316 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
ian would be amended to include a person who 
“has elected to take responsibility for the care 
and well-being" of an animal. Thus, guardianship 
would commence on adoption or purchase. Legal 
guardians could be appointed by courts to assume 
duties as custodians and conservators of a lab- 
oratory animal’s rights, including the right to sue. 
The relationship could be terminated by judicial 
removal for malfeasance or nonfeasance and would 
terminate on the animal’s death or the guardian’s 
incapacity. The guardian’s ability to protect and 
enforce the animal's interests, by lawsuit if nec- 
essary, would afford animals better protection, 
it is argued (109). 
As discussed, courts have thus far been unwill- 
ing to confer standing on human plaintiffs in the 
absence of a specific statutory grant. In the U.S. 
Surgical case, the Connecticut Superior Court 
found no sustainable private right to enforce ei- 
ther the Animal Welfare Act or the State’s anti- 
cruelty statute. Even if courts were less conserv- 
ative about granting standing, and even if the 
burden required for standing of showing actual 
injury were not as rigorous, the interest being af- 
fected still must be cognizable at law. Using the 
Endangered Species Act as an analogy, what would 
be required at a minimum is conferring the right 
to judicial review on "any person” affected by an 
action taken under the law containing the right 
of review. Thus, the likelihood of legislative, fol- 
lowed by judicial, acceptance of even some mini- 
mal version of animal standing is probably not 
imminent. Acceptance of novel interpretations of 
otherwise familiar concepts of guardianship to 
cover animals is likely to be even farther off. 
As frustrated as animal advocates have been in 
their efforts to secure enforcement of laws pro- 
tecting animals, they show no sign of abating. Sev- 
eral such cases, instituted or pending at the Fed- 
eral level, are examined in chapter 13, and the 
case study at the end of this chapter discusses 
a series of cases, involving the same parties, that 
explores a variety of unsuccessful theories. Re- 
cently, Actors and Others for Animals and the 
Fund for Animals sued the Los Angeles County 
Board of Supervisors, alleging their failure to en- 
force the county’s pound release ordinances, 
which require certification of humane treatment 
of animals by institutions seeking to purchase 
pound animals (108). Common-law theories, such 
as nuisance, have been used in these suits, and 
environmental statutes have been enlisted as well. 
In 1984, a California Superior Court dismissed 
a suit brought by a coalition of animal welfare 
groups, citing provisions of the California Envi- 
ronmental Quality Act, to include an evaluation 
of laboratory -animal use in an environmental im- 
pact report for a new, $46 million science build- 
ing at the University of California at Berkeley (20). 
REGULATION OF RESEARCH 
Past Trends 
Apart from regulating agricultural and other 
economically oriented uses of animals, some 
States regulate the use of animals for research 
purposes. Twenty-one jurisdictions regulate re- 
search specifically, either in the context of gen- 
eral registration, licensure or inspection laws, or 
independently: 
• Four States allow or require regulation of re- 
search facilities: California (15,17), Michigan 
(84), Tennessee (107), and Virginia (117). 
• Seven States and the District of Columbia re- 
quire licensing or registration for a research 
facility to receive pound animals: D.C. (30), 
Illinois (61), Iowa (65), Minnesota (87), Ohio 
(95), Oklahoma (96), South Dakota (103), and 
Utah (116). 
• Two States extend an exemption from their 
animal cruelty statutes only to research ap- 
proved or licensed by the State: New Jersey 
(92) and New York (93). 
• Two States require licenses to use dogs or 
cats in research: Connecticut (24) and Mas- 
sachusetts (77). 
• Five States exempt all research facilities or 
federally licensed facilities from State licens- 
ing programs: Colorado (23), Kansas (67), 
North Carolina (94), Pennsylvania (97), and 
Rhode Island (99). 
