Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of Vermont Great Ape Laws | Elizabeth Love Marcero | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Vermont Great Ape law. Like other states, Vermont does not define great apes as “endangered” under its own endangered species law. Instead, it covers great apes by reference to federal law. Great apes are also covered under the state’s anti-cruelty law. However, the law contains several exempt categories, including scientific research and veterinary medical or surgical procedures. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of New Mexico Great Ape Laws | Elizabeth Love Marcero | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in New Mexico. New Mexico regulates the possession of great apes by administrative regulation and reference to the federal endangered species list.This prohibition applies primarily to private ownership by the general public. There is a list of commercial uses that are allowed, however. Like other states, New Mexico does not define great apes as “endangered,” either under its own endangered species law or any regulations. It does, however, cover them by reference to federal law. New Mexico prohibits any possession, transport, commerce, or taking of federal protected endangered species. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of North Carolina Great Apes Laws | Elizabeth Love Marcero | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in North Carolina. While the state of North Carolina does not prohibit the possession of great apes, the law does allow cities and counties to regulate possession of dangerous animals by law.North Carolina also indirectly regulates the possession of great apes by reference to the federal endangered species list. In addition, the state declares the unlawful sale, possession for sale, or buying of any wildlife a Class 2 misdemeanor. Like other states, North Carolina does not define great apes as “endangered,” either under its own endangered species law or accompanying regulations. Instead, it covers great apes by reference to federal law. Great apes are also covered under the state’s anti-cruelty law. Still, the law contains a number of exempt categories. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Ohio Great Ape Laws | Elizabeth Love Marcero | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in Ohio. The state of Ohio controls possession and ownership of great apes under a new dangerous wild animal law. This law applies primarily to private ownership. Like other states, Ohio does not define great apes as “endangered” under its own endangered species law. It does, however, cover them by reference to the federal endangered species list. Finally, great apes are covered under the state’s anti-cruelty law. Interestingly, the law’s exemptions only apply to companion animals rather than the general animal cruelty sections. | Article |
| Animal Lovers and Tree Huggers Are the New Cold-Blooded Criminals?: Examining the Flaws of Ecoterroism Bills | Dara Lovitz | 3 J. Animal L. 79 (2007) |
Animal lovers and tree huggers were once deemed peaceful and benevolent activists. As our nation witnessed the increase in powerful lobbying on behalf of wealthy industries, that identity has been shattered by offensive epithets and reckless generalizations. Now those who preach kindness to the non-human species and respect for the environment are dumped into the same category as the group of individuals who fly planes into buildings and don explosive materials in high-traffic areas - those whose every violent action is designed to maim or murder a large number of innocent civilians. The defective grouping resulted from the gross mistake of legislatures across the country that enacted the fundamentally flawed so-called “eco terror bills.” |
Article |
| U.S. Court System Overview | Karstan Lovorn | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This is a short, concise and easy to read summary of how the American court system works. |
Article |
| Pleadings & Briefs, Overview | Karstan Lovorn |
This is an outline-overview of the pleadings and briefs on the Web Center. The materials contained in the Web Center are broken down by specific topic with links to the case summaries and actual pleadings documents. |
Article | |
| Animal Law in Action: The Law, Public Perception, and the Limits of Animal Rights Theory as a Basis for Legal Reform | Jonathan R. Lovvorn | 12 Animal L. 133 (2005) |
This article discusses animal law as a model for legal reform. |
Article |
| California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law | Jonathan R. Lovvorn & Nancy V. Perry | 15 Animal L. 149 (2008) |
This essay explores the legislative and legal campaign to enact California Proposition 2: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, approved by California voters on November 4, 2008. The authors direct the legislation and litigation programs for The Humane Society of the United States, and, along with many other individuals and organizations, were centrally involved in the drafting, campaigning, and litigation efforts in support of the measure. |
Article |
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Carlos Lozano | Lozano, C. 2022. Animal rights in Colombia: a critical reading in environmental perspective. State Law Magazine. 54 (Nov. 2022), 345–380. | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). | Article |