Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who Speaks for the Animals? | Wendy Anderson | ABA Animal Law Committee Newsletter |
This article examines the public policy debate over control of stray animal populations, in particular, feral cat colonies. The author, director of a feral cat advocacy group, explains that many of the individuals who act as caretakers for feral cat colonies are caught in a conundrum as to whether they should come "out" as caretakers or remain in secrecy. Much of the current legal policy for animals stems from antiquated animal control laws that do not accurately reflect the attitude of the country toward companion animals. |
Article | ||
| WHO THE JUDGE ATE FOR BREAKFAST: ON THE LIMITS OF CREATIVITY IN ANIMAL LAW AND THE REDEEMING POWER OF POWERLESSNESS | Matthew Liebman | 18 Animal L. 133 (2011) |
Drawing upon various schools of legal thought, this Essay explores how ideological and non-legal factors influence the adjudication process in animal law cases. The Legal Realist and Critical Legal Studies movements highlighted the indeterminacy present in legal doctrine and undermined trust in judges’ ability to arrive at “correct” answers to legal questions. In the midst of such indeterminacy, where legal texts do not predetermine legal outcomes, judges tend to render decisions that are consistent with pervasive societal norms and existing distributions of political power. Starting from these premises, the Author questions whether innovative and creative impact litigation by the animal law movement can succeed in fundamentally challenging speciesism through a legal system that is pervasively hostile to the interests of animals. Although incremental and meaningful gains are possible through litigation, we must recognize the limits of legal reform in the short-term. Although such limitations are typically seen as cause for despair, the Author argues that recognizing our powerlessness can be a source of compassion and an opportunity to experience our shared existential vulnerability with animals. |
Article | ||
| Why Can't I Know How The Sausage Is Made?: How Ag-Gag Statutes Threaten Animal Welfare Groups And The First Amendment | Daniel L. Sternberg | 13 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 625 | The purpose of this Note is to investigate this clash and analyze the constitutionality of the five Ag-Gag statutes that specifically target surreptitious investigative techniques. Part I provides an overview of these state Ag-Gag statutes enacted around the United States. Part II summarizes the first constitutional challenge to an Ag-Gag statute - Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Hebert, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Part III analyzes the constitutionality of the provisions of Ag-Gag statutes that (a) provide a cause of action for civil restitution for the actual and consequential damages resulting from a violation of the statutes; or (b) implicate third parties by triggering state criminal laws such as aiding and abetting or conspiracy. Finally, Part IV summarizes the author's conclusions about the extent to which the First Amendment shields journalists and newsgathering organizations from prosecution under an Ag-Gag statute. | Article | ||
| Why Context Matters: Defining Service Animals Under Federal Law | Rebecca J. Huss | 37 Pepp. L. Rev. 1163 (2010) |
The Article begins with a brief history of service animals. It continues with an analysis of the proposed changes to the ADA rules and selected case law that illustrates the need for clarification in this area of the law. The Article then evaluates the way service animals are handled under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) because of recent regulatory activity interpreting that law. The Article concludes by arguing that there are rational reasons to have an expansive definition of service animal under the ADA and, in the alternative, if there is a restrictive definition under the ADA, the broader protections under the FHA and ACAA should remain in place. |
Article | ||
| Why is it a Crime to Stomp on a Goldfish -- Harm, Victimhood and the Structure of Anti-Cruelty Offenses | Luis E. Chiesa | 78 Miss. L.J. 1 (Fall 2008) |
Part I provides a brief recount of the history of Anglo-American statutes prohibiting harm to animals. In Part II, the notions of victimhood, consent and harm are explored in order to lay the groundwork for the claims that will be put forth in the remainder of the article. Part III examines five different theories advanced to explain the interest society seeks to promote by punishing acts that are harmful to animals. Part IV explains why it is not necessarily the case, as some animal law scholars have argued, that because animal cruelty statutes allow for the infliction of harm to animals as a result of hunting, scientific activities and farming, the interest primarily sought to be protected by these laws is something other than the protection of animals. |
Article | ||
| Why Managing Biodiversity Will Fail: An Alternative Approach To Sustainable Exploitation For International Law | Kyle Ash | 13 Animal Law 209 (2007) |
The role of humans in mass extinctions necessitates an assessment of the collective human psychology responsible for the degradation of Earth’s life support systems. In this paper, the Author will cite instruments and discourse relevant to international environmental law to illustrate how an antiquated conception of biological hierarchies is condoned whenever other species are mentioned. |
Article | ||
| WI - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | W. S. A. 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 951.01, .097, .18; 440.45 | WI ST 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 951.01, .097, .18; 440.45 |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
Statute | ||
| WI - Breed - 95.13. Misrepresenting breed of domestic animal | W. S. A. 95.13 | WI ST 95.13 |
Under this Wisconsin statute, no person may sell any domestic animal or represent that such domestic animal is a pure bred animal, if the animal is not registered or entitled to be registered, in any pure breed registry for that breed. |
Statute | ||
| WI - Breeder - Chapter ATCP 16. Dog Sellers and Dog Facility Operators. | WI ADC s ATCP 16.01 - 30 | Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 16.1 to 30 |
This set of administrative regulations from Wisconsin covers the conditions under which dogs must be kept by dog breeders (defined as any person who sells at least 25 dogs from more than 3 litters) and dog dealers. Dog sellers and dog facility operators are required to be licensed under the section. Per ATCP 16.18, a person licensed under this chapter may not transfer a dog to the buyer unless the dog is at least 7 weeks old, the dog is accompanied by its dam, or the department approves the transfer in writing. Minimum standards of care are outlined for licensees for dogs kept indoors or outdoors. |
Administrative | ||
| WI - Cats - Question 62 - DEFEATED | Wisconsin 2005 Question 62 |
This controversial measure would have allowed hunters to hunt any cat that was found free roaming, meaning it did not exhibit a collar or other signs of domestic ownership. At the Monday, April 11, 2005 meeting of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, those in favor of the feral cat hunting proposal approved the measure by a vote of 6,830 to 5,201. This approval was then forwarded to the state Natural Resources Board for consideration. Proponents of the measure suggest feral cats expose domestic animals to disease and endanger native songbirds. Opponents of the measure counter that such a law would be cruel and archaic, putting domestic cats who have escaped from their homes at risk of death. On May 25, 2005 at the Natural Resources Board regular spring meeting, a representative of the Congress indicated that the Executive Committee has declined to pursue the issue any further. (See the official meeting minutes at page 5 at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/minutes/M05/0505%20minutes.pdf ). Feral cat advocates claimed a public relations victory, as the measure gained national and even international criticism. (See Alley Cat Allies at http://www.alleycat.org/wi.html ). (For more on the procedural history of this measure, see the "Long Summary" under the "Statute Details" above). |
Statute |