CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

gpvec.unl.edu
from gpvec.unl.edu More from this publisher
03.08.2013 Views

state humane slaughter laWs Unlike the federal humane slaughter law, some state laws specifically exempt poultry. 191 Some state laws have been written to limit coverage to listed species only. For example, Oregon’s law is limited to “cattle, equines, sheep or swine,” 192 and Washington’s lists only “cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goat.” 193 On the other hand, some include coverage for other animal species that may be slaughtered for meat. For example, Maryland’s humane slaughter statute defines livestock as “cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules, goats, or other animals that may be used in the preparation of a meat product.” 194 New Hampshire includes “other species of animals susceptible of use in the production of meat and meat products.” 195 Table 20. Additional Animals Covered Under State Laws Species States Aquatic Animals Kansas Rabbits Georgia, Maine Poultry California, Indiana, Utah Ratites Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Dakota Bison, Buffalo Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont Llama, Alpaca, Yak New Hampshire Deer, Elk, Reindeer California (fallow deer), Georgia (non-traditional livestock, farm-raised deer), Indiana (farm-raised deer), Iowa (farm-raised deer), Kansas (domesticated deer), Maine (domestic deer), New Hampshire (elk, fallow deer, red deer, reindeer), North Carolina (fallow deer, red deer), South Dakota (captive cervidae), Utah (domestic elk), Vermont (fallow deer), Wisconsin (farm-raised deer) poultry in the statute, in the opinion of the state vet, “the absence of a description of acceptable slaughter methods for poultry does not exclude poultry from humane slaughter.” Personal electronic communication from Henrietta Beaufait, DVM, state veterinarian. 191 For example, the definition of “livestock” under Florida’s law (828.23) specifically excludes poultry and aquatic species. Maryland’s law (4-123.1) states “‘Livestock’ does not include poultry or other fowl.” 192 Section 603.065(1). 193 Section 16.50.110(4). 194 Section 4-123.1(a)(3)(i). 195 Section 427:33(2). Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin include similar definitions of livestock in their laws. 65

7.2 Methods allowed Crimes Without ConsequenCes Neither the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, nor the regulations under the law, specifically prohibits the use of a sledgehammer or ax to stun an animal for slaughter. As a result, when animal advocates worked with state legislators during the 1960s and 1970s to pass statewide prohibitions on inhumane slaughter methods, use of these implements was often included. 196 Connecticut law, for example, provides that “Use of a manuallyoperated sledge, hammer or poleax to render an animal insensible to pain is prohibited.” However, although federal law does not prohibit use of a hammer or ax, the USDA-FSIS does not consider these to be acceptable mechanical means of stunning. 197 7.3 Exemptions The Federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act identifies slaughtering in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish or other religious faith as humane. Moreover, the law spells out that not only slaughter, but “the handling or other preparation of livestock for ritual slaughter are exempted” from the Act. 198 All states with humane slaughter laws have included a similar exemption for religious slaughter. However, while the federal law includes language that covers handling, state laws typically refer to slaughter only. A few states have attempted to encourage, if not require, the use of holding pens for religious slaughter in order to avoid shackling and hoisting of conscious animals. Connecticut was the first state to require use of holding pens that allow animals not previously stunned to be cut while upright. However, a general exception to the law for religious slaughter makes use of the pens voluntary under Connecticut’s law. 199 Section 22-272a. Approved methods of slaughter (b)(2) restraint of the animal by means of a pen approved by the commissioner which firmly encloses the animal and, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort, places the animal in such a position that a cutting stroke may be administered quickly and efficiently; (3) restraint of the animal by means of a body harness approved by the commissioner which lifts, supports and cradles the animal and, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort, places it in such a position that a cutting stroke may be administered quickly and efficiently, and (4) restraint of the animal by any other means approved by the commissioner which causes the animal no unreasonable or unnecessary pain and which, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort, places the animal in such a position that a cutting stroke may be administered quickly and efficiently. 196 Use of a hammer or ax to stun an animal is prohibited under the laws of Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. 197 USDA-FSIS, Human Resources Development Staff, For the welfare of livestock (interactive CD training guide), July 1998. 198 7 U.S.C. Section 1906. 199 Section 22-272(e). 66

state humane slaughter laWs<br />

Unlike the federal humane slaughter law, some state laws specifically exempt poultry. 191<br />

Some state laws have been written to limit coverage to listed species only. For example,<br />

Oregon’s law is limited to “cattle, equines, sheep or swine,” 192 and Washington’s lists<br />

only “cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goat.” 193 On the other hand, some<br />

include coverage for other animal species that may be slaughtered for meat. For example,<br />

Maryland’s humane slaughter statute defines livestock as “cattle, calves, sheep, swine,<br />

horses, mules, goats, or other animals that may be used in the preparation of a meat<br />

product.” 194 New Hampshire includes “other species of animals susceptible of use in the<br />

production of meat and meat products.” 195<br />

Table 20. Additional Animals Covered Under State Laws<br />

Species States<br />

Aquatic Animals Kansas<br />

Rabbits Georgia, Maine<br />

Poultry California, Indiana, Utah<br />

Ratites Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire,<br />

South Dakota<br />

Bison, Buffalo Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina,<br />

Oklahoma, Vermont<br />

Llama, Alpaca, Yak New Hampshire<br />

Deer, Elk, Reindeer California (fallow deer), Georgia (non-traditional<br />

livestock, farm-raised deer), Indiana (farm-raised<br />

deer), Iowa (farm-raised deer), Kansas (domesticated<br />

deer), Maine (domestic deer), New Hampshire (elk,<br />

fallow deer, red deer, reindeer), North Carolina<br />

(fallow deer, red deer), South Dakota (captive<br />

cervidae), Utah (domestic elk), Vermont (fallow<br />

deer), Wisconsin (farm-raised deer)<br />

poultry in the statute, in the opinion of the state vet, “the absence of a description of acceptable slaughter<br />

methods for poultry does not exclude poultry from humane slaughter.” Personal electronic communication from<br />

Henrietta Beaufait, DVM, state veterinarian.<br />

191 For example, the definition of “livestock” under Florida’s law (828.23) specifically excludes poultry and<br />

aquatic species. Maryland’s law (4-123.1) states “‘Livestock’ does not include poultry or other fowl.”<br />

192 Section 603.065(1).<br />

193 Section 16.50.110(4).<br />

194 Section 4-123.1(a)(3)(i).<br />

195 Section 427:33(2). Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin include similar definitions of livestock in their laws.<br />

65

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!