Posted on July 7, 2016 by David
From the email:
Animal Welfare Clinic
(for release 7 July, 2016)
Michigan State University College of Law invites applications for the Director position in its newly created Animal Welfare Clinic.
MSU’s Animal Welfare Clinic will provide opportunities for students to learn the practice of law in a well-supervised and academically rigorous program. The direct representation of clients is the core of the students’ experience in the clinic, and the clinic seeks to maintain a diverse and challenging docket. With a core focus on animal law content, the clinic will select cases with attention to pedagogical concerns, community need, and the need to provide students with opportunities to engage as attorneys in a variety of contexts. This clinic will service individual clients with a variety of individual animal legal issues as well as clients who raise public policy questions about the use of animals in our society. The Clinic will seek out cases which will use the courts to enhance the welfare of animals beyond present practices. The Director will be expected to be an active member of a major University with a diverse set of players with animal related interests. Additionally, it is expected that the individual will coordinate with national organizations and seek to provide leadership on a national level.
For all aspects of the Clinic, the Clinical Professor will work in coordination with Animal Law Program of the College, directed by Professor David Favre and the Associate Dean for Experiential Education, David Thronson, who will help create the program of the clinic. The Clinic Director will receive an annual salary commensurate with their experience, together with generous benefits. This will be a clinical track appointment starting with the title of Assistant Clinical Professor. Continue reading
Filed under: animal law, animal law education, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal law, animal law clinic, animal legal education, animal welfare | 1 Comment »
Posted on June 20, 2016 by delcianna
Delcianna J. Winders, Academic Fellow, Animal Law & Policy Program, Harvard Law School
This piece originally appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently levied the largest fine in the history of the Animal Welfare Act, which will turn 50 this summer. In an unprecedented settlement agreement, Santa Cruz Biotechnology agreed to $3.5 million in penalties and to surrender its Animal Welfare Act license.
Animal protection groups have lauded the settlement, and, to be sure, getting this chronic animal welfare violator out of the business is huge. But it is also too little, too late.
While $3.5 million is nothing to scoff at, it is less than 1 percent of the more than $20 billion in potential fines Santa Cruz Biotech faced. And the Department of Agriculture made itself complicit in untold animal suffering when, year after year, it renewed the company’s Animal Welfare Act license despite knowing of chronic egregious violations.
As one of the world’s largest suppliers of antibodies — an industry valued at more than $80 billion — Santa Cruz Biotech is big business. The company has profited immensely from the suffering it has illegally inflicted on animals including routinely failing to provide minimally sufficient veterinary care to sick and injured animals. Continue reading
Filed under: animal experimentation, animal law, animal welfare, vivisection | Tagged: animal welfare | Leave a comment »
Posted on March 1, 2016 by David
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
Filed under: animal law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, international animal law | 3 Comments »
Posted on February 27, 2016 by David
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.
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 Continue reading
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal law scholarship, animal welfare, David Cassuto | 2 Comments »
Posted on February 27, 2016 by David
From the email:
Harvard Law School
1585 Massachusetts Ave – Cambridge
Date(s) – Thursday, September 22, 2016 – Sunday, September 25, 2016
Harvard Law School
The Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty, a conference that will bring experts together to assess the first fifty years of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and consider recommendations for the future. The event will include conference presentations as well as a separate academic workshop component.
We welcome submissions on both broad and specific law and policy issues. In an effort to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue, we encourage submissions from legal scholars and lawyers; government officials and staff; academics in disciplines outside of law, such as sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics; international scholars and regulators; veterinarians and animal behaviorists; and others with perspectives on the AWA. We also encourage submissions from experts in other areas of legislation and regulation who can bring a comparative approach to the study of the AWA. We encourage submissions from advocacy organizations, industry representatives, think tanks, and others outside academia, but emphasize that this is a scholarly conference and abstracts will be judged by academic standards.
Individuals can submit proposals for both conference presentations and the workshop if desired.
Those interested in presenting at the conference are invited to submit an abstract of up to 400 words describing their proposed presentation along with a CV. All abstracts and CVs should be submitted together to ALPP@law.harvard.edu with “AWA Conference Presentation Proposal” in the subject line no later than April 5, 2016. Conference presentations will be approximately 20 minutes in length.
Those interested in participating in the academic workshop are invited to submit an abstract of up to 400 words describing their proposed paper along with a CV. All abstracts and CVs should be submitted together to ALPP@law.harvard.edu with “AWA Workshop Proposal” in the subject line no later than April 5, 2016.
Those selected as workshop participants must submit their final papers by August 15, 2016, so that they can be circulated and read by the other workshop participants in advance of the workshop. The final workshop papers should be approximately 10,000 words (including footnotes). Each paper should be an unpublished work in progress. We will consider papers that have been accepted for publication, as long as they have not yet been published and the author will still have an opportunity to incorporate feedback from the workshop.
We welcome submissions on both broad and specific law and policy issues. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:
Agency compliance strategies
Efficacy of different types of standards, such as engineering vs. performance, general vs. species-specific, etc.
Which categories of animals are/should be afforded legal protections
Agency licensing practices
Agency restructuring proposals
Differential treatment of research facilities and other regulated entities
Education vs. enforcement
Regulatory vs non-regulatory approaches
AWA intersections with other laws
Agency administrative hearing practices and due process
Agency collaboration with the Department of Justice
Settlements and discounting administrative penalties
Agency use of warnings
Assessing the adequacy of veterinary care
Judicial review of agency action
Citizen suit provision proposals
Impact of public opinion on the law and its implementation, media narratives, and social movement advocacy
Animal confiscation under the AWA
Transparency in implementation
Alternatives to use of animals in research
The role and efficacy of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees
The role of undercover investigations at regulated facilities
Comparative analyses of the AWA and other animal protection regimes
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal law, animal welfare, animal welfare act, Harvard Law School | 1 Comment »
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 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 »