* Executive Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2001–2002. I dedicate this Note to my loving and supporting family.
1 Mark Thompson, Animal Rights: A New Reason for Rabbits to Avoid Foxholes, Time, July 26, 1999, at 14.
2 D’Arcy Kemnitz, Irrational Rations: Animals Used in Military Training, 19 Animals’ Agenda, July/Aug. 1999, at 20.
3 Id.
4 See id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 See Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
9 See Nicole Fox, Note, The Inadequate Protection of Animals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law, 17 Whittier L. Rev. 145, 146–47 (1995). Farm animals are regulated under three other laws. However, none of the laws protect farm animals against Military survival skills training. The Twenty-Eight Hour Law limits the time period animals may be held in transport to twenty-eight hours. Id. at 146. The statutes only cover the transportation conditions of farm animals; it does not protect their living conditions. Id. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act prevents the inhumane slaughter of livestock, but does nothing to stop the inhumane slaughter of poultry or any painful handling of ritually slaughtered animals. Id. at 146–47. Lastly, “the Animal Welfare Act purports to regulate the use of animals for experimentation, yet specifically excludes farm animals from its coverage. As such farm animals used in scientific experiments are not protected.” Id. at 147.
10 See Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C.  2143(a)(3) (1994) (establishing provisions regarding laboratory testing of animals).
11 See id.  2132(g).The AWA does not regulate farm animals used or intended for use as foods. See id.
12 See John Mendelson, III, Should Animals Have Standing? A Review of Standing Under the Animal Welfare Act, 24 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 795, 819 (1997) (discussing the complexity in achieving standing under the AWA to bring an action against the USDA).
13 Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Inst. for Behavioral Research, 799 F.2d 934, 940 (4th Cir. 1986); In Def. of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, 785 F. Supp. 100, 103 (N.D. Ohio 1991); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Comm. of the Univ. of Or., 794 P.2d 1224, 1227–28 (Or. App. 1990); Interview with Zygmunt Plater, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School, in Newton, Mass. (Nov. 14, 2000).
14 See Nancy Goldberg Wilks, The Pet Theft Act: Congressional Intent Plowed Under by the United States Department of Agriculture, 1 Animal L. 103, 119 (1995).
15 See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Regulated Activities, at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/dealer/activity.html (last visited Jan. 9, 2001) [hereinafter Regulated Activities]. The APHIS has focused on regulating dealers who resell animals rather than purchase animals. Id. The AWA defines dealers as “[a]ny person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead . . . for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet.” 7 U.S.C.  2132(f).
16 See generally 7 U.S.C.  2132(g); 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000) (describing the farm animals exempted from regulation, and stating that rabbits may be regulated if not used solely for meat).
17 9 C.F.R.  1.1. Rabbits, mink, and chinchilla are the only farm animals that can be regulated if not used solely for meat. Id. All other farm animals are not regulated if used or intended to be used for food or fiber. 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
18 See 7 U.S.C.  2143(c).
19 Id.  2132. The AWA does not define research or experimentation. See id.
20 Id.  2143(a)(1).
21 Id.  2131.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
25 Id.
26 Id.  2143(a)(1)–(4).
27 Id.  2132(f).
28 Wilks, supra note 14, at 119.
29 7 U.S.C.  2134.
30 Id.  2149(b), (d).
31 Id.  2143(a).
32 Id.  2143(a)(3)(C).
33 Id.  2143(a)(3)(B).
34 Id.  2143(b)(1).
35 7 U.S.C.  2143(b)(3).
36 Id.  2143(b)(4)(A).
37 Id.  2143(b)(4)(B).
38 Id.  2143(b)(4)(A)(ii).
39 Id.  2144.
40 Id.  2132(0).
41 7 U.S.C.  2143(c).
42 Id.  2143(b)(3)(A)–(C).
43 Id.  2143(b)(3)(B)–(C).
44 Id.  2143(b)(4)(A)(ii).
45 Id.  2144.
46 Id.  2143(c).
47 7 U.S.C.  2143(c).
48 Mendelson, supra note 12, at 798.
49 Id. at 796.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 796–97.
52 Id. at 795.
53 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-544, 80 Stat. 350, 400 (1966) (codified and amended at 7 U.S.C.  2131–2159 (1994)).
54 Carole Lynn Nowicki, Note, The Animal Welfare Act: All Bark and No Bite, 23 Seton Hall Legis. J. 443, 452 n.54 (1999). Congress debated over delegating this responsibility to either the Secretary of Agriculture or to the Secretary of Heath, Education, and Welfare. After further hearings, Congress decided to assign the responsibility to the Secretary of Agriculture. Id.
55 Mendelson, supra note 12, at 798.
56 Id.
57 See Nowicki, supra note 54, at 452–53.
58 See id. at 454 n.63.
59 Id.
60 Mendelson, supra note 12, at 798.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 7 U.S.C.  2131 (1994).
64 Id.; see also Nowicki, supra note 54, at 455 n.69.
65 Nowicki, supra note 54, at 455 n.69.
66 See 7 U.S.C.  2143.
67 Id.  2143(a)(1).
68 Mendelson, supra note 12, at 800.
69 Id. at 799–800.
70 See generally 7 U.S.C.  2132(g) (describing the farm animal exception).
71 Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
72 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
73 See id.
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 See id.
77 Id. Farm animals are exempt from coverage when used for “agricultural purposes” or for “use as food and fiber.” 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
78 Fox, supra note 9, at 168.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 175.
81 Id.
82 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
83 Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
84 E-mail from Jerry D. Depoyster, Agency Representative, APHIS, to Salma Mavany (Dec. 27, 2000, 15:15 EST) (on file with author). In the e-mail message I asked the APHIS why the Military was not regulated for using rabbits in the Military survival skills training. I also asked whether rabbits were farm animals. Mr. Depoyster replied, “[b]ased on the information you supplied, it appears that the purchased rabbits are being used as food and perhaps to train trapping and hunting skills. Hunting or trapping for food, or to use an animal for food, is not a regulated activity under the Animal Welfare Act. There is no federal law against hunting, trapping, or using animals for food (unless the animal is an endangered species or otherwise protected). There is a humane slaughter act, but it only applies to commercial packing houses.” Mr. Depoyster never answered whether rabbits were farm animals. He assumed that as long as an animal is used for food, it is exempted. But see 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (1999) (definition of “farm animals”).
85 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
86 See id.  2132.
87 Id.
88 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000).
89 Id.
90 See id.; see also Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
91 See 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
92 Id.
93 See id.
94 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(g) (1994).
95 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
96 See id.
97 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
98 Id.
99 9 C.F.R.  1.1; see generally 7 U.S.C.  2132(g).
100 Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
101 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(g) (1994).
102 See Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
103 See 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
104 Id.
105 See generally Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
106 See 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
107 See APHIS, Licensing and Registration Under the Animal Welfare Act, at http://www. aphis.usda.gov/ac/awlicreg.html (last visited Jan. 5, 2001) [hereinafter APHIS Website].
108 Id.
109 E-mail from Jerry D. Depoyster, Agency Representative, APHIS (Dec. 28, 2000, 08:45 EST) (on file with author). In the e-mail I asked, “what is the definition of research or experimentation?” Mr. Depoyster replied, “we do not have a published definition for research or experimentation, but are working on one. Basically, research as covered by the [A]nimal [W]elfare [A]ct is for the benefit of humans i.e. biomedical research. Research on animals to improve the breed, or meat production, or milk production, or overall health is not a covered activity.” Id.
110 See APHIS Website, supra note 107.
111 See Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
112 See generally id.
113 See 7 U.S.C.  2134 (1994).
114 See id.
115 See id.
116 Id.  2133.
117 Id.
118 Id.
119 7 U.S.C.  2141.
120 9 C.F.R.  2.3(b) (2000).
121 Id.
122 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(f).
123 See Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
124 Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
125 Thompson, supra note 1, at 14.
126 See supra Part III(C).
127 7 U.S.C.  2132(f).
128 See generally id.
129 See Regulated Activities, supra note 15.
130 Id.
131 Id.
132 Id.
133 See E-mail from Jerry D. Depoyster, Agency Representative, APHIS (Dec. 28, 2000, 08:45 EST) (on file with author).
134 Id.
135 Id.
136 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(f) (1994); 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000).
137 See 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (defining “farm animal”).
138 Wilks, supra note 14, at 119–20.
139 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
140 Wilks, supra note 14, at 119.
141 Id.
142 Id.
143 See id. at 119–20.
144 Id. at 120.
145 7 U.S.C.  2132(a) (1994).
146 Id.
147 Wilks, supra note 14, at 120.
148 Id. at 120 n.80.
149 Id.
150 Id.
151 Id. at 120.
152 Id. at 120–21.
153 Wilks, supra note 14, at 121.
154 Id.
155 Id.
156 See id.
157 See id.
158 7 U.S.C.  2132(f) (1994).
159 Id.
160 Telephone Interview with Cem Akin, Research Associate, PETA (Dec. 12, 2000). PETA had no documents to show evidence of the Military selling animals for survival training.
161 7 U.S.C.  2132(f).
162 See generally id.  2132.
163 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000).
164 Id.
165 Id.
166 See id.
167 Kemnitz, supra note 2, at 20.
168 See 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
169 See id.
170 See id.
171 Id.
172 Id.
173 See id.
174 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
175 7 U.S.C.  2132(f) (1994); see 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
176 7 U.S.C.  2144.
177 Id.  2132(o); see also 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
178 7 U.S.C.  2132(o); 9 C.F.R.  1.1.
179 7 U.S.C.  2144
180 Id.  2143(c).
181 Id.
182 Id.
183 Id.
184 Id.
185 7 U.S.C.  2143(a), 2144.
186 Id.
187 Id.
188 Id.
189 Id.
190 Id.  2143(a)(6)(A)(iii).
191 7 U.S.C.  2143(b)(3).
192 Id.  2143(a)(3)(B).
193 See id.  2143(b)(4).
194 Id.  2143(b)(4)(A).
195 See supra Part III(C).
196 7 U.S.C.  2132(o); 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000).
197 See 7 U.S.C.  2132(o); 9 C.F.R.  1.1 (2000).
198 See supra Part III(C).
199 See id.
200 7 U.S.C.  2143(a)(6)(A)(ii)–(iii).
201 See Nowicki, supra note 54, at 463.
202 Id. at 463 n.90.
203 Id.
204 Id. at 463.
205 Gary L. Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law 200 (1995).
206 Id. at 201.
207 See Nowicki, supra note 54, at 464.
208 Id.
209 7 U.S.C.  2143(c) (1994).