|
USFWS removes the brown pelican from the Endangered Species List. The brown pelican, originally listed in 1970, has recovered due mainly to a ban on DDT and conservation efforts. Click here to read the USFWS press release.
MI and CA pass progressive agricultural laws. Michigan became the 7th state to ban the use of veal crates (by 2012), and gestation crates and battery cages (by 2019). The new law (pdf 87.63 KB) mandates that veal calves, breeding sows, and laying hens must be allowed to sit down, lie down, stand up, and extend their limbs. California amended § 597n of the Penal Code, prohibiting tail docking of horses, to now include cattle.
New Topic Area! Horse Laws by Craig M. Smith
New Topic Area! Canada's Dangerous Dog Laws by Jacquelyn Shaw.
New Topic Area! Topic Area Concerning the Custody of Pets in Divorce Proceedings by Tabby T. McLain.
New! Washington amends anti-cruelty laws with restrictions on ownership of similar animals for those convicted of animal cruelty. Click here to read the bill signed into law by the governor (pdf file - 26.96 KB).
Arkansas amends anti-cruelty laws to make torturing a dog, cat, or horse aggravated cruelty - a felony. Click here to read Arkansas' amended anti-cruelty laws.
 New! Updated table showing laws that address commercial breeders, kennels, and "puppy mills."
 Maine legislature passes law to prohibit the cruel confinement of veal calves and sows during gestation. LB 1021 goes into effect in 2011.
The U.S. Supreme Court considers the case of U.S. v. Stevens - the case that invalidated the federal law prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty. Click here to read many of the the pleadings/amicus briefs filed.
 The Ringling Brothers Circus trial (ASPCA et al. v. Feld Entertainment Inc.) decision now rests with the judge. To read the full collection of pleadings in the case, click here.
See the Map Page for the following maps:
Topics Added in 2008:
International Materials:
Recently Added Articles:
Strength in Numbers: Setting Quantitative Criteria for Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act, 27 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 (2009).
Breed Specific Legislation: The Gap in Emergency Preparedness Provisions for Household Pets, Amy Cattafi, 32 Seton Hall Legis. J. 351 (2009).
Exporting Morality with Trade Restrictions: The Wrong Path to Animal Rights, Gary Miller, 34 Brook. J. Int'l L. 999 (2009).
Is “Recovered” Really Recovered?: “Recovered” Species under the Endangered Species Act, James L. Noles, Jr., 39 Cumb. L. Rev. 387 (2008-2009).
The Pervasive Nature of Animal Law: How the Law Impacts the Lives of People and Their Animal Companions, by Rebecca J. Huss, 43 Val. U. L. Rev. 1131 (Spring, 2009).
Book Review: An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Cape Fear River by Steven M. Wise - Reviewed by Henry Cohen.
Recently Added Cases:
Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2009 WL 3403128 (D.Me.). Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the commencement of the early coyote and fox trapping season in the state of Maine. Plaintiffs claim that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) Commissioner violated the ESA by allowing trapping activities that “take” Canada lynx, a threatened species. In denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction.
U.S. v. Fullmer, --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 3273955 (C.A.3 (N.J.)). In an issue of first impression, this Court considered whether the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was unconstitutional either on its face or as-applied to defendants. The defendants in this case were an animal rights organization ("SHAC") and six associated individuals. Defendants argued that the statute has a chilling effect on speech because protestors will refrain from all speech, even protected speech, due to the ambiguity of what the statute proscribes. The Court disagreed, finding that the statute contains an exclusion for legal protest activity.
State v. Nelson, --- P.3d ----, 2009 WL 3297806 (Wash.App. Div. 3). Defendants appeal their convictions of animal fighting and operating an unlicensed private kennel. They contend on appeal that the trial judge abused her discretion by allowing an expert from the Humane Society to render an opinion on whether the evidence showed that the defendants intended to engage in dogfighting exhibitions. The Court of Appeals held that the judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the expert's opinion. The expert's opinion was proffered to rebut defendants' contention that the circumstantial evidence (the veterinary drugs, training equipment, tattoos, etc.) showed only defendants' intent to enter the dogs in legal weight-pulling contests.
|
