Results

This Comment reviews the history of the horse-drawn carriage industry in New York City and details legislative efforts to regulate the business. Many cities in the United States feature horse-drawn carriages as a tourist attraction, but they are most associated with New York. The long-standing controversy over the working and living conditions of the horses that pull the cabs has garnered less national attention than other animal welfare issues, despite the fatalities and injuries suffered by the equines on traffic-choked Manhattan streets. Supporters of the industry defend it as an important contributor to the local economy, an iconic symbol of the city, and a source of livelihood for the operators. They maintain that municipal regulations are sufficient to protect the horses from mistreatment and the public from the perils of accidents involving carriages. However, city regulation has historically proven to be inadequate and ineffective in ensuring that the horses are not exposed to inhumane conditions. Moreover, the inherent hazards and stressors of New York City streets take a toll on the horses’ health and well-being that regulation cannot address. For these reasons, the protection of the horses and the public cannot be assured until the carriage business in the city is abolished. This Comment discusses the movement to ban the industry, including proposals that would replace the carriages with replicas of antique cars. With inadequate regulation and political obstacles to a ban, it may ultimately take a tide of public sentiment to end the suffering of carriage horses.

The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness.

Animals who are victims of abuse and neglect should be afforded protections similar to those granted to human victims of crime, and as such, a reformulation of the classification of abused animals from property to crime victims is needed. Defining animals as victims of crime, rather than mere property will aid in providing animals with the additional safeguards and protections of the criminal justice system that they deserve.

This article briefly covers the main threats to chimpanzee welfare, the tools currently in place to protect them, and suggestions for improving their status.