Chapter 14 
State Regulation of Animal Use 
States have enacted a bewildering array of laws 
governing animals— their control, their ownership 
and disposition as human property, the respon- 
sibilities and liabilities of their owners, and the 
duty of care that is owed animals, including free- 
dom from unnecessary and unjustified suffering. 
State laws in the last category are the most ven- 
erable; many predate any congressional action 
on the subject. These laws take several general 
forms, including the regulation of animal use in 
experimentation and the delegation of authority 
to local governments to regulate animal use and 
treatment (33). With Federal entry into the field, 
the potential for conflict and duplication arises. 
This chapter summarizes State laws affecting 
the use of research animals and examines the po- 
tential for conflict or duplication with current 
Federal law. The analysis is restricted to laws with 
some bearing on the conduct of research and 
where some potential for conflict or duplication 
may exist. Examples of types of local laws or ordi- 
nances are cited to illustrate the contexts in which 
local law has affected research, but no attempt 
is made to describe such legislation independent 
of the operation of State law. 
ANTICRUELTY LAWS 
At common law, animals were entitled to no in- 
trinsic right of protection, reflecting the prevail- 
ing belief that they were mere human instrumen- 
talities. Two classes of animals existed, domestic 
and wild, with domestic animals considered the 
property of their owners and legally protected 
only as possessions. An owner could treat an ani- 
mal in any manner, as long as no public nuisance 
was created. Abuse of an animal owned by another 
created liability in the abuser only for resulting 
damage to the economic value of the animal (2,4). 
This means that any legal right or duty owed 
to animals by humans must have a statutory ba- 
sis (33). Every U.S. jurisdiction has in place a stat- 
ute prohibiting cruel treatment of some types of 
animals. These statutes generally apply criminal 
penalties (usually lower class misdemeanors) and 
civil sanctions for specified violations (74). Most 
of the original State anticruelty statutes were 
enacted prior to the turn of the century and have 
common, continental roots as offshoots of gen- 
eral societal concern for humane treatment. The 
first such statute, known as an "override, over- 
drive” law because it outlawed riding or driving 
farm animals beyond reasonable limits, was passed 
in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641. It pro- 
vided that "No man shall exercise any Tyranny 
or Cruelty towards any Brut Creatures which are 
usually kept for the use of man” (19). 
The principal social goals promoted by the im- 
position of criminal or economic penalties for 
cruel or inhumane treatment of animals are three- 
fold (3,33): 
• protecting the interests of society and pro- 
moting morality by deterring conduct con- 
sidered wanton or offensive, such as willful 
mistreatment of animals; 
• protecting the interests of animals and pre- 
venting neglect by establishing enforceable 
minimum standards of care for animals; and 
• protecting the economic interests of animal 
owners by shielding animals against treat- 
ment that invades or damages the owner’s 
economic interest (including companionship 
and enjoyment). 
Most anticruelty statutes serve the first two goals 
by prohibiting and punishing active cruelty to ani- 
mals (beating, burning, castrating, shooting, pour- 
ing acid on hooves, or overworking) and, in some 
cases, passive cruelty occasioned by neglect, such 
as failure to provide basic necessities (food, water, 
shelter, or appropriate care) (36). Since most State 
anticruelty statutes combine elements of both ac- 
305 
