Results

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.

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.

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.