Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE ANIMAL ANTI-CRUELTY STATUTES: AN OVERVIEW | Pamela D. Frasch, Stephan K. Otto, Kristen M. Olsen, and Paul A. Ernest | 5 Animal L. 69 (1999) | This article provides an introduction to the current status of state animal anti-cruelty laws throughout the United States. Extensive exploration of the similarities and differences between these statutes, combined with detailed statutory citations, enables this article to serve as a useful resource for research and statistical purposes. Additionally, the article offers an opportunity to review many of the provisions contained within these anti-cruelty statutes and to identify those in need of improvement. | ||
| State Animal Protection Laws - The Next Generation | Stephan K. Otto | 11 Animal L. 131 (2005) | A vast increase in animal protection laws during the past decade has changed the legal landscape of animal law. The current generation of such laws includes more inventive and effective provisions, but more could be done. This article reviews the current laws of states across the country and proposes a number of specific provisions that would improve the force and effect of animal protection legislation. The Author's goal is to identify pragmatic ways in which to make animals the most statutorily protected type of property in our country. |
||
| STATE ANIMAL USE PROTECTION STATUTES: AN OVERVIEW | Jen Girgen | 18 Animal L. 57 (2011) | Although much attention has been given to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a federal statute enacted to deter and punish extra-legal animal rights activism, comparatively little attention has been afforded the various state versions of this law. This Article is an attempt to help remedy this deficit. It offers a comprehensive overview of existing state animal use protection statutes and describes legislative trends in this area. |
||
| State Endangered Species Chart | Ryan Pellerito (updated by Rebecca Wisch) | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This chart provides a link to each state agency responsible for enforcement of state endangered species laws. It also lists a summary of the criteria under the state statutes, the statutory citation, and a link to the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) database of listed species. |
||
| State Wildlife Laws Handbook: Chapter 2 Overview of Wildlife Law | Ruth S. Musgrave | Musgrave, Ruth S. & Mary Anne Stein, State Wildlife Laws Handbook 6-13 (1993). | This chapter gives an overview of the history of wildlife laws and the development of modern state wildlife laws. Moreover, it discusses the relationship between state wildlife laws and federal wildlife laws. |
||
| Statement of Need for the Convention for the Protection of Animals | CITES Ad Hoc Forum for the Convention for the Protection of Animals | CITES Committee | This paper is a quick summary of why there is a need for an international convention for the protection of animals. |
||
| Statute Of Anne-imals: Should Copyright Protect Sentient Nonhuman Creators? | Dane E. Johnson | 15 Animal L. 15 (2008) | This article explores questions of whether copyright protection can and should extend to works created by captive animals such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and elephants. Commentators have considered similar questions in the artificial intelligence context and generally rejected the notion that computers can create works sufficiently free of human involvement to merit copyright protection. As our understanding of animal intelligence increases, however, the case for reconsideration of copyright’s constitutional and statutory boundaries becomes stronger. This article examines those boundaries and offers a proposal for granting limited copyrights to animals under a theory along the lines of David Favre’s equitable self-ownership concept. |
||
| STATUTES WITH FOUR LEGS TO STAND ON?: AN EXAMINATION OF "CRUELTY TO POLICE DOG" LAWS | Craig Ian Scheiner | 5 Animal L. 177 (1999) | Since 1978, forty states and one United States territory have passed laws to protect police dogs. Despite the numerous peculiarities contained in these laws, as well as the legal issues raised by them, none of the laws have been reviewed in academic literature. Although the courts have had little occasion to analyze the vast breadth of issues surrounding the police dog laws, there is much to be said about the components of the various statutes. This article examines the statutory requirements and prescribed penalties relating to police dog statutes and opens debate on the prudence and value of such laws. Whether the textual aspects of the police dog laws are worthy of praise or critique, or both, legal standards only address part of the story. The practical issues of police dog deployment must also be considered. In the final analysis, law enforcement agencies are vested with the discretion to direct deployment policy; hence, only they can truly protect the dogs from harm. | ||
| STEVENS, R.A.V., AND ANIMAL CRUELTY SPEECH: WHY CONGRESS'S NEW STATUTE REMAINS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROBLEMATIC | J. Alexandra Bruce | 51 Gonz. L. Rev. 481 (2015-2016) | Abstract: The constitutionality of restrictions on speech depicting actual cruelty to animals is a question that continues to divide courts and commentators. In U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a 1999 ban on depictions of animal cruelty. The Court invalidated the ban on its face because, as written, the statute extended beyond acts of actual animal cruelty to other forms of unlawful animal harm, such as hunting out of season. Thus, the Court did not resolve the core question presented. Congress responded by drafting a new statute, one narrowed to “crush” videos--obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in an effort to avoid constitutional problems. This new statute, however, continues to raise constitutional and public policy concerns--despite its recent upholding in the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Richards. This article is the first to analyze the constitutional and public policy issues presented by Congress's new animal cruelty speech regulation. This article contends that the modified statute is poor public policy and remains constitutionally problematic. First, as a policy matter, the statute is ineffective because it fails to criminalize the most widespread and troubling form of animal cruelty speech: animal fighting videos. Second, the statute's overly narrow reach--limited to obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in fact increases its constitutional problems by triggering the “virulence” doctrine first articulated in R.A.V. Since courts are unlikely to view obscene depictions of animal cruelty as virulently “prurient” obscenity, as opposed to the kind of “morbidly” violent speech entitled to the protections of strict scrutiny as established in Brown, the statute will likely be invalidated. The article concludes with an exploration of possible new legislation, which could effectively prevent animal cruelty, while also preserving free speech rights. | ||
| Strength in Numbers: Setting Quantitative Criteria for Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act | Kalyani Robbins | 27 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 (2009) | This article provides necessary background information on the ESA listing process. It discusses the numerous problems with the listing status quo, which combine to prevent us from meaningfully realizing the expectations Congress had for the listing process. It also provides the support for the primary thesis--that we can and should devise quantitative listing criteria--and suggests a superior model from which to work. |