Articles

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that shows how important pets are to many people in the United States, the leading cause of death for dogs and cats in this country is euthanasia because of the lack of homes. Although progress has been made, conservative estimates are that between three and four million dogs and cats are euthanized each year. A successful program for implementing non-lethal strategies to control the pet population incorporates three prongs: (a) increasing adoptions, (b) increasing the number of animals sterilized and (c) increasing the number of animals retained in homes. This Article focuses on the legislative actions that should be taken immediately to implement these non-lethal strategies so that this needless euthanization can end.

The author examines the important role pets play in our lives in contrast with their nominal assessed market value by courts. The author then provides a uniform suggestion that will enable courts to standardize an owner's pet loss claim. Courts should continue to classify pets as property, yet relax the classification standard to permit a flexible market value analysis that includes the right to assert a punitive damage claim as a means of providing adequate and fair recompense to the grieving pet owner.

Enacting absolute bans on the use of trapping devices and on commerce in trapped animal products has been difficult. Nearly every state, however, has enacted some restrictions on who can trap, what animals can be trapped, where and when animals can be trapped, the type and size of permitted traps, and how often traps must be checked. This article summarizes past and potential approaches to curtail the use of traps in the U.S. at federal, state and local levels. The article also notes litigation related to trapping and trapping prohibitions.

One of the failures of the IWC is the inability to punish infractions. The United States has unilaterally enacted two pieces of legislation intended to augment the enforcement power of the IWC through import and fishing sanctions against countries who violate the regulations set forth by the IWC. These unilateral amendments have failed in the protection of whales.

This article is divided into three parts. Part I explores how federal courts have defined and analyzed the issue of irreparable harm in cases similar to Humane Society, in which plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctions to prevent the killing of wildlife until their cases can be heard on the merits. In Part II, the author asserts that reform is needed in this area of the law for two primary reasons. In Part III, the author proposes a new model directing courts to define the scope and nature of the harm to be considered by looking to the “primary purpose” of the statute at issue.

From a historical perspective, modern animal advocacy, and in particular modern legislation on animal protection and welfare, originated in the United Kingdom and spread first to anglophone and “northern” countries, establishing a sort of orthodoxy and a paradigm.

I. Introduction 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, growing public outcry to environmental changes pushed legislators to enact the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.

A short article about the person of Henry Bergh who started the ASPCA and the adoption of first of the modern anti-cruelty laws.

In February 2009, the case of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This Article, written as the case went to trial, analyzes the standing, ESA, and take issues presented in this case and ultimately concludes that the district court should find that the plaintiffs do have standing, the ESA does apply to the captive Asian elephants, and FEI’s actions do constitute takings and should be enjoined.

This paper examines what makes a Bluefin Tuna unique both scientifically and as an economic commodity. Further, the paper analyzes the current international laws and actions taken to address Southern Bluefin Tuna’s seemingly imminent extinction. The paper concludes by recognizing that while these efforts encouraged conservation, more government enforcement and leadership is needed to ensure the survival of Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Mr. Bartlett discusses the psychological and conceptual impediments to human acceptance of the notion of animal rights. He posits that human characteristics such as homocentrism, human narcissism, and species-selfishness all function to keep animals from securing their rightful place in the existing social and legal framework. Mr. Bartlett also argues that human attitudes, policies, and behavior affecting animals are influenced by underlying conceptual pathologies, and that animal advocates would be well served by taking into account such human pathologies in their quest for greater animal protection.

Part I of this article begins with consideration of two different definitions of legal personhood. In Part II, the author makes use of philosopher Jacques Derrida's suggestion that humans maintain their hegemony and conceptual separation from animals by failing to include animals in the proscription “Thou shalt not kill.” Ultimately, the author concludes that these two examples indicate that pursuit of direct legal standing for animals themselves is not always necessary to secure positive substantive changes in the law.

This article explores the remedies available to purchasers of diseased or otherwise unfit cats and dogs. The relevant state statutes are discussed as well as general contract principles under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

This document is an introduction in English to the 2008 stray dog ordinance for the Brazilian City of Sao Paulo.

Introduction in English to 2008 stray dog ordinance of Sao Paulo

Much debate has surfaced surrounding so-called “eco-terrorism.” Some commentators argue that such activity is not and should not be called terrorism. This Comment analyzes these extremist activities through the lens of federal terrorism laws and argues that, while these activists’ goals are laudable, their methods are often terroristic. Consequently, those activities that go too far are-and should be-classified as terrorism.