|Tara Zuardo||HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION||
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.
|Tong Zhao||OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR ENACTING ANIMAL CRUELTY STATUTES IN CHINA||This paper argues that it is time for the Chinese legislative body to enact an animal abuse statute. Specifically, this paper attempts to amend the "Criminal Law of The People’s Republic of China" by adding three provisions into the Section 1 “Offense against the Public Order” of Chapter VI “Offences against Social Management of Order”. That is, “the offence of cruelty to animals”, “the offence of disseminating videos and images of animal cruelty” and “the offense of animal abandonment”. In 2009, a group of experts have submitted this proposal for embracing Animal Cruelty Rules into Criminal Law to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. It is noted that the proposal was rejected by the Chinese legislative body in 2010 and then shortly the Animal Cruelty committee dissolved.|
|Drew YoungeDyke||Against the Current: The Attempt to Keep Asian Carp Out of the Great Lakes||
In the man-made channels connecting the Mississippi, Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers to Lake Michigan lurk fish with the potential to dramatically and permanently alter the biomass of the Great Lakes. Asian carp have been found in the Chicago Area Waterway System, and the effort to keep this injurious species out of Lake Michigan has sparked a multi-state legal battle, resurrecting an 81-year old Supreme Court case and a new request that the System’s locks be closed. At stake is the $70 million shipping industry that relies on the locks, the $7 billion fishing industry that relies on the lakes and the invaluable ecosystem and natural resources that comprise world’s largest freshwater lake system.
|Robert W. Young||US - Audit- APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities||This report presents the results the Office of Inspector General's audit of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Animal Care (AC) unit, which has the responsibility of inspecting all facilities covered under the AWA and following up on complaints of abuse and noncompliance. The office also reviewed AC’s coordination with the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) staff, which provides support to AC in cases where serious violations have been found. In addition, the office also evaluated the effectiveness of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs)—the self-monitoring committees at the research facilities responsible for ensuring compliance with the AWA.|
|Melissa Young||THE FIRST ANIMAL LAW JOURNAL, TWENTY VOLUMES LATER||
Twenty volumes is no small feat for an independently funded, entirely student-run journal. With a total staff of twenty students, including a small Board comprised of Editor in Chief, James Goldstein, Jr.; Managing Editor, William Fig; Articles Editor, Kelly Jeffries; and Form and Style Editor, Benjamin Allen, Animal Law published the inaugural volume of the world’s first animal law journal in 1995. This landmark event was the result of the hard work of Lewis & Clark students, with some key support. In this first volume, Animal Law gave “special thanks to Benjamin Allen for his hard work and dedication in founding [the] journal, to Matthew Howard and Nancy Perry for their inspiration, and to Richard Katz for his invaluable support throughout the process.” Animal Law also gave “thanks to Michael Blumm for his advice and encouragement, and to the Board of [Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)] for their support.”
|Akimune Yoshida||An Analysis of Favre’s Theory on the Legal Status of Animals: Towards a Reconsideration of the “Person-Property Dichotomy”||In modern legal systems, only persons (including natural persons and legal persons) can have legal rights; property cannot. This perspective is known as the “Person-Property Dichotomy". Although animals are categorized as personal property, their legal treatment has changed from that of other forms of property, and in many jurisdictions, anti-cruelty laws have been enacted to punish owners of animals who abuse animals in their care. This unique legal status of animals leads us towards a reconsideration of the “Person-Property Dichotomy”. The Japanese Government is currently in the process of amending the Act on Welfare and Management of Animals. In Japan, there has been a dearth of academic debate to date about the legal status of animals, and it is helpful to see how other jurisdictions have discussed this topic. This paper focuses on David S. Favre’s theory as it has not been studied as deeply in Japan as its importance and societal needs merit. In order to keep animals within the concept of property and recognize their legal rights, Favre proposed an innovative concept, “living property”. His theory is based on the principle of trusts, which divide title into equitable and legal title, and acknowledges equitable self-ownership by animals. Whereas domestic animals possess equitable title and some legal rights, owners have only legal title. Such animals with equitable title thus become living property. When owners infringe domestic animals’ legal rights, such animals can sue their owners with the help of other humans as guardians. This paper introduces Favre’s theory on the legal status of animals from his own highly original perspective and analyzes it critically with a view to clarifying its implications for Japanese law.|
|Jamie M. Woolsey||A Survey of Agreements and Federal Legislation Protecting Polar Bears in the United States||
Throughout the past few decades, international concern for polar bear welfare has increased dramatically. The multinational agreements forged for their conservation require significant policing, cooperation, and understanding of the complex ecological and economic considerations surrounding these predators. Woolsey’s article explores the international agreements and measures designed to save both the bears and their critical habitat.
|Jamie M. Woolsey||Overview of Dolphins Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act||
This summary provides a brief history behind the adoption of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It also examines the goals of the Act and current controversies that have arisen due to modern pressures on dolphin populations.
|Jamie M. Woolsey||Brief Summary of Dolphins Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act||
This overview examines the historical underpinnings behind the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the application of the Act today. Of primary importance is the high mortality rate of dolphins in the tuna fishery and the continued pressures on dolphins due to harassment of dolphins in the wild.
|Jamie M. Woolsey||Detailed Discussion of Dolphins Under the MMPA||
This discussion analyzes the historical significance and legislative history of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Act's effectiveness in protecting dolphins. Included in the topics are international efforts in dolphin conservation and more recent concerns of human interaction with dolphins.
|Mary C. Wood||Protecting the Wildlife Trust: A Reinterpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act||
This Article attributes the failure of the ESA after thirty years to a basic flaw in interpreting one of the ESA's core provisions, section 7. Section 7 imposes a dual mandate on federal agencies to develop programs for the conservation of listed species, and to insure that federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service have failed to develop any regulation implementing the affirmative conservation program requirement, and they have interpreted the no jeopardy prohibition in a manner that allows imperiled species to drift closer and closer to extinction. This Article suggests a reinterpretation of section 7 in accordance with wildlife trust principles.
|Jonathan Wood||Take It to the Limit: The Illegal Regulation Prohibiting the Take of Any Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act||Part II of this article will provide a brief background on the adoption of the Endangered Species Act. Part III will explain that the statute does not authorize the agencies to extend the take prohibition to all threatened species. Part IV will argue that returning to the statutory scheme would result in a fairer distribution of the costs of species protection by imposing the costs of prophylactic protection on agencies and the public generally. Burdening individuals would be a last resort, as Congress intended. Finally, Part V will identify how Congress' policy is a reasonable way to align private incentives with species protection. The statute's approach would encourage property owners to stop a threatened species' further slide, to avoid imposition of the take prohibition, and to recover endangered species to the point where they can be downlisted and the take prohibition lifted. This would make the statute more effective at accomplishing its primary goal - recovering species to the point that they no longer require protection.|
|David J. Wolfson||BEYOND THE LAW: AGRIBUSINESS AND THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTION||Animals raised for food or food production in the United States are, in large part, excluded from legal protection against cruelty. This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to such animals and documents numerous recent amendments to state anticruelty statutes that have placed the definition of cruelty to farm animals in the hands of the farming community. Mr. Wolfson argues that these amendments contradict the historical purpose of anticruelty statutes originally enacted to protect farm animals. The article also contrasts this regressive legal development with progressive European legislation. Finally, Mr. Wolfson outlines a path for reform.|
|David J. Wolfson||McLibel||
McDonald's sued two defendants in England in 1991 for defamation and lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the "McLibel" case in relation to cruel common farming practices, and explores the contradiction that common farming practices can be found to be cruel.
|David J. Wolfson||Symposium: Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates - Conclusion||
David Wolfson concludes the events of the day by highlighting some of the significant issues raised by the participants in the conference, as well as the obstacles animal lawyers have faced and are working to overcome, including legal, political, and cultural barriers. Wolfson ends on an optimistic note, stating that given that the basic foundations of the animal protection movement are correct, the movement should ultimately be successful.
|David J. Wolfson||McLIBEL||In 1991, McDonald's sued two pro se defendants in England for defamation in relation to, among other things, allegations that McDonald's was culpably responsible for cruel common farming practices. The case took seven years and the appeals still continue, Though McDonald's spent over $16 million on legal representation and had significant legal advantages, it lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the background and holding of "McLibel" in relation to cruel common farming practices, its unique legal context, and the impact of the holding on animal law in general and state anti-cruelty laws in the United States. In addition, he explores the contradiction that McLibel exposes: the fact that a common farming practice can be found to be cruel in the view of a reasonable person while legal pursuant to an anti-cruelty statute.|
|David J. Wolfson||Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals||
This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to animals raised for food production, and outlines a path for reform.
|Kaitlin M. Wojnar||SHARK LAWS WITH TEETH: HOW DEEP CAN U.S. CONSERVATION LAWS CUT INTO GLOBAL TRADE REGULATIONS?||Controversy surrounding application of the Shark & Fishery Conservation Act of 2010 (Shark Conservation Act) reflects a culmination of competing interests between environmental conservation and international free trade. Non-governmental organizations are pressuring the United States (U.S.) government to use the Shark Conservation Act to impose trade sanctions against countries that do not have specific regulations on shark finning. The implementation of such import bans, however, could negatively impact the nation’s relationships with some of its principal trade partners and violate international obligations under multilateral trade treaties. This Note proposes that the U.S. cannot impose such an embargo on shark products without first laying a foundation for its actions in international custom or treaty.|
|Christopher Wlach||Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records||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.|
|Christen Wiser||Overview of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||
This overview focuses on horsemeat for human consumption, with a special look at its status in the U.S. It details the expiration of the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that existed from 2007 to 2011. Recently, federal appropriations omitted the horsemeat inspection defunding provision, allowing the resumption of horse slaughter in the U.S.
|Christen Wiser||Detailed Discussion of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||
The debate over horse slaughter is a composite of agricultural industry, animal welfare, constitutional, environmental, health, and regulatory concerns. Part II of this paper addresses the history of and cultural taboo ascribed to horsemeat consumption. Part III presents federal and state laws, administrative regulations and guidelines, major court cases, and proposed and pending legislation related to horse slaughter. Part IV describes associated issues, policy, and advocacy resulting from and effecting horse slaughter in the United States.
|Christen Wiser||Brief Summary of Horsemeat for Human Consumption||
This brief summary describes the history of horsemeat consumption, focusing specifically on the U.S. It analyzes the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that occurred in 2007 as a result of changes in federal appropriations. Recently, a change in appropriations brought the slaughter measure to the forefront. The legislative state of horse slaughter for human consumption remains uncertain.
|Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone||The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule||This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged.|
|Steven M. Wise||RECOVERY OF COMMON LAW DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, LOSS OF SOCIETY, AND LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF A COMPANION ANIMAL||Mr. Wise analyzes experiential recognition of the bond that exists between human companions and companion animals in the context of possible recovery of tort damages for the wrongful death of a companion animal. He demonstrates that companion animals are often seen by their human companions as members of the family (holding much the same status as children). He discusses historical aspects of the common law as they relate to current tort law in such cases and examines the tension that exists between principle and policy.|
|Steven M. Wise||LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS||This article was adapted from remarks from Steven M. Wise at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals.|
|Steven M. Wise||LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT||
The author gives an overview of the progress of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
|Steven M. Wise||THUNDER WITHOUT RAIN: A REVIEW/COMMENTARY OF GARY L. FRANCIONE'S RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER: THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT||In Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Professor Gary L. Francione argues that the modern animal rights movement is propelled similarly like the American abolitionist movement. "New Welfarists," he claims, fruitlessly pursue the goal of ending the exploitation of nonhuman animals through measures that better their welfare but cannot result in what matters most, the abolition of their legal status as property. In this essay, Steven Wise argues that New Welfarism does not contain a "structural defect," but a "structural inconsistency" that is necessary to achieve Gary Francione's goal of abolishing the property status of nonhuman animals in a manner consistent with the moral rights of nonhuman animals.|
|Steven M. Wise||ANIMAL LAW-THE CASEBOOK||This is a book review of the casebook "Animal Law."|
|Steven M. Wise||An Argument for the Basic Legal Rights of Farmed Animals||As legal things, nonhuman animals lack all legal rights and remain entirely the object of the rights held by us legal persons—that is, the beings with rights. Most legal protections for nonhuman animals remain indirect (mostly anti-cruelty statutes), enforceable only by public prosecutors. Even the Endangered Species Act requires a human plaintiff to have standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution. It has become clear that no meaningful percentage of nonhuman animals will ever be treated well or fairly until they attain some minimum degree of legal personhood—that is, until they achieve some minimum level of fundamental legal rights. In his article, Steven M. Wise argues for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals by relying upon bedrock principles of Western law: liberty and equality.|
|Steven M. Wise||Introduction to Animal Law Book||Steven M. Wise gives the introduction to Syracuse Law Review's Animal Law Book from 2017.|
|Steven M. Wise||ANIMAL THING TO ANIMAL PERSON-THOUGHTS ON TIME, PLACE, AND THEORIES||The rule that "animals are property," and do not merit legal rights, is ingrained in the law of English-speaking countries. Challenges to this rule must be brought in strategic, thoughtful, sensitive, sophisticated, and coordinated ways. This essay offers seven related strategic considerations for anyone who wishes to battle the "animals as property" rule.|
|Steven M. Wise||How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe||The first in a series of articles by the author whose overall purpose is to explain why legal rights need not be restricted to human beings and why a handful of rights that protect fundamental interests of human beings should also protect the fundamental interests of such nonhuman animals as chimpanzees and bonobos. The second article in this series traces the development of the common law as it concerns the relationships between human and nonhuman animals from its beginnings in the Mesopotamian "law code" of the third and second millennia, B.C. until today.|
|Steven M. Wise||Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals||
This article presents the remarks of Steven M. Wise on the status of animals in the legal system.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Detailed Discussion of Utah Great Ape Laws||The following article discusses Great Ape law in Utah.Utah does not have a law dealing with great apes, but addresses use and possession through regulations issued under the authority of the state’s Wildlife Resources Code. Additionally, only some great apes are protected under Utah’s anti-cruelty laws. The law prohibits both affirmative acts of cruelty such as torture or unjustified killing, and the failure to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody. Exceptions to the definition of “animal” exclude those animals owned or kept by a AZAA accredited zoological park or temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the USDA.|
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Brief Summary of Breed Specific Laws||
This article provides a brief summary of breed-specific legislation and the legal challenges to such laws.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Overview of State Cruelty Laws||
This summary describes some of the basic features of state cruelty laws with links to further discussions.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Detailed Discussion of Assistance Animal Laws||
This discussion examines the federal service animal provisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the relevant states. In doing so, states' equal access, criminal interference, and white cane laws are examined in addition to other laws.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Detailed Discussion of West Virginia Great Ape Laws||The following article discusses West Virginia Great Ape law. West Virginia has no law that restricts or otherwise mentions great apes. In fact, West Virginia does not even have a state endangered species provision providing additional state protection for endangered or threatened species. The only law to address great apes because it covers all animals is the state’s anti-cruelty provision. The law does except the humane use of animals or activities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, and the law’s accompanying regulations. This would include scientific research and animal exhibitors licensed under the Animal Welfare Act.|
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Table of State Humane Slaughter Laws||
This table presents an overview of state humane slaughter acts. It includes an examination of the legal methods of slaughter, religious/ritual exemptions, the animals covered, and the penalties for violation.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Detailed Discussion of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act||
This article explores the history and text of the BGEPA. It further examines the relevant legal issues spawned by the Act, including free exercise challenges by Native Americans, the abrogation of treaty rights, commerce in eagle parts, and requisite intent for criminal prosecution under the Act.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Brief Summary of Landlord Liability for Injury by Tenant's Animals||
This brief overview discusses when and how a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's animal. In short, it outlines what constitutes negligence for a landlord in such circumstances for most jurisdictions.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Summary of Emotional Support Animal Cases||This document provides summaries of cases involving emotional support animals( ESAs). The specific issues decided by the courts range from breeds of dogs used for ESAs, the charging of fees or pet deposits, places an ESA can be taken, and use of an ESA in university housing, among many other topics. Links to the actual case are provided.|
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Detailed Discussion of State Cat Laws||
This discussion analyzes the relevant state laws that affect cats. It also raises and attempts to answer several questions directed to cat owners, including licensing of cats, the feral cat problem, and state vaccination requirements.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Brief Summary of Dog Bite Laws||
This brief overview examines the basic provisions of most state dog bite laws, including the traditional elements of negligence and principles of strict liability.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Brief Summary of Local and State Dog Laws||
This summary examines the nature and authority of state and local dog laws. It also describes the general subjects included in dog laws, such as loose dogs and impoundment procedures. The concept of preemption of local laws is also defined.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Frequently Asked Questions on Local Dog Laws||
This article answers some typical questions relating to local dog laws.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Brief Introduction to Pet Damages||
This article provides a brief overview of the issues relevant to damages associated with pet loss or injury. Included is a brief discussion of the traditional property status of pets and an examination of typical awards in cases involving injury to pets.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Overview of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. SS 3371-3378)||
This article provides a brief overview of the federal Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378). Included is a brief historical discussion as well as an examination of the criminal and civil provisions under the Act. A link to a more complete discussion is provided.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||2008 - 2009 Significant Animal Law Cases||
This table provides a summary of the significant animal law cases from 2008 and early 2009. The federal cases are listed first followed by the state cases, which are listed alphabetically by case name.
|Rebecca F. Wisch||Summary of 2008 Animal-Related Ballot Measures||
This overview provides a summary of the animal-related ballots measures presented to voters in 2008. Links to the text of the ballot measures are provided.