The Arkansas Anti-Cruelty Law: Protecting Few, Exempting Many

In the last day or so, I've seen references in several news articles and a couple blog posts to the new animal cruelty law that's just taken effect in Arkansas. It is not quite the "strong" law some are claiming it to be, not from the animals' perspective. And before I move on, I'd like to take this opportunity to direct you back to the post I wrote on this law way back in January: "Arkansas Farm Bureau Backs Cruelty Bill--Because It Doesn't Apply to Them."

The law does increase the penalties for people convicted of abusing  dogs, cats, and horses and makes all animal fighting (i.e., including cockfighting) a felony. But beyond the animal fighting section, the felony cruelty law applies specifically and only to dogs, cats, and horses, and there are plenty of exceptions even for them. So considering the way farmed animals are specifically, intentionally denied protection, the many exemptions for cruel practices against even the protected animals, and the changes in who actually gets to determine what is or isn't cruel and make arrests and seizures (e.g., the law has been changed to specifically remove humane officers' right to make arrests; only certified law enforcement officers have that power now), I'm not nearly as impressed as some.

Wayne Pacelle of HSUS, for example, wrote today that it's a "satisfaction to know that, as of today, the mistreatment of animals in Arkansas, whether by hoarders, puppy millers, cockfighters or others, will be met with a stronger measure of justice, one that is backed by a full array of law enforcement and public officials in the state."

I don't know that we have proof yet of how seriously the law is going to be enforced by law enforcement--I'm willing to believe that many will take the law seriously, but I'm also nervous about how often law enforcement officials across the country, particularly in rural areas, have refused to take complaints of animal abuse seriously--but even assuming it will be enforced, shouldn't there at the very least also be, in Wayne's celebratory remark, a "some" or a "small percentage of" in between "mistreatment of" and "animals," given all the animals whose abuse and suffering this law deems acceptable?

Some may be inclined to focus only on the potential positives, for what good it may do to discourage cruelty against the few animals and in the few practices not exempted, for building morale, and for raising money for future efforts, and maybe they'll consider me too much of a downer. But I think it's important that we not forget or ignore the countless chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, and other animals the law expressly exempts from protection--for them, the animals subjected to abuse, suffering, and cruelty in the greatest numbers and usually to the greatest degrees, this is not even a minor victory. It's nothing. And the only reason this law finally passed is indeed that the animal agriculture lobby was pandered to and given all the exemptions it wanted. Hardly an outright victory for animals.

Furthermore, even the few animals this law is supposed to protect aren't fully protected. For instance, all "equine activities" in which these supposedly protected horses are abused, endangered, and sometimes even killed are exempted. This law can't touch the rodeo, for example, or any "generally accepted training" for it. Same exemption goes for any "generally accepted methods" of training and using dogs in hunting. (So it's OK, for example, to still starve dogs to make them more eager to hunt, right?) And naturally, all hunting, trapping, and fishing-related activities are specifically exempted too, along with--as mentioned already--all the standard cruel practices, from breeding to slaughter, having to do with farmed animals.

Let's acknowledge when a felony animal cruelty law is passed, sure, and be glad for it within reason, but let's not celebrate it as more than it actually is. For most animals, calling this a "strong" anti-cruelty law is just insult added to injury.

---

For my earlier point-by-point thoughts on the law--and how it came to be and what it involves--see the earlier January post.