Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of New Hampshire Great Ape Laws | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in New Hampshire. In the state of New Hampshire, there is no specific law that contains an outright ban on private ownership of great apes. However, there are laws that address the importation and possession of wildlife.New Hampshire also has laws that address endangered species, animal cruelty, and the importation and possession of wildlife. Additionally,importation and possession of great apes is an area that is strictly regulated under New Hampshire law. |
| Detailed Discussion of North Dakota Great Ape Laws | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in North Dakota. Generally, in North Dakota, if a person obtains the correct license, he or she can keep an ape as a pet, an exhibitor, a zoo, or for any other non-prohibited purpose.The state board of animal health has categorized great apes as nontraditional livestock. In order to possess nontraditional livestock, including a great ape, a private owner must first obtain a license.Finally, great apes are generally protected from intentional abuse and neglect under the state’s anti-cruelty law. Great apes receive very limited protections under Montana’s endangered species law. |
| Detailed Discussion of the Gray Wolf's Change in Status on The Endangered Species List from 2005 to the Present | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper focuses on the changes that have occurred from 2005 to the present in each DPS, including three non-essential experimental populations located in Yellowstone, Central Idaho, and the southwestern U.S.; the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS; and the Western Great Lakes DPS. |
| VALUING WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE-OUR MOST VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE | Elizabeth Furse | 6 Animal L. i (2000) | The time has come for our legal system to reflect the value of wildlife in our society. As such, we must revise our thinking on the issue of takings as it refers to wildlife. Many wildlife policies and state initiatives show that the American public greatly values wildlife. Recent polls indicate that seventy-four percent of Americans want leghold traps banned in the United States. However, our legal system only compensates for the taking of property, and only for economic reasons. |
| Biodiversity, Species Protection, and Animal Welfare Under International Law | Guillaume Futhazar | MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2018-22 | The purpose of this analysis is to explore the influence of the concept of animal welfare on international biodiversity law. A close examination of the recent evolution of this branch of international law shows that animal welfare has an ambivalent place in biodiversity-related agreements. Indeed, while welfare is only a faint consideration in the development of international regimes dealing with biodiversity as a whole, the concept has become an essential element for agreements dealing with the conservation of specific endangered species. Despite its role in these agreements, the place of animal welfare in international biodiversity law highlights that this corpus of rules is currently insufficient to be an effective tool for the protection of wildlife welfare. The last section of this study suggests that the adoption of international rules aiming at ensuring the protection of wild animals’ welfare could serve the double purpose of strengthening the conservation purpose of biodiversity regimes while also filling the welfare gap of international biodiversity law. |
| Brief Summary of Animal Testing Laws | Katie C Galanes | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A brief summary describing how and why animal testing is used within the commercial products industry. The summary explores the Animal Welfare Act and its impact on animal testing. In addition, the summary attempts to explain the complexities that surface during debates regarding animal testing and some of the arguments made by both animal advocates as well as those who favor the use of animal testing. |
| Overview of Animal Testing in Commercial Products | Katie C Galanes | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
The overview summary introduces the topic of animal testing within the commercial products industry. The article introduces a number of federal agencies responsible for monitoring and regulating animal testing. In addition, the overview explores the Animal Welfare Act along with some of the most traditional animal testing methods. The overview also reveals some recently developed animal testing alternatives and attempts to further explain the complex controversy that surrounds animal testing. |
| Detailed Discussion of Animal Testing in Commercial Products | Katie C. Galanes | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper will examine the use of animals in toxicology testing. It begins with an examination of the most commons tests performed on animals within the commercial products industry. Next, the paper delves into the controversy and debate surrounding animal testing, and whether such a practice actually determines the safety of a product. In addition, the paper will examine and analyze existing laws that regulate animal testing and the federal agencies that manage the safety of commercial products. Last, some alternatives to animal testing are revealed and the future of animal testing is discussed. |
| Political Ideology and the Legal Status of Animals | Robert Garner | 8 Animal L. 77 (2001) | This essay argues that the benefits of changing the legal status of animals from their current position as items of property have been exaggerated. This assertion is based on the arguments that abolishing the property status of animals is not a sufficient guarantee that they will cease to be exploited and that, whilst the abolition of animals’ property status is a necessary step towards the fulfilment of an animal rights agenda, it is incorrect to suggest that significant improvements to their well-being cannot be achieved from within the existing property paradigm.** |
| COMPANION ANIMAL | Sebastien Gay | 17 Animal L. 77 (2010) |
This Article presents a theory of the economic value of companion animal life. Under the existing United States torts regime, the standard damages award available to an owner for an action arising from a companion animal death is its fair market value. This approach implicitly assumes that pet owners are irrational, given that they generally invest more in their pets than the animal’s fair market value. This Article suggests that, based on an economic model that conceptualizes companion animals as an employee-investment hybrid, the value of a companion animal is higher than its fair market value. This model has implications for economic damages calculations in wrongful death lawsuits and for companion animal welfare. |