Posted on June 25, 2014 by David
The risks of environmental crime to nature are well known. Greed for profits that can exceed $10-20bn a year according to Interpol” are a menace to species as elephants, rhinos and tigers, for example. The seriousness of these crimes against wildlife, as well as the connections of environmental crimes with terrorism and, as exposed by the Department of States this week, human trafficking, justify all the concerns about them.
One of the best ways to combat environmental crimes is to help the authorities. However, few people know that it is possible to do so Continue reading
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal law, environmental law | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal law, environmental advocacy, environmental crimes, environmental law, poaching, wildlife, Wilkleaks | 5 Comments »
Posted on March 5, 2014 by Seth
New standard for chickens
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of California, asking the federal court to overturn a 2010 California law requiring the same standards for in-state chickens be applied to out-of-state chickens. In 2008, California passed Proposition 2, a ballot measure that increased the standards for egg-layers, providing that such chickens must have enough space to spread their wings without touching another chicken, and be able to stand up and lay down. Animal producers in California, however, complained that because they couldn’t stuff as many birds into the same space, they are at an economic disadvantage when competing with out-of-state producers selling in California. In response the state legislature passed a law requiring that all eggs sold in California be held to the same standards required under Proposition 2. The law will take effect in 2015. While California maintains that the additional law was enacted for health safety given the atrocious conditions of battery cages, Missouri counters that the law is an unlawful attempt to regulate conduct outside of California’s boarders, and an impermissible protection against out-of-state competition, both of which are in violation of the Commerce Clause. Continue reading
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, climate change, environmental law, factory farms | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, battery cages, CAFOS, california, California's Proposition 2, Chris Koster, climate change, Commerce Clause, community cages, egg production, environmental law, factory farms, farmed animals, global warming, HSUS, industrial farming, Missouri | Leave a comment »
Posted on December 19, 2013 by David
“What a country chooses to save is what a country says about itself,” Mollie Beattie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director 1993-1996.
Forty years ago this month, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). When signing the ESA into law on December 28, 1973, President Nixon stated, “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alive, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” Continue reading
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, Endangered Species Act, environmental law, ESA | 1 Comment »
Posted on November 22, 2013 by David
On the 7th and 8th of November, 500 of the leading law enforcement and environmental experts came together at the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)- United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Conference (ECEC) in Nairobi, Kenya. They discussed recent trends in environmental crime and the impacts of those violations. “This is a global phenomenon. This is a global market place. It’s globally active syndicates, criminals who are engaging in this trade who are causing damage to national economies and communities,” said Achim Steiner, UNEP’s Executive Director, and “[there is] a rapidly escalating environmental crime wave.”
According to UNEP, environmental crime is associated with international criminal syndicates. UNEP and Interpol are working together to provide a global system of communication for information sharing to prevent environmental crimes.
“People from around the world are outraged that organized criminal networks are robbing the world of our elephants, rhinos, tigers and other wildlife, purely for the profit of a very few outlaws,” said Azzedine Downes, president of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), who presented at the conference. He called for countries to commit to developing security task forces to battle environmental crime and highlighted the importance of cross-boundary cooperation. Continue reading
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: animal crimes, animal law, environmental law, international animal law, UNEP | 3 Comments »
Posted on November 12, 2013 by David
On October 11, California became the first state to ban lead in hunting ammunition. “Lead poses a danger to wildlife,” said California Governor Jerry Brown in a signing message. “This danger has been known for a long time.” The ban will help to protect a number of mammal and bird species, including the endangered California Condor.
The California Condor nearly went extinct in the 1980s – by 1982, their population had dwindled to twenty-two. Thanks to a successful captive breeding program, that number has increased to 424, but lead from ammunition remains a major threat to their recovery. Continue reading
Filed under: animal law, environmental law | Tagged: animal law, California Condor, endangered species, environmental ethics, environmental law, lead ammunition | 1 Comment »
Posted on September 26, 2013 by David
Once again, the Shameless Self-Promotion Desk whirs into action. This new piece, forthcoming in the South Texas Law Review, is a transcription of a lecture I gave there last spring. Here is the abstract:
What are the ethics behind factory farming? What are the ethical implications? This essay (transcribed from a lecture given at the South Texas College of Law) focuses on the environmental implications while defining those environmental implications through the lens of animal law and ethics.
Farms have become factories, and the animals raised in those factories are simply commodities. That is why we cannot have a discussion about Continue reading
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, environmental ethics, environmental law, factory farming, industrial agriculture | 4 Comments »
Posted on June 25, 2013 by cdillard2013
by Carter Dillard
Sincere thanks to Jeff and Joe for their biting critique of the idea of a primary human right that guarantees humans access to wilderness and complete biodiversity. This response, which is geared for the audience of the blog generally, will divide their critique into eight points and respond to each (taking their points a bit out of order), before drawing back to the theme of this blog in order to explain why the right not only survives their appraisal, but can simultaneously satisfy environmental, human, and animal interests.
1. Primary in what sense, and based on what evidence?
Jeff raises a challenge to the idea of a primary right by arguing that the term implies universal acceptance. Because, Jeff argues, many people will reject the value of being alone in the wilderness the right cannot be universal and therefore fails. First, it’s not clear to me that the Tembé would not recognize something like a right to wilderness or the nonhuman, given their historic struggle to preserve the rainforest around them. Second, as Joe notes, whether the Tembé actually recognize the right and underlying value or not does not defeat the right, any more than Hutu leaders’ failure to recognize the universal right of all peoples to be free from genocide, and the GOP’s recent refusal to recognize universal rights for the disabled that trump parental authority, prove that those rights are wrong. As discussed below, this is in part because claiming a right is like saying “you ought to do this,” which cannot be proven wrong with the response “we don’t/won’t do that” (this is simply the difference between an “ought” and an “is”). The responding party might not do the thing or want to do the thing, but perhaps they still ought to. The universality of particular rights derives not from universal acceptance, but from logical arguments that deduce the particular rights from things all humans – because of certain social and biological shared characteristics – will value, whether they admit it or not, see e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal scholarship, climate change, endangered species, environmental ethics, environmental law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal rights, environmental ethics, environmental law, exit, human rights, privacy, wilderness | Leave a comment »