Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Animal Question: The Key to Coming to Terms with Nature | Jim Mason | 13 Animal Law 197 (2007) |
In this Introduction to Volume 13, Part 2 of Animal Law, the author considers the "Animal Question" - the shorthand term "for all of those difficult questions about our views of, and relations with,nonhuman animals." |
| Natural Behavior | Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson | 16 Animal L. 1 (2009) |
This introduction to Volume 16 is provided by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of such book as When Elephants Weep, and The Pig Who Sang. to the Moon. |
| Don't Feed the Animals: Queso's Law and How the Texas Legislature Abandoned Stray Animals, A Comment on H.B. 2328 and the New Tex. Penal Code § 42.092 | Jeremy Masten | 60 Baylor L. Rev. 964 (Fall 2008) |
This Comment considers Queso's Law, its amendments to section 42.092 of the Texas Penal Code, and the impact of those amendments on animal cruelty law in Texas. Part II discusses the historical background of animal cruelty laws both in Texas, prior to the 80th Legislature, and elsewhere. Part III discusses animal cruelty law in the wake of Queso's Law, including the elements of the offense as well as constitutional and policy concerns. Part IV proposes a solution to the concerns raised by Queso's Law. Finally, the Comment concludes that the expanded definition of animal created by Queso's Law is too broad and that slightly re-wording the definition to create a “custody carve-out” would better protect the interests of feral animals. |
| Regulating the Military's Survival Skills Training Under the Animal Welfare Act | Salma Mavany | 29 BCEALR 45 (2001) |
The United States Military tortuously kills farm animals when teaching soldiers survival skills. Presently, there is no law that specifically protects these farm animals. This Note analyzes whether the Military's animal cruelty can be regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). |
| Responsibility in the "Sport of Kings": Imposing an Affirmative Duty of Care on the Primary Financial Beneficiaries of the Thoroughbred Horseracing Industry | Caroline L. Mayberger | 4 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 64 (2011) | Horseracing industry participants must be held accountable for the wellbeing of retired racehorses. In Part I of this article, I explore the historic role of the horse in American society, and explain how “unwanted horses” become neglected, abused, abandoned, or shipped across U.S. borders to be slaughtered. In Part II, I address the unique susceptibility of thoroughbred racehorses to becoming unwanted horses, and how the wealth and glamour associated with horseracing serves to mask the problem. In Part III, I outline the legislation pertaining to horseracing, arguing that it does not adequately ensure the welfare of ex-racehorses. In Part IV, I explain that the burden for caring for these horses falls to under-funded private horse Rescue/Adoption/Retraining facilities (hereinafter “RAR facilities”). In Parts V and VI, I employ a loss-spreading rationale and the reasoning behind the “special relationship” doctrine, contending that the cost of providing adequate funds to RAR facilities should be imposed on the Primary Financial Beneficiaries (hereinafter “PFBs”) of the horseracing industry. In Part VII, I argue that this financial burden should be placed on PFBs in the form of “Participation Fees” proportional to the PFB’s level of investment in the industry. In Part VIII, I contend that this mandate could be carried out by either private state racing associations, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, state governments, or the federal government. In Part IX, I further explore the logistics of implementing such a scheme. |
| CAN NONHUMAN ANIMALS FIND TORT PROTECTION IN A HUMAN-CENTERED COMMON LAW? | Enger McCartney-Smith | 4 Animal L. 173 (1998) | The question of 'Rights allocation" typically hinges on society's distinction between legal and moral entitlement. Although many rights find support in both categories, not all rights grounded in societal morality are likewise accorded legal status. The animal rights movement, particularly in the last three decades, has advanced the recognition of nonhuman animals' moral entitlements, but corresponding legal rights have been slow to follow. This Comment explores this gap in nonhuman animals' rights allocation with an eye toward establishing a basis for a private right of intentional tort action. Through appeal to predominant tort jurisprudential theories, in conjunction with an examination of our scientifically and experientially grounded understanding of nonhuman animals, the Comment concludes that there is room in our current legal system for direct recognition of, and compensation for, intentional injurious behavior aimed at nonhuman animals |
| Animal Law in California | William McCarty Noall | 12 PEPP. L. REV. 2 (1985) |
This law review provides a summary of the California animal law in the early 1980s. Topics that are discussed include: acquisition of title to animals; ownership rights; statutory criminal restrictions on owners; and indirect regulation by civil case law via actions in trespass, strict liability and negligence. |
| Subverting Justice: An Indictment Of The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act | Kimberly E. McCoy | 14 Animal Law 53 (2007) |
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) creates yet another obstacle for the animal advocacy movement. This article explores the reasons behind the AETA’s enactment and its implications for those who advocate on behalf of animals. The author notes the AETA targets individuals based solely on their political ideology and can deter these individuals from exercising their right to free speech due to the threat of being permanently branded as a terrorist. It is this infringement on First Amendment rights, coupled with the AETA’s overbreadth and vagueness, that lead the author to conclude the AETA is unconstitutional. The author also notes the many social policy flaws within the AETA and finds that the AETA is unnecessary, as existing laws cover every crime encompassed in its language. These defects lead the author to call for the AETA’s repeal and to suggest that individuals look to the judiciary for change. |
| 2007 Legislative Review | Blair E. McCrory | 14 Animal Law 265 (2007) |
This document provides a link to Animal Law's 2007 Legislative Review. |
| Legal Protection Only For Those Who Are Most Like "Us"? | Camden J. McDaris | 2 Journal of Animal Law 159 (2006) |
This note analyzes the challenges that the animal rights movement faces in reforming society’s relationship to animals--particularly in regard to farmed animals--by tracking a similar evolution of the concepts of “dominion” and “civilization” within the early feminist movement. Specific focus is on nineteenth-century white middle-class women, who viewed themselves as models of civilized, liberated womanhood, while asserting maternalistic dominion over their “primitive” and underprivileged sisters. Acknowledging the way in which nineteenth-century America--which, for socio-political and legal purposes, was composed almost exclusively of Protestant white men--was willing to gradually “grant” one class of women a voice in society, based on well-established perceptions of “true womanhood,” is important in considering the way in which modern society seems poised to acknowledge some degree of rights for companion animals, while ignoring the legally-sanctioned misery to which billions of farmed animals are subjected annually. |