|AU - Research - Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW)||Animal Research Act 1985||
The NSW Act was introduced to protect the welfare of animals by ensuring that their use in research is always humane, considerate, responsible and justified. The 1995 Regulation incorporated the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes into the legislation.Quorum The quorum for a meeting of the Panel is 7 members of the Panel, of whom: (a) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (a) or (b), (b) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (c) or (d), and (c) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (e), (f), (g) or (h).
|People v. Gordon||85 N.Y.S.3d 725, (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018)||61 Misc.3d 966, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28306, 2018 WL 4837574 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018)||This New York case reflects Defendant's motion to dismiss the "accusatory instrument" in the interests of justice (essentially asking the complaint to be dismissed) for violating Agricultural and Markets Law (AML) § 353, Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals or Failure to Provide Proper Sustenance for Animals. Defendant's primary argument is that she is not the owner of the dog nor is she responsible for care of the dog. The dog belongs to her "abusive and estranged" husband. The husband left the dog in the care of their daughter, who lives on the second floor above defendant. When the husband left for Florida, he placed the dog in the backyard attached to his and defendant's ground floor apartment. The dog did not have proper food, water, or shelter, and slowly began to starve resulting in emaciation. While defendant asserts she has been a victim of domestic violence who has no criminal record, the People counter that defendant was aware of the dog's presence at her residence and allowed the dog to needlessly suffer. This court noted that defendant's motion is time-barred and must be denied. Further, despite the time bar, defendant did not meet her burden to dismiss in the interests of justice. The court noted that, even viewing animals as property, failure to provide sustenance of the dog caused it to suffer needlessly. In fact, the court quoted from in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery (in which denied a writ of habeas corpus for two chimpanzees) where the court said "there is not doubt that [a chimpanzee] is not merely a thing." This buttressed the court's decision with regard to the dog here because "he Court finds that their protection from abuse and neglect are very important considerations in the present case." Defendant's motion to dismiss in the interest of justice was denied.||Case|
|Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit - Second Edition||Voiceless Australia||Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit - Second Edition||In 2009, Voiceless prepared the first edition of The Animal Law Toolkit to introduce students, academics, practitioners, law firms and animal advocates to key issues in animal law. As its name suggests, that Toolkit was intended to provide the tools needed to better protect the billions of animals left with inadequate protections under our current legal framework. This second edition of The Animal Law Toolkit provides an overview of the evolving animal law landscape over the last six years, including a snapshot of emerging animal law issues, summaries of new animal law cases (both in Australia and abroad), as well as new resources and materials for students, teachers and practitioners.||Article|
|Brief Summary of Whaling||Tom Krepitch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||Early in the twentieth century, the technology used in whaling advanced so significantly that the global whale population became threatened. Efforts to decrease the number of whales killed grew after World War II and resulted in a major victory in the 1980s when commercial whaling was banned. However, this ban is still a major source of controversy as Japan continues to kill hundreds of whales each year in the Antarctic under what it calls a scientific whaling exception, but Australia labels as mere cover for a commercial whaling program.||Article|
|Whaling in the Antarctic||Tom Krepitch||
Brief Summary of Whaling in the Antarctic
|Overview of Whaling||Tom Krepitch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||In 2010, Australia sued Japan at the International Court of Justice in an effort to force Japan to end its whaling program in the Antarctic. Though commercial whaling was banned in the 1980s, Japan claimed that its program was for scientific purposes and therefore legal. The ICJ sided with Australia, but its ruling left open the possibility that Japan could resume whaling in the future.||Article|
|The welfare of greyhounds in Australian racing: has the industry run its course?||Alexandra McEwan and Krishna Skandakumar||6 AAPLJ 53||Australia’s greyhound racing industry is reportedly the third largest in the world. Over fifty racetracks operate across the country, with the majority located in New South Wales. In 2009 the total 'stake money,' that is, the amount put at risk by punters, was $73,773 million nationwide. This article explores welfare issues in the greyhound industry, arguing that, despite recent regulatory reforms and industry efforts to improve welfare standards, there is sufficient evidence available to conclude Australia should follow the lead set by the USA and begin dismantling a sporting industry which has run its course. In short, this form of animal use can no longer be justified as 'necessary.'||Article|
|Detailed Discussion of the Laws Governing Kangaroo Culling in Australia||Jordan Sosnowski||Animal Legal & Historical Center.||
This article provides a detailed discussion of the laws governing kangaroo culling in Australia. The paper analyses both the commercial and non-commercial industry and makes an evaluation as to the legislation's effectiveness. The article also discusses other issues such as enforcement, animal and consumer welfare, as well as the sustainability of the industry.
|Australia Live Export Laws||Jordan Sosnowski||
Brief Summary of Live Export Laws in Australia
|Detailed Discussion of Australian Live Export Laws||Jordan M. Sosnowski||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This article discusses the Australian live export legislation in detail. It also outlines the main shortcomings of the legislation and outlines areas that are in need of reform. Finally, the article proposes future options that could possibly replace the live export industry in Australia, or at the very least, alleviate some of the current animal welfare concerns.