PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney.
An Act To Repeal the Affirmative Defense for Cruelty to Animals
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 7 MRSA §4011, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2007, c. 702, §§13 to 15, is further amended to read:
 
2. Affirmative defenses.   It is an affirmative defense to this section that:
 
A.  The conduct was performed by a licensed veterinarian or was a part of scientific research governed by accepted standards;
 
B.  The conduct was designed to control or eliminate rodents, ants or other common pests on the defendant's own property; or
 
C.  The conduct involved the use of live animals as bait or in the training of other animals in accordance with the laws of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Title 12, Part 13; or.
 
D.  The animal is kept as part of an agricultural operation and in compliance with best management practices for animal husbandry as determined by the department.
 
Evidence of proper care of any animal shallis not be admissible in the defense of alleged cruelty to other animals.
Sec. 2. 7 MRSA §4016, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 702, §17, is repealed.
Sec. 3. 7 MRSA §4020, sub-§4, as enacted by PL 2009, c. 127, §1 and affected by §3, is amended to read:
 
4. Relation to other laws.   The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other laws protecting animal welfare. This section may not be construed to limit any state law or rules protecting the welfare of animals or to prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations.
 
The affirmative defense provisions in section 4016, subsection 3 do not apply to this section. It is not an affirmative defense to alleged violations of this section that the calf or sow was kept as part of an agricultural operation and in compliance with best management practices for animal husbandry.
Sec. 4. 17 MRSA §1031, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2007, c. 702, §48 and PL 2011, c. 657, Pt. W, §5, is further amended to read:
 
2. Affirmative defense.   It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
 
A.  The defendant's conduct conformed to accepted veterinary practice or was a part of scientific research governed by accepted standards;
 
B.  The defendant's conduct or that of the defendant's agent was designed to control or eliminate rodents, ants or other common pests on the defendant's own property; or
 
C.  The defendant's conduct involved the use of live animals as bait or in the training of other animals in accordance with the laws of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Title 12, Part 13; or.
 
D.  The animal is kept as part of an agricultural operation and in compliance with best management practices for animal husbandry as determined by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.
 
Evidence of proper care of any animal is not admissible in the defense of alleged cruelty to other animals.
Sec. 5. 17 MRSA §1037-A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 702, §51 and amended by PL 2011, c. 657, Pt. W, §5, is repealed.
Sec. 6. 17 MRSA §1039, sub-§6, as enacted by PL 2009, c. 127, §2 and affected by §3, is amended to read:
 
6. Criminal or civil prosecution.   A person may be arrested or detained for a violation of subsection 2 in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure. A person may not be arrested or detained for the civil violation of cruel confinement under Title 7, section 1039. The attorney for the State may elect to charge a defendant with a criminal violation under this section or a civil violation under Title 7, section 4020. In making this election, the attorney for the State shall consider the severity of the cruelty displayed, the number of animals involved, any prior convictions or adjudications of animal cruelty entered against the defendant and such other factors as may be relevant to a determination of whether criminal or civil sanctions will best accomplish the goals of the animal welfare laws in the particular case before the attorney for the State. The election and determination required by this subsection are not subject to judicial review. The factors involved in the election and determination are not elements of the criminal offense or civil violation of cruel confinement and are not subject to proof or disproof as prerequisites or conditions for conviction under this section or adjudication under Title 7, section 4020.
 
It is not an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the sow or calf is kept as part of an agricultural operation and in compliance with best management practices for animal husbandry.
 
SUMMARY
This bill repeals the provisions of law that establish an affirmative defense for certain violations under the animal welfare laws that the animal is kept as part of an agricultural operation and in compliance with best management practices for animal husbandry as determined by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.