This paper considers the issue of "canned hunts" and how the legal system deals with them.
I. Introduction
On a snowy day in March 1995, four of my co-workers and fellow hunters and I loaded up the trucks with our hunting gear and headed for Southern Ohio. The weapon of choice for the hunt was our state-of-the-art compound bows. The quarry: the Russian (Eurasian) Boar. This would be my first hunting experience outside of Michigan and I was very excited about the hunt. I was told that these animals range anywhere from 200–350 pounds, with sharp teeth and a notorious temperament.
My friend had arranged the trip and I had very little information about exactly what I would be receiving for my hard earned money. [1] I enjoy hunting and getting together with friends, so the only details I needed was “where and when.” I was told that a hunting license would not be needed because we would be hunting on a private “ranch.” I also knew that we would be staying in a comfortable lodge with all the comforts of home and that all the meals were provided and prepared by the lodge owners. I was also told that the lodge guaranteed a successful hunt or the trip was free.
The morning started with a big breakfast prepared by the lodge owner’s wife. The guides for the “hunt” were the owner’s son and son-in-law. After breakfast and general conversation, we gathered are equipment and headed for the “hunting area.” This area turned out to be forty acres of steep hillside enclosed by an eight-foot high chain-link fence, located directly behind the lodge where the guests stay. We walked through the fence gates and one of the guides announced that we were now “hunting.” We stepped around the water dishes and the mound of grain poured on top of the snow and prepared for action.
Originally, I thought that forty acres sounded like a lot of territory to cover. In reality, the boars had little chance of eluding the hunters for long. [2] Once the boars were located, the animals were kept on the run until all of the hunters were successful. Within two hours, all of us had shot a boar and the guides had dragged the animal back to the lodge for processing. Waiting back at the lodge was a local taxidermist (probably yet another family member or in-law of the lodge owner) handing out handshakes and hearty congratulations to the successful hunters, along with a price list for mounting our “trophies.” This concluded my first and last participation in a “canned hunt.” [3]
As a hunter, conservationist, and environmentalist, it is often difficult for me to balance the issues surrounding hunting and the conservation and protection of wildlife. Hunting wild game as a source of food for the family is easy to justify. Hunting used as a management tool to control wildlife populations at healthy, sustainable levels is also a somewhat supportable position. When the issue is trophy or purely sport hunting, the justification becomes harder. In those situations, often the best justification is that the ends justify the means; meaning that the money raised through licenses and fees helps support the local communities that in turn protect and manage the game species. At the end of the spectrum is the “canned hunt.” This type of “pay only for what you kill” industry is economically beneficial to a small minority of private business owners who raise, sell, or just sell the rights to kill these animals. The detriment created by this industry falls both on the animals raised or purchased, and then sacrificed for this industry, and on ethical “fair chase” hunters who are forced to defend or otherwise justify their right to hunt against and outraged public when abuse and cruelty to the animals is made public.
In order to protect the welfare, rights and dignity of animals and the rights and reputation of ethical hunters, these types of “canned hunts” must be banned. Several state have addressed the issue, but the practice continues in many jurisdictions. The proper remedy is comprehensive federal legislation than mandates a complete ban on this type of industry. Section II of this paper will define and describe what exactly is meant by “canned hunts” and identify the sources of some of the animals that are the victims of this private commercial enterprise. Section III will discuss some efforts taken by various state agencies and legislatures to regulate or prevent this type of “hunting” operation. Section IV will discuss existing federal regulations that fail to address the issue of “canned hunts” and the need for a uniform federal program to control these types of operations.
II. Definition Description of Canned Hunts
For the purpose of this paper, the phrase “canned hunt” will refer to the practice where individuals pay “outfitters,” “lodges,” or “game ranches” for the opportunity to kill captive animals in an enclosed area. Paying customers are able to pick the species to be killed from a list supplied by the “game ranch” much like a menu at a restaurant. These animals are often purchased days before the hunt specifically for that hunter. Many of these operations supply everything right down to the weapon to kill the animal. There may be as many as two thousand of these facilities operating in over twenty-five states. [4] The size of these enclosed areas range from a small cage to several hundred acres. [5] Some animals are free to roam the confines of the enclosure while others are staked to the ground and shot by the paying customer. Regardless of the size of the enclosure, the outcome is the same for the animal; substantial physical pain and suffering, and ultimately death. With the odds stacked against the animals, the ranches can afford to advertise familiar phrases like “No kill, No pay,” or advertise success ratios over 95%. [6]
The source of the animals varies depending on the location of the facility and the species being “hunted.” Many of the exotic animals that are killed at these ranches are purchased from dealers that buy surplus zoo and circus animals. [7] A more tragic circumstance is when a private owner becomes tired of the ownership of his novelty “exotic pet” and sells the animal to a dealer or “game ranch” just to free themselves from the burden of ownership. Other game species, both exotic and domestic, are bred exclusively for the captive hunt industry. These animals are raised on farms and sold directly to the game ranches to be killed by the customers. Typically the care and conditions of these animals is of little concern to the game ranch owners because the animal has been ordered specifically for a certain hunting group and its “stay” and the facility will be short. [8]
III. State Legislation To Regulate or Ban “Canned Hunts”
The absence of federal regulations has left the issue of “canned hunts” to the individual States to regulate under their traditional role of protecting and regulating wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products. The individual State’s incentive to limit certain hunting activities may involve the protection of animal rights, however it would appear that it is traditionally based on the protection of native game species from contact, competition or disease that may accompany the exotic game animal into the State. The scope and focus of these state regulations vary, some focusing on the facilities, some on the types of animals, and some on the industry itself. Without clear guidance and objectives, these regulations often are incomplete or ineffective.
A. Regulation of Facilities
A logical place to address the abuses created by the captive animal hunting industry is to focus on the facilities that allow this type of activity. The State of New York had enacted legislation that addresses the size of the facilities that can operate captive animal hunts. [9] According to this legislation:
No person who owns, operates or manages a facility that harbors non-native big game mammals shall knowingly permit:
a. The taking on such premises by any person who pays a fee to take a live non-native big game mammal by any of the following means:
(1) the shooting or spearing of a non-native big game mammal that is tied or hobbled; (2) the shooting or spearing of a non-native big game mammal that is staked or attached to any object; (3) the shooting or spearing of a non-native big game mammal that is confined in a box, pen, cage or similar container of ten or less contiguous acres from which there is no means for such mammal to escape;
(4) the deliberate release of a non-native big game mammal that is confined in a box, pen, cage or similar container of ten or less contiguous acres in the presence of any person who is, or will be, shooting or spearing such non-native big game mammal.
Because section (3) and (4) limit the scope of this legislation to facilities of “ten or less contiguous acres,” what looks like sound legislation at first glance is really just a futile attempt of the New York legislature to appease the Animal Rights lobby. In fact, at the time the legislation was passed, there was no information available to the legislature indicating how many of these facilities were in operation and how many in operation were smaller then 10 acres. [10] Therefore there is no indication that this legislation will have any impact on the captive animal hunting industry within the state.
B. Regulation of Ownership of Animals
State regulations concerning animal ownership attempt to address the issue from the standpoint of the breeding farms and “game ranches.” For example, the Wyoming legislature has addressed the issue by regulating what types of animals may be privately owned:
For the purpose of this act, all wildlife [11] in Wyoming is the property of the state. It is the purpose of this act and the policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. There shall be no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals. [12]
This statute was probably not the result of public outrage over captive animal hunts, but a result of the State attempting to protect its wild game herds from common diseases that are known to be present in concentrated populations such as game ranches. Diseases such as chronic wasting disease and tuberculosis are threatening deer and elk populations throughout the country. By eliminating the private ownership of trophy game animals, Wyoming can better protect its native deer and elk populations. Perhaps without intention, Wyoming has effectively eliminated captive animal hunting. Without the lure of “bagging a trophy,” there is no real incentive to engage in a captive animal hunt.
The State of California prohibits the possession or trade of live mammals for the purposes of “maiming, injuring, or killing the mammal for gain, amusement, or sport. [T]he buyer of a live mammal listed in Section 2118 [13] shall not resell the live mammal to another buyer who has the intent to maim, injure, or kill that mammal for purposes of gain, amusement, or sport.” [14] This regulation effectively stops the practice of captive animal hunts without regard to animal species or enclosure size. Although this legislation clearly protects mammals from the abuses of “canned hunts,” hunting groups may regard this ban as overly broad. This type of regulation clearly will encompass hunting operations beyond captive animal hunts and may include several activities that utilize “fair chase” principles.
C. Regulation of Hunting or Killing Non-Native or Captive Animals
Some States attempt to regulate the types of animals that can be hunted. Georgia statute makes it unlawful to “shoot, kill, or wound any wild animal held under a wild animal license or permit or any farmed deer for enjoyment, gain, amusement, or sport.” [15] Although this protects “wild” animals bred and raised in captivity, it may not protect the many species of exotic animals raised on ranches specifically for sport hunting. Many of these species may be wild in their country of origin, but they are not “wild” to the United States or to Georgia. This is the type of legislative loophole that allows many facilities to continue to operate despite the regulation.
Oregon specifically prohibits the act of hunting or killing exotic or game mammals held or obtained by private parties unless it is related with the meat production, leather or fur industry. [16] The Statute states that the purpose of the rule is the protection of Oregon’s native wildlife. [17] However the statute does not prohibit the ownership of exotic species, just the hunting or killing of these species. This legislation seems to be a little inconsistent with its stated objective. If the exotic or game species can be legally owned without posing a risk to Oregon’s native species, than it would seem unlikely that the act or method of killing the animal would somehow pose a threat to native species.
This statute appears to be a poorly veiled law that bans the hunting of exotic or game animals disguised as necessary and proper under the State’s traditional “police power.” While the end result of this legislation is the broad protection of game species, and effectively bans captive animal hunts, this is the type of “back-door” legislation that legitimate hunting groups object to the most. If the purpose of the legislation is to prohibit certain hunting activities, the statute should clearly state this objective and contain concise language that is consistent with those objectives. Legislation containing hidden agendas that will encompass more activities than are stated by the statute’s purpose are the most likely to bring about opposition and litigation by those groups who feel that their legitimate hunting rights are being reduced by the new laws.
The State of Wisconsin has enacted more effective legislation to eliminate captive animal hunting. Under Wisconsin § 951.09: Shooting at caged or staked animals:
No person may instigate, promote, aid or abet as a principal, agent, employee, participant or spectator, or participate in the earnings from, or intentionally maintain or allow any place to be used for the shooting, killing or wounding with a firearm or any deadly weapon, any animal that is tied, staked out, caged or otherwise intentionally confined in a man-made enclosure, regardless of size. Nothing in this section prohibits the shooting of any wild game in its wild state or the shooting of game birds and waterfowl at licensed game farms or licensed shooting preserves. [18]
Any person who violates this statute is subject to criminal liability, including a Class C forfeiture and a Class A misdemeanor. [19] This statute effectively eliminates all aspects of captive animal hunting, regardless of the size of the enclosure, and encompasses all of the people involved in the activity. This statute truly protects all species of animals from the abusive nature of “canned hunts.” As an added benefit, it protects the rights of legitimate, “fair chase” hunters by not expanding beyond the limits of captive animal hunting.
Montana, through voter initiative, adopted an overall ban on fee shooting game animals or exotic big game animals on “alternative livestock facilities.” [20] The statute does not limit the ban to enclosed operations, but continues to allow landowners to collect fees for the right to hunt private land. [21] This initiative was proposed for both ethical reasons and for the protection and health of the native wildlife. [22] Although the driving force behind the legislation was the protection of Montana’s native deer and Elk herds, the additional goal of protecting the reputation of hunting ethics should effectively prevent the practice of “canned hunts” regardless of the species involved.
IV. Need For Comprehensive Federal Regulations
An individual state’s legislation may be inconsistent with the game laws of the others. What may be illegal in a given state may be legal perfectly legal in a neighboring state. A state may ban captive hunts for a variety of reasons, but its citizens may still be able to merely cross the border into a neighboring state to participate in these types of hunts. This is particularly an issue from the perspective of the breeders, dealers and transporters of the animals, who may be violating State law depending on the animals’ final destination. It therefore appears clear that in order to accomplish the goal of banning the practice of captive hunts, the federal legislation is necessary. Under the Supreme Court’s traditionally broad interpretation of federal authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause, this type of legislation should pass any Constitutional challenge.
A. Regulation Under Existing Federal Legislation
The Federal government has existing legislation that addresses some of the issues raised by the captive hunting industry. Such legislation includes the Endangered Species Act, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Humane Slaughter Act. While these Acts address some issues associated with the captive hunt industry, they were not written with the intent to prevent this type of activity and therefore do not affectively prevent the types of abuse to animals that captive hunting creates. Exceptions and loopholes in these Acts are exploited to allow this industry to continue.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted “to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants.” [23] This Act is comprehensive in its protection of threatened or endangered species living in their natural environments. However, dealers and game ranches that specialize in “exotic animal” hunts know the exceptions and loopholes to the rules if the customers are willing to pay the price. The ESA does not prohibit private ownership or hunting of endangered species. [24] Many exotic animals are purchased from zoos or other exhibition industries that are held under a valid permit. Other animals are purchased from private pet owners who tire of the burden of taking care of a “wild” pet. The Endangered Species Act does not address how these facilities are to “dispose” of these animals once they have outlived their usefulness to the owner.
Also, many ranches have developed extensive breeding facilities to create their own “exotic animal” supply. One such ranch in Texas has population of over fifty different exotic species of animals, including zebras, giraffes, ostriches, and several species of African plains animals, for the guests to photograph or shoot. [25] Because these animals are not “wild” in the true sense of the word, these animals are often exempt from state and federal fish and game regulations.
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) applies to animals used in a variety of commercial industries, including zoos, breeding and wholesale distribution, scientific and private research facilities, and animal auctions. [26] Originally enacted by Congress to address the combat the problem of family pets being stolen and sold for research purposes, this act has been amended to encompass a wide variety of animal care industries. The AWA has many requirements tailored to the specific industry and the species being held by the facility. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the responsibility of overseeing and enforcing the requirements of the AWA. [27]
However, Congress has limited the scope of application of the AWA. The Act is restricted to “warm-blooded mammals” and explicitly excludes birds, rats and mice. [28] The AWA also excludes hunting, fishing and trapping issues, retail pet stores, animals used for K-12 education, and animals associated with agricultural uses. [29] These exceptions are what exclude the captive hunting industries from AWA requirements. The producers and sellers of these animals classify them as “domestic livestock” and therefore exempt from the AWA. Once they arrive at the “ranch,” the animals become “game” and are further exempt from both the AWA and other U.S.D.A. regulations. However, owners still classify the animals as an “agricultural product” in order to avoid any regulations or interference with State fish and game officials. [30]
The Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) was enacted by Congress in order to alleviate some of the animal’s pain and suffering brought about through common meat industry practices relating to the slaughter of livestock. The purpose and intent of the Act is stated as:
The Congress finds that the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods. [31]
This Act requires “that cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep goats, swine, and other livestock must be rendered insensible to pain before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.” [32] The Act gives the USDA the duty to inspect and oversee the operations at animal slaughtering facilities to ensure that the animals are not subjected to any more pain than is necessary. The Act also calls for “minimum excitement” in the slaughter of these animals. [33]
It is somewhat ironic that a person that raises deer or perhaps boars for meat are under a federal requirement to prevent undue pain and suffering in the processing of the animal. The owner is also under the requirement not to overly excite the animal in the transportation and processing process. However, a person that breeds these animals for captive hunts can sell them to game ranches, where the animal is chased down by paying customers and killed with any variety of weapons, without violating the HSA. After the hunt, many of these animals are processed for consumption, so it is not the end result that differs, merely the way in which the animal is killed. However, the USDA has not taken the initiative, nor would they likely to be seen as having the authority, to regulate and monitor this industry under the HSA.
B. Proposed Federal Regulation to Ban Captive-Animal Hunting
Existing federal regulation fails to address the problem of “canned hunts” because the nature of the industry involves a mix of domestic animal law, agricultural animal law, wildlife law, and hunting law. Therefore the best possible federal law will address only the issue of captive animal hunting. The first important purpose of a clear and specific statute will be to put the owners of these operations on notice of exactly what is prohibited. If the statute is clear and concise, there will be less opportunity to create ambiguities and loopholes.
The second important purpose of a narrowly targeted statute is to alleviate concerns from hunters and hunting groups that their hunting rights are not being slowly eroded by anti-hunting legislation. Most hunters and hunting groups will admit that shooting captive animals is not “hunting” but are resistant to support any legislation that will be seen as moving closer to the total ban on hunting. These fears can be put to rest by making a statute that bans only “canned hunts.” This legislation will likely be seen as a way to preserve the strong ethical tradition of hunting.
Legislation introduced by Senator Biden of Delaware is currently pending in Congress. This proposed Act, known as “Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2001” reads:
SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.
(a) PROHIBITION- Whoever, in or substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. [34]
For the purpose of the Act, the term “confined exotic animal” means “a mammal of a species not historically indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity for the shorter of (A) the greater part of the life of the animal; or (B) a period of 1 year.” [35] The term “captivity” does not include any period during which an animal “(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food, roaming at will over an open area of not less than 1,000 acres; and (B) has the opportunity to avoid hunters.” [36]
The Act is limited to “exotic” wildlife, so hunting activities that involve native American species would continue unaffected. This includes not only traditional hunting methods and but also captive animal hunts involving species such as the black bear, elk and whitetail deer. The Act is also limited to facilities smaller than 1,000 acres. This may affect a great number of facilities, however the larger “game ranches,” specifically located in Texas and other larger states, will remain free to go on with business as usual. While the Act appears to be a positive step to curtail the abuses to wildlife, better federal regulation is needed.
The proposed legislation should include language that would “ban the intentional injury or killing of any captive animal for trophy, sport or entertainment purposes.” The legislation should also ban the facilities that provide this type of “hunting” for a fee. The legislation should not focus on the type of animals involved. Killing an animal for sport outside its natural environment with no opportunity to escape is not a legitimate or ethical practice, regardless of the species. No animal should be subjected to this type of cruel punishment and death. Including all animals will remove the problems with defining “wild,” “natural,” “domestic,” “agricultural,” and “exotic.”
Legislative language similar to the Wisconsin legislation discussed above would be a good model for Congress. Again:
No person may instigate, promote, aid or abet as a principal, agent, employee, participant or spectator, or participate in the earnings from, or intentionally maintain or allow any place to be used for the shooting, killing or wounding with a firearm or any deadly weapon, any animal that is tied, staked out, caged or otherwise intentionally confined in a man-made enclosure, regardless of size. [37]
This clear and concise language includes all persons involved; from the people who run the facilities, the customers who pay to kill the animals, the people who supply the animals to be sacrificed, and even the people who transport the animals from the breeding ranches to the “game ranches.” It also would ban all confined hunts regardless of the size of the enclosure. This removes the problem of Congress determining an allowable size for confined-animal hunts. Any allowable size regulations would be purely arbitrary; there being no proper scientific or ethical basis for determining the size of the confinement area. For the benefit of the ethical hunting community, this language leaves intact legitimate “fair chase” hunting methods.
V. Conclusion
Although hunting and wildlife issues have traditionally been regulated under the jurisdiction of the individual states, uniform, consistent, unambiguous federal legislation is needed to address the issues raised by “canned hunts.” This is vital for both the welfare protection of animals and the ethical hunting community. The inhumane treatment and ultimate death of animals involved in “canned hunts” can only been seen intentional acts of animal cruelty and abuse. The damage this industry does to the legitimacy of hunting is immeasurable. The only purpose for this cruelty is economic gain for those who provide the animals or the opportunity to participate in this act.
Without federal regulation, the killing of captive animals for profit will continue. Many states have no interest in preventing this type of industry, or pass weak legislation that allows the industry to operate through loopholes or ambiguities in the statutory language. As long as there is an economic incentive for people to operate these types of businesses, animal health and welfare issues, along with legitimate hunting practices and hunting ethics will suffer.
[1] If my memory in accurate, the trip was approximately $400 for meals, lodging, and the “hunt.” Taxidermy service for the boar-head mount was an extra $250, which I still have displayed less than proudly in the corner of my basement.
[2] The challenge, if any, stemmed from the fact that the 40-acre hillside that constituted the “hunting area” was about 150 ft. high and was covered with knee-deep snow. This fact merely bought the animals a little more time while the hunters and guides tried to catch their breaths.
[3] After our group was finished, a boar and a big-horn ram remained on the hill. There Because of the cold conditions, the lodge owner was afraid that the animals surviving the “hunt” would freeze. He therefore gave a deal to two of the hunters in the group (I had all the “hunting” I needed for the weekend). The ram was shot while feeding on the grain pile. The last boar managed to tree the guide and two of the hunters before he was killed.
[4] Jeffrey Kluger, Hunting Made Easy: Shooting captive animals to mount their head on a wall is a booming sport. 159:10 TIME 62 (Mar. 11, 2002).
[5] Diana Norris, The Fund for Animals, Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price, 10 (Feb. 2001).
[6] A brief Internet search brings up hundreds of game ranches across the country. A great majority, including the one that I attended, guarantees that the customer will kill an animal or he will not have to pay for the trip. This added economic incentive placed on the ranch owner further guarantees that an animal is going to be killed that day.
[7] Alan Green, Center for Public Integrity, Animal Underworld: Inside America’s Black Market for Rare and Exotic Species , New York, Public Affairs, 210 (1999).
[8] At the “ranch” that I attended, the hunters could choose from a list of animal species from their brochure. The animals were then ordered from a breeding farm in Texas and shipped to Ohio a few days before our hunting group arrived. It was unusually cold during our hunt, and several animals froze before our “hunt” on Saturday morning.
[9] N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-1904: Canned shoots prohibited
[10] Jennifer S. Rosa, Chapters 118 and 208 of the Laws of 1999: The New York Legislature Develops a Pseudo Animal Rights Agenda, 74 St. John’s L. Rev. 287 (Winter 2000).
[11] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-1-101 (2002), part (xiii) “Wildlife” means all wild animals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans and mollusks, and wild bison designated by the Wyoming game and fish commission and the Wyoming livestock board within Wyoming.
[12] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-1-103 (2002).
[13] Section 2118 states: “It is unlawful to import, transport, possess, or release alive into this state, except under a revocable, nontransferable permit” an extensive list of animals. For a complete listing, see Cal Fish & Game Code § 2118 (2003).
[14] Cal Fish & Game Code § 2124 (2003): Possession, purchase or sale of live mammal for injuring or killing for gain, amusement or sport.
[15] O.C.G.A. § 27-5-12 (2002). Shooting of any wild animal held under wild animal permit or farmed deer.
[16] Ore. Stat. Ann. § 635-064-0010: Privately Held Exotic and Game Mammals
[17] Id.
[18] Wis. Stat. Ann. § 951.09 (2001).
[19] Id.
[20] Mont. Code Ann. § 87-4-414(2)(2000).
[21] J.M. Kelly, Implications of a Montana Voter Initiative that Reduces Chronic Wasting Disease Risk, Bans Canned Shooting, and Protects a Public Trust, 6 GPNRJ 89 (2001).
[22] Id.
[23] 16 U.S.C.A. § 1531, Chapter 35: Endangered Species
[24] Laura J. Ireland, Canning the Canned Hunts: Using State and Federal Legislation to Eliminate the Unethical Practice of Canned “Hunting” , 8 Animal L. 223 (2002).
[25] See Canned Hunts, [FN 5].
[26] David Favre, Animals: Welfare, Interests, and Legal Rights , The Animal Welfare Act, Topic 15 (2002).
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] See Canned Hunts, [FN5].
[31] 7 U.S.C.A. § 1901, Chapter 48: Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter.
[32] C.F.R. 9 Part 313.
[33] C.F.R. 9 Part 313.2.
[34] Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 1202).
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Wis. Stat. Ann. § 951.09 (2001).