Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 14

Table of Contents

ARTICLES

To Protect Animals, First We Must Protect Law Enforcement Officers

Dawn Rault, Stacy Nowicki, Cindy Adams, Melanie Rock....................1

On August 10, 2012, Peace Officer Rodney Lazenby was killed in the line of duty while enforcing a local dog control bylaw in the Canadian province of Alberta. Two years later, a police officer and two peace officers were assaulted and threatened while investigating a hoarding situation, also in Alberta. While these two cases share some similarities in terms of facts and related legislation, they teach us different lessons about the occupational health and safety of officers who enforce animal-related laws. This article explores officer risks and safety measures that can be taken in enforcing animal laws in Canada and beyond.

Property or “Penumbral” Persons? An Examination of Two Jurisprudential Approaches to the Nonhuman Rights Project Litigation

Ashleigh P. A. Best...............................................................................33

In 2013, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed three writs of habeas corpus in the New York Supreme Court on behalf of four captive chimpanzees. This article undertakes a jurisprudential investigation of the arguments advanced by the petitioner in the litigation and the reasoning applied by the courts in their determination of the claims. Specifically, the article considers the legal treatment of personhood throughout the proceedings. The article makes two analytical claims and one critically evaluative claim. First, the article characterizes the approach of the New York judiciary to the litigation as an incarnation of Frederick Schauer’s formalism. Secondly, the article applies tenets of Hart’s theory of legal indeterminacy to the arguments advanced by the NhRP, demonstrating how a court reflecting his jurisprudence would be more amenable to the claims. Thirdly, the article argues that Hart’s theory represents a normatively superior framework with which a court should approach a claim to legal personhood for the purpose of habeas corpus relief by nonhuman chimpanzees. The article establishes that although the formalist New York judiciary rejects the petitions, they may succeed in a court reflecting Hart’s theory of legal indeterminacy, representing the preferable jurisprudence by which a court should determine a claim to legal personhood for chimpanzee.

Hendry County’s Best Kept Secret: Possible Legal Challenges to Non-Human Primate Breeding Facilities

Barbara Perez......................................................................................75

In rural Florida a municipality approved a primate breeding facility largely in secret. Hendry County, home to thousands of monkeys, approved and allowed a breeding facility to operate largely under the cover of darkness. In 2014, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed suit against Hendry County for an alleged violation of the Sunshine Law, which requires a municipality to provide notice or hold a public meeting when acting in its “decision-making” capacity. This paper explores what happened in Hendry County and the ethics surrounding primate breeding.

Legal Framework of Bullfighting and Societal Context in Colombia

Angie Vega.........................................................................................103

This article provides an overview of the current legal framework regarding bullfighting in Colombia. The Spanish conquest of Latin America dramatically transformed cultural practices. Spanish heritage, and specifically bullfighting, was brought over with the colonization of South American countries. The evolution of the law regarding bullfighting has been dramatically altered in recent years. Today, the Colombian Constitutional Court supports abolishment of the practice. However, the Colombian Congress’ position regarding bullfighting is not as clear, with tradition being one of the main arguments for bullfighting’s justification. The current debate centralizes on whether bullfighting should be regulated or abolished.

Establishing and Enforcing Animal Welfare Labeling Claims: Improving Transparency and Ensuring Accountability

Nicole E. Negowetti...........................................................................131

Consumers are becoming more aware of the ways in which their food is produced, and as a result, are demanding better production practices. Surveys consistently reveal consumers’ eagerness to purchase meat, dairy, and eggs produced humanely, along with their willingness to pay a premium for those products. Although consumers are most influenced by taste, price, and convenience when making purchasing decisions, animal welfare has become another consideration for a growing number of discerning shoppers. To satisfy this growing demand, producers are increasingly using labeling to distinguish their “humanely raised” products. There is proven demand for products with animal welfare standards, but there are several significant obstacles for conscientious consumers: there is no universal definition of “animal welfare” or “humanely raised” meat, and this claim is a credence attribute — not verifiable by a consumer before or after purchase. Although there are third-party animal welfare certification organizations, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has jurisdiction over the labeling of meat and poultry, allows the use of claims such as “humanely raised” with no independent verification. This situation puts the onus on consumers to distinguish between similar-sounding animal welfare claims, disadvantages producers legitimately producing humane products, and incentivizes companies to avoid certification fees and instead rely on the USDA’s lax oversight, while still profiting from price premiums. This paper evaluates the role of government and the market in establishing and enforcing animal welfare labeling schemes to improve transparency for consumers and ensure accountability on the part of producers.

Breed-Specific Dog Laws: Moving the United States Away from an “Anti-Pit Bull” Mentality

Paige Riem.........................................................................................159

Several jurisdictions across the United States have implemented breed specific legislation which focus on the percieved aggression and safety problems with “pit bulls.” However, a problem arises because several different breeds are lumped in as “pit bulls” and the legislation may only be tenatively connected toward promoting the stated policy goals.

Crocodile Tears: How Businesses Use Animal Testing Labeling as Propaganda to Increase Profit

Christyne J. Vachon...........................................................................179

For businesses, most decision-making emphasizes and implicates profit motive. In the present consumer drive for sustainable purchasing, businesses have an opportunity to take advantage of this consumer interest. This paper examines how current corporate governance regimes lead to the misuse of corporate propaganda to drive sales. Specifically, this paper focuses on corporate propagandistic use of labels related to animal testing (i.e., “cruelty-free” and “not tested on animals”) and recommends prospective approaches to allow consumers to decrease the utility of this propaganda tool to improve the quality of impactful disclosures.

2018 Animal and Natural Resource Law Case Review

Jessica Rundle....................................................................................203