Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENETIC ENGINEERING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS: HUMAN PREROGATIVE OR ANIMAL CRUELTY | Michelle K. Albrecht | 6 Animal L. 233 (2000) | Selective breeding and genetic engineering of domestic animals represent two of science's most manipulative advancements of the last century. One of the many questions raised by these procedures is whether the suffering produced violates state anti-cruelty laws. California's animal anti-cruelty statute is one of the most comprehensive and progressive in the country. This article examines whether selective breeding and genetic engineering violate California's anti-cruelty statute, highlighting recent California case law interpreting these statutes and outlining the standard to determine when a violation has occurred. Furthermore, the article seeks to articulate policy suggestions to further the protection afforded these animals affected by science. | ||
| Georgia's "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" Summary (2012) | Claudine Wilkins | Animal Legal & Historical Center | On May 3, 2012 Governor Deal signed the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law", OCGA 4-8-1 through 4-8-33, legislation sponsored by Rep. Gene Maddox to protect the general public and their pets from injuries and death caused by dog attacks. The law was meant to provide “minimal” standards across the state but does not prevent counties or cities from adding more restrictive requirements & stringent penalties. This law clarifies classifications of dogs subsequent to the event and outlines the responsibilities of owners and the consequences of non-compliance with the requirements. The effective date is July 1, 2012. |
||
| Georgia’s "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" Summary | Claudine Wilkins | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This document provides of summary of the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" (RDOA) of Georgia, signed into law by Governor Deal in 2012. | ||
| GETTING SPECIES ON BOARD THE ARK ONE LAWSUIT AT A TIME: HOW THE FAILURE TO LIST DESERVING SPECIES HAS UNDERCUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT | James Jay Tutchton | 20 Animal L. 401 (2014) | This Article, presented by a former general counsel for WildEarth Guardians, discusses the organization’s attempts to protect imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). By comparing extinction patterns from the past, we can see that the human impact on the Earth’s biodiversity is similar to that caused by past geological catastrophes. The ESA is the Noah’s Ark of our time, providing the best opportunity to help stem the tide of extinction. In analyzing the ESA, it is clear that the Act serves important human interests and is effective when utilized as intended. However, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)—citing budgetary restrictions—has failed to list thousands of species likely warranting protection. WildEarth Guardians, in an effort to prevent humans from driving a large percentage of other species to extinction, developed a strategy in which they filed two “mega-petitions” and conducted a “BioBlitz.” The mega-petitions, which sought the listing of hundreds of species, and the roughly six week BioBlitz finally got the attention of FWS and led to a Multidistrict Litigation settlement. The Article concludes by analyzing the effectiveness of the settlement and its resulting success for the future of the ESA. | ||
| GIVING SLAUGHTERHOUSES GLASS WALLS: A NEW DIRECTION IN FOOD LABELING AND ANIMAL WELFARE | Zak Franklin | 21 Animal L. 285 (2015) | Modern industrial animal agriculture and consumer purchasing patterns do not match consumers' moral preferences regarding animal welfare. Current production methods inflict a great deal of harm on animals despite widespread consumer preference for meat, dairy, and eggs that come from humanely treated animals. Judging by the premium pricing and market shares of food products with moral or special labels (e.g., 'cage-free," 'free range,' and 'organic'), many consumers are willing to pay more for less harmful products, but they are unable to determine which products match this preference. The labels placed on animal products, and the insufficient government oversight of these labels, are significant factors in consumer ignorance because producers are allowed to use misleading labels and thwart consumers from aligning their preferences with their purchases. Producers are allowed to label their goods as friendly to animals or the environment without taking action to conform to those claims. Meanwhile, producers who do invest resources into more humane or environmentally-conscious production methods are competing with companies that do not make similar expenditures. Those companies can sell their products at a lower price without sacrificing profits, which prices-out producers who do invest resources. This Article proposes a new labeling regime in which animal products feature labels that adequately inform consumers of agricultural practices so that consumers can match their purchases with their moral preferences. In this proposed scheme, animal products would contain a label that concisely and objectively informs consumers what practices went into the making of that item. Such a scheme would enable consumers who wish to pay more for humane or environmentally-friendly products to do so, while rewarding those companies who actually do engage in better production methods. While the legal literature discussing food labeling and animal welfare is growing, most of the literature proposes legal definitions of terms like 'humane,' expansion of consumer protection law, or labeling systems in which third-parties provide grading or ranking systems for producers of animal products. This Article rejects those proposals as inadequate to sufficiently inform consumers and instead suggests providing consumers with a list of select practices producers engage in. | ||
| Golden Eagles for the Gods | Ted Williams | http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0103.htm | Ted Williams' article explores the religious ritualistic killing of golden eaglets by a faction of the Hopi Indian Tribe. Williams questions whether the National Park Service Policy that contravenes both the BGEPA and Park Service policy truly reflects the best interest of both the Native American religious community and the fragile eagle population. |
||
| Good Badger, Bad Badger: The Impact of Perspective on Wildlife Law and Policy | Peter L. Fitzgerald | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 41 | The Law Commission of England and Wales is examining how the country’s rich patchwork of wildlife laws might be updated. At the same time the government, advocates, and the public are in the midst of a vigorous debate over whether badgers should be culled in an effort to control the spread bovine tuberculosis within the United Kingdom. Both of these efforts highlight how divergent views regarding our relationship to wildlife and the natural environment in the 21st century influence both broad questions regarding the structure of laws and regulations affecting wildlife, generally, as well as how to approach very specific problems and issues. While these sorts of debates over wildlife are not new, the vast majority of the population in the U.K. and many other industrialized countries has lost much of its connection to the wild as urbanization has continued to grow. Accordingly, what is new in today’s world is the degree to which popular support for one or another position advanced by interested parties depends not upon actual experience with nature and wildlife but rather with the popular public image of the wildlife at issue—and whether they are perceived as either “good” or “bad”. | ||
| Got Organic Milk? "Pasture"-Ize it!: An Analysis of the UDSA's Pasture Regulations for Organic Dairy Animals | Fatema Merchant | 14 Animal Law 237 (2007) | This article discusses the “access to pasture” issue and analyzes the ambiguity that has lead to widely varied farming practices and finished products. The vague language undermines the goals of the National Organic Program and threatens the integrity of the organic seal. This article suggests ways to clarify the standards and offers alternative solutions to the problems facing consumers, organic food advocates, and farmers because of the vague regulations | ||
| Greyhounds: Racing to Their Deaths | Addie P. Asay | 32 STETLR 433 (Winter 2003) | Following the introduction, Part II considers the history of the greyhound and the path that led to greyhound racing. Part III discusses the abuse inflicted on greyhounds, and animals used in their training, that has been prosecuted under anti-cruelty statutes. Part IV considers the institutionalized abuse and mistreatment of greyhounds not punished under anti-cruelty statutes. Part V attempts to discover why anti-cruelty statutes have not protected greyhounds adequately. Part VI counters the argument that, because the racing industry is in economic decline, the market should be left to deal with the problem, while Part VII asserts that the most effective way to protect greyhounds is to abolish greyhound racing through a voter-initiative-and- education campaign, which would focus on the abuses experienced by the greyhounds and the costs--moral, physical, and economic--to society because of greyhound racing. |
||
| HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION | Tara Zuardo | 16 Animal L. 317 (2010) | This Comment explores various agreements designed to protect sea turtles at international and local levels as migratory species. Traditional approaches have been unsuccessful at addressing the myriad threats that face sea turtles. |