The palgrave international handbook of a 103

Animal Neglect

93

and define minimum standards of care and comfort for animals. Welfare
concerns are, however, generally separate from prohibitions on causing suffering that are the subjects of (pure) anti-cruelty statutes. Thus, while anti-cruelty
statutes may prohibit certain deliberate animal abuse or ‘harm’ actions such as
the kicking, crushing or stabbing of animals, animal welfare statutes may
proactively provide for minimum welfare standards—for example, room or
movement specifications for animals in factory farming operations and transport, or for food and water requirements. Such standards may, thus, acknowledge the necessity of a certain level of animal harm but seek to ensure its
reduction rather than prohibition (for example, providing for a level of
comfort prior to slaughter) (Nurse 2013). Animal abuse as contextualised by
legislation may thus be physical, psychological or emotional and can involve
active maltreatment, passive neglect (Beirne 2007, p. 55) or simple ignorance
of the needs of animals such that their welfare needs are unmet or are actively
ignored (Nurse 2013). Enforcement of such legislation also varies depending
on whether the act or omission concerned is one subject to the negative
contextualisation of an anti-cruelty statute or the ‘positive’ one of an animal
welfare statute.
Francione (2007) argues that non-human animals’ status as the property
of humans dictates that laws which should require their humane treatment
and prevent unnecessary suffering fail to provide any significant protection
for animal interests. In reality, animals only receive protection commensurate
with their value as human property or commodities. Historically, enforcement of animal protection legislation has largely been reactive rather than
proactive falling outside of mainstream criminal justice activity (Nurse 2015;
Wellsmith 2011). Instead, anti-cruelty laws are more commonly enforced by
animal welfare agencies and NGOs such as the RSPCA and League Against
Cruel Sports (LACS) in the UK and the ASPCA, Humane Society (HSUS)
and state animal welfare enforcers in the USA. Thus, while abuse contextualised by anti-cruelty legislation is frequently part of the criminal law, its
enforcement is socially constructed, varying according to jurisdictional practice and which state agency is allocated responsibility. For example, in the
UK animal welfare is primarily the responsibility of the Department for

Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and in the USA it is broadly
within the remit of the US Department of Agriculture.

3
There is country-specific legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland; the Animal Health & Welfare
(Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 which have similar aims
of preventing harm and promoting animal welfare.