Results
Title |
Author![]() |
Citation | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point | Barbara Hanson | 12 Animal L. 217 (2005) |
Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation. |
US - Horse Slaughter- APHIS 2010 audit | Gil H. Harden /s/ Assistant Inspector General | OIG, USDA APHIS Administration Horse Protection Program , Audit Rep. 33601-2-KC, 32 (2010) | This report presents the results of the Office of Inspector General’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Administration of the Horse Protection Program and the Slaughter Horse Transport Program. The September 20, 2010, written response to the official draft report is included with excerpts and the Office of Inspector General’s position incorporated into the relevant sections of the report |
From Microbe to Man | Mark O. Hatfield | 1 Animal L. 5 (1995) | This article discusses federal policy towards animal patenting, including the Senator's introduction of legislation to establish a National Ethics Advisory Board, and current issues in bioethics. |
Feral Cat Colonies in Florida: The Fur and Feathers are Flying | Pamela Jo Hatley | 18 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 441 (2003) |
An enormous and growing population of free-roaming cats exists in Florida, posing a threat to the state's native animal species, and creating a serious public health concern. Proponents of trap-neuter-release (TNR) and maintenance of cat colonies have been pressing local governments to enact ordinances to permit establishment and registration of cat colonies in local jurisdictions. But TNR and managing large numbers of cats in colonies does not effectively control cat overpopulation. Additionally, federal and state wildlife laws designed to protect endangered and threatened species conflict with the practice of releasing non-indigenous predators into the wild. An intense public education campaign, together with licensing incentives, animal control laws that enforce high penalties against violators, and other methods of reducing the flow of non-indigenous species into the wild, are essential components to a long-term solution to pet over-population in general, and particularly to cat over-population and the resulting predation on wildlife. |
Who Let the Dangerous Dogs Out? The German State's Hasty Legislative Action, the Federal Law on Dangerous Dogs and the "Kampfhunde" Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court | Claudia E. Haupt | 2 Journal of Animal Law 27 (2006) |
The article examines the legislative measures taken at the state and federal level in Germany to address the issue of dangerous dogs and the related decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which upheld an import ban on dangerous dogs while striking down a breeding ban and parts of a newly introduced section to the Criminal Code. |
THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OBJECTIVES: ASSESSING THE GERMAN BASIC LAW’S ANIMAL PROTECTION CLAUSE | Claudia E. Haupt | 16 Animal L. 213 (2010) |
In 2002, an animal protection clause was added to Article 20a of the German Constitution. Designed as a state objective, the nature of the animal protection clause decidedly influences its application. As a state objective, it is directed at all three branches of government, and each branch must ensure within its sphere of competence the realization of the stated goal. The Federal Constitutional Court has yet to address the precise scope of the provision. This Article examines the likely future effects of the animal protection clause. With respect to the legislative branch, this Article addresses the question of whether the state objective demands that a standing provision be created for animal protection groups. With respect to the judicial and executive branches, this Article focuses on three fundamental rights that are most likely to come into conflict with animal protection: freedom of religion; freedom of teaching, science, and research; and freedom of artistic expression. Seismic shifts in constitutional adjudication are not likely to be expected. The provision does not give rights to animals. However, at a minimum, it prohibits circumventing the Animal Protection Act by construing that statute in light of the Constitution. The animal protection clause removed the disproportionality between certain fundamental rights and the interest in animal protection. It mandates a balancing of constitutional interests and eliminates doubts regarding the constitutionality of the Animal Protection Act, especially with respect to the fundamental rights discussed. |
Overview of Animal Hoarding | Victoria Hayes | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper gives a brief overview of what constitutes animal hoarding. It explains the characteristics of animal hoarders and what laws prohibit the behavior. |
Detailed Discussion of Animal Hoarding | Victoria Hayes | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a basic overview of animal hoarding, its psychological underpinnings, and existing laws that are used to combat animal hoarding. The article suggests that current laws do not adequately prevent animal hoarding or protect animals, and that hoarding-specific legislation should be enacted. Hoarding-specific legislation should create a separate offense of animal hoarding, require psychological evaluation of animal hoarders, and prohibit future ownership of animals for convicted hoarders. |
THE BESTIALITY PROSCRIPTION: IN SEARCH OF A RATIONALE | Antonio M. Haynes | 21 Animal L. 121 (2014) | Addressing a taboo rarely discussed in scholarly works, this Article analyzes frequently advanced arguments supporting prohibitions on bestiality. Though on a superficial level the arguments seem appealing, upon closer inspection the standard justifications break down under internal inconsistencies. A differently constructed theory may not only provide a rationalized, consistent basis for regulating bestiality, but also lend greater coherence to laws regulating sexuality in general. Part II of this Article explores arguments related to consent; Part III discusses bestiality impermissibly using animals as a means; Part IV examines public health arguments, largely relating to those diseases that can spread easily from humans to animals and vice versa; Part V explores arguments analogizing zoophilia to either pedophilia or homosexuality; and Part VI offers a new rationale for justifying prohibitions on bestiality. |
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN HARASSMENT AND FREE SPEECH?: AN ANALYSIS OF HUNTER HARASSMENT LAW | Katherine Hessler | 3 Animal L. 129 (1997) | Ms. Hessler examines the constitutionality of the federal hunter harassment statute and concludes that protests of hunting events should be protected under the First Amendment. |