Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caring for Dolphins, Otters, and Octopuses: Speciesism in the Regulation of Zoos and Aquariums | Marla K. Conley | 15 Animal L. 237 (2008) | Current regulations for zoos and aquariums rely heavily on standards established by industry associations, and the government increasingly expects public display facilities to self-monitor. Unfortunately, the industry associations charged with policing zoos and aquariums lack the enforcement authority necessary to ensure that animals kept in these facilities receive adequate attention or resources. This article argues that marine animals kept in public display facilities, such as zoos and aquariums, should benefit from the same level of regulatory protection as their land-bound counterparts. Even though marine animals demonstrate intellectual abilities equivalent or superior to those of land-bound animals, federal regulations allow facilities to keep marine animals in smaller enclosures with less social contact. This article discusses existing regulations for the following three levels of animals in light of their physical and intellectual needs: dolphins as compared to elephants and nonhuman primates, otters as compared to dogs, and octopuses as compared to hamsters and rabbits. Finally, this article recommends several adjustments to existing regulations for marine animals. | Article | |
| Caribbean Conservation Corp., Inc. v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com'n | 838 So.2d 492(Fla. 2003) | 28 Fla. L. Weekly S46, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S134 |
The petitioners' challenge is whether the Legislature can require the newly created Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when adopting rules or regulations in respect to those species of marine life that are defined as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The petitioners are not-for-profit groups and individuals who allege several statutory sections unconstitutionally usurp the constitutional authority of the FWCC to regulate marine life. The FWCC and the Attorney General (respondents) disagree and argue that the Legislature can require the application of the APA and that the statutes that delineate power to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are constitutional. The issue was whether the creation of the FWCC also gave it power to regulate endangered, threatened, and species of special concern or whether that power remained with the DEP. The court found that such power remained with the DEP regarding endangered and threatened species of marine life. However, it could discern no statutory basis in effect on March 1, 1998, for the DEP having regulatory or executive power in respect to a category of marine species designated "of special concern" so that portion of the challenged statutes was held unconstitutional. |
Case | |
| Cardenas v. Swanson | 531 P.3d 917 (Wyo., 2023) | 2023 WY 67, 2023 WL 4344196 (Wyo. July 5, 2023) | The Cardenas family (Appellants) owned three St. Bernard dogs. Appellants lived on a home adjacent to large tracts of state land, and would allow the dogs to roam the land unleashed, but the dogs would return each night. One afternoon, the dogs were let outside to run, but one dog did not return. Appellants found the dog caught in a snare, where it died from a broken neck. Appellants attempted to free the dog from the snare, and one of the Cardenas children was injured in the process. While appellants were attempting to free their dog from the snare, the other two dogs were also caught in snares, and died from their injuries. Appellants filed suit against the trapper who set the snares (Appellee), asserting claims of negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, violation of statutes, infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted and denied in part, finding that appellee’s conduct was not willful and wanton and that appellants could not recover emotional damages for the loss of the dogs. On appeal, the court considered: (1) whether the members of the Cardenas family can recover damages for emotional injuries for the loss of their dogs, and (2) whether this court should allow the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet. The court held that (1) emotional injuries for the loss of property are not recoverable, under this court’s precedent emotional damages are only recoverable for certain limited situations. Dogs are considered personal property under state law, and damage to personal property is not one of the situations in which emotional damages are recoverable. Next, the court held that (2) it would not create a precedent to allow people to recover emotional distress damages when animate personal property is harmed, as that change would be best suited for the legislature to make. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the case. | Case | |
| Carbasho v. Musulin | 618 S.E.2d 368 (W. Va. 2005) |
Owner's dog was killed by a negligently driven car. The owner sued to recover damages for loss of companionship. The court held that dogs are personal property and damages for sentimental value, mental suffering, and emotional distress are not recoverable. |
Case | ||
| Captive Wildlife Issues | Policy | ||||
| Cantore v. Costantine | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2023 WL 7560690 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2023) | No. 2022-00077, 622356/19, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05708 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Nov. 15, 2023) | This is an appeal of a personal injury case brought by plaintiff, the mother of the injured child, against the owners of a dog that caused the injury and the owners of the restaurant where the injury occurred. The injury took place at a dog-friendly restaurant both parties were dining at, where the dog owned by defendants bit a three-year-old infant. Plaintiff alleges that the restaurant owners knew of the dog’s vicious propensities but allowed it on the premises, and are liable along with the owners of the dog for the injuries sustained by her child. Defendant restaurant owners contend that they did not know of the dog’s vicious propensities, and that their restaurant requires that dogs be leashed and the dog was leashed at the time of the bite. Plaintiff argues that, under the Hewitt case, a standard negligence analysis should be used rather than an analysis based on knowledge of vicious propensities. Plaintiffs also argue defendant restaurant owners owed a duty of care to their customers, which was breached by allowing a dangerous dog on the premises. The lower court denied defendants motion for summary judgment because there were unresolved issues of fact as to the restaurant defendants’ duty to their patrons and the foreseeability of the injury. This appeal followed. On appeal, the court reversed the order of the lower court because defendants established that they did not have any knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and that they exercised reasonable care through their signage and policies to protect restaurant patrons from the risk of harm that allowing animals on the premises poses. Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted. | Case | |
| Canning Canned Hunts: Using State and Federal Legislation to Eliminate the Unethical Practice of Canned "Hunting" | Laura J. Ireland | 8 Animal L. 223 (2001) |
Ms. Ireland explores the methodologies, ethics, and dangers of canned hunting and offers ways to challenge the practice through existing and proposed state and federal statutes. In so doing, Ms. Ireland examines statutory law as it relates to exotic animals, the definition of "animal," anti-cruelty exemptions, and husbandry practices. Finally, the feasibility of statutory enforcement by agencies is examined. |
Article | |
| Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=338&table=documents |
This article explores the issues surrounding "canned hunts." Section I provides an introduction and overview; explores the ethical objections to canned hunts based on standards generally accepted by the sport hunting community; raises questions about the appropriate legal analogy that should be applied to canned hunts; and discusses the serious animal health and public health issues raised by canned hunts. Section II catalogs the relevant statutes and regulations of each state with an example of a model ordinance relating to the regulation of canned hunts. |
Article | |
| Canned Hunts: The Other Side of the Fence | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=42&table=documents |
This article, reprinted with permission from The Fund for Animals' website, explains the activity referred to as 'canned hunting.' |
Article | |
| Canaries as subjects of rights - Argentina DO NOT PUBLISH YET | Case |