United States

Share |

RULES FOR PLAYING GOD: THE NEED FOR ASSISTED MIGRATION & NEW REGULATION

Summary: Climate change is quickly transforming habitats. Species in affected regions are facing extinction as they are unable to migrate to suitable environments. This Note discusses assisted migration, the intentional human-assisted movement of imperiled species to suitable habitats outside of their historic range, as an important—though controversial—conservation tool. There are, however, no comprehensive assisted migration regulations in the United States. This Note argues that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) should be the agency to issue regulations regarding assisted migration because FWS already has broad authority under the Endangered Species Act to conserve wildlife. This Note proposes that new regulations should be based upon existing FWS frameworks.

Climate change is quickly transforming habitats. Species in affected regions are facing extinction as they are unable to migrate to suitable environments. This Note discusses assisted migration, the intentional human-assisted movement of imperiled species to suitable habitats outside of their historic range, as an important—though controversial—conservation tool. There are, however, no comprehensive assisted migration regulations in the United States. This Note argues that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) should be the agency to issue regulations regarding assisted migration because FWS already has broad authority under the Endangered Species Act to conserve wildlife. This Note proposes that new regulations should be based upon existing FWS frameworks.

COALITIONS IN THE JUNGLE: ADVANCING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH CHALLENGES TO CONCENTRATION IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY

Summary: The meat processing conglomerates that currently control the majority of the market share in the meatpacking industry are responsible for its most systemic animal abuses. Increased concentration has enabled these larger processors to dictate animal treatment standards maintained by meat producers, most of whom have caved to economic pressure and moved their animals from small farms into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Animal welfare proponents have failed to adequately challenge the concentration of the meat industry and in 2012 have yet to fully explore strategies made available by the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA). This Article proposes that a coalition between animal welfare activists and small meat producers, who have yet to be absorbed or driven out of business by the meatpacking giants, could effectively attack the concentration of the meat industry. First, animal welfare activists should work with small producers to expose to the public the negative human externalities associated with market concentration, such as intensive farming techniques that directly compromise consumer health. Second, the animal welfare movement should harness its legal experience to encourage small meat producers to pursue PSA-based civil suits aimed at challenging the power of the meatpacking conglomerates.

The meat processing conglomerates that currently control the majority of the market share in the meatpacking industry are responsible for its most systemic animal abuses. Increased concentration has enabled these larger processors to dictate animal treatment standards maintained by meat producers, most of whom have caved to economic pressure and moved their animals from small farms into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Animal welfare proponents have failed to adequately challenge the concentration of the meat industry and in 2012 have yet to fully explore strategies made available by the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA). This Article proposes that a coalition between animal welfare activists and small meat producers, who have yet to be absorbed or driven out of business by the meatpacking giants, could effectively attack the concentration of the meat industry. First, animal welfare activists should work with small producers to expose to the public the negative human externalities associated with market concentration, such as intensive farming techniques that directly compromise consumer health. Second, the animal welfare movement should harness its legal experience to encourage small meat producers to pursue PSA-based civil suits aimed at challenging the power of the meatpacking conglomerates.

SOME TENANTS HAVE TAILS: WHEN HOUSING PROVIDERS MUST PERMIT ANIMALS TO RESIDE IN “NO-PET” PROPERTIES

Summary: Living with a disability can make finding a home a difficult task. Discrimination against the use of a service or assistive animal in lease agreements is a hurdle to finding a home for persons with disabilities. This discrimination is particularly pronounced when the individual suffers from a mental or emotional disability, because these disabilities are “invisible.” Because these disabilities are invisible, landlords are often reluctant to make reasonable accommodations in lease agreements to further the use of service and assistive animals in the treatment of mental illnesses or other disabilities, as required by the Fair Housing Act. This Article considers the requirements the Fair Housing Act imposes on landlords to make reasonable accommodations to their no-pets policies in order to facilitate the use of service and assistive animals. This Article begins with a look at the history of the Fair Housing Act and then analyzes different courts’ approaches to interpreting the Fair Housing Act in relation to maintaining a service or assistive animal. This Article concludes with suggested model legislation that would further the policy considerations behind the Fair Housing Act and make finding a home easier for people with disabilities.

Living with a disability can make finding a home a difficult task. Discrimination against the use of a service or assistive animal in lease agreements is a hurdle to finding a home for persons with disabilities. This discrimination is particularly pronounced when the individual suffers from a mental or emotional disability, because these disabilities are “invisible.” Because these disabilities are invisible, landlords are often reluctant to make reasonable accommodations in lease agreements to further the use of service and assistive animals in the treatment of mental illnesses or other disabilities, as required by the Fair Housing Act. This Article considers the requirements the Fair Housing Act imposes on landlords to make reasonable accommodations to their no-pets policies in order to facilitate the use of service and assistive animals. This Article begins with a look at the history of the Fair Housing Act and then analyzes different courts’ approaches to interpreting the Fair Housing Act in relation to maintaining a service or assistive animal. This Article concludes with suggested model legislation that would further the policy considerations behind the Fair Housing Act and make finding a home easier for people with disabilities.

AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

Summary: Currently there is no international agreement that ensures the welfare and protection of animals. Nor is there any international standard that regulates and defines the acceptable treatment of animals. This lack of international consensus leads to the current disparate treatment of animals around the world, echoing the need for an international framework addressing the issue. This Article discusses a proposed umbrella treaty, the International Convention for the Protection of Animals (ICPA). This umbrella treaty would enable animal welfare issues to gain international recognition and protection by setting the general guidelines and polices regarding the treatment and use of animals. This Article argues that this is the best way to successfully pursue international protection by reconciling the conflicting goals of making a treaty enticing to as many countries as possible, without eliminating enforcement mechanisms. This Article also suggests four companion protocols that would further delineate specific animal welfare standards and requirements. With the present economic climate, it may be difficult to convince countries to pass such a treaty. However, the ICPA could make it possible to begin the process of enacting groundbreaking international animal protection.

Currently there is no international agreement that ensures the welfare and protection of animals. Nor is there any international standard that regulates and defines the acceptable treatment of animals. This lack of international consensus leads to the current disparate treatment of animals around the world, echoing the need for an international framework addressing the issue. This Article discusses a proposed umbrella treaty, the International Convention for the Protection of Animals (ICPA). This umbrella treaty would enable animal welfare issues to gain international recognition and protection by setting the general guidelines and polices regarding the treatment and use of animals. This Article argues that this is the best way to successfully pursue international protection by reconciling the conflicting goals of making a treaty enticing to as many countries as possible, without eliminating enforcement mechanisms. This Article also suggests four companion protocols that would further delineate specific animal welfare standards and requirements. With the present economic climate, it may be difficult to convince countries to pass such a treaty. However, the ICPA could make it possible to begin the process of enacting groundbreaking international animal protection.

CRITICAL ANIMAL STUDIES AND ANIMAL LAW

Summary: Law is anthropocentric. With the limited exception of its treatment of the corporation, law is a system of rules that privileges the concept of the human and ascribes reality through a human perspective. Appreciating this, it is truly impressive that animal issues in the law have become so prominent throughout the legal education system. With this increased exposure to posthumanist critiques of the legal system and its status for and treatment of animals, an increasing number of those involved in legal education are rethinking the law’s species-based hierarchy that places humans at the apex. This flourishing interest in animal law is paralleled by growth in the field of Critical Animal Studies (CAS). However, these two disciplines have developed independently of each other. Acknowledging this, animal law scholarship is currently poised to incorporate the insights of CAS. Integrating such insight into the analysis of animal issues in the law will rectify the speciesist and otherwise exclusionary formulations of the socially constructed differences between various species, which have so far been unquestioned assumptions. CAS offers an understanding of these socially constructed differences and advances a common mission between issues identified as animal injustices and those identified as human injustices. CAS stresses the interconnection between human and animal issues, not simply parallels. This important synthesis can subvert the confinement of animal issues in the legal sphere and is key to extending these essential issues into a more diverse community.

Law is anthropocentric. With the limited exception of its treatment of the corporation, law is a system of rules that privileges the concept of the human and ascribes reality through a human perspective. Appreciating this, it is truly impressive that animal issues in the law have become so prominent throughout the legal education system. With this increased exposure to posthumanist critiques of the legal system and its status for and treatment of animals, an increasing number of those involved in legal education are rethinking the law’s species-based hierarchy that places humans at the apex. This flourishing interest in animal law is paralleled by growth in the field of Critical Animal Studies (CAS). However, these two disciplines have developed independently of each other. Acknowledging this, animal law scholarship is currently poised to incorporate the insights of CAS. Integrating such insight into the analysis of animal issues in the law will rectify the speciesist and otherwise exclusionary formulations of the socially constructed differences between various species, which have so far been unquestioned assumptions. CAS offers an understanding of these socially constructed differences and advances a common mission between issues identified as animal injustices and those identified as human injustices. CAS stresses the interconnection between human and animal issues, not simply parallels. This important synthesis can subvert the confinement of animal issues in the legal sphere and is key to extending these essential issues into a more diverse community.

HOT, CROWDED, AND LEGAL: A LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL

Summary: Over the last sixty years, industrial agriculture has expanded in the United States and throughout the world, including in Brazil. Any benefit this expansion has brought comes at significant environmental and social costs. Industrial agriculture is a leading contributor to global climate change, air and water pollution, deforestation, and dangers in the workplace. This Article discusses the impact of industrial animal agriculture in the U.S. and Brazil. It also examines the laws pertaining to industrial agriculture in both countries and provides a comparative analysis of the two legal regimes. Finally, this Article concludes with the observation that although the price to the U.S. and Brazil of remedying these impacts are high, the costs to humans, animals, and the environment by failing to do so is immeasurable.

Over the last sixty years, industrial agriculture has expanded in the United States and throughout the world, including in Brazil. Any benefit this expansion has brought comes at significant environmental and social costs. Industrial agriculture is a leading contributor to global climate change, air and water pollution, deforestation, and dangers in the workplace. This Article discusses the impact of industrial animal agriculture in the U.S. and Brazil. It also examines the laws pertaining to industrial agriculture in both countries and provides a comparative analysis of the two legal regimes. Finally, this Article concludes with the observation that although the price to the U.S. and Brazil of remedying these impacts are high, the costs to humans, animals, and the environment by failing to do so is immeasurable.

STATE ANIMAL USE PROTECTION STATUTES: AN OVERVIEW

Summary: 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.

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.

THE STATUTORY PET TRUST : RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW UNIFORM LAW BASED ON THE PAST TWENTY-ONE YEARS

Summary: Nearly three-fourths of American households include pets. Often, these pets are considered to be members of the family and are cared for as such. When a pet owner dies, however, questions often arise as to who will be responsible for continuing to care for the animals. Previously, probate and trust laws did not allow pet owners to provide for the care of their pets after death. In 1990, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) enacted the first pet trust statute in the Uniform Probate Code. Since then, the NCCUSL passed the Uniform Trust Code, which included a pet trust provision, and currently forty-six states and the District of Columbia have passed statutes specific to pet trusts. These laws are designed to create enforceable trusts for the care of animals after an owner’s death. Variations in these statutes across jurisdictions, however, lead to situations where a pet owner’s wishes may not be honored or enforced. This Article analyzes the statutory language found in the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Trust Code, and various state statutes relating to pet trusts. This Article identifies the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes of the pet trust statutes, and it concludes with a draft of improved pet trust legislation that will be beneficial to pet owners, trustees, caretakers, and pets alike.

Nearly three-fourths of American households include pets. Often, these pets are considered to be members of the family and are cared for as such. When a pet owner dies, however, questions often arise as to who will be responsible for continuing to care for the animals. Previously, probate and trust laws did not allow pet owners to provide for the care of their pets after death. In 1990, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) enacted the first pet trust statute in the Uniform Probate Code.

Since then, the NCCUSL passed the Uniform Trust Code, which included a pet trust provision, and currently forty-six states and the District of Columbia have passed statutes specific to pet trusts. These laws are designed to create enforceable trusts for the care of animals after an owner’s death. Variations in these statutes across jurisdictions, however, lead to situations where a pet owner’s wishes may not be honored or enforced. This Article analyzes the statutory language found in the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Trust Code, and various state statutes relating to pet trusts. This Article identifies the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes of the pet trust statutes, and it concludes with a draft of improved pet trust legislation that will be beneficial to pet owners, trustees, caretakers, and pets alike.
Share |