Results
Title | Author | Citation | Summary | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
Detailed Discussion of Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A detailed discussion of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand. |
Article |
Legal Protections for Chickens | Veronica Hirsch |
Brief Summary of the Legal Protections for the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe
|
Topical Introduction | |
Overview of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
An overview of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States and Europe. |
Article |
Brief Summary of the Biology and Behavior of the Chicken | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A brief description of the biology and behavior of the domestic chicken. |
Article |
Ensure Your Pet's Future: Estate Planning for Owners and Their Animal Companions | Rachel Hirschfeld | 9 Marq. Elder's Advisor 155 (2007) |
This article discusses the increased desire among pet owners to provide care for their pets during life and even after death. Pet owners can now create enforceable legal instruments to provide care for their pets in the event of disability or death. The article alerts practitioners to specific considerations in drafting such agreements including arrangements for specific care and possible tax ramifications. |
Article |
TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | David Hoch and Will Carrington Heath | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. The authors conclude that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. | Article |
2004 Legislative Review | Joshua D. Hodes | 11 Animal L. 325 (2005) |
This article provides an overview of major animal law legislation from 2003 - 2004. |
Article |
Detailed Discussion of State Animal "Terrorism"/Animal Enterprise Interference Laws | Cynthia F. Hodges | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
State animal terrorism laws have been enacted to protect agricultural research and production. The laws prohibit acts that obstruct, impede, or disrupt agricultural operations, research, or experimentation conducted at an animal facility. A person who violates a state animal terrorism law may be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, face a stiff fine and prison term, and may be required to pay restitution. Opponents of such laws argue that they may violate state and federal constitutional rights. |
Article |
Brief Summary of Ordinances for Pet Number Restrictions | Cynthia F. Hodges | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Some cities and towns have attempted to address pet nuisance issues by limiting the number of pets a person can own. These laws are sometimes challenged by pet owners because the laws impact pet owners’ property rights. However, courts usually uphold the laws if they are rationally related to protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. |
Article |
The Cracking Facade of the International Whaling Commission as an Institution of International Law: Norwegian Small-Type Whaling | Brian T. Hodges | 15 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 295 |
This article discusses the fact that the International Whaling Commission has not expressly recognized the Makah tribe's aboriginal subsistence need, and instead has intentionally left the issue ambiguous. The only viable reason for the IWC to deny the Norwegians a quota under the same exemption is the "aboriginal" requirement. The IWC should clarify the legal ambiguities regarding the right to harvest whales, and it should grant subsistence right to Norwegian coastal fishermen. |
Article |