Ch. 14— State Regulation of Animal Use • 307 
requiring food and water, with no qualify- 
ing phrases. Twenty -three others qualify the 
duty of care to provide food and water with 
some requirement to prove at least a high de- 
gree of neglect; the word used most often as 
a qualifier here is “unnecessarily.” 
• Other Living Conditions: Requirements for 
adequate exercise or space, light, ventilation, 
and clean living conditions are found in some 
statutes. Eight jurisdictions require fresh air. 
Exercise or adequate space is required by 11. 
One requires sufficient light, and two laws 
mention clean living conditions. 
• Abandonment: General anticruelty statutes 
in 42 jurisdictions prohibit the abandonment 
of animals. In several cases, abandonment is 
restricted to willful, cruel, or intentional 
abandonment, to abandoning animals to die, 
to abandoning disabled animals, or to aban- 
doning domestic animals. 
• Humane Transport: Thirty-eight jurisdic- 
tions incorporate provisions prohibiting cruel 
or inhumane transport of various classes of 
animals. Minnesota’s statute is most specific, 
applying to “any live animal” and defining in 
detail requirements for humane transport. 
In most jurisdictions, however, laws govern- 
ing humane transportation are much more 
general, often consisting of no more than a 
single section incorporating undefined or 
vaguely defined terms. 
• Poisoning: Twenty -four jurisdictions pro- 
hibit or restrict the use of poison to inflict 
injury or death on an animal. Some statutes 
are modified with terms such as "needlessly,” 
and others are found outside general anti- 
cruelty law, intended to apply primarily to 
livestock or other animals held and kept for 
specific purposes, usually related to their eco- 
nomic value in a given activity, such as rac- 
ing or hunting (74). 
Some statutes acknowledge the potential appli- 
cation of general anticruelty statutes to research 
facilities. Twenty -three jurisdictions specifically 
exclude experimental animals from the reach of 
criminal anticruelty statutes; 25 others make no 
mention of any possible relation (89) (see table 14- 
1). Interpretation of these statutes is discussed 
later in this chapter. 
Table 14-1.— Laws on Research and Animal Cruelty, 
by Jurisdiction 
Research No mention 
State/jurisdiction exemption in law Other 
Alabama 
Alaska 
Arizona 
Arkansas 
California 
Colorado 
Connecticut 
Delaware 
District of Columbia . . . 
Florida 
Georgia 
Hawaii 
Idaho 
Illinois 
Indiana 
Iowa 
Kansas 
Kentucky 
Louisiana 
Maine 
Maryland 
Massachusetts 
Michigan 
Minnesota 
Mississippi 
Missouri 
Montana 
Nebraska 
Nevada 
New Hampshire 
New Jersey 
New Mexico 
New York 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Ohio 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Utah 
Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 
Wyoming 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
a Exempts “veterinary practices.” 
^Expressly intends for animals used for “scientific or medical activity” to be pro- 
tected from "intentional cruelty" but exempts "normal human activities to which 
the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable." 
Prohibits entry or search to enforce the law “where scientific research is being 
conducted by or under the supervision of graduates of reputable scientific 
schools or where biological products are being produced for the care or preven- 
tion of disease." 
SOURCE: National Association for Biomedical Research. State Laws Concern- 
ing the Use of Animals in Research (Washington, DC: Foundation for 
Biomedical Research, 1985). 
