Vegan thank you notes: “Just thought you’d want to know”

Vegan Peace e-cards: click image

Kathleen Stachowski  Other Nations

One last hurrah is on the holiday season horizon–the New Year’s celebration. The holidays (regardless of which ones you celebrate) are a time fraught with pitfalls for ethical vegans in a speciesist world. Gifts…food…gifts of food…argh.

Food. You can always detect the vegan at the omnivore holiday party, surreptitiously rifling through the pasta salad with a serving spoon, attempting to determine if it’s “safe.” Likewise, the vegan (or veg*n) is the one whose face brightens at the sight of a huge salad bowl then darkens upon realizing that the lovely greens are covered with crumbled bacon. And bacon vinaigrette. Tsk.

Then there’s the gift-giving, and by that I really mean the gift-receiving. Because you can bet your Moo Shoes that ethical vegans give vegan gifts but don’t always receive them.  

Dog Custody in Divorce

Nancy Rogowski

            When married couples divorce, who gets to keep the dog?  Under the law, dogs are considered to be personal property, and no matter how loved dogs are, they are not treated like children under the law.  Many judges do not want to get involved in pet disputes. The family pet sometimes becomes a powerless victim of the breakup.  Recently, courts have been ruling dog custody at other forms than property.  In the New York Post on December 4, 2013 there was an article about a pair of divorcing women about to fight it out in court over a miniature dachshund named Joey.  It will be New York’s first matrimonial pet-custody case.  The attorney for one of the women, Sherri Donovan said, “It recognizes the special place of pets in our families.”  

Manhattan Justice Matthew Cooper opines in his ruling granting the women oral arguments.  According to the article, the only bone of contention in their divorce is who will get sole custody of their 2-year-old pet, Joey.  One of the women gave Joey as a gift to the other women, which she claims always sleeps on her side of the bed.  Judge Cooper notes that New York law lags behind other states’ legal standing of their pets, and that “most pet owners would not trade their pets for even $1 million in cash.”  The judge will schedule a hearing to determine Joey’s fate, instead of regarding him like a piece of property.  Judge Cooper wants to hear the truth about who bore the major responsibility for meeting Joey’s needs.  He will be asking questions such as: “Who spent more time with Joey on a regular basis?”  The judge says, “…there is certainly room to give real consideration to a case involving a treasured pet.”  The parties are still working out a date for the hearing. 

Standing for Animals

Anika Mohammed

An issue that plagues animal rights advocates is something we, as people, take for granted: standing to sue. In order to find standing, generally three factors must be found: 1) injury-in-fact, 2) causation, and 3) redressability. Unfortunately for animals, courts do not recognize the injury of an animal alone to give that animal standing, even though their rights have been violated.

Standing to sue is an issue recognized around the world. The Filipino case Minors Oposa was considered a ground-breaking case, and its affect felt around the world. In Minors Oposa the high court of the Philippines expressed their willingness to recognize the standing of not just minors, but future generations not yet born. This was done in an attempt to protect future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Though this may seem like a wild idea, suing on behalf of future generations, it makes sense. When harm is being done, the affected parties should have their interests protected, even if someone else has to bring the action.

The ESA at 40

Ellen Zhang

“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.”

Let slip the dogs of war: Wolf slaughter is afoot

Click image for photo credit

Kathleen Stachowski   Other Nations

(NOTE: See my updates scattered throughout the text & comment section)

Cry “Havoc!” There will be blood…and it will be wolf blood.

Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) has hired a killer to slaughter two wolf packs within the federally-protected Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. This is congressionally-designated, captital-W wilderness, certainly the one place nature should be allowed to express itself without manipulation by and for humans. Said wolf biologist and PBS filmmaker (“River of No Return”) Isaac Babcock,

…when Fish and Game hires a bounty hunter to go live in designated wilderness in a Forest Service cabin with the goal of eliminating entire wolf packs — something seems terribly wrong with that.” ~ Idaho Statesman: “Idaho Fish and Game turns to hired hunter“

Why must two wilderness wolf packs die?

Amended CHIMP Act Allows More Chimpanzees to Retire to Federal Sanctuary

Anne Haas

On Wednesday, November 27^th, President Obama signed into law a bipartisan bill to support the retirement of research chimpanzees.

Earlier this year, the National Institute of Health (NIH) announced plans to retire about 90 percent of U.S. government-owned chimpanzees currently used in medical research to Chimp Haven, a national chimpanzee sanctuary in Keithville, Louisiana. However, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act, signed into law in 2000, placed a $30 million cap on spending for federally owned chimpanzees in sanctuaries. NIH was expected to reach that cap in mid-November, affecting both the retirement and care of chimpanzees in laboratories and at Chimp Haven.

Vets Groups Oppose Award of Non-Economic Damages in Police Dog Shooting

Maeve Flanagan

In January of 2010, a Frederick County deputy, Timothy Brooks, drove to the home of Roger and Sandra Jenkins to serve a civil warrant on their son. The Jenkins’ chocolate Labrador retriever, Brandi, rushed out of the home towards the officers but stopped before getting very close.  As Roger called for Brandi to return into the home, Deputy Brooks shot the dog and injured her leg.  Brandi

recovered, but may have to have her leg amputated.  In April of 2012, a jury awarded the Jenkins’ $620,000 in damages, $200,000 of which was for emotional distress.  That award was later lowered to $607,500 because Maryland has a statutory limit of $7,500 for veterinary bills. 

Animal DNA as Forensic Evidence in Criminal Prosecution

Kendall Shea

According to CBS News, the City of New York is expanding the use of forensic animal evidence, such as DNA samples, to solve more crimes against both animals and people.  With the help of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and their mobile evidence lab, investigators are using cutting-edge technology to solve crimes against animals, but prosecutors have commented that such tests can link a suspect to crimes against people as well.

Forensic animal evidence has been used in criminal prosecution in the United States for some time.  The controversial conviction in the murder of an Illinois woman, Karyn Hearn Slover, relied on only circumstantial evidence.  Karyn Slover went missing in September 1996.  In 2002, Karyn’s ex-husband, Michael Slover, Jr., and his parents Michael and Jeannette Slover were convicted of her murder.  The prosecution advanced the theory that Michael Sr. and Jeannette feared Karyn would take her son, their grandchild, out of state following the divorce between Karyn and Michael Jr. and murdered her in order to gain custody of the child.  With no murder weapon recovered and no available witnesses, prosecutors developed a circumstantial case.  They used negative statements made by Slover family members about Karyn, psychiatric analysis of Karyn’s son (who they believe may have witnessed the murder), and matching environmental evidence, including dog hair discovered on duct tape used to seal garbage bags containing parts of Karyn’s body.  The dog hair matched that of Michael Sr. and Jeanette’s dog.  The Slovers’ case is currently being reviewed by the University of Illinois, Springfield Innocence Project.

Law, Animals, and Professors

Tagore Trajano

In early September, I arrived in the U.S again with a new goal, “… pass through the bridge between being a student and being an international Professor”.

At a good teaching university, a professor is expected to be formal, and faraway from his students. However, I had learned that being a good University Professor is to be ready to share the opportunities, and show for his students that all of them have a great path in their lives.

This is one of the lessons that you can pick from David Cassuto’s Law Classes

The Consequences of a Mauling

Megan Hopper-Rebegea

Heading to Romania as a Peace Corps volunteer I read about and was warned several times about the packs of stray street dogs, known in Romania as câine vagabond.  At least one Peace Corps volunteer was bitten each year and had to make several trips to Bucharest from their home site to receive rabies vaccinations.  The dogs are a remnant of the Communist regime when residents were moved into large apartment buildings, known as blocs.  Animal activist, Livia Compoeru, explained that “[w]hen the great demolitions came, many houses were knocked down and owners moved to apartments and could not take dogs with them.”

In September of this year, a four year old boy was mauled by stray dogs while playing with his brother in a park in Bucharest, the capital of Romania.  Bucharest has a population of approximately 2 million people and 60,000 stray dogs.  One hospital in Bucharest has treated 9,760 people for dog bites during the first eight months of 2013.  This was not the first death caused by stray dogs.  In the past few years, another Bucharest woman was killed by a pack and a Japanese tourist died after a stray severed an artery in his leg.  After the mauling of the young child, animals have been hacked, kicked, and torched to death in revenge.  The picture below shows a street dog whose jaw was hacked off. 

Fashion Scandals: False Labeling of Fur-Trimmed Products

Angelique Vita Rivard

With the winter shopping season upon us it is important to remember the animals who sacrifice their lives for the production of many of the items commonly purchased, including leather, fur, and wool. Within the fur industry alone, millions of animals including rabbits, raccoon dogs, minks, bobcats, foxes and even domestic dogs and cats, are killed annually to make unnecessary fur products. These animals are often skinned alive. But given the advancements in technology, governmental oversight and surged ethical inquiry it must be easy to find humane fur alternatives in stores. Or is it?

Recently, the spotlight has come down on Kohl’s retailer stores after an investigation conducted by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that handbags listed as being made with faux fur were actually trimmed with real rabbit fur. Check out the detailed story on how HSUS uncovered the scandal and take a look at the investigation’s subsequent results.

Unfortunately, this is not novel news. Just last March, another HSUS investigation discovered that coats designed by Marc Jacobs designer labeled as faux-fur were actually real fur coming from Chinese raccoon dogs. Raccoon dogs are members of the dog or canine (Canidae) family who are often skinned alive for their soft fur. The Marc Jacobs scandal prompted, Manhattan Assemblywoman, Linda Rosenthal, to focus on state legislation mandating that all fur products (real or faux) be labeled appropriately.

Caged raccoon dog.

So, where’s the law here? What legal protections do both animals and consumers have against scandals such as these. Because outrages like the ones from Kohl’s and Marc Jacobs are actually much more than scandals, they are crimes. As it turns out, there are virtually no animal protection laws and only a few consumer protection laws pertaining to fur labeling. Selling animal fur as “faux fur” is a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, under its prohibition against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in commerce, but the penalty is limited to $16,000 per violation.

Live Video Chat: Should Animals Have Legal Rights?

Last week, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in three New York counties in an attempt to get judges to declare that chimpanzees are “legal persons” and free them from captivity. The suits are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant legal personhood to a variety of animals across the United States.

On Friday, I moderated a live video chat for Science with two experts on opposite sides of this very contentious issue. One, Steven Wise, is the president of the NonHuman Rights Project and a vocal proponent of animal rights. The other, Richard Cupp, is a law professor at Pepperdine University in California and an influential voice in the anti-personhood movement. Both care about animals, but they have very different ideas of the best way to improve their welfare. Our chat was wide ranging–covering everything from what rights for animals would look like to whether Neanderthals, computers, and space aliens should be granted human rights. It was a fascinating and passionate discussion. I hope you’ll check it out!

–David Grimm, author of the forthcoming book, CITIZEN CANINE: Our Evolving Relationship with Cats and Dogs.

 

Trick?…Or treat?

Gina LeDonne

The Christmas trees are surfacing and the very last Halloween candy rejects are being picked over or tossed, so, I’ve begun to think about the “trick” that lasts well into the holiday season, you know, that one that is certainly no “treat”: animal products masquerading as harmless sweet confections.  So many holiday foods are non-obvious sources of animal products—ones that are derived from processes and conditions that are just as harmful to the animals as meat-eating itself. Conscious vegetarians stay away from the obvious animal foods, but: gummy bears? Jell-o molds?  Marshmallow topped sweet potatoes? What do they all have in common? Gelatin.

The “Necessity” of Cosmetic Animal Testing

Andrea Rodricks

            Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) does not require cosmetic testing on animals, it does allow a company to take whatever steps necessary to prove product safety. This includes animal testing. Even though the FDA does advocate for alternative methods of testing, it seems to be an all too common perception that animal testing is necessary for the development of safe products. This is evidenced by the hundreds of companies that still test on animals. I have never understood why it is seen as the best way to test cosmetics. Does testing mascara on a rabbit really prove that it is safe for human use? There are plenty of alternatives to testing on animals, so it is any wonder why companies continue this horrific practice. 

The United States is significantly behind in banning animal testing of cosmetics. In 2004, the European Union(EU) banned domestic cosmetic testing on animals. In 2009, the EU went even further by banning animal testing of the ingredients used in cosmetics. Additionally, they banned the sale of products that have been tested on animals. Finally, in early 2013, the EU’s final deadline of prohibiting marketing of products that are tested on animals was complete. On January 1, 2013, Israel’s ban on animal testing for cosmetics went into effect prohibiting the importation and marketing of products that test on animals. Similar to the EU, this was the second step in a process that started in 2007 with the banning of domestic animal testing. Finally, in July of this year, India joined the EU and Israel, by prohibiting animal testing on cosmetics and ingredients.         

Uncertain Future for SeaWorld

Nicole Geraci

While controversy has long surrounded human-orca interaction, the recent release of the documentary “Blackfish” has sparked considerable outrage amongst its viewers.  The film captures the history of killer whales in captivity with its spotlight on Tilikum, an orca who was captured off the coast of Iceland in 1983 and transported to SeaWorld.  “Blackfish” also portrays the tragic 2010 incident of veteran trainer Dawn Brancheau who ultimately lost her life after being dragged underwater by Tilikum, the events of which were witnessed by a live audience.

In response to the trainer’s untimely death, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration imposed a $12,000 penalty (reduced from an original $75,000 fine) on SeaWorld.  The pending litigation involves the general duty clause of the OSHA which requires employers to provide “a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”  The issue is whether SeaWorld has in fact violated this duty.  SeaWorld filed an appeal contending that it should not be required to eliminate all risk associated with an activity that is essential to the company’s work.  Labor officials have responded with safety requirements in which SeaWorld trainers would be ordered to work behind barriers or maintain safe distances between themselves and the whales, which according to SeaWorld, would undermine their shows.