314 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Legislatures that have revised their anticruelty 
statutes within the last several years are mind- 
ful of the problems in applying and enforcing 
older laws. Virginia, for example, totally revised 
its Animal Welfare Act. Enforcement powers, du- 
ties, and training and skill requirements for “ani- 
mal wardens” were increased, and local humane 
societies were granted limited warrant, search, 
and arrest powers (117). Florida, while not con- 
sidering any animal welfare amendments per se, 
upgraded the maximum fine for active cruelty to 
animals from $1,000 to $5,000, and the fine for 
confinement without food, water, or exercise or 
for abandonment from $500 to $5,000 (58). The 
Michigan Humane Society has drafted a model 
anticruelty bill, as well as publishing a compre- 
hensive guide to enforcement of the existing 
Michigan statute and supplements for use in Illi- 
nois and New York (69,70,71). (A model statute 
is a law proposed for State adoption by a group 
of experts, frequently a national conference of 
legal scholars, though advocacy groups are in- 
creasingly likely to offer model laws incorporat- 
ing their positions. Although model statutes are 
intended to promote uniformity among the States, 
a State adopting such a law will often modify it 
to some extent to meet its own needs, or it may 
only adopt a portion of the model statute.) The 
Michigan guide and its supplements detail the 
process of investigating suspected cruel conduct 
and building a case against the suspected violator. 
Another model anticruelty statute (26) includes 
provisions regulating research animals by divid- 
ing covered animals into three classes, with treat- 
ment depending on their classification. Class A 
animals are chimpanzees, gorillas, and dolphins. 
An experiment that causes a significant amount 
of pain to a Class A animal would be prohibited 
unless it is performed in a licensed research fa- 
cility, it causes less suffering than any alternative 
experiment that would provide the same scien- 
tific information at a reasonable cost, and it is 
limited to gaining information about human or 
animal disease, injury, or mental disorder. In addi- 
tion, weapons research on Class A animals would 
be banned unless the experiments dealt directly 
with counteracting the health effects of weapons. 
Furthermore, behavioral research with this group 
would be prohibited unless justified by health- 
related reasons. 
Class B animals are all other mammals. The 
model statute prohibits scientific experiments that 
cause suffering to Class B animals unless the same 
restrictions that apply to Class A animals are met. 
Behavorial research is not prohibited, however. 
Class C consists of any other vertebrate. Only 
two restrictions would apply to experiments caus- 
ing pain to Class C creatures: The research facil- 
ity would have to be licensed, and the experiment 
would have to produce less pain than any other 
reasonably priced experiment that would produce 
the same information. 
This model statute provides both criminal penal- 
ties and civil damages for violations. The crimi- 
nal provisions would be enforced by law enforce- 
ment officers and the others by any interested 
party (see discussion of private enforcement in- 
terests in the next section). Recordkeeping by fa- 
cilities is required, and the records could be in- 
spected at any time. Required entries include the 
number and types of animals used, the conditions 
under which animals were kept, and a descrip- 
tion of the purpose and design of the experiment. 
Proponents contend that adoption of this statute 
would provide clear standards of research-animal 
care, resulting in less abuse. Critics cite the diffi- 
culty of classifying species so as to satisfy every- 
one and the inconsistency of arbitrarily excluding 
behavorial research for Class A animals (12,19). 
RIGHT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION ON AN ANIMAL S BEHALF 
Past Trends 
There are two ways a State could allow legal 
action on an animal's behalf. First, an anticruelty 
statute could provide private citizens with a right 
to compel enforcement of the law. In nonanimal 
contexts, such a right is exercised by bringing 
against the enforcement agency a legal action 
seeking a court order directing the agency to en- 
force the law. Second, a legislature or court could 
confer upon private citizens "standing to sue” on 
an animal’s behalf, such as by allowing citizens 
