Articles

On September 25, 1999, a distinguished group of legal scholars met in New York City at the 5th Annual Conference on Animals and the Law, hosted by the Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, to discuss how the law classifies nonhuman animals and whether the current legal framework is in accord with scientific understanding, public attitudes, and fundamental principles of justice. This conference took a monumental step in facilitating discussion about, and furthering the cause of, the legal protection and welfare of nonhuman animals.

Mr. Edwards discusses the recent decision to conduct a one-time sale of ivory from Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Botswana to Japan under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In theory, limited trade in African elephant ivory is possible and even advantageous for the various actors. However, in practice, the management controls on the supply side in Africa and the demand side in Japan are insufficient to prevent poaching and the eventual decimation of the species. This one-time sale should act as a warning to prevent further sales without a significant revamping of the control mechanisms.

El presente trabajo analiza la legislación de Estados Unidos en materia de derecho bienestar animal relacionándola con la de Reino Unido con el objetivo de delimitar hasta qué punto su regulación puede ser considerada modélica y / o si resultaría mejorable. Para ello, se analiza, si la Declaración Universal de Derechos del Animal, la observancia de la cual debería servir como punto de partida, en tanto Código de Conducta, es observada por tales legislaciones. A su vez, en el marco de tal regulación, se examina si existe una relación directa entre el grado de concienciación social y el grado de protección de su regulación respecto los animales. Finalmente, se apunta desde una perspectiva crítica cual es el mérito que suponen tales legislaciones para el derecho de bienestar animal, a la vez que pretende examinar sus posibles carencias.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Rebecca Huss as the guardian/special master of the pit bulls that were the subject of the case against Michael Vick relating to dog fighting. In April of 2007, the Surry County Sheriff’s Department seized fifty-three pit bulls from Vick’s home in Virginia. According to the facts set forth in the plea agreement, dogs on the property were killed and subjected to violent dog fights. Similar to human victims of abuse, the dogs needed someone to represent their best interests during litigation. Huss was in charge of determining whether each dog should be euthanized due to its inability to interact safely with humans or other animals or given a second chance at life in a new home. Huss explains her role as guardian/special master and how she made her determinations about each dog’s destiny.

My intention in this article is to discuss the historical antecedents of horse racing and the development of this sport in the United States since the Colonial Era. In order to do this, it is necessary to start from horse racing's beginnings. This historical tour will demonstrate that horse racing and its associated legal norms are much older and well established than many legal doctrines from more well known, but comparatively younger, legal subjects. Through this discussion I will demonstrate how the evolution of the law of Thoroughbred racing reflects the changing nature of American legal and social norms.

Animal protection laws have traditionally categorized animals according to the manner in which humans use them. Animals have been categorized as companion animals, animals used in medical testing, animals raised for slaughter, and wildlife, and the protection afforded to animals has been ostensibly commensurate to their use categorization.

This Article focuses on two alternative strategies that provide legal protection for animals without relying on human use as their primary mode of categorization. First, the Article looks at protecting animals as a single category, in particular through the use of constitutional provisions. The Article then looks at a species-based model that seeks to extend some traditional “human rights” to Great Apes.

Ultimately, the Article concludes that the species-based model provides a more effective alternative to the use-based model, since it provides an alternate means of categorization that shifts focus to the needs and capacities of animals. While generalized protection at the constitutional level may be rhetorically effective, it does not offer an alternative form of legal category that would allow for precision in legal rule-making.

Ms. Schaffner gives an overview of the connection between Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Animal Cruelty. She explains that there is a cycle of abuse, and gives suggestions on efforts to break this cycle.

This document provides a list of several state Equine Activity Liability Act statutes (currently, 44 states have adopted such statutes). A link to each individual statute is also provide.

This document provides a list of state cases discussing Equine Activity Liability Acts. Links to the individual cases are provided.

This book review examines Lee Hall’s new book, which presents an innovative animal rights theory: wild animals, due to their autonomous nature, are endowed with rights, but domesticated animals lack rights because they are not autonomous. With that theory in mind, Hall outlines ideas about how humans are obligated to treat both wild and domestic animals. Hall first argues that the rights of wild animals require that humans let them alone. Yet, despite the fact that domestic animals lack rights under Hall’s theory, Hall argues that humans are required to care for them because it is humans who brought them into existence. While the reviewer believes that Hall’s theory is indeed innovative and appealing, he ultimately concludes that it cannot explain why domestic animals completely lack rights and that the implications of the theory for how they are to be treated are unsatisfactory.

This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals. This Article establishes why animals should receive consideration within the legal system, which animals should be focused upon, what some of the legal rights might be, and how the traditional rules of property law will be modified to accommodate the presence of this new category of property.

This article discusses when ownership of a dog that is lost or relinquished by its owner transfers to an animal shelter. The shelter's property rights in a found animal vary depending on whether the animal is licensed or unlicensed, stray or abandoned. Each state has its own rules regarding how long a shelter must keep an animal before transferring ownership to a third party.

This lost pet FAQ gives general guidance for people who are in a conflict over a lost pet or want to avoid losing their pet in the first place.

This Article explores whether legislating a language change from “owner” to “guardian” has any real impact on the way we make health care decisions for our animal companions. Part I of this Article addresses the arguments that have been mounted against the campaign to change pet “owners” into pet “guardians,” particularly those arguments that center around making choices regarding an animal's medical care. Part II of this Article looks at medical care decision-making in human medicine as a background for exploring these questions in veterinary medicine. Part III looks more generally at the extent to which the legal framework for clinical decision-making in human medicine can be imported into veterinary medicine and through what mechanisms.

Although all states outlaw cruelty to companion animals, most jurisdictions only prohibit causing unnecessary suffering as well as failure to provide food, water, and shelter. They do not address whether owners must obtain veterinary care. Even the few statutes that mention such treatment do not define exactly what kind and how much is required. This article highlights the deficiencies in these laws. It argues that keeping pets creates an obligation to get them medical treatment when they are sick or injured and also explains why such a duty is necessary. In addition, it proposes uniform legislation that creates an explicit obligation to provide health care to companion animals, imposes a duty on veterinarians to report cruelty, and establishes strict penalties for violations.

A “best science available” directive appears in a variety of environmental law statutes. Although seemingly clear, this directive has created an abundance of litigation with various plaintiffs challenging agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Since agencies are given broad discretion in their decisions—even those based on science—this Comment argues for clear congressional guidelines in best science available directives, because only such guidelines would ensure greater agency compliance with congressional intent, give courts more direction in reviewing agency decisions under the APA, and, in the long run, maximize the scientific integrity of agency rules and decisions. In the environmental and wildlife protection contexts, this will ensure that agencies achieve Congress’s objectives, resulting in greater species protection.

McDonald's sued two defendants in England in 1991 for defamation and lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the "McLibel" case in relation to cruel common farming practices, and explores the contradiction that common farming practices can be found to be cruel.