|1999 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS||Katharine Keaton and Deborah Maas||6 Animal L. 153 (2000)||This is a review of state and federal legislation in 1999.||Article|
|1998 STATE BALLOT INITIATIVES||Aaron Lake||5 Animal L. 91 (1999)||This is a review of the ballot initiatives in 1998.||Article|
|(ELEPHANT) DEATH AND TAXES: PROPOSED TAX TREATMENT OF ILLEGAL IVORY||Angela Ostrowski||21 Animal L. 221 (2015)||African elephants are poached for their ivory at alarming rates. If the current level of poaching continues, it is projected they will be extinct from the wild in the year 2025. Preserving the African elephant species is important from an animal rights, conservation, ecological, economical, and crime prevention perspective. The current penalties and fines for the illegal trade in ivory are not enough of a deterrent. One method of deterrence that has not yet been explored is the imposition of tax consequences on the illegal ivory trade. This Article proposes a number of ways to use the tax system to further deter participation in the illegal ivory trade. For tax purposes, illegal ivory should be treated similarly to other activities that have both legal and illegal operations, such as marijuana, gambling, and prostitution. Congress could impose an excise tax on ivory and an occupational tax on those who make or sell ivory products. In addition, there are several tax crimes in the Internal Revenue Code that are applicable to those who sell illegal ivory and do not report the income on their tax returns. For example, tax evasion is one of the related criminal activities associated with wildlife trafficking. Tax consequences will hopefully provide a further disincentive to those participating in the illegal ivory trade.||Article|
|"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.
|"SAVE THE WHALES" V. "SAVE THE MAKAH": THE MAKAH AND THE STRUGGLE FOR NATIVE WHALING||Richard Kirk Eichstaedt||4 Animal L. 145 (1998)||In 1997, the International Whaling Commission approved a quota for the Makah Indian Tribe to hunt four gray whales per year, culminating years of legal wrangling and political maneuvering by all of the concerned parties. Mr. Eichstaedt examines the history of the Makah whaling rights from the Tribe’s treaty with the United States in 1855 to the present-day battles with Congress and the IWC. This unfolding story pits a species of whale once on the brink of extinction, against Native Americans reasserting a centuries-old custom.||Article|
|"No Animals Were Harmed . . .": Protecting Chimpanzees From Cruelty Behind The Curtain||Lorraine L. Fischer||27 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 405||
In this law review, Lorraine L. Fischer hopes to effect change in the way chimpanzees and other exotic animals are perceived in filmed media. Fischer argues that the exploitation of these animals is unacceptable because they (and other great apes) are not only sentient beings, but beings capable of suffering, forming relationships, expressing emotion, mourning death, communicating thoughts, and expressing love. Additionally, Fischer argues that since chimpanzees are a severely endangered species, using them as actors contradicts and offends the strong public policy of conservation and preservation that should be afforded to this precious species. To illustrate how laws fail to protect chimpanzees used in entertainment, this law review examines the Endangered Species Act, the Animal Welfare Act, and various state anti-cruelty laws.
|"Man's Best Friend:" Property or Family Member? An Examination of the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and its Impact||William C. Root||47 Vill. L. Rev. 423 (2002)||
This article examines the historical treatment of companion animals (pets) under the law as property or chattel, despite the degree of importance most Americans place upon their relationship with their pets. In cases of willful or negligent injury or death to these animals, courts have typically awarded market value damages, which, in most cases are nominal. The author proposes that the characterization of animals as mere property should change to reflect societal views, and punitive damages should be assessed by court where injury to the animal is willful, wanton or reckless.
|"Live Animals": Towards Protection for Pets and Livestock in Contracts for Carriage||Erin Sheley||3 J. Animal L. 59 (2007)||
This article maps the current legal and logistical circumstances of animals in transportation, with a focus on commercial airlines and meat industry trucking practices, and proposes novel ways of utilizing the existing common law of contract adjudication to win stronger protections for such animals, even absent the fulfilled dream of statutory reform. In particular, it argues that courts should utilize two well-established doctrines of contractual interpretation--unconscionability and unenforceability as against public policy--to arrive at more humane results for animals.
|"It's the Right Thing to Do": Why the Animal Agriculture Industry Should Not Oppose Science-Based Regulations Protecting the Welfare Of Animals Raised for Food||Angela J. Geiman||106 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 128 (2008)||The purpose of this commentary is to respond to the question, “Should laws criminalizing animal abuse apply to animals raised for food?” The simple answer to the question is “yes,” but the reality is not simple. It requires analyzing both the science of raising livestock and the current legal framework, which we must understand before discussing what to require and how to implement those requirements. Continued improvements in the livestock and meatpacking industries and the rising expectations of consumers add to the complexity of the issue.||Article|
|"DO DOGS APE?" OR "DO APES DOG?" AND DOES IT MATTER? BROADENING AND DEEPENING COGNITIVE ETHOLOGY||Marc Bekoff||3 Animal L. 13 (1997)||This article is a brief discussion of some aspects of Marc Bekoff's research that bear on animal sentience and animal protection. First he considers how the comparative study of animal minds informs discussions of animal exploitation, then he discusses how humans interfere, often unknowingly, in the lives of wild animals. It doesn't matter whether "dogs ape" or "apes dog" when taking into account the worlds of different animals.||Article|