|
New to the Web Center:
- Congress considers eliminating loophole in MMPA that allows polar bear hunting. In 2007, S. 1406/H.R. 2327 was introduced to close a loophole in the MMPA that allows trophy hunters to bring back hides and heads of polar bears hunted in Canada to the U.S. To read more about threats facing polar bears, click here.
- Indiana leads the way by officially making "domestic violence animal cruelty" a Class D felony. It joins other states that have recognized the disturbing connection between animal abuse and domestic violence. Read the Indiana law here.
- The HSUS challenges the USDA's "regulatory loophole" that may allow downed cattle into the food system. This action was sparked by the national recall of Hallmark/Westland beef last month, where the USDA recalled 143 million pounds of meat, some of which was used in school lunch programs. To read the HSUS's complaint, click here (pdf file 496.38 KB). To read the USDA regulation, click here.
- Coyotes gain ground in Indiana. The Indiana DNR is proposing a change to its coyote hunting rules aimed at reducing the trapping of live coyotes to be used as "bait" for dog training. The DNR has prepared a pdf version of its proposed rule changes. (11.26 KB). According HSUS, lax regulations in Indiana have made the state a major live coyote export source for neighboring states. Click here to read the HSUS press release.
See the Map Page for the following maps:
Topics Added in 2007:
International Materials:
Interesting Links:
Virginia creates Web-based dangerous dog registry. In July, the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) launched an interactive dangerous dog registry that enables people to check if dangerous dogs reside in their area. Legislation enacted in 2006 mandated the creation of this online registry in addition to other restrictions on owners. Click here to see it in action.
Recently Added Articles:
The Price of Fame: CITES Regulation and Efforts Towards International Protection of the Great White Shark, Julie B. Martin, 39 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 199 (2007).
Dysfunctional Downlisting Defeated: Defenders Of Wildlife V. Secretary, U.S. Department Of The Interior, Edward A. Fitzgerald, 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 37 (2007).
Veterinary Medicine: External Pressures on an Insular Profession and How Those Pressures Threaten to Change Current Malpractice Jurisprudence, by Gerald L. Eichinger, 67 Mont. L. Rev. 231 (Summer, 2006).
No Shelter from the Storm: How the execution of pets by law enforcement at Beauregard Middle School in St. Bernard Parish in the aftermath of Katrina violated the constitutional rights of pet owners, by Kelly A. Jenkins (2007).
In the Valley of the Dry Bones: Reuniting the Word "Standing" with its Meaning in Animal Cases, Elizabeth L. DeCoux, 29 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. Pol'y Rev. 681 (Spring, 2005).
Death to Poochy: A Comparison of Historical and Modern Frustrations Faced by Owners of Injured or Killed Pet Dogs, by Jason R. Scott, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 569 (Winter, 2006).
The Salience of Species Difference for Feminist Theory, by Maneesha Deckha, 17 Hastings Women's L.J. 1 (Winter, 2006).
The Future of the African Rhinoceros: It's Anything But Black and White, by Robert Saxton, Animal Legal & Historical Center (2007).
Recently Added Cases:
Florida Key Deer v. Paulison, 2008 WL 842423 (C.A.11(Fla.)). FEMA, under the National Flood Insurance Program, issues insurance to promote new development in flooded areas. Plaintiffs sought to compel FEMA to enter into ESA consultation with FWS, and once that consultation occurred, amended their complaint to challenge the sufficiency of the FWS' biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternatives. The Eleventh Circuit held for the plaintiffs, reasoning that FEMA had not sufficiently complied with the obligation on federal agencies to carry out their programs consistent with the conservation of endangered and threatened species.
Auster v. Norwalk, 2008 WL 726289 (Conn. 2008). Plaintiff, while on church premises, was bitten by a church employee's dog. Plaintiff seeks damages from church under the state dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability for damages on the dog's keeper. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, reasoning that a non-owner must be responsible for maintaining and controlling the dog at the time the damage is done in order to be held liable under the statute.
| 
