Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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. |
| A Contractarian View of Animal Rights: Insuring Against the Possibility of Being a Non-Human Animal | Julie Hilden | 14 Animal Law 5 (2007) |
Contemporary research regarding non-human animals’ intelligence, emotional life, and capacity for reciprocity strongly suggests the need for a sweeping re-evaluation of their legal status as mere property. In this essay, the author will contend that the contractarian theory of philosopher John Rawls provides an ideal basis for this re-evaluation. |
| Combating Animal Cruelty with Environmental Law Tactics | De Anna Hill | 4 Journal of Animal Law 19 (2008) |
Many individuals and citizen groups view federal and state anti-cruelty statutes as inadequate in protecting animals and in providing sufficient remedies. Unlike animal cruelty statutes like the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), many of the federal environmental statutes provide citizen suit provisions or otherwise allow interested parties to sue for enforcement. Citizen suit provisions in environmental statutes increase accessibility of the courts to the public. There are many instances where citizens groups have filed federal environmental citizen suits against federal agencies and private facilities that would be considered by many to be actively involved in or to have facilitated acts of animal cruelty. Animal protectionists have attempted and continue to attempt to further protection of animals by filing or supporting suits under environmental law against federal agencies and private facilitators of animal cruelty. |
| Brief Summary of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A brief summary of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand. |
| Overview of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
An overview of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States and Europe. |
| Brief Summary of the Biology and Behavior of the Chicken | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A brief description of the biology and behavior of the domestic chicken. |
| Detailed Discussion of Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe | Veronica Hirsch | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A detailed discussion of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand. |
| Ensure Your Pet's Future: Estate Planning for Owners and Their Animal Companions | Rachel Hirschfeld | 9 Marq. Elder's Advisor 155 (2007) |
This article discusses the increased desire among pet owners to provide care for their pets during life and even after death. Pet owners can now create enforceable legal instruments to provide care for their pets in the event of disability or death. The article alerts practitioners to specific considerations in drafting such agreements including arrangements for specific care and possible tax ramifications. |
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | David Hoch and Will Carrington Heath | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. The authors conclude that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. |