Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Lovers and Tree Huggers Are the New Cold-Blooded Criminals?: Examining the Flaws of Ecoterroism Bills | Dara Lovitz | 3 J. Animal L. 79 (2007) | Animal lovers and tree huggers were once deemed peaceful and benevolent activists. As our nation witnessed the increase in powerful lobbying on behalf of wealthy industries, that identity has been shattered by offensive epithets and reckless generalizations. Now those who preach kindness to the non-human species and respect for the environment are dumped into the same category as the group of individuals who fly planes into buildings and don explosive materials in high-traffic areas - those whose every violent action is designed to maim or murder a large number of innocent civilians. The defective grouping resulted from the gross mistake of legislatures across the country that enacted the fundamentally flawed so-called “eco terror bills.” |
||
| Animal mourning. Précis of How animals grieve (King 2013) | Barbara J. King | Animal Sentience 2016.004 | Abstract When an animal dies, that individual’s mate, relatives, or friends may express grief. Changes in the survivor’s patterns of social behavior, eating, sleeping, and/or of expression of affect are the key criteria for defining grief. Based on this understanding of grief, it is not only big-brained mammals like elephants, apes, and cetaceans who can be said to mourn, but also a wide variety of other animals, including domestic companions like cats, dogs, and rabbits; horses and farm animals; and some birds. With keen attention placed on seeking where grief is found to occur and where it is absent in wild and captive animal populations, scientists and others interested in animal emotion and animal minds can build up a database that answers questions about patterns of grief in the animal kingdom. The expression of grief is expected to be highly variable in individuals within populations, based on an animal’s ontogeny, personality, and relationship to the deceased. Human grief may be unique in our species’ ability to anticipate death and to consider its meaning across time and space, and yet such hypothesized species-specific features do not imply a more profound emotional experience in humans compared to other animals. This new knowledge of the depth of animals’ capacity for grief invites novel exploration of animal-welfare issues including the use of animals in factory farming, entertainment, and biomedicine. | ||
| ANIMAL OPPRESSION AND THE PRAGMATIST | Lesli Bisgould | 3 Animal L. 39 (1997) | A pragmatist can be thought of as someone concerned about the practical consequences of her actions or beliefs. It is likely that all animal rights activists, whose common goal might be framed as the eradication of animal oppression, consider themselves pragmatists. Theirs is a lofty goal. Oppression which has been thousands of years in the making could reasonably be anticipated to be a long time in the unmaking. In the intervening years, different ideas have emerged about the practical consequences of different actions or beliefs. These differences (sometimes categorized under the broad headings of'rights" or 'welfare'" have transformed, or been transformed, into a pernicious conflict between advocates. It is essential, if meaningful change is to be achieved, that this conflict be resolved and not casually remanded to the realm where all opinions are seen to be equally valid, and to each her own. Gary Francione, lawyer, professor and author, has recently attempted an analysis of this discord in his book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. The following commentary briefly considers some of the observations and conclusions Francione makes and some of the backlash his thoughts have engendered. | ||
| Animal Research: Policy, Public Perception, and the Problems of Transparency | Siobhan O'Sullivan | Australia Animal Law Paper (2005) | This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought. |
||
| Animal Reserach Policy in Australia | Siobhan O'Sullivan | Animal Legal & Historical Center (2006) | This paper looks at the effects of the changes in the law dealing with decision making about animals in research. The author suggests that the transparency sought by some was not realized, but that such transparency may not be as important as originally thought. |
||
| Animal Rights Cause Gains Credibility | Al Johnson | 1 Animal L. 11 (1995) | The author compares John Stuart Mill's social movement theory to the animal rights movement. | ||
| Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records | Christopher Wlach | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 191 (2017) | In the animal rights and animal welfare movements, activists have likewise used FOIA and state open records laws for their own ends. This section first discusses the purpose and general structure of FOIA and state open records laws, and then looks at how animal rights and animal welfare activists have used these laws in pursuing their causes. | ||
| Animal Rights Law Reporter | Henry Mark Holzer (Editor) | Animal Rights Law Reporter | The Animal Rights Law Reporter was published from 1980 - 1983 by the Society for Animal Rights, Inc. The Reporter was edited by Professor Henry Mark Holzer. Each issue begins with a segment entitled, "In the Courts," which outlines significant court cases involving animals. The issues also contain sections for "In the Legislatures," where recent animal-related legislation is discussed. "In the Legal Literature" gives updates on pertinent law reviews in the field. Finally, the Reporter provides a quarterly "Bulletin Board," "Available Resources," and "Editor's Comment" from Professor Holzer. | ||
| ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY AND UTILITARIANISM: RELATIVE NORMATIVE GUIDANCE | Gary L. Francione | 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) | Mr. Francione examines the philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and concludes, in part, that there is nothing in rights theory that necessarily precludes the animal advocate from pursuing incremental legislative or judicial change; however, he asserts that we cannot speak meaningfully of legal rights for animals as long as animals are regarded as property. | ||
| Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance | Gary L. Francione | 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) | Animal “rights” is of course not the only philosophical basis for extending legal protections to animals. Another, competing, basis is based on the theory of utilitarianism – the outright rejection of rights for all species and instead advocacy for equal consideration. This is the view espoused by Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation. In this article, Professor Francione compares animal rights with utilitarianism, discussing the pros and cons of each |