|Overview of Dog Auctions and Retail Rescue||Kayla Venckauskas||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
Rescue groups and animal welfare advocates alike are at the forefront of speaking out against the puppy mill and commercial breeding industries. They are often natural enemies yet recently have found themselves in the same room doing business together.
|Brief Summary of Dog Auctions and Retail Rescue||Kayla Venckauskas||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This brief summary explores the recent changes with respect to dog auctions and the role of rescues. The limited federal and state oversight is discussed as well as new retail pet store bans that have inadvertently fueled "retail rescue" phenomenon.||Article|
|CONFINED TO A PROCESS: THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE OF LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARDS IN FARM ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATION||Lindsay Vick||18 Animal L. 151 (2011)||In recent years, livestock care standards boards have emerged as an innovative way for state agencies to regulate farm animal welfare. Far from improving farm animal welfare, however, these boards are frequently a way to codify existing industry standards. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, for example, had a nominal mission to establish regulations governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry. Other states have created similar mechanisms for regulating farm animal welfare. This Comment maintains that the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board regulations merely codify the existing status quo on Ohio factory farms rather than improving the health and welfare of animals. This Comment also discusses the successes and failures of other livestock care standards boards. This Comment then considers ways that livestock care standards boards, or alternative methods, could improve farm animal welfare.||Article|
|The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement||Joseph Vining||Vining, Joseph. "'The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement." Law Quad. Notes 46, no. 2 (2003): 82-8.||The subjects of this article are biomedical research and animals. In raw percentage terms, the animals involved in experimentation are now overwhelmingly rats and mice, and, perhaps because they are rats and mice, they are used in large numbers, numbers in thousands and tens of thousands at some institutions. Legal, ethical, and practical accommodation to this fact on the ground presents a host of questions. There are questions of the cost of care. There are questions of the training of veterinarians, principal investigators, and laboratory personnel. With mice particularly, there are questions about the creation of conditions in an animal that do not yet exist, a future animal, by knocking out a gene and, as we say, "seeing what happens": new questions, really, that move us away from the traditional focus on the details of how an investigator treats a living animal. Then there are the central questions of weighing costs and benefits, of justification and the application of the three R's of reduction, refinement, and replacement, where it is not dogs or primates or marine mammals that are concerned, but rats and mice - for many, the least on the scale of concern for animals. Rats, mice, and birds have of course been recently exempted from the Animal Welfare Act. But that may be viewed as making the questions only that much more difficult, thrown back into the laps of researchers themselves and review boards, veterinarians, laboratory assistants, and university and corporate administrators, who for the moment can expect to have that much less outside guidance or mandate in deciding what to do. The overarching problem, which is how to think about rats and mice, not a new problem at all, but newly pressing.||Article|
|Human Identity: The Question Presented by Human-Animal Hybridization||Joseph Vining||1 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 50 (2008)||What makes each of us, as individuals, human to one another, or, more generally, what makes an individual creature human? We have not often had to ask the question because of the species line based on reproductive capacity and incapacity, although “degrees of humanness” were explored in the various eugenic programs of the last century. Now the biotechnological possibility of fusing human and other forms of life is presenting the question in a new and serious way. If the traditional biological means of defining species are no longer reliable, what other criteria might determine what is “human” and what is “nonhuman”? The issue is not just how to conceive of an individual hybrid presented to us, but how to act toward the creature, at the most basic level. Drawing on animal law and theory as well as the history of human eugenics in law and policy, Vining identifies criteria that may one day be used to gauge relative humanness, qualitative and quantitative. He observes that ultimately the difficulty of deciding or agreeing upon what identifies us as human will make even more problematic the current treatment of creatures deemed purely “animal.” In the end he suggests that what the human distinctively brings to the sentient world is general responsibility itself, and that wider contemplation of the real possibility of human-animal hybridization may lead to new ways of thinking about animals, in law and beyond. Human Identity was presented recently as a talk to a longstanding interdisciplinary faculty seminar at the University of Michigan. It is presented largely in its original form here, with footnotes added.||Article|
|HONORABLE DISCHARGE: PAWS v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY||Andrea Vitalich||1 Animal L. 133 (1995)||This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife.||Article|
|HONORABLE DISCHARGE : PAWS V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY||Andrea Vitalich||1 Animal L. 133 (1995)||This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife.||Article|
|Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit||Voiceless Australia||www.voiceless.org.au||
Overview of the state of Animal Law in Australia.
|America Gets What it Wants: Pet Trusts and a Future for its Companion Animals||Breahn Vokolek||76 UMKC L. Rev. 1109 (Summer, 2008)||
The pet trust has earned wide acceptance despite its unique non-human and noncharitable nature and has been adopted relatively quickly compared to other novel types of trusts. This comment reviews the history and characteristics of pet trusts to determine why they have been so widely recognized and to explore how the growth in their use and acceptance may be predictive of the development of trusts in the future.
|Non-Economic Damages: Where Does It Get Us and How Do We Get There?||Sonia S. Waisman||1 Journal of Animal Law 7 (2005)||
A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question?