Results

This article presents a brief summary of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. Wildlife rehabilitators care for orphaned and/or injured wildlife with the goal of returning animals back into their native habitat. Although a rehabilitator’s focus is on the care of wildlife, rehabilitators necessarily spend time complying with local, state, and federal laws, fundraising activities, coordinating volunteers, and educating the public about wildlife.

This document provides an overview of the UK's Pet Animals Act of 1951. The Act establishes a regulatory regime for “pet shops” under which local authorities (district and borough councils) are responsible for inspecting and licensing premises.

A full explaination of the laws of game for the British. 1800-1850 with notes from US experience.

Part I of this comment shows the impetus behind equine activity statutes. Part II shows why the need for equine statutes no longer exists based on the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk. Lastly, Part III surveys Maryland law to show that Maryland will not benefit from an equine activity statute and therefore should not adopt one.

As the introduction to Volume 15 of Animal Law, the author reflects on 30 years of progress in the animal law arena.

The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness.

This essay explores the legislative and legal campaign to enact California Proposition 2: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, approved by California voters on November 4, 2008. The authors direct the legislation and litigation programs for The Humane Society of the United States, and, along with many other individuals and organizations, were centrally involved in the drafting, campaigning, and litigation efforts in support of the measure.

This note examines the current deadlock in the IWC, discusses the shift from conservation towards preservation, and argues for a continuation of the moratorium based on moral and ethical concern for whales as whales. Part I traces the history of whaling and whale regulation. Part II discusses the current regulatory scheme. Part III analyzes the Preservationist position as it concerns whales. It builds from a discussion of the uncertain science concerning whale populations and stock recovery, to a discussion of the pain and suffering inflicted on whales by current whale practices, and finishes by arguing that whales, as unique and intelligent mammals, deserve protection as such.