A New Animal Rights Treaty Regime is Needed that Mirrors Human Rights Treaties: Animals aren’t Commodities, They Have Inherent Rights

Liz Holmes
A fundamental shift is needed in global law protecting animals. Existing systems protect animals mainly as commodities for human benefit and trade. There is a need to enshrine in international law the inherent rights of animals and have protection regimes that mirror those of human rights treaties.
Humans make up only 36 percent of all mammals, but our species provides only minimally for the other 64 percent – that is when humans are not driving animals into extinction. A few international treaty systems provide some restrictions on the treatment of migratory species and endangered species.

This includes the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

A New & Worthy Member of the Animal Blog Community

David Cassuto

From the email:

Friends of Animals of Animals, in partnership with Professor Martha C. Nussbaum, has launched a new project: Establishing the Legal, Scientific and Philosophical Basis for A Right to Ethical Consideration for Animals. The project blog can be found here: https://friendsofanimals.org/wildlife-law-program/wildlife-law-program-blog/

About the project: Currently, the law only seeks to minimize the physical suffering or death of an animal, or loss of an animal’s habitat, when sanctioning human activity. Increasingly, however, we understand both scientifically and philosophically that our impact on animals can be more than just physical. As Martha C. Nussbaum would explain it, our current legal system fails to respect one or more of the species-specific, central capabilities: life, bodily integrity, bodily health, play, sense/imagination/thought, emotion, practical reason, affiliation, and control over one’s environment.

The right to ethical consideration we seek is a legal obligation on our governmental decision-makers to fully examine how human actions degrade the types of lives animals are trying to lead. Such a right is not based solely on our compassion or empathy for an animal, but on moral and scientific principles that we can justify by argument. Our decision-making processes must embrace our ever-expanding knowledge of how human involvement or interference with an animal diminishes one or more of that animal’s central capabilities. In other words, the reason to focus on the ethical treatment of animals is because of them, not because of us.  What we feel is neither here nor there. What matters is the suffering of the animals, and whether we feel compassion or not we are morally obligated to relieve it.

Finally, the right to ethical consideration we seek is not the granting of specific substantive rights for animals, like the right to life, freedom, etc. It is, however, a pathway to strengthening legal protections for animals, and future substantive rights. By requiring decision-makers and the public to engage in active deliberation about the human impact on an animal’s ability to live a meaningful life, societal and legal beliefs regarding the rights of non-human animals can change for the better.

Totally Excellent Conference in Australia: Center for Compassionate Conservation, November 2017

David Cassuto

Yet another reason to be in Australia this November…  Please consider giving a paper (details for abstract submission below) or just come and enjoy.  [Full disclosure: Our hero will deliver a keynote]

2017 INTERNATIONAL
​COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATION CONFERENCE

NOVEMBER 20-24, 2017 SYDNEY

CC SYDNEY 2017

• Home
• Themes
• Workshops
• Venue
• Registration

2017 Conference Theme
​Expanding Conservation Horizons

In the newly recognised age of anthropogenic influence, now labeled the Anthropocene, how we should engage with nature has become one of the biggest questions of our time. Wildlife are experiencing unprecedented extinction rates and population decline, driven both by intentional harms and as by-products of human activities. At the same time, some wildlife are flourishing in rapidly changing habitats and places, challenging our fundamental concepts of nature.

The protection of nature has historically prioritised the conserving of collectives (populations, species, and ecosystems) in their pre-Anthropocene state. As a consequence, conservation has often been indifferent to the welfare of individuals and averse to emerging ecological configurations. The societal norms that shape the context of these underlying positions remain murky, entrenched, and often not transparent to the wider community. Rather than finding conservation solutions that deliver benefits across all levels of biodiversity, the lives of individuals are frequently traded-off for the greater good of species or ecosystems, without considering the ethical challenges this presents. A new paradigm is required to address the ethical challenges of engaging with nature in the 21st Century.

​Compassionate Conservation presents a morally grounded approach to resolving issues of land sharing by utilising the universal ethic of compassion to alleviate or prevent suffering in humans and other animals. Compassionate Conservation is concerned with the protection and well-being of individual wild animals (whether free-roaming or captive), reshaping the framework of traditional conservation biology that has its roots in species, populations, and ecosystems. Rather than being regarded as objects or metrics to be traded off for the good of populations, species, or biodiversity, Compassionate Conservation requires that society must protect animals as individuals. This means that approaches to solving conservation actions must prioritise those that cause the least harm to individuals. An adequate ethic that accounts for the intrinsic value of individuals and species is needed to address the shortcomings of relying solely on their utilitarian value. That is not to say that individual welfare supersedes species or ecosystem welfare, only that we cannot continue to ignore individuals in conservation practice.

​Great progress has been made in defining the discipline of Compassionate Conservation in the seven years since the first Symposium organised by the Born Free Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at the University of Oxford in 2010. Following the successful 2nd International Conference at the University of British Columbia in 2015, key areas of research strength and discourse have continued to emerge and flourish. Aggregated into six priority themes, the 3rd International Conference provides an exciting opportunity to hear progress from international experts from around the world as the horizons for compassionate conservation expand.

Hosted by the Centre for Compassionate Conservation at the University of Technology Sydney and supported by the Born Free Foundation, Alley Cat Allies, and Voiceless, the conference will involve themed symposia covering a range of disciplines, exciting field trips, and a series of tailored workshops. It will bring together experts in science, law, ethics, and the environmental humanities to discuss the future of conservation.

CC SYDNEY 2017 – Abstract call

​Call for abstracts

Themes

The conference organisers are seeking oral and poster presentations that help expand the horizons of compassionate conservation. In particularly participants are invited to address key themes of compassionate conservation:

• Novel ecosystems
• Wild animal welfare
• Predator friendly ranching
• Compassionate law and policy
• Conservation ethics
• Land sharing and coexistence

Abstracts are sought for presentations that drive the development of practices and policies that transition away from harming wildlife and towards the guiding principles of compassionate conservation. The conference challenges its speakers to make bold, thought provoking, forward-thinking talks from across science, law, and the humanities to inspire paradigm change in our relationship with nature.

​Guiding principles

First, do no harm as a commitment to prioritising non-invasive approaches in conservation research and practice, and an acknowledgement that invasive interventions may harm individuals, populations, and ecosystems.

Individuals matter in conservation research and practice, not merely as units of species and populations, and should be treated with compassion both in the wild and in captivity

Valuing all wildlife as worthy of conservation effort, whether native or introduced, whether common or rare, and regardless of perceived usefulness to humans

Peaceful coexistence with wildlife is the ultimate aim guiding compassionate conservation practices

SUBMIT YOUR ABSTRACT NOW

CC SYDNEY 2017 – Confirmed speakers

Inspirational speakers

Hosted by 

Supportors

Webinar on Animals as Sentient Beings

David Cassuto

From the email:

The law has recognised animals as “sentient” beings, so …

… this is how that change affects how you can use animals for
food, ​​entertainment, companionship, service animals, and research

This is your invitation to join in the ONLINE SEMINAR which shows how law’s “sentient animal” is set to change everything for society and you – again.

BU Law Review Symposium on “Beating Hearts”

David Cassuto

Sherry Colb & Michael Dorf’s book, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights is the subject of an online symposium by the Boston University Law Review.  You can find it here.  Full disclosure: I was one of the respondents.

Animal Law Fellowship!

David Cassuto

From the email…  Do yourself a favor: apply for this.

 

 

Farmed Animal Law & Policy Fellowship 2017-2018

 

 

Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Program is inviting applications for Fellowships in Farmed Animal Law & Policy for the 2017–2018 academic year.   The Fellowships provide opportunities for outstanding scholars and legal practitioners to undertake research, writing, and scholarly engagement on Farmed Animal Law & Policy that furthers the Program’s mission. We particularly are interested in applicants whose work focuses on the interrelations among animal welfare, human health, food safety, workers’ rights, human rights, as well as climate change and the environment.   We welcome applicants with a JD, LLM, SJD, or PhD who are interested in spending from three months to one year in residence at Harvard Law School working on an independent project. We seek applicants from a diverse range of backgrounds, academic traditions, and scholarly interests. Projects focusing on either domestic or international farmed animal law and policy are equally encouraged.   Fellows will receive a stipend of up to $5,000 per month. Fellows will be expected to participate in Program activities, contribute to the intellectual life of the Program, and are encouraged to organize one or more academic events related to their fellowship project.   The deadline to submit applications is March 25, 2017. To apply for a Farmed Animal Law & Policy Fellowship for 2017–2018, please submit the following materials via the online application form: a curriculum vitae a recent publication or a writing sample (approximately 25 pages in length). All publications or writing samples should be in English. a research statement, not to exceed 1000 words, that: 1) describes the proposed work during the fellowship period. The proposal should outline a specific research project that can be accomplished during the Fellow’s residence at Harvard Law School; and 2) sets forth a specific work output for the completed project (e.g., book, article, database/website entries). You will be asked to arrange that two letters of recommendation be sent directly from your referees to the Program via our online application system by March 25, 2017 . For more information on the Fellowship and application process, click here.

International Animal Law News

David Cassuto

From the email:

[T]his email is being sent to you to update you with some of the key news and events of the last few months that have been posted on the website of International Animal Law.

ANIMALS, WELFARE AND THE LAW

Animals, welfare and the law is an essential book for all those that have direct and indirect dealings/interests with animals. It’s now the course book for a couple of online courses including Vet Scholar and the Global Animal Welfare Authority.

Remember, the format of the book is intentionally designed to be thought provoking and interactive. For example, there are questions at the front of the book, and at the end of each chapter, that assist readers in examining their own knowledge (and attitudes) concerning animal welfare and the rules that currently govern it. Additionally, all proceeds from the sale of the book go to the registered charity Animal Welfare Law Matters.

NEWS PICKS

I am always grateful to those who continue to contribute to the array of topics, articles and news of interest on the website of International Animal Law (“IAL”). A few picks shown on IAL over the last few months include:

1. A new International Research Consortium for Animal Health (IRC) has been created to coordinate global research and ultimately lead to new methods of controlling animal diseases. Given the competing attitudes, agendas and interests between different stakeholders on many of the issues involving animals and the welfare of animals and people, it is encouraging to see continued efforts towards harmonisation in the international market place.
2. On the subject of initiatives which seek to implement consistency on issues of animal welfare internationally, a proposed model of animal welfare has been published. Its authors propose that can be used as a guide and information source for countries seeking to introduce or improve their animal welfare legislation.
3. Do you know how enforcement actually works? For example, what are the criteria for determining whether or not a prosecution proceeds. These considerations were raised following notification of a complaint against the SPCA.
4. And do you recall seeing the public response and outcry at the shooting of a lion organised by trophy hunting safari operations in South Africa last year? Change is fostered when public opinion is supported by commercial decisions that have an economic impact, so the cancellation of a hunting expo by the Holiday Inn is interesting to note. It also raises questions about how many of the other voices that criticised the slaying of the lion and wider trophy hunting safari operations, have implemented similar initiatives for change?
5. Opinions regarding the use of animals for human use obviously vary. The Greyhound racing industry is one of the animal use activities that has come under the spotlight in recent times, and the imprisonment of Greyhound trainers in Australia is a reminder of how far the law has progressed in that people can and to go to prison for animal welfare offences.

Don’t Be Cruel (Anymore): A Look at the Animal Cruelty Regimes of the United States and Brazil with a Call for a New Animal Welfare Agency

David Cassuto

The shameless self-promotion desk is back and shilling a new article.  The title is as above and you can find the full text here.  Worth noting is that it appears in the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review and that both articles in the current issue of one of the country’s leading environmental law journals are on animal law.  Big plaudits to the journal.  Get it, read it, tell your friends.

Abstract:

In the United States and around the world, animals exploited for human use suffer cruel and needless harm. The group bearing the brunt of this exploitation—agricultural animals—is routinely exempted from the largely ineffective and rarely enforced animal welfare and anti-cruelty regulations that exist today. This Article offers a comparative analysis of the agricultural animal welfare regimes of two countries with globally significant presence in the agriculture industry: the United States and Brazil. Even though the two countries

Publishing Opportunity: Brazilian Animal Law Journal

David Cassuto

From the email:

Brazilian Animal Law Journal

Call for submissions/2016

 The Brazilian Animal Law Journal, ISSN 2317-4552, is a quarterly, peer-reviewed law journal, available on https://www.animallaw.info/policy/revista-brasileira-de-direito-animal-brazilian-animal-rights-review and http://www.portalseer.ufba.br/index.php/RBDA .

The Inside Story of Bullfighting

Jaime Rubio

Defenders’ Arguments:

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

Equestrian Sports and Doping

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

Humane Slaughterhouses: Fact or Fiction

Jeshica Patel

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

To Ride Or Not To Ride

Tyson-Lord Gray

In a few months I will be celebrating my birthday and as has become the custom, this means an international trip inclusive of life changing experiences. Last year I went bungee jumping in Costa Rica, the year before that skydiving in South Africa, and the year before that hang-gliding in Brazil. This year I decided to check elephant riding in Thailand off my list however, recent discussions in my Animal Law class prompted me to reconsider my decision.

Although elephant riding appears seemingly harmless, many of these animals are tortured into submission through a process known as phajaan. Phajaan, which also means to crush, involves ripping baby elephants from their mothers and confining them in a very small space where they are unable to move. The baby elephants are then beaten into submission with clubs pierced with sharp bull-hooks.

As a result, an animal welfare bill was introduced in Thailand in 2014 to

Animal Law & Environmental Law Conference

David Cassuto

From the email:

Animal Law and Environmental Law: Exploring the Connections and Synergies

Call for Papers: The Ethics of Eating Animals

David Cassuto

This call for papers comes from my new homies at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics:

The Ethics of Eating Animals

24-27 July 2016 at St Stephen’s House, Oxford

The Summer School is being organised by the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in partnership with the French animal society, One Voice. 

Papers are invited in English and French from academics world-wide on any aspect relating to the ethics of eating animals, including philosophical and religious ethics, historical, legal, psychological, scientific, and sociological perspectives. Potential topics include the morality of killing, the suffering of animals in food production, the portrayal of animals as meat, meat eating and climate change, the environmental impact of industrial farming, the utilisation of meat substitutes, in vitro meat and strategies for change.

Ethics of Animal Experimentation — Call for Chapter Contributors

David Cassuto

From the email:

Call for Book Chapter Contributions
The Ethics of Animal experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change
Editors: Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne
Even though nonhuman animals are used for a variety of different purposes, their use in research particularly has remained an ethical challenge. It is evident that nonhuman animals in laboratories are exposed to a great deal of physical and psychological suffering, and that the use of animals in research is growing internationally.
Arguably, legal reforms around the world have insufficiently improved the protection of nonhuman animals. However, Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes in the European Union is radical compared to other legislation. The Directive promotes a change of paradigm in nonhuman animal experimentation in establishing a goal of the full replacement of the use of live animals in research and education as soon as it is scientifically feasible (Recital 10).
Building on the radical vision of Directive 2010/63/EU, this book aims to illustrate the current situation for nonhuman animals used in science and aims to give a future outlook to the end of their use in research. Besides exploring the current ethical challenges and scientific controversies related to animal experimentation, this Volume aims to discuss ways to work towards a fundamental change of paradigm. We invite contributions from interdisciplinary scholars who share a vision for how this abolition of animal research can be achieved. The goal is to find solutions for this urging problem that are led by a culture of compassion for all animals.
List of recommended topics (but not limited to):
 The legal framework: history, present and future prospects for an end of nonhuman animal use in science
 The culture of language around the use of animals in research
 The efficacy of the ‘Culture of Care’ incl. Refinement
 Methods for assessing the quality of animal research (e.g. ARRIVE guidelines)
 The politics of nonhuman animal experimentation
 Transparency that benefits animals versus transparency that appeases the public and inhibits potential scrutiny and outrage (e.g. UK Concordat)
 The capabilities and boundaries of public engagement
 The psychological and social implications for animal research staff
 The consequences of education and training using animals
 The 3Rs – what is in it for the nonhuman animals

The Vegetarian’s Dilemma: Is it Okay to Drink Milk?

Raghav Patel

For the past four years I have adopted a vegetarian diet, where I don’t eat the meat of any animal, and over the past few years I have begun to see many other people, from friends and family to also acquaintances that tell me that they have become vegetarians as well. In the United States the rate of people adopting a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle grows every year, showing that there is a increasing awareness to the issues that come with farming livestock. There are several reasons for why people turn to a vegetarian diet, and that may be for the health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet, or for the reasons that raising animals bring on a host of environmental issues, but I’d like to focus on the reason why I and many others choose to be a vegetarian, and that is the ethical issues of eating meat. For the people that abstain from eating meat because they do not want to promote the suffering or killing of any animal.

I understand people go even further than a vegetarian diet and adopt a vegan lifestyle where they won’t use any products derived form animals including leather, but there are those people that believe they are helping animals by simply not eating them. I don’t mean to diminish any good that comes from believing this, but I also want people to understand that the suffering of an animal only continues as it grows older on these livestock farms, either because a cow is pumping out milk for its whole life or because a chicken is popping out eggs continuously, which is just as cruel for its own reasons. Killing the animal is terrible by all means, but the continued exploitation and abuse that an animal suffers while it’s alive is just as bad, if not worse.

I say it may be worse because dairy cows live their entire lives facing a host of issues, such as being pumped with hormones and antibiotics, living under horrible conditions, and from the psychological abuse they endure; just so we gain something from the cows that we don’t necessarily need. While killing an animal ends its life, it at least stops the immediate pain and suffering that the animal experiences while it is alive and being exploited for what it produces. For a dairy farm to be efficient it needs to continuously produce milk from all of its cows, and like humans, cows only produce milk once they are pregnant. This typically requires that the dairy farmer constantly impregnate the cow (using artificial insemination) so that it can constantly produce milk that it would have given its new born calf, except that the calf shortly after birth is taken away from its mother, and even worse is if the calf is male it is sold and then slaughtered to produce veal. To

Harvard Workshop on Animals in Comparative Constitutional Law

David Cassuto

From the email:

Harvard Law School is seeking submissions for a workshop on Animals in Comparative Constitutional Law to be held on Thursday, February 18, 2016.

We invite scholarly submissions on any theme relevant to this topic, including pieces addressing constitutional theory, institutional design, and case studies grounded in the constitutional experiences of particular jurisdictions or regions.  We are also interested in topics that involve issues of religious law, such as the relevance of the halal and kosher debates to constitutional developments regarding animals (e.g. in Europe), and the religious dimensions of the constitutional protections for animals (e.g. in India).

Applicants should submit an abstract (between 500 and 1,000 words) to cgreen@law.harvard.edu, along with a C.V., by October 15, 2015.  All submissions must be in English.  Decisions on workshop participation will be communicated to applicants by October 29, 2015. 

“Free Buddy”: Is it Hypocritical for Animal Advocates to Own Pets?

Tyson-Lord J. Gray

Animal cruelty on factory farms, in zoos, and in amusement parks are all leading concerns by animal advocates and many have gone as far as to compare these industries to the human institution of slavery. Animal advocates who endorse such arguments often fight for the protection of these animals and make large donations to Friends of Animals, Mercy for Animals, and PETA supporting improvements in animal welfare. Yet, rarely does their concern extend to household pets.

However, many of these organizations are not only opposed to the inhumane treatment of animals, but to pet ownership as well. Each year approximately 7.6 million animals enter shelters, and of those 2.7 million are euthanized. Consequently, animal rights activists are vehemently against the breeding of animals for domestication and prefer that individuals adopt animals from pounds and animal shelters as oppose to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders.

Animal advocates who purchase pets from these businesses therefore, are merely cherry picking forms of

How Hurricane Katrina Turned Pets into People

Credit: Best Friends Animal Society

Nearly half the people who stayed behind during Hurricane Katrina stayed because of their pets. Helicopters and boats would come, but the rescuers largely refused to take cats and dogs. So many owners, unwilling to abandon a family member, refused to go — and many of them died. Others did leave their pets, convinced they would be able to retrieve them in a few days. But officials kept them out for weeks, leaving the animals to fend for themselves. Dogs waited on rooftops, cats clung to debris in toxic waters, and pets starved to death in barricaded homes. Even for a nation grappling with the human tragedy of Katrina, the plight of dogs and cats struck a nerve. The public flooded Congress with letters, and in 2006 the legislature — despite being bitterly divided over war, immigration, and seemingly every

50 Millions Deaths is an Acceptable Cost of Business

Seth Victor

I’ll keep this short and sweet, because we’ve made this point on the blawg several dozen times. NPR reports that the recent outbreak of H5N2, or Avian Flu, has caused economic hardship for American farmers, to the point that the USDA is importing eggs from the Netherlands to meet demand.

Although it is mentioned in the lead paragraph, the fact that nearly 50 million chickens and turkey have been slaughtered to stem the virus is played off like any other economic number. As you read the article, look at the wording: these animals have been “destroyed,” not “killed” or “slaughtered.” The rest of the article is about the business model and bottomline consequences. It might as well be about how many iPhones had to be recalled for defective touch screens. These aren’t living things, remember; they’re just animals, cogs in the machine. Nowhere in the article is any suggestion that this outbreak could be avoided by not housing birds in CAFOs in the first place, save for one link that claims humans might be spreading the virus by entering CAFOs. Instead, the US government has taken the position that this virus is the fault of wild birds. Any guesses as to which lobbying group might have had a hand in that statement?

We. Can. Stop. This. H5N2 is not some mystery beyond comprehension. It is a result of the way we raise farmed birds. Stop purchasing eggs and meat from CAFOs, and they cannot exist without your dollars. It really is that simple.

Animal Law Position at Harvard

David Cassuto

Harvard has a brand new Animal Law Program and is looking for an Executive Director.   This is a great opportunity. Details here.

Progress at the Cost of Our Humanity

Seth Victor

The New York Times this week published an investigation into U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, and, perhaps predictably, the results are disturbing. I heartily suggest reading the whole article, but for those in a rush, here are some of the interesting takeaway points:

• U.S. Meat Animal Research Center is pioneering ways to produce meat more efficiently and cheaply via re-engineering farmed animals through surgery and breeding techniques
• In pursuing this research, animal welfare has taken a backseat. For example, since 1985, 6,500 out of the 580,000 animals the center has housed have starved. 625 have died from mastitis, an easily treatable infection.
• Nearly 10 million piglets have been crushed by their mothers each year, not because this is what mothers naturally do, but because they are being forced to have larger litters of weak piglets, and the mothers themselves are artificially larger, kept alive longer to reproduce.
• For thirty-one years, the Center worked on genetically modifying cows to regularly produce twins, noting that single births were not an efficient way to produce meat. By injecting cows with embryos from other cows that birthed twins, and then injecting them with semen from bulls who sired twins, the Center produced cows that have a 55% chance of having twins, when naturally the chances are 3%. Many of the female calves of twins are born with deformed vaginas, and the artificially large wombs create birthing problems even for single calves. Over 16% of the twins died.
• Thirty to forty cows die each year from exposure to bad weather, not including storms, in which several hundred more die.
• 245 animals have died since 1985 due to treatable abscesses.
• In 1990, the Center tried to create larger lambs by injecting pregnant ewes with an excessive amount of male hormone testosterone. Instead, the lambs were born with deformed genitals, which made urination difficult.
• In 1989, the Center locked a young cow in place in a pen with six bulls for over an hour to determine the bulls’ libidos. The industry standard is to do this with one bull for fifteen minutes. By the time a vet was called, the cows hind legs were broken from being mounted, and she died within a few hours.
• The scientists charged with administering the experiments, surgeries, and to euthanize do not have medical degrees. One retired scientist at the Center was quoted saying, “A vet has no business coming in and telling you how to do it. Surgery is an art you get through practice.”
• “The leaner pigs that the center helped develop, for example, are so low in fat that one in five females cannot reproduce; center scientists have been operating on pigs’ ovaries and brains in an attempt to make the sows more fertile.”
• Regarding oversight, “A Times examination of 850 experimental protocols since 1985 showed that the approvals [for experiments] were typically made by six or fewer staff members, often including the lead researchers for the experiment. The few questions asked dealt mostly with housekeeping matters like scheduling and the availability of animals.”
• “The language in the protocols is revealing. While the words “profit” or “production efficiency” appear 111 times, “pain” comes up only twice.”

A Neologism For The Animal Advocacy World

Brad Landau

The coining of a new phrase, or a neologism, is a way of commanding the transformation of new and modern language. By commanding the transformation of language, and coining new words and phrases, one can bring society up to date in a rapidly changing world. In the animal advocacy world, neologisms are frequently formed for this very reason. For example, Donald Watson, founder of the Vegan Society, coined the term “vegan” to describe individuals who abstain from the consumption and use of animal products. Another example, Richard D. Ryder, a British psychologist, animal advocate, and author, coined the term “speciesism” in 1970 and “painism” 1985. Speciesism opposes the assignment of moral values and protections on the basis of species alone, and painism argues that all beings that are capable of feeling pain deserve rights. A last example of neologisms in the animal advocacy world comes from Gary L. Francione, an American Legal Scholar, and Distinguished Professor of Law & Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers School of Law–Newark. Francione coined the term “New Welfarist” in his 1996

They are our family, but…” – Companion animals, veterinary medicine, and our own ethical dilemmas

Kat Fiedler

Traditionally, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath as an affirmation of the ethical responsibility that they have towards their patients. According to the American Medical Association, one principle of medical ethics is that “[a] physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.” What then are the duties of veterinarians, especially given the fact that animals are viewed as property under the law and often by society? To whom do the primary responsibilities of veterinarians lie?

Several years ago, my two pet rats became new patients at a veterinary office. As a part of their new patient paperwork, I was asked to select one of a handful of boxes describing how I viewed my pets and their possible treatment at the veterinary office. These options included: I consider my pet to be part of my family and I would do anything for them; I consider my pet to be part of my family, but I have financial constraints; I am only willing to pay so much to treat my pet; and so on (all of these options are paraphrased from the actual text on the form). I asked a staff member what purpose my selection would serve. She responded that the veterinarian would consider my response in recommending treatment options for my pet. In other words, this exemplified the fact that I, the pet owner, am the client of the veterinarian, not the pet as the patient.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, one principle of veterinary medical ethics is that “[v]eterinarians

Compassionate Killers

Nicole Miraglia

The idea of going back to the basics for self-sufficient living is hardly new, but many people are choosing to do just that for a variety of reasons and in various levels of commitment. In 2011, Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg, pledged to  eat only animals that he killed himself. Although his personal challenge lasted just one year, it sparked an interest of living off the land for many. The Eat What You Kill Movement has supporters from survival, nutritional, and ethical standpoints. Survivalists argue that self-sufficient living allows one to rely and live off of the land, completely independent from societal norms such as trips to the local supermarkets. Those following the trend for nutritional purposes, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Joe Rogan, are attempting to avoid antibiotics and hormones commonly found in store bought meats. Ethical supporters of the movement believe that they are being compassionate to the animals they are eating.

Ebola Scare for Pets

Nicole Miraglia

Following the death of the first patient diagnosed with the Ebola virus in the United States, the news has been revolving around the outbreak in West Africa and the possible implications for the rest of the world. There are currently sixteen confirmed cases of Ebola outside of West Africa. In a majority of these cases, the patients contracted the virus while treating the outbreak in West Africa and then traveled back to their home country for treatment. The concern rapidly escalated from safeguarding oneself from the virus to safeguarding our pets. A nurse in Spain contracted the virus while treating a missionary who returned home to Madrid after treating patients in Africa.

The nurse and her husband are owners of a rescue dog, Excalibur, who quickly became the center of attention for many animal rights activists all over the globe. Spanish authorities stated that Excalibur was to be euthanized to further prevent the spread of the virus after reports suggested that dogs can carry the virus without showing any symptoms. The nurse’s husband publicly pleaded with officials to spare the dog’s life, citing other reports that claim there have not been any cases in which a human contracted the Ebola virus from a dog. Local animal rights activists began protesting outside the nurse’s home while others took to social media to spread the word. Unfortunately, the

Oxford Center for Animal Ethics Call for Papers

David Cassuto From the email:

Call for Papers Second Oxford Summer School on Animal EthicsThe Ethics of Using Animals in Research 26-29 July 2015 at St Stephen’s House, Oxford In 1947, Oxford don C. S. Lewis commented that it was “the rarest thing in the world to hear a rational discussion of vivisection”. This Summer School intends to provide just that: a rational discussion of the ethics of using animals in research. Papers are invited from academics world-wide on any aspect relating to the ethics of animal experimentation, including philosophical and religious ethics, historical, legal, psychological, and sociological perspectives, the morality of various types of research, the use of alternatives, the confinement of animals in laboratories, and the effectiveness of current controls and future legislation. The Centre will be producing its own review of the ethics of the use of animals in research, which should be published in the Autumn of 2014. Contributors are asked to consider responding to the methodology and conclusions of the review in their contributions to the Summer School. Abstracts of proposed contributions (no more than 300 words) should be sent to Clair Linzey via email: depdirector@oxfordanimalethics.com. The deadline for receipt of abstracts is 1 January 2015. All selected papers will be published in book form or in the Journal of Animal Ethics. The School is being arranged by the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in partnership with the BUAV. The Centre is very grateful to the BUAV for its sponsorship of academic work on this subject, including this Summer School. St Stephen’s House is an Anglican Theological College and a Hall of the University of Oxford. Registration for the Summer School will shortly be available on the Centre’s website.

Our mailing address is: Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics 91 Iffley Road Oxford, EnglandOX4 1EG United Kingdom

Conference: “The Agricultural Gag Laws–Your First Amendment Rights, Your Health, Animal Welfare, and Our Environment”

David Cassuto

From the email — what looks like an excellent conference:

The Connecticut Bar Association’s Animal Law Section and Yale Law

School’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund are partnering to offer an

exciting conference on September 27th on “The Agricultural Gag

Laws–Your First Amendment Rights, Your Health, Animal Welfare, and Our

Environment. Speakers will include:  Amanda Hitt, Director of the Food

Integrity Campaign at the Government Accountability Project; Matthew

Liebman, Senior Attorney of the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Litigation

Program; Alicia Wagner Calzada, Esq., past president of the National

Press Photographers’ Association and current Chair of the Advocacy

Committee for NPPA; Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the

United States; Taylor Radig, Social Justice/Animal Rights Activist; and

Paige Tomaselli, Senior Attorney for the Center for Food Safety. 

For more information and to register please go to www.ctbar.org, click

on  “Calendar” then on “Meetings/Events” and scroll down to September

27, 2014.

We look forward to seeing you at this very timely conference.

Thank you,

Suzan Porto, Co-Chair,

on behalf of the Animal Law Section and Yale Law School’s Student Animal

Legal Defense Fund

Pace Environmental Law Review Special Issue on Animal Law

David Cassuto

I am delighted to announce that The Pace Environmental Law Review has published an issue dedicated exclusively to animal law.  It is the first Environmental Law Review to do so and its publication marks a tremendous step forward for both disciplines.  The articles are available for download via Digital Commons.  The Table of Contents is below.  

Animal Law: A World Phenomenon!

Joyce Tischler (x-post from ALDF Founder’s Blog)

The Second Global Animal Law Conference has just concluded in Barcelona, Spain, and I was honored to represent the Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), one of the main sponsors of this historic event. I spoke to the audience about how successful social movements use three interdependent approaches: litigation, legislation and public outreach (education), and how animal protection litigation is creating broad-based changes in the U.S., as well as in other countries.

This was a truly international gathering, bringing together participants from China, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, England, Spain, France, Germany, U.S., Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Hong Kong, Dubai, Italy, Austria, Argentina, and several other nations.

The major themes rising to the surface were that almost every country’s laws are based on the concept that animals are “things” and resources to be used at-will by humans. This fosters the mass amount of suffering that the law does little or nothing to stop. No jurisdiction anywhere in the world currently deals adequately with the basic problems faced by animals. Not surprisingly, the industries that exploit animals are in control of the laws, the codes, the regulations—or lack thereof—and they are always looking for ways to silence their critics. Interestingly, ag-gag, addressed by law professor and ALDF board member, David Cassuto, was a topic of great interest to this international audience.

Launching Legal Action to Help Angel and Other Dolphins

Sarah Lucas

I was in Taiji, Japan – the dolphin hunting capital of the world – when I read Kathleen Stachowski’s wonderful Animal Blawg on the ubiquity of speciesism. Kathleen observes: “speciesism is everywhere and so thoroughly normalized that it’s invisible in plain sight”. I nodded my head when I read this, as I’ve thought it many times as I stood on the shore of Taiji’s cove helplessly watching dolphins being herded to their deaths – the cruelty is so extreme and horrifying, yet it seems to be hidden in plain sight to those inflicting it.

In Taiji, such hunts take place nearly every day for half the year, annually capturing around 2,000 small whales (dolphins, porpoises and pilot whales). As the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling does not apply to small whales – or at least, is argued not to by pro-whaling countries – small whales are sadly afforded no international legal protection. Thus, despite the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, which is enforced to a degree in relation to large whales, tens of thousands of small whales continue to be killed every year in commercial hunts in Japan, Peru and other countries.

These hunts are not only conservationally damaging, but unspeakably

Voiceless Grants for 2014

David Cassuto

From the email:

Do you have a project that will help animals but need a hand to get started? Applications for the 2014 Voiceless Grants Program are now open. Now in its eleventh year, the Grants Program has awarded a combined total of almost $1.4 million in funding to universities, local councils, and non-profit organisations for projects with a focus on improving the lives of animals in Australia. You can take a look at all of our past projects including major national campaigns, ground-breaking research reports and funding for animal sanctuaries. Voiceless is once again looking for projects that challenge institutionalised cruelty to animals, with a view to making animal protection the next great social justice movement. Voiceless will consider applications for projects which fall into one of the following categories: Factory farming; The commercial kangaroo industry; or Building animal protection as a social justice movement. In addition, all projects must be relevant to animals in Australia and either change attitudes or build awareness about animal suffering, encourage the public to take action for animals in their personal lives, or work to modify or create new laws or policies to further animal protection in Australia.   Not sure if your project fits the criteria? Please read the ‘Grant Applications that will not be considered’ section on our website, before preparing your submission. Applications for the 2014 Voiceless Grants Program can be submitted on our website and are due by 5:00pm Tuesday 1 July.   For more information about the application process, visit the Voiceless website or contact our Administrator and Web Officer, Zoe Robertson.  Looking forward to receiving your application, The Voiceless team

 

 

New York City Bar Association Presents “Animal Sacrifice, Religion and Law – Practice of Using Chickens as Kaporos”

David Cassuto

From the email — looks like an interesting program:

What:             The New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Animal Law is presenting a free seminar called “Animal Sacrifice, Religion and Law – Practice of Using Chickens as Kaporos,” June 12, 2014.   

The Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos has been working for a number of years to end Kaporos throughout the country.  In NYC, thousands of chickens are sacrificed by some observers of the Orthodox Jewish faith in a ritual called Kaporos. Experts on constitutional law, theology and animal rights will discuss the reasons for the ritual, the Jewish principle of preventing tza’ar ba’alei chayim (unnecessary suffering of animals), Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and local health laws.

Legislation Proposed in NYS to Ban Exotic Animals in Circuses

David Cassuto

Over the last several years, a number of different constituencies have worked hard to advance legislation to ban exotic animals (elephants, tigers, lions, etc.) from circuses.  There is now a bill pending in committee in the New York state legislature.   Below follows a press release from one of the groups working on this issue:

Proposed NYS Legislation To Ban “Wild & Exotic Animals” in Entertainment.

 

This is to inform all residents of New York State that 2 bills (Assembly A5407 and Senate S5971) have been introduced which would ban the use of wild and exotic animals (elephants, lions, tigers, etc) in entertainment, including circuses.

THERE WILL BE NO ACTION TAKEN on these bills unless there is public support for them. It is crucial that voters call or email their New York State representatives to urge support of these bills (do a search online if you do not know who your representatives are). Supporters should also use social media to further publicize this very important legislation.

Merck Pledges to End Chimpanzee Testing

 

Seth Victor

 

Taking further steps in the right direction, Merck, one of the largest drug producers in the world, announced last month that it is ending research on chimpanzees. Kathleen Conlee, vice president of animal research issues for The HSUS said: “Merck’s new biomedical research policy will save chimpanzees from unnecessary and painful experiments. Merck’s decision, and that of several other pharmaceutical companies, sends a strong message that private industry is moving away from chimpanzee research as the government has.”

 

Merck has made this commitment while simultaneously stating, “The company’s mission is to discover, develop, manufacture and market innovative medicines and vaccines that treat and prevent illness. Animal research is indispensable to this mission.” While that quotation ominously suggests that other animals will continue to be a part of the company’s research, the more hopeful interpretation is that while Merck relies on animal testing under FDA regulations for its drugs and other products, it joins other pharmaceutical companies recognizing that even though chimps might be valuable to this research, their welfare is more important, and other ways to test the products should be utilized.

 

 

 

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.”

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.

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. 

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.