Came across this English-language version of a South Korean newspaper article during a general web search for content this morning. Shudder.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wal-Mart: Private Label Eggs All Cage-Free
Congrats to HSUS for persuading another mega-corporate institution to go cage-free for its egg sales! Read more in this press release.
Monday, February 15, 2010
ABA Update
This from Joan Schaffner, chair of the ABA/TIPS animal law committee:
1) The ABA House of Delegates has approved the Model Act Governing Standards for the Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals. (Yeah! Finally! This means that the ABA will now recommend it to the states. Kudos to cmte founder Barbara Gislason, as well as Jim Carr, David Favre, and about a dozen or more other ABA members who were also involved in this effort.)
1) The ABA House of Delegates has approved the Model Act Governing Standards for the Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals. (Yeah! Finally! This means that the ABA will now recommend it to the states. Kudos to cmte founder Barbara Gislason, as well as Jim Carr, David Favre, and about a dozen or more other ABA members who were also involved in this effort.)
2) The history of the ABA/TIPS animal law committee is now available online - thanks to Mariann McDermott. Check it out at: http://www.abanet.org/tips/animal/history/history3.html.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Ben Stein does it (again)!
Kudos to CBS commentator Ben Stein, who - once again - took the opportunity during his Sunday Morning editorial on love this Valentine's Day to reflect on one thing he clearly feels strongly about: "Probably the very best advice I could give give you is to adopt a dog"He specifically admonished viewers to go to a shelter to get a dog (way to go, Mr. Stein!) and while musing that he could not predict what the stock market will do next year or whether Republicans will regain control of Congress, he had no doubt about this:
"I do know that the smartest thing you could do right this second, for the rest of your life, is to go to a shelter and get a dog. Do it and you'll never be lonely again."
Here's a link to this week's CBS Sunday Morning, though not sure they post all segments online...
And Happy Valentine's Day one and all!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Law Ed Round-up
Looks like the Georgia State Bar Association has added an animal law section - congrats and good luck!
And down under, Australia's Southern Cross University has announced plans to develop that country's first animal law class available by distance education. (Not sure, but I think that's Aussie-speak for an online class. If I'm wrong, please let me know.)
And down under, Australia's Southern Cross University has announced plans to develop that country's first animal law class available by distance education. (Not sure, but I think that's Aussie-speak for an online class. If I'm wrong, please let me know.)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Indiana Laws Get Strict
The Indiana state legislature has decided to toughen its stance with animal protection laws. House Bill 1258, passed unanimously, made it a felony to participate or attend in a dogfight and also requires pet store owners to be transparent on the background of the animals.
The first part of the legislation requires pet store owners to list on the cage of the dog or cat the name of the breeder, the breeder's federal license number, the dog or cat's medical history, business addresses for breeders or brokers and how many litters the breeding facility had produced in the previous year. This information should help educate pet owners on where the animals have been bred.
The second part of the legislation makes enforcement against dogfights a bit easier. It is now a felony for any person to be in attendance of a dogfight, even if they are there without an animal. One dog rescuer commented "I saw dogs with missing eyes, ears, parts of their faces, partial limbs, legs removed and faces scarred beyond recognition, that a human being could inflict this kind of pain and needless suffering on an animal solely for the purpose of entertainment and financial gain is incomprehensible."
Read the full article at IndyStar.
The first part of the legislation requires pet store owners to list on the cage of the dog or cat the name of the breeder, the breeder's federal license number, the dog or cat's medical history, business addresses for breeders or brokers and how many litters the breeding facility had produced in the previous year. This information should help educate pet owners on where the animals have been bred.
The second part of the legislation makes enforcement against dogfights a bit easier. It is now a felony for any person to be in attendance of a dogfight, even if they are there without an animal. One dog rescuer commented "I saw dogs with missing eyes, ears, parts of their faces, partial limbs, legs removed and faces scarred beyond recognition, that a human being could inflict this kind of pain and needless suffering on an animal solely for the purpose of entertainment and financial gain is incomprehensible."
Read the full article at IndyStar.
Toledo's "Vicious Dogs" Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Judge Michael Goulding of the Toledo Municipal Court has ruled several aspects of the city's vicious dogs law to be unconstitutional. He cited specifically to the ban on owning more than one pit bull and having to have the dogs muzzled. Judge Goulding also found the statute's ban on it bull mixes to be unconstitutional.
Goulding stated in his opinion that "a more uniform, practical, and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo."
Read more at ToledoBlade
Goulding stated in his opinion that "a more uniform, practical, and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo."
Read more at ToledoBlade
More Roads to Recovery in Dog Bite Cases in Ohio
The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that a victim of a dog bite may sue for both statutory damages and common law damages. In Beckett v. Warren, the Supreme Court Justices felt it was improper to limit the suit to a single claim. The trial court has allowed Beckett to bring suit under the dog bite statute, R.C. 955.28. However, he did not allow suit under common law negligence. Under the statutory claim, Beckett could not recover for punitive damages. The January 6th decision of the Supreme Court, over a dissent, has determined that a victim may concurrently sue for both compensatory damage under the statute and punitive damages under common law negligence theories.
Read more from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Read more from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Beer is good for you and your bones
Again, nothing to do with animal law...
But this story made me smile so I wanted to pass it along. Another shout-out to Doug Powell at Kansas State and his infamous Barf Blog!
But this story made me smile so I wanted to pass it along. Another shout-out to Doug Powell at Kansas State and his infamous Barf Blog!
Monday, February 08, 2010
Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West
A very disappointing ruling by the Ninth Circuit late last week in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against a researcher who received federal funding for some rather dubious brain cancer research on beagles.
Not only was the outcome disappointing, what was (at least to me) the most disappointing was the fact that the opinion's author flatly called the decision "inequitable" yet - despite sitting on a court that is supposed to have discretion and do things like address injustice in our society - felt obliged to rule inequitably rather than at least concur, never mind dissent or actually do the right thing and persuade at least one other fellow panel member to find grounds to rule likewise. Everyone knows that judges, just like juries, decide how to rule and will construct a way to get there.
Here's a link to the opinion and a short article appearing in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
Not only was the outcome disappointing, what was (at least to me) the most disappointing was the fact that the opinion's author flatly called the decision "inequitable" yet - despite sitting on a court that is supposed to have discretion and do things like address injustice in our society - felt obliged to rule inequitably rather than at least concur, never mind dissent or actually do the right thing and persuade at least one other fellow panel member to find grounds to rule likewise. Everyone knows that judges, just like juries, decide how to rule and will construct a way to get there.
Here's a link to the opinion and a short article appearing in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Temple Grandin
Anyone else bothered by the new HBO special on Temple Grandin?
On the one hand, I feel like I should watch it just to know what it is everyone is talking about (I have a sinking feeling that a lot of lawyer colleagues will be asking me about it over the coming weeks just as a matter of making pre-court conversation...)
On the other, I can't much think about Grandin's work in the livestock industry without just getting really annoyed. Not that I'm against humane treatment of animals as a general matter, mind you. Nor have I ever much subscribed to the Francione camp of enacting-humane-laws-can-be-more-counterproductive-than-good.
But (at least to me), Grandin is different. Her "work" resonated at such a voluminous scale that I can't help but truly feel that her - in my view - completed warped ideas about animals and slaughter really helped anyone... that is, other than the large-scale operators save face in the public arena or (more likely) assuage their nagging cognitive dissonance the public never sees.
I think her "vision" about how to keep animals calm(er) before killing them is no better or different than giving a condemned prisoner a cigaretter before a firing squad blows his brains out. I understand why the livestock industry lauds her. It is, I suppose, equally understandable - but nonetheless very disappointing - that HBO has also chosen to try to wring profit from her unusual perspective on suffering.
On the one hand, I feel like I should watch it just to know what it is everyone is talking about (I have a sinking feeling that a lot of lawyer colleagues will be asking me about it over the coming weeks just as a matter of making pre-court conversation...)
On the other, I can't much think about Grandin's work in the livestock industry without just getting really annoyed. Not that I'm against humane treatment of animals as a general matter, mind you. Nor have I ever much subscribed to the Francione camp of enacting-humane-laws-can-be-more-counterproductive-than-good.
But (at least to me), Grandin is different. Her "work" resonated at such a voluminous scale that I can't help but truly feel that her - in my view - completed warped ideas about animals and slaughter really helped anyone... that is, other than the large-scale operators save face in the public arena or (more likely) assuage their nagging cognitive dissonance the public never sees.
I think her "vision" about how to keep animals calm(er) before killing them is no better or different than giving a condemned prisoner a cigaretter before a firing squad blows his brains out. I understand why the livestock industry lauds her. It is, I suppose, equally understandable - but nonetheless very disappointing - that HBO has also chosen to try to wring profit from her unusual perspective on suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
