Results

This essay is written by a legal advocate in a socio-legal movement, the crime victims' rights movement, to legal advocates in the animal rights movement. It addresses three issues from the perspective of an outsider to the animal rights movement. First, the essay addresses the problems in the relationship between rights philosophy and successful legal rights advocacy; second, the essay reviews two animal rights legal advocate strategies of incrementalism and the common law coup; finally, the essay concludes with three practical suggestions for the animal rights movement about joining a part of the victims' rights movement to reach mutually identified goals.

Plaintiff dog owners appeal the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Ted Hallows. Hallows. a Division of Wildlife Resources employee, shot the dogs after they got loose from plaintiffs' backyard. While the factual accounts of the shooting differed, Hallows asserted that he shot the dogs within the scope of his employment and was therefore protected under the Governmental Immunity Act. On appeal, the court first found that plaintiffs may maintain an action against Hallows for conduct outside the scope of his employment and this claim was not barred by their admitted failure to comply with the Immunity Act's notice of claim and statute of limitations requirements. Further, as to plaintiffs' claims that Hallows was not acting within his scope of employment when the shooting occurred, there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

This Article investigates how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are implementing the Endangered Species Act's prohibition on “adverse modification” of “critical habitat.” That prohibition appears to be one of environmental law's most ambitious mandates, but its actual meaning and effect are contested. Using a database of over 4,000 “biological opinions,” interviews with agency staff, and a review of judicial decisions considering the adverse modification prohibition, this Article assesses the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are relying on the adverse modification prohibition to provide habitat protection.

Final rule by the FWS designating a critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew, consisting of 84 acres, in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The shrew was listed as endangered through a final rule that was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2002 (67 FR 10101). The designation of the critical habitat for the shrew was made pursuant to a judicial order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The order arose from Kern County Farm Bureau v. Badgley, U.S. Dist, LEXIS 24125, 2002.