Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feed Restrictions of Broiler Breeds (UK) | Compassion in World Farming | Compassion in World Farming |
Science based paper on the impact of restricting feed in broiler chickens.(Extensive footnotes) |
| Leg and Heart Problems in Broiler Chickens | Compassion in World Farming |
A science based paper exploring how selective breeding has created chickens with leg and heart problems.(Science based footnotes) |
|
| 2014 Animal and Natural Resource Law Case Review | Ryan Conklin | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 327 | This article highlights significant animal and environmental cases from 2014. |
| Caring for Dolphins, Otters, and Octopuses: Speciesism in the Regulation of Zoos and Aquariums | Marla K. Conley | 15 Animal L. 237 (2008) | Current regulations for zoos and aquariums rely heavily on standards established by industry associations, and the government increasingly expects public display facilities to self-monitor. Unfortunately, the industry associations charged with policing zoos and aquariums lack the enforcement authority necessary to ensure that animals kept in these facilities receive adequate attention or resources. This article argues that marine animals kept in public display facilities, such as zoos and aquariums, should benefit from the same level of regulatory protection as their land-bound counterparts. Even though marine animals demonstrate intellectual abilities equivalent or superior to those of land-bound animals, federal regulations allow facilities to keep marine animals in smaller enclosures with less social contact. This article discusses existing regulations for the following three levels of animals in light of their physical and intellectual needs: dolphins as compared to elephants and nonhuman primates, otters as compared to dogs, and octopuses as compared to hamsters and rabbits. Finally, this article recommends several adjustments to existing regulations for marine animals. |
| ANIMAL LAW IN COLOMBIA SINCE THE ADOPTION OF ACT 1774 OF 2016 | CARLOS ANDRÉS CONTRERAS LÓPEZ | Review of Act 1774 of the Republic of Colombia | On January 6, 2016, the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, approved Act 1774 of the Republic of Colombia, which led to the most important development concerning the legal protection of animals in the country, and represented a turning point in Animal Law in Latin America in terms of the new conception of the legal relationships between people and non-human animals, which is the basis of modern Animal Law. The drafting of the bill, presented by Chamber Representative Juan Carlos Losada, relied on the participation of lawyers and experts, who in turn involved associations and activists who had been working for a long time on animal protection issues in Colombia. The author had the honor of participating in the drafting of the bill, exchanging opinions, knowledge, and experiences in a very enriching debate that culminated with the consolidation of a text that is fully coherent with the Colombian legal framework. The Act reformed the National Animal Protection Statute (Act 84 of 1989), as well as the Colombian Civil, Criminal and the Criminal Procedure Codes. This commentary analyzes the novel aspects brought about by the publication of the abovementioned Act, which within the first two years that it has been in force has already been interpreted in several decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court. These judicial decisions have explored the actual implications behind the conception of animals as “not things” and as “sentient beings,” turning the focus onto the materialization of legal principles and declarations into everyday life. |
| Outside the Box: Expanding the Scope of Animal Law | William R. Cook | 14 Animal Law 127 (2007) |
In this Introduction to Volume 14, Issue 2 of Animal Law, the author reflects on the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, an annual professional gathering for wildlife management professionals (mostly government wildlife managers). |
| ARE WOMEN PERSONS? | Drucilla Cornell | 3 Animal L. 7 (1997) | This article provides a brief look at "rights theory" regarding women in comparison to animals. |
| Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo califo | Krista Cotter | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This rule designates 11,695 acres of critical habitat for the arroyo toad in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California. FWS had to designate critical habitat for the arroyo toad as a result of a settlement agreement in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The critical habitat was designated in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments. This specific critical habitat is a revision of the final rule on arroyo toad critical habitat designation of 2/1/01 (69 FR 9414), which was deemed deficient and was overruled. The current habitat is designated pursuant to court order stemming from Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, which ordered FWS to publish a new critical habitat designation for the arroyo toad. |
| Determination of Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamande | Krista Cotter | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The FWS through this rule has designated a critical habitat in Santa Barbara County, California for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma califoniese) (CTS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This rule fulfills the final requirements of the settlement agreement reached in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The reason for the designation of critical habitat for the CTS is the net loss in CTS grazing land over a 10 – 12 year period due to extensive farming, regardless of the efforts made to increase the amount of suitable grazing land. As a result of the designation of land as critical habitat for the CTS, federal agencies will have to consult with the FWS prior to undertaking or authorizing activities that may impact the habitat. |
| Regulation for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo | Krista Cotter | Michigan State University College of Law |
This overview compares the proposed regulation (68 FR 15879) and the changes made in the recent final rule (70 F.R. 1286) that concerns the Western Distinct Population Segment for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). |