Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Just Say Neigh: A Call for Federal Regulation of Byproduct Disposal By the Equine Industry | Mary W. Craig | 12 Animal L. 193 (2005) |
This article discusses the thousands of foals born each year that are bred for industrial purposes. These foals must then be disposed of as unwanted byproducts of the equine industry. PMU mares are bred to collect urine rich with hormones used in the production of a drug to treat menopausal symptoms. Nurse mares are bred to produce milk to feed foals other than their own. If adoptive homes cannot be found quickly, both industries dispose of their equine byproducts by slaughtering the foals, and sometimes the mares, for profit or convenience. This paper calls for an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act enabling the Department of Agriculture to regulate the PMU and nurse mare farms, and requiring both industries to responsibly dispose of these horses. |
| DOG MEAT TRADE IN SOUTH KOREA: A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE TRADE AND EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE IT | Claire Czajkowski | 21 Animal L. 29 (2014) | Within South Korea, the dog meat trade occupies a liminal legal space— neither explicitly condoned, nor technically prohibited. As a result of existing in this legal gray area, all facets of the dog meat trade within South Korea—from dog farms, to transport, to slaughter, to consumption—are poorly regulated and often obfuscated from review. In the South Korean context, the dog meat trade itself not only terminally impacts millions of canine lives each year, but resonates in a larger national context: raising environmental concerns, and standing as a proxy for cultural and political change. Part II of this Article describes the nature of the dog meat trade as it operates within South Korea; Part III examines how South Korean law relates to the dog meat trade; Part IV explores potentially fruitful challenges to the dog meat trade under South Korean law; similarly, Part V discusses growing social pressure being deployed against the dog meat trade. |
| Free Exercise Does Not Protect Animal Sacrifice: The Misconception of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and Constitutional Solutions for Stopping Animal Sacrifice | Shannon L. Doheny | 2 Journal of Animal Law 121 (2006) |
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a First Amendment religious free exercise challenge brought by a Florida Santerían church in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. However, Lukumi may be the most misunderstood legal precedent in recent history. The decision is often cited for the proposition that religious practitioners have a constitutional right to engage in animal sacrifice. This is far from the truth. Lukumi was decided in a unique context, and its holding was not based on the merits of animal sacrifice. This article will demonstrate that Lukumi does not force government to acquiesce to animal sacrifice, or the “litter” it creates. |
| EXAMINING THE VIABILITY OF ANOTHER LORD OF YESTERDAY: OPEN RANGE LAWS AND LIVESTOCK DOMINANCE IN THE MODERN WEST | Coby Dolan | 5 Animal L. 147 (1999) | In this comment, the author explores the development of open range laws in Oregon and other western states and argues such laws should be abolished or drastically amended. Common law requires ranchers to fence livestock in or face liability for damages caused by strays. However, historical customs and practices of Western states were shaped by vast open lands and sparce populations, leading to open range customs which required a landowner to fence "out" livestock to protect their property. This comment focuses on the case of Dr. Patrick Shipsey, an Oregon landowner convicted of shooting cattle that wandered onto his land. Through this discussion, the viability of open range statutes is discussed and the ongoing debate exposed. Policy alternatives are proposed that reflect modern demographic changes and a re-balancing of the economic and environmental burdens of ranching practices. |
| Anti-Horse Slaughter Legislation: Bad for Horses, Bad for Society | Laura Jane Durfee | 84 Ind. L.J. 353 (Winter, 2009) |
Part I of this Note will discuss the domestic horse slaughter industry. It will examine what types of horses are sent to slaughterhouses and by whom, as well as how slaughterhouses operate. Part II will discuss the current state of horse slaughter legislation and the legislative histories that led to the current situation. Part III will discuss the forecast for equine welfare and will explain why the closure of the U.S. equine slaughter industry is detrimental to equine welfare, and Part IV will discuss the negative economic effects that will be felt by the abolition of the domestic slaughter industry. This Note concludes by calling for the repeal of state laws criminalizing the slaughter of horses for human consumption, the reopening of equine slaughterhouses in the United States, and the rejection of the proposed Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008. |
| "World Leader" - At What Price? A Look at Lagging American Animal Protection Laws | Stephanie J. Engelsman | 22 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 329 (Fall, 2005) |
This paper will begin in showing that the United States has done virtually nothing to ensure that all creatures are free from unnecessary pain and suffering. This paper will then explore what other developed countries have done towards protecting nonhuman animals in the same amount of time. This paper in no way suggests that any of the countries to be discussed have solved the problem of animal exploitation; however it does suggest that many of those countries have at least begun to make a legitimate and concerted effort towards protecting animals from human greed. |
| To What Extent Does Wealth Maximization Benefit Farmed Animals? A Law And Economics Approach To A Ban On Gestation Crates In Pig Production | Geoffrey C. Evans | 13 Animal Law 167 (2006) |
A law and economics approach in the current animals-as-property realm could be the most efficient way to gain protections for the billions of farmed animals that need them now. The wealth maximization theory allows for this because it recognizes human valuation of nonhuman interests. However, evidence shows that a market failure exists because of the discord between public will and animal industry practices. Where human valuation of nonhuman interests is underrepresented in the market and, therefore, a market fix is needed through legislation, animal advocates should evaluate the legislation’s economic impacts. In the case of a ban on gestation crates, as may be the case elsewhere, legislation may actually prove to be economically efficient, and thus gain the support of those who would not otherwise back such legislation. |
| The Inadequate Protection of ANnimals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law | Nicole Fox | 17 Whittier L. Rev. 145 |
This article looks at available legal protections for all farmed animals, and recommends that Congress enact stricter animal welfare laws. |
| GIVING SLAUGHTERHOUSES GLASS WALLS: A NEW DIRECTION IN FOOD LABELING AND ANIMAL WELFARE | Zak Franklin | 21 Animal L. 285 (2015) | Modern industrial animal agriculture and consumer purchasing patterns do not match consumers' moral preferences regarding animal welfare. Current production methods inflict a great deal of harm on animals despite widespread consumer preference for meat, dairy, and eggs that come from humanely treated animals. Judging by the premium pricing and market shares of food products with moral or special labels (e.g., 'cage-free," 'free range,' and 'organic'), many consumers are willing to pay more for less harmful products, but they are unable to determine which products match this preference. The labels placed on animal products, and the insufficient government oversight of these labels, are significant factors in consumer ignorance because producers are allowed to use misleading labels and thwart consumers from aligning their preferences with their purchases. Producers are allowed to label their goods as friendly to animals or the environment without taking action to conform to those claims. Meanwhile, producers who do invest resources into more humane or environmentally-conscious production methods are competing with companies that do not make similar expenditures. Those companies can sell their products at a lower price without sacrificing profits, which prices-out producers who do invest resources. This Article proposes a new labeling regime in which animal products feature labels that adequately inform consumers of agricultural practices so that consumers can match their purchases with their moral preferences. In this proposed scheme, animal products would contain a label that concisely and objectively informs consumers what practices went into the making of that item. Such a scheme would enable consumers who wish to pay more for humane or environmentally-friendly products to do so, while rewarding those companies who actually do engage in better production methods. While the legal literature discussing food labeling and animal welfare is growing, most of the literature proposes legal definitions of terms like 'humane,' expansion of consumer protection law, or labeling systems in which third-parties provide grading or ranking systems for producers of animal products. This Article rejects those proposals as inadequate to sufficiently inform consumers and instead suggests providing consumers with a list of select practices producers engage in. |
| MEAT LABELING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS | Bruce Friedrich | 20 Animal L. 79 (2013) | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates meat labeling under the statutory authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The FMIA’s labeling preemption clause prohibits labeling requirements beyond federal requirements, and would thus preclude state causes of action on the basis of deceptive labels that were properly approved under federal law. Through the eyes of Kat, a hypothetical consumer concerned with the origins of the meat she purchases for her family, this Article argues that consumers should be able to pursue state law claims based on fraudulent animal welfare labels on packages of meat. This is true for two reasons: first, the FMIA’s labeling preemption only covers the USDA’s statutory scope of authority, which does not include on-farm treatment of animals; and second, both FMIA and a state cause of action would require the same thing—a non-fraudulent label. However, even if a court did find that a state cause of action based on a fraudulent label was preempted, consumer plaintiffs would have other avenues through which to pursue their claims. |