Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Survey of Agreements and Federal Legislation Protecting Polar Bears in the United States | Jamie M. Woolsey | 1 Journal of Animal Law 73 (2005) |
Throughout the past few decades, international concern for polar bear welfare has increased dramatically. The multinational agreements forged for their conservation require significant policing, cooperation, and understanding of the complex ecological and economic considerations surrounding these predators. Woolsey’s article explores the international agreements and measures designed to save both the bears and their critical habitat. |
Article |
| Take It to the Limit: The Illegal Regulation Prohibiting the Take of Any Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act | Jonathan Wood | 33 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 23, 23-52 (2015) | Part II of this article will provide a brief background on the adoption of the Endangered Species Act. Part III will explain that the statute does not authorize the agencies to extend the take prohibition to all threatened species. Part IV will argue that returning to the statutory scheme would result in a fairer distribution of the costs of species protection by imposing the costs of prophylactic protection on agencies and the public generally. Burdening individuals would be a last resort, as Congress intended. Finally, Part V will identify how Congress' policy is a reasonable way to align private incentives with species protection. The statute's approach would encourage property owners to stop a threatened species' further slide, to avoid imposition of the take prohibition, and to recover endangered species to the point where they can be downlisted and the take prohibition lifted. This would make the statute more effective at accomplishing its primary goal - recovering species to the point that they no longer require protection. | Article |
| Protecting the Wildlife Trust: A Reinterpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act | Mary C. Wood | 34 Envtl. L. 605 (Spring, 2004) |
This Article attributes the failure of the ESA after thirty years to a basic flaw in interpreting one of the ESA's core provisions, section 7. Section 7 imposes a dual mandate on federal agencies to develop programs for the conservation of listed species, and to insure that federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service have failed to develop any regulation implementing the affirmative conservation program requirement, and they have interpreted the no jeopardy prohibition in a manner that allows imperiled species to drift closer and closer to extinction. This Article suggests a reinterpretation of section 7 in accordance with wildlife trust principles. |
Article |
| BEYOND THE LAW: AGRIBUSINESS AND THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTION | David J. Wolfson | 2 Animal L. 123 (1996) (pdf version) | Animals raised for food or food production in the United States are, in large part, excluded from legal protection against cruelty. This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to such animals and documents numerous recent amendments to state anticruelty statutes that have placed the definition of cruelty to farm animals in the hands of the farming community. Mr. Wolfson argues that these amendments contradict the historical purpose of anticruelty statutes originally enacted to protect farm animals. The article also contrasts this regressive legal development with progressive European legislation. Finally, Mr. Wolfson outlines a path for reform. | Article |
| Symposium: Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates - Conclusion | David J. Wolfson | 13 Animal Law 123 (2006) |
David Wolfson concludes the events of the day by highlighting some of the significant issues raised by the participants in the conference, as well as the obstacles animal lawyers have faced and are working to overcome, including legal, political, and cultural barriers. Wolfson ends on an optimistic note, stating that given that the basic foundations of the animal protection movement are correct, the movement should ultimately be successful. |
Article |
| Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals | David J. Wolfson | 2 ANIMALL 123 (1996) (html version) |
This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to animals raised for food production, and outlines a path for reform. |
Article |
| McLibel | David J. Wolfson | 5 ANIMALL 121 (1999) (html version) |
McDonald's sued two defendants in England in 1991 for defamation and lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the "McLibel" case in relation to cruel common farming practices, and explores the contradiction that common farming practices can be found to be cruel. |
Article |
| McLIBEL | David J. Wolfson | 5 Animal L. 21 (1999) (pdf version) | In 1991, McDonald's sued two pro se defendants in England for defamation in relation to, among other things, allegations that McDonald's was culpably responsible for cruel common farming practices. The case took seven years and the appeals still continue, Though McDonald's spent over $16 million on legal representation and had significant legal advantages, it lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the background and holding of "McLibel" in relation to cruel common farming practices, its unique legal context, and the impact of the holding on animal law in general and state anti-cruelty laws in the United States. In addition, he explores the contradiction that McLibel exposes: the fact that a common farming practice can be found to be cruel in the view of a reasonable person while legal pursuant to an anti-cruelty statute. | Article |
| SHARK LAWS WITH TEETH: HOW DEEP CAN U.S. CONSERVATION LAWS CUT INTO GLOBAL TRADE REGULATIONS? | Kaitlin M. Wojnar | 19 Animal L. 185 (2012) | Controversy surrounding application of the Shark & Fishery Conservation Act of 2010 (Shark Conservation Act) reflects a culmination of competing interests between environmental conservation and international free trade. Non-governmental organizations are pressuring the United States (U.S.) government to use the Shark Conservation Act to impose trade sanctions against countries that do not have specific regulations on shark finning. The implementation of such import bans, however, could negatively impact the nation’s relationships with some of its principal trade partners and violate international obligations under multilateral trade treaties. This Note proposes that the U.S. cannot impose such an embargo on shark products without first laying a foundation for its actions in international custom or treaty. | Article |
| Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records | Christopher Wlach | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 191 (2017) | In the animal rights and animal welfare movements, activists have likewise used FOIA and state open records laws for their own ends. This section first discusses the purpose and general structure of FOIA and state open records laws, and then looks at how animal rights and animal welfare activists have used these laws in pursuing their causes. | Article |