Posted on July 25, 2012 by Seth
Oh, Magoo, you’ve done it again. And by Magoo, I of course mean New York, which as a state is doing a fine job staying on the forefront of advances in animal law. Recently the state assembly passed this nice new bit of legislation, which makes it a class B misdemeanor to possess, with the intent to use, animal fighting paraphernalia. That’s up to 90 days in jail upon conviction. Certain items such as breaking sticks and fighting pits are specified and defined, but there is also a catch-all provision for “any other instrument commonly used in the furtherance of pitting an animal against another animal.”
I like the idea of going after the materials used in animal fighting. It’s one of the more preventative measures I’ve seen. Prosecuting dog fights is all very important, but those animals are often far too damaged at that point. With this kind of approach, the fighting rings can be shut down before they happen. The mens rea will prevent wanton application of the law. Hopefully showing intent will not be too big of a hurdle for the courts. Then again, I’m not sure what else a “cat mill” could be used to do.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, dog fighting, dog fighting paraphernalia, dogs, New York, New York State Assembly | 6 Comments »
Posted on July 23, 2012 by othernations
Kathleen Stachowski Other Nations
I don’t read the morning paper anymore so much as I confront it. What will it be today–a romantic, river-runs-through-it feature on catch-and-release fly fishing? Gloating trophy shots of dudes in hunter orange and the ungulates they conquered with high-powered rifles? Another guest opinion column defending trapping as a management tool for a renewable resource? (Or, in the case of wolves, as suppression of unwanted competition for the aforementioned ungulates?)
Maybe a photo of a child clinging to a sheep in a mutton bustin’ contest? An article on taxidermy, horse racing at the fairgrounds, or a feature on the derring-do of bullfighters? (You used to know them as rodeo clowns, but they’ve come up in the world.) A full-page ad for a local ammo manufacturer featuring teenage girls and their African safari kills? Ice fishing tourney stats? No matter the season, there’s always a reason for animal exploitation–and someone willing to talk about it, someone ready to report it, and someone eager to read about it.
Within four days recently, a trio of items appeared in the paper to perfectly illustrate the speciesism that so naturally saturates the human experience. Whether for entertainment, convenience, or greed and entitlement, we human animals are a speciesist species. (more…)
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal rights, environmental ethics, fishing, hunting, wolves | 29 Comments »
Posted on July 17, 2012 by David
… is the title of my forthcoming essay in Law, Culture & the Humanities (a special issue on Law & Food). Get it here.
Here’s the abstract:
Law and food are distinct concepts, though the discipline (Law and Food) implies a relationship worthy of study. The conjunction (“and”) creates meaning. However, its absence also conveys meaning. For example, “meat animal” suggests that animals can be both meat and animal. This conflation has powerful legal (more…)
Filed under: Uncategorized, animal law | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, industrial farming, farmed animals, animal welfare, factory farms, USDA, National Meat Association v. Harris | 1 Comment »
Posted on July 13, 2012 by David
Here’s a teaser from my forthcoming piece, “Hot, Crowded & Legal: A look at Industrial Agriculture in the United States and Brazil.” The article is co authored with the fabulous Sarah Saville (Pace JD 2012) and will appear in the Animal Law Review. The article is based on a talk I gave at the Review’s Inaugural Symposium in Fall 2011.
This essay examines the impact of industrial animal agriculture in the United States and Brazil. It surveys the respective regulatory environments in the two countries and discusses how their regulatory regimes have enabled the spread of factory farming while taking little heed of its pernicious effects. We focus on the United States and Brazil for several reasons. First, they are the first and eight largest economies in the world, respectively. Second, both countries have very large agricultural sectors and play significant roles internationally. In addition, both countries have begun to address the issues raised by factory farming while yet having much work yet to do.
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: animal law, industrial farming, farmed animals, climate change, factory farms, industrial agriculture, Brazil, comparative animal law | Leave a Comment »