Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brief Summary of State Spay and Neuter Laws | Cynthia F. Hodges | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A majority of states have enacted laws requiring releasing agencies to sterilize cats and dogs they adopt out in an effort to reduce the number of unwanted animals. Exceptions to the mandatory sterilization laws are often made for owners and for medically unfit animals. Violations are punishable both civilly and criminally. |
| Brief Summary of State Emergency Planning Laws for Animals | Cynthia F. Hodges | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, the federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act was enacted and over 30 states have adopted either a law or emergency plan that deals with disaster planning and pets. Such plans establish procedures to coordinate federal, state and local government agencies, volunteer organizations, animal interest groups, and veterinary medical personnel for rapid response to natural disasters. Most address the care of companion animals, the implementation of state animal response teams, the sheltering of animals, and identification of recovered animals. |
| The Cracking Facade of the International Whaling Commission as an Institution of International Law: Norwegian Small-Type Whaling | Brian T. Hodges | 15 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 295 |
This article discusses the fact that the International Whaling Commission has not expressly recognized the Makah tribe's aboriginal subsistence need, and instead has intentionally left the issue ambiguous. The only viable reason for the IWC to deny the Norwegians a quota under the same exemption is the "aboriginal" requirement. The IWC should clarify the legal ambiguities regarding the right to harvest whales, and it should grant subsistence right to Norwegian coastal fishermen. |
| When Ritual Slaughter Isnt Kosher: An Examination of Shechita and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act | Michelle Hodkin | 1 Journal of Animal Law 129 (2005) |
Kosher slaughter, or shechita as it is called in biblical Hebrew, is so humane that when performed as intended by Jewish law, the animals don’t even feel the cut before dying. Even in modern times and by modern standards, experts have agreed that the shechita method as outlined in Jewish law is humane, and unconsciousness normally follows within seconds of the throat cutting. So how does one reconcile these truths with the video released by PETA of the practices occurring at the AgriProcessors plant in Postville, Iowa? What follows are my own conclusions to that troubling question, and my recommendations to improve the lives and deaths of cows at kosher slaughterhouses. |
| 2007-2008 Legislative Review | Nancy R. Hoffman & Robin C. McGinnis | 15 Animal L. 265 (2008) |
This document provides a link to Animal Law's 2007-2008 Legislative Review. |
| THE SPIRIT OF THE BUFFALO: THE PAST AND FUTURE OF AN AMERICAN PLAINS ICON | William Holland | 21 Animal L. 151 (2014) | Though bison are iconically associated with the United States, their historical fortunes have often been opposite those of the U.S. As the nation expanded westward, government policy, demand for bison products, and changing land use perilously reduced bison numbers. Efforts to restore bison have been complicated by overlapping legal concerns: state, federal, tribal, and constitutional. This Article examines the legal context surrounding bison restoration, focusing particularly on the critical herd connected with Yellowstone National Park. Former members of the Yellowstone herd, in turn, are the subjects of the Montana Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier, which this Article examines closely, arguing it will significantly improve the legal landscape in which Native American bison restoration efforts function. Finally, this Article ends on a hopeful note: suggesting that federal and tribal efforts, combined with economic and environmental interests may presage the resurgence of bison herds. |
| An Analysis of Factors Responsible for the Decline of the U.S. Horse Industry: Why Horse Slaughter is not the Solution | John Holland and Laura Allen | Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol5/iss2/4 |
Copyright © 2013 by Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law; John Holland and Laura Allen. Reprinted with permission. |
| In Arkansas Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Environment? | John T. Hollerman | 6 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 21 (1992) |
This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality. |
| Finding the Balance: The Environmental Policies of a State's Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish | Dan Holwerda | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This discussion explores the apparent conflict of interests between pro-hunting and anti-hunting advocates in the management of state natural resources by state agencies. Section one describes the history of the Pittman-Robertson Act and its effects on how States implement their environmental policies. Section two describes how it appears that each State’s Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish caters only to the hunter in designating and implementing its environmental policies. Section three discusses the “intelligible principle” and its application in all the above-mentioned states. Specifically, the section will discuss how some anti-hunting organizations and other environmental organizations, which may or may not be anti-hunting, attempt to show that a state legislature has unconstitutionally delegated its authority to its Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish in order to show that the current system of determining and implementing state environmental policies is null and void. Finally, section four describes how the environmental policy interest of hunters is really the same as other (non-hunting) pro-environment/natural resource groups. |
| CONTRADICTIONS WILL OUT: ANIMAL RIGHTS VS. ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN THE SUPREME COURT | Henry Mark Holzer | 1 Animal L. 83 (1995) | A professor of law at Brooklyn Law School explains why, in the controversial Lukumi case, the Supreme Court ruled that the religious sacrifice of animals falls under the protective umbrella of the Free Exercise Clause. The author criticizes the court for abandoning the belief-action dichotomy in Free Exercise jurisprudence and places blame on the lack of protection given to animals by current laws. |