An Act To Repeal the Affirmative Defense for Cruelty to Animals
Maine Legislature, Session 128, LD 0245
Committee: Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
Sponsors: CARDONE, GRATWICK, FOLEY, HANDY
Amends: 7 MRSA §4011, 7 MRSA §4016, 7 MRSA §4020, 17 MRSA §1031, 17 MRSA §1037-A, 17 MRSA §1039

Legislative Document
No. 245
H.P. 178
House of Representatives, January 31, 2017
An Act To Repeal the Affirmative Defense for Cruelty to Animals
Reference to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry suggested and 
ordered printed.
ROBERT B. HUNT
Clerk
Presented by Representative CARDONE of Bangor.
Cosponsored by Senator GRATWICK of Penobscot and
Representatives: FOLEY of Wells, HANDY of Lewiston.
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 shall is 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Sec. 2.  7 MRSA §4016, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 702, §17, is repealed.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.