Results
Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Lacey Act: America's Premier Weapon in the Fight Against Unlawful Wildlife Trafficking | Robert S. Anderson | 16 Pub. L. L.R. 27 (1995) | Part I of this article discusses the scope of the illegal wildlife trade and the various federal statutes addressing that problem. Part II discusses the legislative history of the Lacey Act and its companion statute, the Black Bass Act, including their ultimate combination into one law in 1981 and the Lacey Act's latest amendments in 1988. Part III discusses the elements necessary to prove a Lacey Act trafficking violation, analyzes judicial interpretations of the Act's statutory language, and considers available sanctions. Part IV discusses issues that may arise in Lacey Act litigation, including specific requirements of the underlying "predicate" law. |
||
The Laws Concerning Game (1753) | William Nelson | The Laws Concerning Game (1753) | This is nice summary of the history of English Game Law from 1066 - 1700's. The following is the introduction from the book. |
||
The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement | Joseph Vining | Vining, Joseph. "'The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement." Law Quad. Notes 46, no. 2 (2003): 82-8. | The subjects of this article are biomedical research and animals. In raw percentage terms, the animals involved in experimentation are now overwhelmingly rats and mice, and, perhaps because they are rats and mice, they are used in large numbers, numbers in thousands and tens of thousands at some institutions. Legal, ethical, and practical accommodation to this fact on the ground presents a host of questions. There are questions of the cost of care. There are questions of the training of veterinarians, principal investigators, and laboratory personnel. With mice particularly, there are questions about the creation of conditions in an animal that do not yet exist, a future animal, by knocking out a gene and, as we say, "seeing what happens": new questions, really, that move us away from the traditional focus on the details of how an investigator treats a living animal. Then there are the central questions of weighing costs and benefits, of justification and the application of the three R's of reduction, refinement, and replacement, where it is not dogs or primates or marine mammals that are concerned, but rats and mice - for many, the least on the scale of concern for animals. Rats, mice, and birds have of course been recently exempted from the Animal Welfare Act. But that may be viewed as making the questions only that much more difficult, thrown back into the laps of researchers themselves and review boards, veterinarians, laboratory assistants, and university and corporate administrators, who for the moment can expect to have that much less outside guidance or mandate in deciding what to do. The overarching problem, which is how to think about rats and mice, not a new problem at all, but newly pressing. | ||
The Link Among Animal Abuse, Child Abuse, and Domestic Violence | Mellisa Trollinger | 30-SEP Colo. Law. 29 (September, 2001) | This article discusses the link among animal abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence, with the intention of increasing attorney awareness of how such abuse impacts both clients and the community. |
||
The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People | Cynthia Hodges | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The article explores the connection between cruelty to animals and human violence. In particular, it examines animal abuse perpetrated by adolescents as a predictor of later human violence. |
||
THE LIZARD, THE SCIENTIST, & THE LAWMAKER: AN ANALYSIS OF THE TRENDING FIGHT OVER THE USE OF SCIENCE UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND HOW TO ADDRESS IT | Brie D. Sherwin | 20 Animal L. 357 (2014) | Recently in Texas, the dunes sagebrush lizard—a tiny, little-known reptile living in the sparse brush and dunes of the oil and gas fields—sparked a heated discussion and criticism over the listing process under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This six-year battle ended with the withdrawal of a proposed rule to list the lizard and resulted in numerous criticisms about the role and use of scientific data throughout the process. Under the ESA, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) is required to consider the best available scientific data when deciding whether to list a species. However, there is no direct legislative history explaining this standard. Because existing scientific data on “stressors” in the environment is typically limited and inadequate, this data gap leads to uncertainty, which unquestionably leads to difficult decision making by the regulatory agencies. Although a review of past listing designations confirms that FWS is not only utilizing sound science, but more often than not, is making sound decisions based on that science, many policy makers are still criticizing the use of science in decision-making processes and are pitting science against economics. This Article advocates for a more systematic, transparent application of science in the decision-making process: a well-defined “weight of evidence” approach that will foster structured deliberations, hypothesis testing, and the necessary clarity and transparency that will benefit all parties involved. | ||
The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Fostering Unjust Captivity Practices Since 1972 | Stephanie Dodson Dougherty | 28 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 337-367 (Spring 2013) | Despite its species management and sustainable population objective, the MMPA suffers from several inherent shortcomings that ultimately impede the policy and conservation goals. These shortcomings include the industry-set standards, fractured agency responsibility, and a lack of regulation, the combination of which leads to the questionable educational value of the display industry and the promulgation of the conservation fallacy. | ||
The Morally Informed Consumer: Examining Animal Welfare Claims on Egg Labels | Sheila Rodriguez | 30 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 51 (2011) | Abstract: The labeling of shell eggs fails to reveal the inhumane conditions under which most laying hens are raised in the United States. Most of the eggs sold in major supermarkets come from factory farms. This article examines how the failure to regulate misleading animal welfare claims on egg labels creates a risk that consumers are buying products that they otherwise would not buy. This article explains why, from a moral and a legal standpoint, consumers should avoid purchasing most eggs. |
||
The Mute Swan Case, the Fund for Animals, et al. v. Norton, et al: National, Regional, and Local Environmental Policy Rendered I | Paul J. Cucuzzella | 11 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 101 (Spring, 2004) | This article suggests that an obstruction of sound environmental policy occurred in 2003 when The Fund for Animals used the National Environmental Policy Act to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources from implementing a plan to cull the population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. The author suggests that there is no question that feral mute swans (cyngus olor) are harmful to the native habitats of the Chesapeake Bay. The research and scientific record into the effects of non-native mute swans on native environs is both extensive and comprehensive. |
||
THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OBJECTIVES: ASSESSING THE GERMAN BASIC LAW’S ANIMAL PROTECTION CLAUSE | Claudia E. Haupt | 16 Animal L. 213 (2010) | In 2002, an animal protection clause was added to Article 20a of the German Constitution. Designed as a state objective, the nature of the animal protection clause decidedly influences its application. As a state objective, it is directed at all three branches of government, and each branch must ensure within its sphere of competence the realization of the stated goal. The Federal Constitutional Court has yet to address the precise scope of the provision. This Article examines the likely future effects of the animal protection clause. With respect to the legislative branch, this Article addresses the question of whether the state objective demands that a standing provision be created for animal protection groups. With respect to the judicial and executive branches, this Article focuses on three fundamental rights that are most likely to come into conflict with animal protection: freedom of religion; freedom of teaching, science, and research; and freedom of artistic expression. Seismic shifts in constitutional adjudication are not likely to be expected. The provision does not give rights to animals. However, at a minimum, it prohibits circumventing the Animal Protection Act by construing that statute in light of the Constitution. The animal protection clause removed the disproportionality between certain fundamental rights and the interest in animal protection. It mandates a balancing of constitutional interests and eliminates doubts regarding the constitutionality of the Animal Protection Act, especially with respect to the fundamental rights discussed. |