Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiger Conservation in a "Globalized" World: Tying Humans, Forests, and Tigers Together | Ross Hammersley | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This Paper will discuss the current trends in tiger conservation and management. Part I will discuss the statutory protections afforded to tigers in India’s Wildlife Protection Act and the operation of CITES. Part II will cover the primary reasons for renewed concern over the fate of the tiger, focusing on the demand for Asian medicines and other tiger derivatives. This Part will also discuss the current state of conservation efforts in India, focusing on how nearby rural villages have been affected by the establishment of the tiger reserves and wildlife conservation areas in India. Finally, Part III will propose some ways to begin to curb some of the demand in the international tiger derivative market and to improve community involvement and enforcement of India’s current regulations, as well as exploring potential avenues for strengthening aid efforts from and within the United States. |
||
| Tilikum’s Splash: Lessons Learned From Animal Rights-Based Litigation Strategies | Brittany J. Mouzourakis | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 223 | The animal advocacy movement is divided between those who believe in animal welfare and those who believe in animal rights. Although these two factions of the animal advocacy movement hold the overall goal of making the lives of animals better, practical differences do arise in the way in which these two factions litigate animal issues to achieve this goal. This Note explores Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, a case in which five orca whales "sued" Sea World for violating their Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude. The case received widespread publicity as it was the first time a U.S. federal court had been asked to determine whether the Thirteenth Amendment to the United affords protection to non-humans. The Tilikum case departed from the traditional model of litigating animal issues by utilizing what this Article deems an animal rights-based litigation strategy. This Note first provides an overview of the traditional animal welfare-based model of litigating animal issues. This Note then analyzes the Tilikum litigation strategy to show how it departed from the traditional animal welfare-based model. Additionally, this Note weighs the advantages of both litigation strategies, ultimately recommending that animal advocacy organizations not depart from the animal-welfare based litigation strategies. Finally, this Note explores the theoretical possibility of expanding legal rights to animals based upon the expansion of legal rights to other non-human entities, such as corporations. | ||
| Time for a Sharper Legal Focus | David Favre | 1 Animal L. 1 (1995) | This article provides an introduction into premiere issue of Animal Law. | ||
| To Save Lab Animals the Legal Way: The Right to Appeal on Permits to Perform Animal Experiments | Live Kleveland | 4 Journal of Animal Law 99 (2008) | In Norwegian law, animal welfare organisations have the right to appeal on permits to perform animal experiments. The author explains the reasons for the right, briefly outlines how a case of appeal develops and explains possible consequences. |
||
| To What Extent Does Wealth Maximization Benefit Farmed Animals? A Law And Economics Approach To A Ban On Gestation Crates In Pig Production | Geoffrey C. Evans | 13 Animal Law 167 (2006) | A law and economics approach in the current animals-as-property realm could be the most efficient way to gain protections for the billions of farmed animals that need them now. The wealth maximization theory allows for this because it recognizes human valuation of nonhuman interests. However, evidence shows that a market failure exists because of the discord between public will and animal industry practices. Where human valuation of nonhuman interests is underrepresented in the market and, therefore, a market fix is needed through legislation, animal advocates should evaluate the legislation’s economic impacts. In the case of a ban on gestation crates, as may be the case elsewhere, legislation may actually prove to be economically efficient, and thus gain the support of those who would not otherwise back such legislation. |
||
| TOWARD A MORE APPROPRIATE JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ZOOS AND ZOO ANIMALS | Geordie Duckler | 3 Animal L. 189 (1997) | Mr. Duckler examines the historical perceptions of zoo animals as legal entities and discusses a proposal to classify zoo animals as objects for historical preservation, suggesting that zoo animals and society will be better served by a change in the historical legal status of zoos and zoo animals. | ||
| TOWARD A MORE APPROPRIATE JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ZOOS AND ZOO ANIMALS | Geordie Duckler | 3 Animal L. 189 (1997) | Mr. Duckler examines the historical perceptions of zoo animals as legal entities and discusses a proposal to classify zoo animals as objects for historical preservation, suggesting that zoo animals and society will be better served by a change in the historical legal status of zoos and zoo animals. | ||
| Toward Reconciling Environmental and Animal Ethics: Northeast Wolf Reintroduction | Reed Elizabeth Loder | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 95 | Many conservation issues replicate the dialogue on wolf introduction and its aftermath, reflecting tension between animal and environmental ethics. This article focuses on the proposal to restore wolves to the role of top predator in the Northeastern United States. It offers ethical guidelines for use in predator restorations where group and individual perspectives chafe, aiming to promote dialogue between environmental and animal ethicists. | ||
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. He concludes that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. | |||
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | David Hoch and Will Carrington Heath | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. The authors conclude that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. |