Massachusetts has historically been on the forefront of animal
protection. In 1641, the first law in the nation to protect animals
was included in our "Body of Liberties." Today, the commonwealth
consistently is in the top tier -- as high as fourth -- in rankings
comparing all 50 states and the District of Columbia on a wide
range of animal protection laws; a rating likely to go even higher
as a result of the most recent legislative session.
In the past few years, Massachusetts has increased the penalties
for animal abuse and strengthened its animal fighting laws. Last
session, a pet trust statute was enacted and a requirement that
antifreeze sold at retail contain a bitter-tasting agent to deter
animal and human ingestion. There have also been two animal-related
ballot questions passed in recent history, one restricting
body-gripping traps for furbearing animals and another outlawing
greyhound racing. New statutes, pending legislation and case law
provide a lot of material for discussion about the impact of the
law on animals and the people who care for them.
The Animal Law Practice Group of the Massachusetts Bar
Association's Civil Litigation Section was formed to provide a
forum for education and the open exchange of ideas and experiences
about legal issues concerning the treatment of all animals, the
protections offered to animals, and the rights and responsibilities
of people who have an interest in the animals. The ALPG was formed
in response to a growing number of cases and statutes, and
increasing public and practical interest. Currently, there are 142
law schools in the U.S. and Canada that have offered a course in
animal law and 39 state and regional bar association animal law
sections and committees, including an Animal Law Committee within
the American Bar Association. The ALPG holds quarterly meetings
discussing developing areas of animal law. Past topics have
included the awarding of noneconomic damages for injuries to
animals, the new pet trust statute, laws and regulations pertaining
to animals and biomedical research, housing issues and pets, and
pending legislation to end the intense confinement of certain farm
animals. New members are welcome to join this group.
On Oct. 31, 2012, after more than six years of discussion in the
legislature, perhaps the most comprehensive animal protection
legislation ever passed in Massachusetts went into effect. Chapter
193 of the Acts of 2012 will improve the welfare of animals in the
commonwealth in a myriad of ways. Supported by a coalition of
animal control officers, veterinarians, animal welfare advocates,
animal health officials and others, the bill primarily updated the
laws in Chapter 140 that govern the framework for animal control.
Several decades had passed since any significant revisions had been
made to these laws that cover how municipalities handle stray,
dangerous and injured dogs, kennels, licensing, euthanasia methods,
animal health and more. These laws were outdated and did not
reflect the nature of animal control in our cities and towns today
or the relationship we have with animals in current society. In
addition, these laws did not offer effective protection to the
public -- a key function of animal control.
In addition to the updates to Chapter 140, the new law creates a
statewide Homeless Animal Prevention and Care Fund, funded with
voluntary contributions citizens can make when filing taxes
starting this upcoming tax season. The fund, administered by the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) with the
assistance of a five-member advisory committee, will pay for spay
and neuter surgeries and vaccinations for animals, as well as
training for animal control officers. Unfortunately, there are
still too many animals, particularly cats, who are free roaming or
in animals shelters and animal control facilities across the state.
The fund will not only save animal lives, it will reduce costs
municipalities incur from handling homeless animals.
Animal control officers are often on the front line protecting
citizens and the animals they encounter. The fund will provide
these officers with the training they need to protect animals and
the public with courses on safe animal handling, effective
enforcement of animal control laws, disease prevention, disaster
planning and other key areas. This training, provided through the
fund per new Section 151C of Chapter 140 will be mandated once
sufficient funding is accumulated. Rules and regulations will be
established by the MDAR pursuant to Section 51 of the Act that will
govern the training.
Section 11 of Chapter 209A was adopted as an amendment in the
Massachusetts Senate and allows courts to include pets in domestic
abuse prevention and harassment orders thereby ensuring protection
to both human and animal victims of domestic violence. One study
revealed that up to 40 percent of domestic violence victims don't
leave or delay leaving their abusers because they are concerned
about what will happen to their pets when they leave. Another study
found that 71 percent of women entering women's shelters reported
that their batterer had injured, maimed, killed or threatened
family pets for revenge or to psychologically control victims.
Massachusetts joins 22 other states with such a provision.
An amendment by the Massachusetts House of Representatives added
detailed parameters relating to the outdoor confinement and
tethering of dogs, including limitations on the type and length of
tether. A provision in this section prohibits "cruel conditions"
defined as filthy and dirty confinement conditions including, but
not limited to, exposure to excessive animal waste, garbage, dirty
water, noxious odors, or dangerous objects or other circumstances
that could cause harm to a dog's physical or emotional health. This
will give animal control officers additional tools to resolve
problem situations that may not rise to a criminal offense under
Chapter 272, but nonetheless should be remedied.
A comprehensive dangerous dog statute included in this Act has
procedures to identify dangerous dogs, actions to prevent dog bites
(restraint, muzzling, confinement and others) and strong fines if
owners don't comply. The American Bar Association House of
Delegates this summer passed Resolution 100 opposing breed
discriminatory legislation and pointed out flaws in such policies.
While a few local officials have argued to keep the small number of
ordinances in our state that were based on breed, there is
widespread agreement among experts that focusing on breed isn't
effective; simply, as pointed out in the ABA report, there is no
scientific evidence to show that laws targeting dogs based on their
looks has decreased the incidence of dog bites in any
community.
There are many other improvements. If a stray is euthanized, it
must be done in a humane manner. Lost animals must be scanned for a
microchip to increase chances of reunification with the animal's
family. The term "dog officer" was finally changed to "animal
control officer" to reflect that many officers handle cats and
wildlife, not just dogs. The state can now appoint an animal
control officer if a city or town fails to do so. A law passed in
the 1980s, designed to ensure animals adopted from municipal or
private shelters are spayed or neutered, was also updated and
strengthened.
Animal control officers and municipal officials are in the
process of adjusting to parts of the new framework. Unfortunately,
having so many antiquated statutes now may require significant
amendments to town and city bylaws. It will be important to ensure
that such a long time does not pass again before these statutes are
evaluated and updated, to ensure these statutes to protect animals
and the public remain
effective and that Massachusetts remains a
leader in animal protection.
Kara Holmquist is the director of
advocacy for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals. She can be reached at (617)
541-5008.