning a coyote killing contest. Each year for the month of February, Chesher’s Outdoor Store near Belleville Ontario awards cash prizes to hunters who kill the top five heaviest coyotes. Although Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources, and Forestry - which governs hunting - has said the contest is legal, Animal Justice et al claims that the province is ignoring its own laws against incentivised hunting. Animal Justice et al points to Section 11 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which prohibits hunting for gain or the expectation of gain or payment without authorization from the Minister. Neither the store nor the Minister have confirmed whether authorization was given for the contest. Read the news article here, and Animal Justice’s blog here.
Animal Justice, Coyote Watch Canada, and the Fur-Bearers have launched a lawsuit against the Ontario Government for their inaction concerning a coyote killing contest. Each year for the month of February, Chesher’s Outdoor Store near Belleville Ontario awards cash prizes to hunters who kill the top five heaviest coyotes. Although Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources, and Forestry - which governs hunting - has said the contest is legal, Animal Justice et al claims that the province is ignoring its own laws against incentivised hunting. Animal Justice et al points to Section 11 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which prohibits hunting for gain or the expectation of gain or payment without authorization from the Minister. Neither the store nor the Minister have confirmed whether authorization was given for the contest. Read the news article here, and Animal Justice’s blog here.
R v Zhou, Appeal from Conviction Dismissed
In 2018, Xin Ying Zhou was convicted on charges of animal welfare violations following a trial in the British Columbia Provincial Court. She had been running a dog and cat daycare between August 2012 and February 2017. During that time, the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty attended her property for various animal cruelty complaints, and in February 2016 the BC SPCA seized sixty-nine cats and sixteen dogs from her property. Following her conviction, she was given a two-year suspended sentence and a two-year animal ownership prohibition. She appealed her conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Justice Riley of the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that Zhou had not established the elements of ineffective assistance and dismissed the appeal. Read the BCSC decision here.
In 2018, Xin Ying Zhou was convicted on charges of animal welfare violations following a trial in the British Columbia Provincial Court. She had been running a dog and cat daycare between August 2012 and February 2017. During that time, the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty attended her property for various animal cruelty complaints, and in February 2016 the BC SPCA seized sixty-nine cats and sixteen dogs from her property. Following her conviction, she was given a two-year suspended sentence and a two-year animal ownership prohibition. She appealed her conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Justice Riley of the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that Zhou had not established the elements of ineffective assistance and dismissed the appeal. Read the BCSC decision here.
PEI Dairy Farm Pleads Guilty to Polluting Waters and Killing Fish, Fined $50,000
Operators of Prince Edward Island’s dairy farm Nobra Holsteins have pled guilty to charges under the Fisheries Act for a 2020 incident of polluting waters resulting in a large-scale fish kill. Court documents indicate that Nobra Holsteins had been experimenting with new manure spreading equipment in June 2020 when a hose disconnected and deposited liquid manure into a nearby stream for three hours. The spill killed over 600 brook trout and closed the nearby pond for swimming for the entire summer. The operators pled guilty to “unlawfully depositing, or permitting the deposit of, a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish” under the Fisheries Act. Justice Nancy Orr accepted the guilty plea as well as joint submission on sentencing from the prosecutor and defence. Nobra Holsteins have two years to pay a $50,000 fine, and they have until May 1st, 2022 to develop and implement a manure spill response and prevention plan. Read more here.
Operators of Prince Edward Island’s dairy farm Nobra Holsteins have pled guilty to charges under the Fisheries Act for a 2020 incident of polluting waters resulting in a large-scale fish kill. Court documents indicate that Nobra Holsteins had been experimenting with new manure spreading equipment in June 2020 when a hose disconnected and deposited liquid manure into a nearby stream for three hours. The spill killed over 600 brook trout and closed the nearby pond for swimming for the entire summer. The operators pled guilty to “unlawfully depositing, or permitting the deposit of, a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish” under the Fisheries Act. Justice Nancy Orr accepted the guilty plea as well as joint submission on sentencing from the prosecutor and defence. Nobra Holsteins have two years to pay a $50,000 fine, and they have until May 1st, 2022 to develop and implement a manure spill response and prevention plan. Read more here.
Eleven Activists Found Guilty on Criminal Charges for Pig Farm Direct Action
A Quebec judge has found eleven animal activists guilty for a December, 2019 occupation of the Porgreg pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, near Montreal. The activists entered the pig farm, filmed poor welfare conditions, and staged a sit-in for six hours, before they were ultimately arrested and charged with various criminal offences. The eleven activists were found guilty of obstruction and breaking and entering; they were acquitted on several counts of mischief that had been claimed by the farmer. In statements given after the verdict, convicted activist Jenny McQueen voiced that although the judge seemed sympathetic for the animals captured on video, the judge found that the activists did disrupt the business and were therefore convicted. Sentencing has been scheduled for May 6th 2022. See the post-verdict statements here, and read more here.
A Quebec judge has found eleven animal activists guilty for a December, 2019 occupation of the Porgreg pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, near Montreal. The activists entered the pig farm, filmed poor welfare conditions, and staged a sit-in for six hours, before they were ultimately arrested and charged with various criminal offences. The eleven activists were found guilty of obstruction and breaking and entering; they were acquitted on several counts of mischief that had been claimed by the farmer. In statements given after the verdict, convicted activist Jenny McQueen voiced that although the judge seemed sympathetic for the animals captured on video, the judge found that the activists did disrupt the business and were therefore convicted. Sentencing has been scheduled for May 6th 2022. See the post-verdict statements here, and read more here.
Enforcement Updates
Saskatoon SPCA to Stop Enforcement of Saskatchewan’s Animal Protection Act
The Saskatoon Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has announced that it will stop investigating animal abuse and neglect complaints beginning April 1st, 2022. A major reason for the decision is the lack of provincial funding. Saskatchewan’s two largest cities, Saskatoon and Regina, are not currently receiving that funding from the Animal Protection Services of Saskatchewan despite the fact that animal services are a provincial rather than a municipal responsibility. Although the Saskatoon SPCA applied for funding in November 2021, they were denied. The announcement follows similar decisions by the Edmonton Humane Society in January 2019 and the Ontario SPCA in March 2019 to withdraw from active investigations and enforcement (although the reasons for the decisions differ somewhat). Discussions have begun to address the upcoming gap in enforcement in the City of Saskatoon. Read more here.
The Saskatoon Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has announced that it will stop investigating animal abuse and neglect complaints beginning April 1st, 2022. A major reason for the decision is the lack of provincial funding. Saskatchewan’s two largest cities, Saskatoon and Regina, are not currently receiving that funding from the Animal Protection Services of Saskatchewan despite the fact that animal services are a provincial rather than a municipal responsibility. Although the Saskatoon SPCA applied for funding in November 2021, they were denied. The announcement follows similar decisions by the Edmonton Humane Society in January 2019 and the Ontario SPCA in March 2019 to withdraw from active investigations and enforcement (although the reasons for the decisions differ somewhat). Discussions have begun to address the upcoming gap in enforcement in the City of Saskatoon. Read more here.
Vancouver Company Fined for Illegal Shark Fin Imports
A Vancouver company has been fined $75,000 after it was caught importing more than 20,000 shark fins in September 2017. Although the investigation occured before Canada’s Federal Shark Fin Ban, some of the fins came from protected sharks, which were illegal to import even before the ban. The fine will support the Environmental Damages Fund to support projects that benefit the environment. The name of the company, Hang Hing Herbal Medicine Ltd., will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry. Read more here.
A Vancouver company has been fined $75,000 after it was caught importing more than 20,000 shark fins in September 2017. Although the investigation occured before Canada’s Federal Shark Fin Ban, some of the fins came from protected sharks, which were illegal to import even before the ban. The fine will support the Environmental Damages Fund to support projects that benefit the environment. The name of the company, Hang Hing Herbal Medicine Ltd., will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry. Read more here.
Montreal SPCA Drafts and Offers “Animal Custody Agreement”
The Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has drafted an “Animal Custody Agreement” to fill the gap in family law, which still considers animals as property. With recognition that - statistically - the average life of a companion animal lasts longer than the average marriage/common-law partnership, the Montreal SPCA has drafted and made available a template agreement for pet custody for those who wish to prepare for their companion animal in the case of separation. The agreement is part of a campaign seeking changes to Quebec’s Civil Code to consider the best interest of the animal in family law situations. Read the draft agreement and learn about the campaign here.
The Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has drafted an “Animal Custody Agreement” to fill the gap in family law, which still considers animals as property. With recognition that - statistically - the average life of a companion animal lasts longer than the average marriage/common-law partnership, the Montreal SPCA has drafted and made available a template agreement for pet custody for those who wish to prepare for their companion animal in the case of separation. The agreement is part of a campaign seeking changes to Quebec’s Civil Code to consider the best interest of the animal in family law situations. Read the draft agreement and learn about the campaign here.
Vancouver Aquarium and Greater Vancouver Zoo Under Investigation for Animal Cruelty
A complaint from the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) has triggered an investigation of animal cruelty in Vancouver’s only two remaining animal attractions: the Vancouver Aquarium and the Greater Vancouver Zoo. On March 8th, VHS released disturbing footage of animal individuals from both establishments displaying abnormal behaviours suggesting psychological distress. The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty is currently investigating. Both the Vancouver Aquarium and the Greater Vancouver Zoo have acknowledged the VHS footage and reiterated their commitments to high standards of animal care. Watch the VHS footage here and read more here.
A complaint from the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) has triggered an investigation of animal cruelty in Vancouver’s only two remaining animal attractions: the Vancouver Aquarium and the Greater Vancouver Zoo. On March 8th, VHS released disturbing footage of animal individuals from both establishments displaying abnormal behaviours suggesting psychological distress. The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty is currently investigating. Both the Vancouver Aquarium and the Greater Vancouver Zoo have acknowledged the VHS footage and reiterated their commitments to high standards of animal care. Watch the VHS footage here and read more here.
Activists Protest in BC SPCA Office Demanding Cruelty Investigations on Farms
During pre-trial proceedings of #TheExcelsior4, animal rights activists protested at the office of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA). A point of frustration for those following #TheExcelsior4 criminal proceedings is that the activists were charged, but the farm was not charged for the poor conditions captured by the activists. At the BC SPCA office, activists urged the BC SPCA to step down from its enforcement duties to allow for more government action targeted towards farm oversight. BC SPCA General Manager of Communications, Lorie Chortyk, responded that the office welcomed the activists, and she highlighted how both the activists and the BC SPCA have both called for more oversight of the agriculture industry in British Columbia. In particular, the BC SPCA has called for 24-hour video surveillance and third-party auditing. Eventually, police were called to disband the sit-in, and six activists were arrested for mischief. Read more here.
During pre-trial proceedings of #TheExcelsior4, animal rights activists protested at the office of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA). A point of frustration for those following #TheExcelsior4 criminal proceedings is that the activists were charged, but the farm was not charged for the poor conditions captured by the activists. At the BC SPCA office, activists urged the BC SPCA to step down from its enforcement duties to allow for more government action targeted towards farm oversight. BC SPCA General Manager of Communications, Lorie Chortyk, responded that the office welcomed the activists, and she highlighted how both the activists and the BC SPCA have both called for more oversight of the agriculture industry in British Columbia. In particular, the BC SPCA has called for 24-hour video surveillance and third-party auditing. Eventually, police were called to disband the sit-in, and six activists were arrested for mischief. Read more here.
Academic Updates
Two Animal Law Chapters in Academic Text Published by Two Canadian Editors
Angela Fernandez, “Fish Farms in Canada: Where is the Law?” in James Gacek and Richard Jochelson eds., Green Criminology and the Law (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 113-45.
Abstract: Mass farmed fish die-offs and escapes have brought attention to the aquaculture industry and raised concerns about whether the law regulating this industry is adequate to protect fish and the environment in which they live. Focusing on a “mass asphyxiation” mortality event that took place in Newfoundland, Canada, at the end of the summer of 2019, this chapter will survey some of the issues related to animal welfare and the “green harms” raised by this incident with an eye to the wider implications for fields of law relating to nonhuman animals and the environment. One would think that the law would be protective toward the vulnerable interests of these entities. What we find, on the contrary, is weak law and what law there is facilitating government-supported industry use. This case study demonstrates that the law is failing to protect nonhuman animals, specifically fish, reflecting and reinforcing their poor regard, and leaving them to a terrible fate.
Justin Marceau, “Palliative Animal Law: The War on Animal Cruelty” in James Gacek and Richard Jochelson eds., Green Criminology and the Law (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 217-233.
Abstract: In 2019 President Donald Trump signed into law the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act (Pub. L. No. 116–72, 133 Stat. 1151 [2019] [codified at 18 U.S.C. § 48].) Although every state already permitted felony animal cruelty liability, animal lawyers hailed the PACT Act as a “defining moment” for animal law because it allowed acts of animal cruelty to be charged as federal felonies.
Angela Fernandez, “Fish Farms in Canada: Where is the Law?” in James Gacek and Richard Jochelson eds., Green Criminology and the Law (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 113-45.
Abstract: Mass farmed fish die-offs and escapes have brought attention to the aquaculture industry and raised concerns about whether the law regulating this industry is adequate to protect fish and the environment in which they live. Focusing on a “mass asphyxiation” mortality event that took place in Newfoundland, Canada, at the end of the summer of 2019, this chapter will survey some of the issues related to animal welfare and the “green harms” raised by this incident with an eye to the wider implications for fields of law relating to nonhuman animals and the environment. One would think that the law would be protective toward the vulnerable interests of these entities. What we find, on the contrary, is weak law and what law there is facilitating government-supported industry use. This case study demonstrates that the law is failing to protect nonhuman animals, specifically fish, reflecting and reinforcing their poor regard, and leaving them to a terrible fate.
Justin Marceau, “Palliative Animal Law: The War on Animal Cruelty” in James Gacek and Richard Jochelson eds., Green Criminology and the Law (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 217-233.
Abstract: In 2019 President Donald Trump signed into law the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act (Pub. L. No. 116–72, 133 Stat. 1151 [2019] [codified at 18 U.S.C. § 48].) Although every state already permitted felony animal cruelty liability, animal lawyers hailed the PACT Act as a “defining moment” for animal law because it allowed acts of animal cruelty to be charged as federal felonies.
New Social Science Article Published
Kendra Coulter, “The Organization of Animal Protection Investigations and the Animal Harm Spectrum: Canadian Data, International Lessons” (2022) 11:1 Social Sciences, 22.
Abstract: This paper offers the first overview of the Canadian animal cruelty investigations landscape. First, the public and private sector organizations responsible for enforcement are explained, followed by examination of the implications of this patchwork for reporting suspected cruelty. Key statistical data are presented about the types of issues and cases and investigator responses. Initial recommendations are then proposed, and the value of the animal harm spectrum is discussed, including how it can be mobilized to strengthen the operations of animal protection work and animal welfare policy across nations.
Kendra Coulter, “The Organization of Animal Protection Investigations and the Animal Harm Spectrum: Canadian Data, International Lessons” (2022) 11:1 Social Sciences, 22.
Abstract: This paper offers the first overview of the Canadian animal cruelty investigations landscape. First, the public and private sector organizations responsible for enforcement are explained, followed by examination of the implications of this patchwork for reporting suspected cruelty. Key statistical data are presented about the types of issues and cases and investigator responses. Initial recommendations are then proposed, and the value of the animal harm spectrum is discussed, including how it can be mobilized to strengthen the operations of animal protection work and animal welfare policy across nations.
New Academic Article in Rewritten Judicial Opinions Series
Angela Fernandez, “Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) Justice Angela Fernandez, Dissenting” in Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod & Elena Maria Marty-Nelson eds., Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 98-118.
Summary: Angela Fernandez, author of Pierson v. Post, the Hunt for the Fox: Law and Professionalization in American Legal Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), presents her rewritten judgment in the (in)famous fox hunting property law case about first possession of a wild animal. It appears after a commentary on the case by Jill Fraley. Drawing on Fernandez’s extensive historical work on Pierson v. Post, this rewritten decision explores further key authorities, lays out overlooked facts, examines crucial distortions in the framing, discusses the capture rule and the environment, and critiques the (gendered) unprofessionalism on display. Written in an old fashioned style, this concurring dissent seeks to emulate the mixture of solemn and silly in the original dissent but in a way that this time gives the fox a voice. Fernandez has her emphatically say neither of the parties own her, she owns herself.
Angela Fernandez, “Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) Justice Angela Fernandez, Dissenting” in Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod & Elena Maria Marty-Nelson eds., Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 98-118.
Summary: Angela Fernandez, author of Pierson v. Post, the Hunt for the Fox: Law and Professionalization in American Legal Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), presents her rewritten judgment in the (in)famous fox hunting property law case about first possession of a wild animal. It appears after a commentary on the case by Jill Fraley. Drawing on Fernandez’s extensive historical work on Pierson v. Post, this rewritten decision explores further key authorities, lays out overlooked facts, examines crucial distortions in the framing, discusses the capture rule and the environment, and critiques the (gendered) unprofessionalism on display. Written in an old fashioned style, this concurring dissent seeks to emulate the mixture of solemn and silly in the original dissent but in a way that this time gives the fox a voice. Fernandez has her emphatically say neither of the parties own her, she owns herself.
Advance Access to Jessica Eisen’s New Article in UTLJ Adding to the Academic Discussion on Theories of Rights and Welfare Previously Addressed by Maneesha Deckha, Angela Fernandez, and Others
Jessica Eisen, “Of Linchpins and Bedrock: Hope, Despair, and Pragmatism in Animal Law” University of Toronto Law Journal.
Abstract: The field of animal law is ubiquitously characterized as being split between proponents of ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare.’ While rights advocates seek to end the legal classification of animals as ‘property’ (or pursue the related goal of establishing animals as legal ‘persons’), welfarists aim to improve animal lives within the property paradigm. The common wisdom that all legal approaches to animals are fundamentally split between rights and welfarism has worked to ossify categories of analysis and prevent more accurate and productive accounts of what truly divides and unites theorists within this increasingly diverse field. In place of this traditional assumption that one must be simply ‘for’ or ‘against’ the abolition of property status, I propose an alternative pair of axes around which we might more productively organize existing and future approaches to animal law. First, what do these various approaches take to be the linchpin of animals’ exploitation – the thing that, though central to the system, is changeable, such that, if changed, the whole system might change with it? Second, what do these approaches take to constitute the unchangeable bedrock of existing systems of animal exploitation – things that reform efforts must take as inevitable, for better or for worse? Changing our lens to focus on bedrock and linchpins invites more nuanced debate respecting the unique constellations of hope, despair, and pragmatism that in fact animate so much animal law scholarship. In a field characterized by transformative ambitions, the proposed analysis of linchpins and bedrock focuses our attention on differing accounts of change – what must change and what cannot.
Jessica Eisen, “Of Linchpins and Bedrock: Hope, Despair, and Pragmatism in Animal Law” University of Toronto Law Journal.
Abstract: The field of animal law is ubiquitously characterized as being split between proponents of ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare.’ While rights advocates seek to end the legal classification of animals as ‘property’ (or pursue the related goal of establishing animals as legal ‘persons’), welfarists aim to improve animal lives within the property paradigm. The common wisdom that all legal approaches to animals are fundamentally split between rights and welfarism has worked to ossify categories of analysis and prevent more accurate and productive accounts of what truly divides and unites theorists within this increasingly diverse field. In place of this traditional assumption that one must be simply ‘for’ or ‘against’ the abolition of property status, I propose an alternative pair of axes around which we might more productively organize existing and future approaches to animal law. First, what do these various approaches take to be the linchpin of animals’ exploitation – the thing that, though central to the system, is changeable, such that, if changed, the whole system might change with it? Second, what do these approaches take to constitute the unchangeable bedrock of existing systems of animal exploitation – things that reform efforts must take as inevitable, for better or for worse? Changing our lens to focus on bedrock and linchpins invites more nuanced debate respecting the unique constellations of hope, despair, and pragmatism that in fact animate so much animal law scholarship. In a field characterized by transformative ambitions, the proposed analysis of linchpins and bedrock focuses our attention on differing accounts of change – what must change and what cannot.
New Article Calls for Legislation to Protect Canada’s Lab Animals
Vaughan Black, Andrew Fenton, & Elisabeth H. Ormandy, “Protecting Canada’s Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation” 12:6 (2022) Animals.
Abstract: Canada’s current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods.
Vaughan Black, Andrew Fenton, & Elisabeth H. Ormandy, “Protecting Canada’s Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation” 12:6 (2022) Animals.
Abstract: Canada’s current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods.
Now Available Open Access Book Edited by Lori Gruen and Justin Marceau Featuring Canadian Animal Law Scholars Maneesha Deckha, Kelly Struthers, and Jessica Eisen
Maneesha Dechka, “Juvenile Smokescreens: Softening the Harm of Zoos, Aquaria, and Prisons through (Human) Children” Chapter 13 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: This chapter explores how human children soften the abusive edge of carceral spaces. Prisons, immigration detention centres, and zoos and aquaria are institutions that attract sustained public scrutiny from prisoner rights, migrant rights, anti-racist, and animal rights movements. Among other things, critics contest the messaging that these institutions and their proponents use to assure the public of the need for confinement and the ethical acceptability of the conditions captive animals and humans experience. These discourses, depending on the specific institution, highlight the larger public “law and order” interests of safety and border control, but also “progressive” interests of rehabilitation, conservation, and education. In highlighting these latter “progressive” interests, carceral institutions seek to humanize themselves and their work to bolster their social credibility. This “humane-washing” occurs through long-standing rationales about rehabilitation for offenders in the prison context, and more recent rationales about the conservation of nature and conservation education in the zoo and aquarium context. It also, I will argue, occurs through a specific type of marshaling of the human child. I apply a multispecies lens to consider how the real and imagined human child in the zoo and aquaria context, and narratives about what is in the best interests of human children in the immigration and prison context, figure into characterizing such carceral institutions as legally and socially legitimate spaces.
Kelly Struthers Montford, “Animals in Prison: Collateral Damage and Commodities of 'Rehabilitation’” Chapter 15 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: Animal protection organizations and lawmakers continue to invest in carceral responses to animal cruelty. This chapter argues that carceral responses will fail to meaningfully address animal cruelty because prisons are not human-only spaces. Instead, prisons prescribe a multitude of human-animal relationships, some of which train prisoners for labour fields that are explicitly premised on cruelty against animals. The chapter focuses on relationships between prisoners and liminal animals (such as feral cats, pigeons, gulls, rabbits, rats, prairie dogs, and coyotes), farmed animals, and animals used in prison animal programs, such as wild horse and dog training programs. The human-animal relationships that structure the prison are also placed within the contexts of settler colonialism and enslavement that are inseparable from the making of race and species in the Americas.
Jessica Eisen, “Litigating Animal Captivity: Habeus Corpus in the Carceral State” Chapter 18 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: The writ of habeas corpus is a legal tool with a complex relationship to carceral practices. The writ has functioned both to liberate illegally-detained individuals and to affirm the validity of underlying systems of legally-authorized incarceration. The so-called “Great Writ of Liberty” has thus survived and even thrived in a number of contexts where liberty interests have been systematically denied. Advocacy surrounding the use of the writ on behalf of non-human animals in U.S. courts has, however, tended toward aspirational, sometimes bordering on fantastical, accounts of the writ’s achievements in human justice contexts.
This chapter will introduce a corrective to this superlative vision of habeas corpus, its achievements in human justice contexts, and its potential for animal liberation. This study will argue that one well-publicized advocacy approach, taken most notably by Steven Wise and the Nonhuman Rights Project, overstates the writ’s accomplishments, often relying on an incomplete account of the writ’s history to do so. In particular, this account of the writ’s successes tends to paint struggles against racial violence and inequality as complete, thus minimizing the import of urgent ongoing justice projects. Next, a historical corrective is offered, demonstrating how closer attention to the writ’s actual role in human carceral systems can enrich our understanding of the writ’s limits and potential. This account will emphasize that the writ of habeas corpus operates only to challenge illegal (rather than unjust) detention; that it operates only at the margins of legal confinement systems to contain rather than eliminate carceral practices; and that it therefore serves a role not only in challenging individual instances of confinement, but also in sustaining and validating ongoing carceral practices.
This more critical picture of habeas corpus, however, does not strip the writ of its potential as an advocacy tool for the interests of non-human animals. This chapter will argue that animal advocates might join other social justice movements in adopting a more ambivalent embrace of rights litigation. It is possible, often necessary, for advocates to turn to legal tools without adopting an uncritical posture toward law. Indeed, as with other ambivalent embraces of rights—including historical uses of habeas corpus—litigation is often a critical tool in bringing political attention to social injustices. This chapter will propose that the greatest potential offered by the writ of habeas corpus is a focus on liberty that invites advocacy spotlighting the experiences of animals living within human systems of violence and confinement. It is this prospect of exposing and exploring the harms of human domination of other species—not any fantastical account of the writ’s human achievements—that gives habeas corpus its most meaningful transformative potential.
Maneesha Dechka, “Juvenile Smokescreens: Softening the Harm of Zoos, Aquaria, and Prisons through (Human) Children” Chapter 13 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: This chapter explores how human children soften the abusive edge of carceral spaces. Prisons, immigration detention centres, and zoos and aquaria are institutions that attract sustained public scrutiny from prisoner rights, migrant rights, anti-racist, and animal rights movements. Among other things, critics contest the messaging that these institutions and their proponents use to assure the public of the need for confinement and the ethical acceptability of the conditions captive animals and humans experience. These discourses, depending on the specific institution, highlight the larger public “law and order” interests of safety and border control, but also “progressive” interests of rehabilitation, conservation, and education. In highlighting these latter “progressive” interests, carceral institutions seek to humanize themselves and their work to bolster their social credibility. This “humane-washing” occurs through long-standing rationales about rehabilitation for offenders in the prison context, and more recent rationales about the conservation of nature and conservation education in the zoo and aquarium context. It also, I will argue, occurs through a specific type of marshaling of the human child. I apply a multispecies lens to consider how the real and imagined human child in the zoo and aquaria context, and narratives about what is in the best interests of human children in the immigration and prison context, figure into characterizing such carceral institutions as legally and socially legitimate spaces.
Kelly Struthers Montford, “Animals in Prison: Collateral Damage and Commodities of 'Rehabilitation’” Chapter 15 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: Animal protection organizations and lawmakers continue to invest in carceral responses to animal cruelty. This chapter argues that carceral responses will fail to meaningfully address animal cruelty because prisons are not human-only spaces. Instead, prisons prescribe a multitude of human-animal relationships, some of which train prisoners for labour fields that are explicitly premised on cruelty against animals. The chapter focuses on relationships between prisoners and liminal animals (such as feral cats, pigeons, gulls, rabbits, rats, prairie dogs, and coyotes), farmed animals, and animals used in prison animal programs, such as wild horse and dog training programs. The human-animal relationships that structure the prison are also placed within the contexts of settler colonialism and enslavement that are inseparable from the making of race and species in the Americas.
Jessica Eisen, “Litigating Animal Captivity: Habeus Corpus in the Carceral State” Chapter 18 in Lori Gruen & Justin Marceau (eds.), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Abstract: The writ of habeas corpus is a legal tool with a complex relationship to carceral practices. The writ has functioned both to liberate illegally-detained individuals and to affirm the validity of underlying systems of legally-authorized incarceration. The so-called “Great Writ of Liberty” has thus survived and even thrived in a number of contexts where liberty interests have been systematically denied. Advocacy surrounding the use of the writ on behalf of non-human animals in U.S. courts has, however, tended toward aspirational, sometimes bordering on fantastical, accounts of the writ’s achievements in human justice contexts.
This chapter will introduce a corrective to this superlative vision of habeas corpus, its achievements in human justice contexts, and its potential for animal liberation. This study will argue that one well-publicized advocacy approach, taken most notably by Steven Wise and the Nonhuman Rights Project, overstates the writ’s accomplishments, often relying on an incomplete account of the writ’s history to do so. In particular, this account of the writ’s successes tends to paint struggles against racial violence and inequality as complete, thus minimizing the import of urgent ongoing justice projects. Next, a historical corrective is offered, demonstrating how closer attention to the writ’s actual role in human carceral systems can enrich our understanding of the writ’s limits and potential. This account will emphasize that the writ of habeas corpus operates only to challenge illegal (rather than unjust) detention; that it operates only at the margins of legal confinement systems to contain rather than eliminate carceral practices; and that it therefore serves a role not only in challenging individual instances of confinement, but also in sustaining and validating ongoing carceral practices.
This more critical picture of habeas corpus, however, does not strip the writ of its potential as an advocacy tool for the interests of non-human animals. This chapter will argue that animal advocates might join other social justice movements in adopting a more ambivalent embrace of rights litigation. It is possible, often necessary, for advocates to turn to legal tools without adopting an uncritical posture toward law. Indeed, as with other ambivalent embraces of rights—including historical uses of habeas corpus—litigation is often a critical tool in bringing political attention to social injustices. This chapter will propose that the greatest potential offered by the writ of habeas corpus is a focus on liberty that invites advocacy spotlighting the experiences of animals living within human systems of violence and confinement. It is this prospect of exposing and exploring the harms of human domination of other species—not any fantastical account of the writ’s human achievements—that gives habeas corpus its most meaningful transformative potential.
New Article Highlights Importance of Indigenous Governance in Wildlife Conservation
Clayton T. Lamb, Roland Willson, Carmen Richter, Naomi Owens-Beek, Julian Napoleon, Bruce Muir, R. Scott McNay, Estelle Lavis, Mark Hebblewhite, Line Giguere, Tamara Dokkie, Stan Boutin, Adam T. Ford, “Indigenous-Led Conservation: Pathways to Recovery for the Nearly Extirpated Klinse-Za Mountain Caribou” (2022) Ecological Applications.
Abstract: Indigenous Peoples around the northern hemisphere have long relied on caribou for subsistence, ceremonial, and community purposes. Unfortunately, despite recovery efforts by Federal and Provincial agencies, caribou are currently in decline in many areas across Canada. In response to recent and dramatic declines of mountain caribou populations within their traditional territory, West Moberly First Nations and Saulteau First Nations (collectively, the ‘Nations’) came together to create a new vision for caribou recovery on the lands they have long stewarded and shared. The Nations focused on the Klinse-Za subpopulation, which had once encompassed so many caribou that West Moberly Elders remarked that they were “like bugs on the landscape”. The Klinse-Za caribou declined from ~250 in the 1990’s to only 38 in 2013, rendering Indigenous harvest of caribou non-viable and infringing on treaty rights to a subsistence livelihood. In collaboration with many groups and governments, this Indigenous-led conservation initiative paired short-term population recovery actions—predator reduction and maternal penning—with long-term habitat protection in an effort to create a self-sustaining caribou population. Here, we review these recovery actions and the promising evidence that the abundance of Klinse-Za caribou has more than doubled from 38 animals in 2013 to 101 in 2021, representing rapid population growth in response to recovery actions. With looming extirpation averted, the Nations focused efforts on securing a landmark conservation agreement in 2020 that protects caribou habitat over a 7,986 km2 area. The Agreement provides habitat protection for >85% of the Klinse-Za subpopulation (up from only 1.8% protected pre-conservation agreement) and affords moderate protection for neighboring caribou subpopulations (29-47% of subpopulation areas, up from 0-20%). This Indigenous-led conservation initiative has set both the Indigenous and Canadian governments on the path to recover the Klinse-Za subpopulation and reinstate a culturally meaningful caribou hunt. This effort highlights how Indigenous governance and leadership can be the catalyst needed to establish meaningful conservation actions, enhance endangered species recovery, and honor cultural connections to now imperiled wildlife.
Clayton T. Lamb, Roland Willson, Carmen Richter, Naomi Owens-Beek, Julian Napoleon, Bruce Muir, R. Scott McNay, Estelle Lavis, Mark Hebblewhite, Line Giguere, Tamara Dokkie, Stan Boutin, Adam T. Ford, “Indigenous-Led Conservation: Pathways to Recovery for the Nearly Extirpated Klinse-Za Mountain Caribou” (2022) Ecological Applications.
Abstract: Indigenous Peoples around the northern hemisphere have long relied on caribou for subsistence, ceremonial, and community purposes. Unfortunately, despite recovery efforts by Federal and Provincial agencies, caribou are currently in decline in many areas across Canada. In response to recent and dramatic declines of mountain caribou populations within their traditional territory, West Moberly First Nations and Saulteau First Nations (collectively, the ‘Nations’) came together to create a new vision for caribou recovery on the lands they have long stewarded and shared. The Nations focused on the Klinse-Za subpopulation, which had once encompassed so many caribou that West Moberly Elders remarked that they were “like bugs on the landscape”. The Klinse-Za caribou declined from ~250 in the 1990’s to only 38 in 2013, rendering Indigenous harvest of caribou non-viable and infringing on treaty rights to a subsistence livelihood. In collaboration with many groups and governments, this Indigenous-led conservation initiative paired short-term population recovery actions—predator reduction and maternal penning—with long-term habitat protection in an effort to create a self-sustaining caribou population. Here, we review these recovery actions and the promising evidence that the abundance of Klinse-Za caribou has more than doubled from 38 animals in 2013 to 101 in 2021, representing rapid population growth in response to recovery actions. With looming extirpation averted, the Nations focused efforts on securing a landmark conservation agreement in 2020 that protects caribou habitat over a 7,986 km2 area. The Agreement provides habitat protection for >85% of the Klinse-Za subpopulation (up from only 1.8% protected pre-conservation agreement) and affords moderate protection for neighboring caribou subpopulations (29-47% of subpopulation areas, up from 0-20%). This Indigenous-led conservation initiative has set both the Indigenous and Canadian governments on the path to recover the Klinse-Za subpopulation and reinstate a culturally meaningful caribou hunt. This effort highlights how Indigenous governance and leadership can be the catalyst needed to establish meaningful conservation actions, enhance endangered species recovery, and honor cultural connections to now imperiled wildlife.
International Updates
European Union Bans the Routine Use of Antibiotics in Farmed Animals
A new law in the European Union has now come into force. The law prevents the routine administration of antibiotics in the feed and water of herds of farmed animals. This practice had previously been used to preventatively combat bacterial infections which commonly occur in the poor sanitary conditions of animal agriculture. Now, instead of overusing antibiotics, the new regulation ensures only sick individual animals may be administered antibiotics. Read more here.
A new law in the European Union has now come into force. The law prevents the routine administration of antibiotics in the feed and water of herds of farmed animals. This practice had previously been used to preventatively combat bacterial infections which commonly occur in the poor sanitary conditions of animal agriculture. Now, instead of overusing antibiotics, the new regulation ensures only sick individual animals may be administered antibiotics. Read more here.
Ecuador’s Constitutional Court Rules Animals are Protected by Rights of Nature
Ecuador enshrined the Rights of Nature (RoN) in its Constitution in 2008. This sparked a question of whether RoN applied to ecosystems or biosystems, or to individuals within nature. Now, for the first time, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court has explicitly ruled that individual animals are protected by the RoN and that the protections include the free development of animal behaviour. This decision comes from the 27 January 2022 decision in the Mona Estrellita case (Estrellita the Monkey case). The case concerned a chorongo monkey named Estrellita, who was seized by the Ministry of Environment from a fifty-seven year-old librarian who described herself as Estrellita’s mother and caretaker. She attempted to bring an application for habeas corpus but unfortunately Estrellita died a few days after being transferred from a wildlife sanctuary to an eco-zoo. The Constitutional Court nevertheless chose this case as an opportunity to develop binding jurisprudence on the RoN as including the rights of the animal individuals who make up part of nature. Read the original case here (Spanish), and an article here (English).
Ecuador enshrined the Rights of Nature (RoN) in its Constitution in 2008. This sparked a question of whether RoN applied to ecosystems or biosystems, or to individuals within nature. Now, for the first time, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court has explicitly ruled that individual animals are protected by the RoN and that the protections include the free development of animal behaviour. This decision comes from the 27 January 2022 decision in the Mona Estrellita case (Estrellita the Monkey case). The case concerned a chorongo monkey named Estrellita, who was seized by the Ministry of Environment from a fifty-seven year-old librarian who described herself as Estrellita’s mother and caretaker. She attempted to bring an application for habeas corpus but unfortunately Estrellita died a few days after being transferred from a wildlife sanctuary to an eco-zoo. The Constitutional Court nevertheless chose this case as an opportunity to develop binding jurisprudence on the RoN as including the rights of the animal individuals who make up part of nature. Read the original case here (Spanish), and an article here (English).
United Nations Recognizes Animal Welfare as Environmental Protection
During the fifth session of the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA), a resolution was passed that recognized the importance of animal welfare in promoting the “One Health” approach to the Sustainable Development Goals, and that animal health is connected to human health and wellbeing. This “Resolution on the Nexus between Animal Welfare, Environment and Sustainable Development” calls on the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Executive Director to prepare a report exploring the link between animal welfare and the environment. Read the Resolution here.
During the fifth session of the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA), a resolution was passed that recognized the importance of animal welfare in promoting the “One Health” approach to the Sustainable Development Goals, and that animal health is connected to human health and wellbeing. This “Resolution on the Nexus between Animal Welfare, Environment and Sustainable Development” calls on the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Executive Director to prepare a report exploring the link between animal welfare and the environment. Read the Resolution here.
Animal Welfare [Sentience] Bill Reaches Final Stages in United Kingdom Parliament
The Animal Welfare [Sentience] Bill, has completed all steps in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and is now in its final stages. The bill, which will legally recognize animal sentience, is now awaiting royal assent. The bill would seek to create an Animal Sentience Committee, which would be able to influence policies related to animal welfare. See the bills progress here.
The Animal Welfare [Sentience] Bill, has completed all steps in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and is now in its final stages. The bill, which will legally recognize animal sentience, is now awaiting royal assent. The bill would seek to create an Animal Sentience Committee, which would be able to influence policies related to animal welfare. See the bills progress here.
United States Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Ag-gag Appeal by Kansas
The Animal Legal Defence Fund (ALDF) has declared a victory for animals and activists as the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal from the decision that struck down Kansas’s ag-gag law for violating the First Amendment right to free speech. In 2018, the ALDF led a coalition of animal, environmental, and food safety advocacy groups to successfully challenge the Kansas law which criminalized activities which are essential to undercover investigations in farms and slaughterhouses. In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found the laws violated the US Constitution's First Amendment, and struck down the laws. The US Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a further appeal leaves the Appeal Court’s decision in place. Read the ALDF’s press release here.
The Animal Legal Defence Fund (ALDF) has declared a victory for animals and activists as the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal from the decision that struck down Kansas’s ag-gag law for violating the First Amendment right to free speech. In 2018, the ALDF led a coalition of animal, environmental, and food safety advocacy groups to successfully challenge the Kansas law which criminalized activities which are essential to undercover investigations in farms and slaughterhouses. In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found the laws violated the US Constitution's First Amendment, and struck down the laws. The US Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a further appeal leaves the Appeal Court’s decision in place. Read the ALDF’s press release here.
Other Updates
Second Marineland Beluga Transferred to United States Aquarium Dies
In May of 2021, five beluga whales were trafficked from Marineland, Ontario, to Mystic Aquarium, Connecticut. This first beluga, named Havok, died in August 2021 with the aquarium reporting ongoing gastrointestinal issues. The aquarium claims they made operational changes following Havok’s death and the ensuing inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) stated that this second death reinforces the notion that the belugas from Marineland were transported while they were already ill. The aquarium continues to house six other belugas, with one currently in intensive care. Read the news report here, and Animals Justice’s blog post calling for legislative measures here.
In May of 2021, five beluga whales were trafficked from Marineland, Ontario, to Mystic Aquarium, Connecticut. This first beluga, named Havok, died in August 2021 with the aquarium reporting ongoing gastrointestinal issues. The aquarium claims they made operational changes following Havok’s death and the ensuing inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) stated that this second death reinforces the notion that the belugas from Marineland were transported while they were already ill. The aquarium continues to house six other belugas, with one currently in intensive care. Read the news report here, and Animals Justice’s blog post calling for legislative measures here.
Spring 2022 Highlights