|ANIMAL THING TO ANIMAL PERSON-THOUGHTS ON TIME, PLACE, AND THEORIES||Steven M. Wise||5 Animal L. 61 (1999)||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.||Article|
|THUNDER WITHOUT RAIN: A REVIEW/COMMENTARY OF GARY L. FRANCIONE'S RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER: THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT||Steven M. Wise||3 Animal L. 45 (1997)||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.||Article|
|LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS||Steven M. Wise||2 Animal L. 179 (1996)||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.||Article|
|How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe||Steven M. Wise||1 Animal L. 15 (1995)||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.||Article|
|The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule||Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017||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.||Article|
|Brief Summary of Horsemeat for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
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.
|Overview of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
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.
|Detailed Discussion of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
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.
|Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||
Brief Summary of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption
|Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records||Christopher Wlach||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 191 (2017)||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.||Article|