Posted on February 5, 2016 by David
Posted on January 22, 2016 by David
Voiceless, the fabulous Australian Animal Law NGO, has published its Animal Law Toolkit, a highly readable, very useful publication for anyone practicing or interested in animal law. Get it; read it; tell your friends.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal law, animal welfare, Voiceless | 1 Comment »
Posted on January 22, 2016 by David
Disclaimer: First of all, as they will be treated certain thorny issues, I want to make clear that the views, arguments and reasons that are going to be exposed on this post are not the opinions of this blog or the ones of the author.
The reason that has made me move to deliver this issues is because they make an interesting (and original) approach of how the animal welfare can be understood, that I had never thought about. However, I am not trying to protect bullfighting but I want to introduce you these ideas, that might make us think about whether what we had for terrible, is as bad as we thought. Needless to say that I will try to deliver them in the most objective manner possible.
The arguments that I will be writing about are from a source that might be the speaker of the world of bullfighting in general: Pablo Hermoso de Mendoza, a very famous former Spanish Rejoneador (a kind of bullfighter that jumps into the arena on horseback).
(All the following arguments and statements are taken from this video: Argumentos a favor de los toros del rejoneador Pablo Hermoso de Mendoza.)
Bullfighters understand people who are not in favor of bullfighting, they understand Continue reading
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal suffering, bullfighting | 3 Comments »
Posted on December 18, 2015 by animalblawg
Charles T. Jordan
Much like any competitive sport there is a risk of doping. Because competition in professional sports is so intense, there is always the temptation to take shortcuts to achieve success. Sports like cycling and baseball are generally most associated with doping scandals; however equestrian sports (such as show jumping, dressage, eventing, hunters, etc.) has needed to address doping. Equestrian sports are one of the only major competitive sports where one of the athletes competing is a non-human. This creates an important distinction, unlike in cycling and baseball where the “doper” is the competitor with the decision making power, in equestrian sports the “doper” is the horse (which is not who makes the decision to dope). This makes it difficult to determine who should be punished in doping scandals. Recently the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), the governing body of equestrian sports in America, has clarified and extended the responsible parties in doping situations. Previously those responsible when the horse tested positive for performance enhancing drugs was just the trainer. Under the new rule those responsible would also include the rider, owner of the horse, and support personnel (including grooms, handlers, and veterinarians). Furthermore the presumption is that these individuals are responsible absent a showing of “substantial evidence to the contrary.”
The enforcement of these rules has been taken to court when one of the biggest names in the sport was involved in a doping scandal. Tori Colvin’s mother, Brigid, was suspended and fined by a USEF hearing committee as the trainer when the horse Tori rode tested positive for higher than usual levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Colvin challenged the suspension in New York Supreme Court, claiming that the punishment was Continue reading
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, equestrian sports | 1 Comment »
Posted on December 17, 2015 by Michelle D. Land
Michelle D. Land
Harris’s Hawks, native to the Southwest, form complex social groups and hunt cooperatively, sometimes stacking 3-birds high to maximize good perching locations and find prey more efficiently.
Why animal protection organizations and environmentalists don’t collaborate more meaningfully is a long-standing question without a satisfactory answer.
Typically, the explanation for a lack of sustained cooperation between the two is that animal protectionists are concerned about individual animals, while environmentalists care only about populations or healthy ecosystems. This “mission loyalty” is a false dichotomy. Climate change perturbations, palm oil plantations, industrial farming, habitat loss, over-harvesting…the list of intersecting interests is too long to exhaust. Ecosystems are comprised of millions of individual animals. And individual animals depend upon healthy ecosystems to thrive. Conservation biologists, Chris Darimont and Paul Paquet in their 2010 article, Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the same coin? illuminate this point:
Although rarely considered, depriving animals of their life requisites by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings causes suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and reduced security. The same human activities driving the current extinction crisis are also causing suffering, fear, physical injury, psychological trauma, and disease in wild animals. These discomforts are well beyond and additive to what might occur naturally (i.e., non-anthropomorphic).
On November 18th, a report by the Endangered Species Coalition entitled
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, endangered species, environmental law | Tagged: Chris Darimont, David S. Favre, Harris's Hawk, Paul Paquet, Thomas Smith | 2 Comments »
Posted on December 8, 2015 by animalblawg
For centuries animals have been used for experiments in the name of science. Scientists have urged the general public that these experiments are necessary, for the advancement of medical and scientific discovery. These scientists believe that without using nonhumans, there would be no way for us to know if the drugs or research discovered, would work or be safe for human use. This argument is flawed in many respects, but none more than the fact that nonhumans simply are not humans. Many of the experiments that bring desired results on animals does not necessarily bring the same results for humans. Actually this is the case way more often than not, with a vast majority of experiments that bring desired results in animals, but resulting in either adverse or no effect on humans. This then bears the question; why do we still use animals in scientific experiments and medical research? There really isn’t a good reason based on the facts. Researches and certain companies want us to believe that these experiments are necessary for our safety, but in reality these experiments are used by companies and researchers to hedge their liability, so that if anything does actually go wrong on the humans that use their products, they can show the results from the animal Continue reading
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal abuse, animal experimentation, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, laboratory animals, vivisection | Leave a comment »
Posted on December 7, 2015 by David
A couple of days ago, a member of Compassion Over Killing, revealed footage that he recorded during the time he worked undercover at a Quality Pork Processors Inc. plant in Minnesota. The video depicted graphic and disturbing images of how pigs are treated during the slaughter process. While the video is not for the fainted hearted, it does shed light on a very real issue in factory farming, and serves as a way to educate the public about what really goes on behind closed doors.
The current Federal Meat Inspection Act regulates a broad range of activities at slaughterhouses to ensure both the safety of meat and the Continue reading
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, factory farms, industrial farming | 7 Comments »