Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
Question: If your elected officials fail basic taxonomy, promote anti-science curriculum, and consistently attempt to undermine the fundamental underpinning of all biology, what happens when they start trying to legislate from this flawed view of reality?
The answer is this poorly-worded miasma of a law recently passed in Florida, which presumably was designed to prevent bestiality and promote animal welfare, but which has actually made it illegal, effective October 1, 2011, for anyone to have sex in Florida.
An act relating to sexual activities involving animals; creating s. 828.126, F.S.; providing definitions; prohibiting knowing sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; prohibiting specified related activities; providing penalties; providing that the act does not apply to certain husbandry, conformation judging, and veterinary practices; providing an effective date.
I have constructed this helpful little graphic for the Florida Legislature to examine:
So if you’re living in Florida on October 1, 2011 and would like to have sexual intercourse with a consenting adult, please check with your veterinarian or local livestock breeder first to make sure you abide by ”accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.”
[Readers may be interested in a slightly less humorous but technically correct interpretation of the new law. ~Ed.]
Like this post? Check out some of our more substantive analyses of peer reviewed research, our recent review of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill that didn’t happen, and the role of the local guy in management processes.
Site moving too slow? Check out our friends at Deep Sea News for you daily dose of marine science awesome.
Oh my God, You mean my husband and I have to call the vet now?! ROFLMAO
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
4
well Kendrick Meek should be getting a lot of action then… I’m pretty sure he’s a mineral of some kind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
11
You know, every once in a while you guys come up with something that just stops traffic….this is one of them.
Re-blogged and sent to the major media.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
3
“animal” is defined elsewhere with chapter 828 to exclude humans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
17
There is more than one law in the USA that needs to be changed. How old is that law and has it ever been tested?
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
828.02 Definitions.–In this chapter, and in every law of the state relating to or in any way affecting animals, the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature; the words “torture,” “torment,” and “cruelty” shall be held to include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, except when done in the interest of medical science, permitted, or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief; and the words “owner” and “person” shall be held to include corporations, and the knowledge and acts of agents and employees of corporations in regard to animals transported, owned, employed by or in the custody of a corporation, shall be held to be the knowledge and act of such corporation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Does every living dumb creature include human beings who are unable to speak? Babies? Fetuses? How about tomatos and cucumbers?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
6
Here’s a link to the aforementioned definition: link to leg.state.fl.us
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature ,,, ”
There are some pretty dumb humans as well, so I dispute the point that this definition categorically excludes humans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
4
So, um, what has been going on in Florida that made them think this law was necessary?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
It may have something to do with the literacy rate?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
“Science Geeks fail basic public policy, overlook ‘definitions’ legislation”
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
20
That’s a regular joke with my vet, we take our dog in and she says, so what’s wrong with ur husband?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Gawker has sensibly recognized that this may be problematic.
link to gawker.com
“Finally, we’ve found an excuse to fine or jail a large chunk of Florida.” -lol
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
30
So the definition of “animal” is every living creature that is unable to speak? Bring on the parrot love!
Do chihuahuas count as mute? They can yip pretty loudly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
@Poliholic – the ‘definitions’ legislation has its own problem. Defining animal as “living dumb creature” means either we can’t have sex with teabaggers, or we can have sex with parrots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
14
Because F.S. 828.02 defines “animal” as to “every living dumb creature,” this is not exactly the correct interpretation.
Rather, it appears that the Florida Legislature — whom I will readily acknowledge to be an ignorant yokel posse — has actually outlawed sex with animals lacking the power of speech. This presumably runs afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, but it also may open up loopholes for sex with parrots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
So this law doesn’t apply to anything that can make noise? Look up the deffinition of “dumb”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Donna I think you are ok.
“providing that the act does not apply to certain husbandry”
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Scientists fail basic statutory interpretation.
Well, at least until the editor posted the second link — kudos on the less funny but more accurate correction.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Florida failed to ban sex with plants. Someone really should do something about those sicko tree-fuckers!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
So they define “dumb” somewhere else?
Is it defined as less intelligent thereby subjecting most Republicans as breaking this law?
Or if it is the inability to speak then what about those humans who cannot?
What us scientist really find annoying is when humans are not considered to be animals.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Well if they are stupid enough to vote in right wing nutjobs then it is probably for the best if they ban sex:-)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
8
What the heck does “undermine the fundamental unpinning of all biology” mean?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
@Captain – I been trying to get people to wise up to them plant licking table fornicators for years now!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
[Readers' may be interested in a slightly less humorous but technically correct interpretation of the new law. ~Ed.]
AARGH. Never mind the jokes about the FL legislature (and that is a pretty poorly drafted statute) you science dudes had better import an English major to proofread the site.
The plural of “reader” is “readers”. An apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural, only to indicate possession.
Ok, now I can laugh like crazy–can you imagine what the drafting conference was like for that one?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
“An apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural, only to indicate possession.”
We cant use it for contractions anymore? just dont seem fair.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
4
Ummm…? Screw the parrots…, (sorry, couldn’t resist) what about apes trained in sign language?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0