Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dolphin Protection and the Marine Mammal Protection Act Have Met Their Match: The General Agreements of Tariffs and Trade | Joseph J. Urgese | 31 Akron L. Rev. 457 (1998) | This article explores the conflict between conservation and the policy of free trade. The author concludes that the Tuna/Dolphin cases represented the inevitable clash between two laudable goals- environmental protection and free-trade. Resolution of this conflict and future conflicts can only come from the incorporation of both of these objectives into one global regime. |
||
| DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA: THE TIDE IS CHANGING | Kristen L. Stewart | 4 Animal L. 111 (1998) | Ms. Stewart reviews the history of the tuna-dolphin controversy in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. She explores international agreements and U.S. law that mandate dolphin-safe tuna fishing practices. Finally, Ms. Stewart reviews the steps taken by the United States, including embargoes against other countries’ tuna, to force tuna-fishing nations to use dolphin-safe practices. | ||
| Domestic Violence and Pets: List of States that Include Pets in Protection Orders | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This document lists the states that include pets in domestic violence protection orders with links to the actual statutes. As of 2024, 36 states as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico have enacted such laws. Also, see the Map of Pets in Domestic Violence Orders linked below. | ||
| Don't Buy the Doggy in the Window: Ending the Cycle That Perpetuates Commercial Breeding With Regulation Of The Retail Pet Industry | Katherine C. Tushaus | 14 Drake J. Agric. L. 501 (2009) | This Note discusses the problems with legislation and legal barriers created to battle the problems puppy mills pose to dogs bred in the United States. It then considers the applicability of legislation aimed at dealing with puppy mills at the retail level as a possible cure to the inadequacies of American regulation. This Note discusses the need for uniform regulation that goes to the heart of what sustains puppy mills, the supply and demand created by retail in the pet industry, using the model of legislation introduced in Australia, the NSW Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill. |
||
| Don't Feed the Animals: Queso's Law and How the Texas Legislature Abandoned Stray Animals, A Comment on H.B. 2328 and the New Tex. Penal Code § 42.092 | Jeremy Masten | 60 Baylor L. Rev. 964 (Fall 2008) | This Comment considers Queso's Law, its amendments to section 42.092 of the Texas Penal Code, and the impact of those amendments on animal cruelty law in Texas. Part II discusses the historical background of animal cruelty laws both in Texas, prior to the 80th Legislature, and elsewhere. Part III discusses animal cruelty law in the wake of Queso's Law, including the elements of the offense as well as constitutional and policy concerns. Part IV proposes a solution to the concerns raised by Queso's Law. Finally, the Comment concludes that the expanded definition of animal created by Queso's Law is too broad and that slightly re-wording the definition to create a “custody carve-out” would better protect the interests of feral animals. |
||
| DON'T FENCE ME IN--APPLICATION OF THE UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT TO BENEFIT WILDLIFE | 5 Animal L. 1 (1999) | The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service manage millions of acres of public land across the United States. Most of this land serves more than one purpose-grazing, mining, recreation, timber, wildlife-and thus must remain available for these uses. Historically, the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) preserved access for ranchers and homesteaders. More recently, the UIA has also protected access for wildlife whose movements are impeded by fences or other illegal obstructions. This article argues that such protection should be extended to the Sonoran pronghorn antelope in the southwestern United States. | |||
| Dysfunctional Downlisting Defeated: Defenders of Wildlife v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior | Edward A. Fitzgerald | 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 37 (2007) | Abstract: In 2003, the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) established three distinct population segments (DPSs) for the gray wolf, which encompassed its entire historic range. In addition, DOI downlisted the gray wolf from an endangered to threatened species in the Eastern and Western DPSs, despite the wolf's continued absence from ninety-five percent of its historic range. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon properly invalidated DOI's dysfunctional downlisting of the gray wolf. DOI's interpretation of “significant portion of its range” was inconsistent with the text, intent, and purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, DOI inverted its DPS policy, which provides different populations of the species different levels of protection in different portions of its historic range. Achieving the recovery plan goals did not warrant downlisting the gray wolf. DOI also failed to address the five downlisting factors of section 4(a) of the ESA across a significant portion of the gray wolf's historic range. Nevertheless, DOI could have established two DPSs encompassing the populations of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains, and could have accordingly downlisted these populations to threatened species status. |
||
| Eagle Permits Issued Under 50 C.F.R. 22 et seq | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 22 et seq) govern the issuance of permits to take bald or golden eagles. Only under these proscribed circumstances will permits be issued to take any eagles. Included among these categories are Indian religious permits, scientific permits, falconry permit, and permits to take inactive golden eagle nests by mining operators (links pdf. versions of these applications are provided in this document). |
||
| Eco-Terrorism in the Southern Ocean: A Dangerous Byproduct of the Tangled Web of International Whaling Conventions and Treaties | Alana Preston | 34 Whittier L. Rev. 117 | Utilizing a research exception granted under the international moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission, Japanese whalers have been harvesting endangered whales in the Southern Ocean. The anti-whaling activist group, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, also operates in the Southern Ocean by locating Japanese whaling vessels in order to bring an immediate halt to all whaling activities, often employing violent tactics designed to injure whaling vessels and property. Sea Shepherd operates under an apparent mandate of the United Nations World Charter for Nature allowing individuals to “[i]mplement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment.” The multitude of vague international conventions and treaties governing the Southern Ocean have therefore created a tangled and confusing web of authority where both Japanese whalers and Sea Shepherd have arguable claims of operating under legitimate legal mandates. In this note, Alana Preston argues that individual countries should enforce their domestic laws to prevent the Japanese from whaling, so private entities, like Sea Shepherd, will not. | ||
| EFFECTIVE VOIR DIRE IN ANIMAL CASES | Larry Weiss | 2 Animal L. 187 (1996) | This article was adapted from remarks from Larry Weiss at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals. |