Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redefining The Modern Circus: A Comparative Look At The Regulations Governing Circus Animal Treatment And America's Neglect Of Circus Animal Welfare | Jacqueline Neumann | 36 Whittier L. Rev. 167 | First, this article explains how animals have entertained people for centuries. Next, the article addresses how animals are treated in the modern circus industry. Then, this article discusses the laws governing the circus industry both in the United States and in other countries. Lastly, this article explains where the animals may retire if the circus industry is prohibited from holding animals captive. |
| THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT V. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DERAILED CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES | Ed Newcomer, Marie Palladini & Leah Jones | 17 Animal L. 171 (2011) |
Historically, in prosecutions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), to prove the element “knowingly” the government only had to prove that a defendant intentionally killed an animal that turned out to be endangered or threatened, not that the defendant knew the identity of the species or the endangered or threatened status of the animal when it was killed. Jury instructions to this effect were repeatedly upheld. Then, in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for McKittrick v. U.S., the federal government, unprompted, unnecessarily, and without explanation, said that it would not use this jury instruction in the future because the instruction did not properly explain “knowingly.” The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently issued a directive to its attorneys to that same effect. Now, there is a self-imposed rule in ESA prosecutions requiring prosecutors to prove that a defendant knew the animal was endangered or threatened at the time it was “taken” or killed. This Article discusses ways in which this change conflicts with the established law and its impact on ESA prosecutions. |
| ANIMAL CUSTODY DISPUTES: A GROWING CRACK IN THE “LEGAL THINGHOOD” OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS | Barbara Newell | 6 Animal L. 179 (2000) | Despite the traditional view of animals as mere chattels, courts are increasingly viewing animals as more than "things," recognizing the intrinsic value of animal companions. With the help of organizations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, case law, local ordinances, and popular attitudes are changing, reflecting the understanding that animals have the capacity to live full mental and emotional lives. This essay tracks these changes, arguing that the time has come to recognize a different legal status for companion animals. |
| Brief Summary of Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing Them | Anastasia Niedrich | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief summary describes some of the state and federal laws that concern circuses. The threats facing both circus animals and the patrons who attend circuses are outlined. |
| Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing Them | Anastasia Niedrich | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper provides a detailed analysis of the federal, state, and international laws that affect circus animals. It also focuses specific attention on three species (primates, elephants, and big cats) that are a special concern for circuses. The threats facing circus animals themselves and the audience members who attend circuses are outlined. Finally, several other countries' laws regarding circuses are presented as a comparison to U.S. law. |
| Overview of Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing Them | Anastasia Niedrich | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview outlines the chief threats facing circus animals in the United States. It also discusses the dangers facing the circus-going public due to animal rampages and provocation. The main legal protections for circus animals are also summarized. |
| Is Recovered Really Recovered?: Recovered Species Under the Endangered Species Act | James L. Noles | 39 Cumb. L. Rev. 387 (2008-2009) |
This article explores the delisting process for the Endangered Species Act undertaken by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. It examines the mechanism of the delisting process and then looks at the recovery of seventeen species delisted prior to 2007. |
| Norway Animal Welfare Act of 2010 Short Summary | Norway | Norway Summary, Norwegian Government |
This document provides a short summary of the various provisions of the 2010 Norway Animal Welfare Act. |
| Norway Government Notes on 2010 Animal Welfare Act | Norway Government | Norway, Norwegian Government |
This document, written by Norway's government, gives an overview of the various sections of the new 2010 Animal Welfare Act. |
| YOU DON’T OWN ME: FERAL DOGS AND THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP | Stacy A. Nowicki | 21 Animal L. 1 (2014) | Feral dogs occupy an ambiguous position, challenging standard categories of domestication, wildness, and property ownership. This ambiguity, in turn, complicates the legal status of feral dogs. Feral dogs’ property status is particularly critical, as whether a feral dog is owned by someone, or no one at all, hold implications not only for civil and criminal liability in incidents involving feral dogs, but also the legal ability of animal rescue organizations to intervene in the lives of feral dogs. Part II of this Article summarizes the application of property law to animals, particularly highlighting the role played by an animal’s status as wild or domestic; Part III explores the factors distinguishing feral dogs from other canines, determining that feral dogs should properly be situated as domestic animals; Part IV discusses the legal landscape relevant to feral dogs, focusing particularly on ownership and liability; and Part V examines the ways in which the property status of feral dogs may impact an animal rescue organization’s ability to care for those animals. |