A Solution in Search of a Problem: The Difficulty with State Constitutional Right to Hunt Amendments

This article explores the facets of hunting amendments. Part I traces the legal history of protections for hunting, from early laws to preserve hunting for the people to modern hunter harassment statutes. Part II analyzes the forms of hunting amendments—some guarantee a right, others only recognize a heritage; some are fundamental rights, others are less strong; some are limited by private property rights, others are absolute. Nonetheless, they have a common source. Part III considers the impacts— possibly unintended consequences—of hunting amendments. Finally, Part IV suggests that while there are unrecognized common values between hunters and animal welfare groups that provide a solution for much of the debate, there are irreconcilable value clashes that will—and should—play out in the legal system but not in the constitutional arena

Out to Save the World: The Intersection of Animal Welfare Law, Environmental Law, and Respect for Fragile Ecosystems

Of all the living things on earth, humans have the unique ability to destroy all life. Paradoxically, even though our lives will ultimately be destroyed too, we also seem to have the inability to stop the destruction, or at least alack of will to stop it. As the daily litany of new destructions2 piles up and both the pace and the quantity increase, each loss is buried in the pile beneath humanity’s other problems. When humans start prioritizing, the living environment—both flora and fauna—is often neglected, and sometimes purposely harmed.3 Even nonliving elements of nature are harmed. In short, humans destroy the ecosystems necessary for human survival in order to effectuate some other human interest, a lack of balancing that is incomprehensible.This article turns on its head the idea that if we are better human beings, we will behave better toward each other and other living things. This article starts instead with the premise that if we learn to value (and treat accordingly) all living things, we will be better human beings. Although there are undoubtedly several social lenses through which to discuss this idea, the intersection of animal law and environmental law provides a place, not just for discussion, but also for action. Specifically, there are three legal constructs at the intersection of animal law and environmental law that could significantly reduce human harm to nature: one should be dismantled, one should be strengthened, and one should be reconstructed. This article starts in Part I by looking at the dichotomy of the animal welfare and environmental movements. Although they developed separately and have interests that often compete, the two movements do intersect. Part II argues that state “ag-gag” laws4—which provide legal cover for the animal cruelty, environmental harms, and social injustices caused by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)5—should be dismantled and repealed. Part III analyzes the issue of who has and who should have constitutional standing under statutes like the Endangered Species Act (ESA).6 These statutes that are meant to protect the environment and animals could be more effective at doing so with both judicial and legislative fixes to allow courts to more often consider their injuries. Finally, Part IV tackles the role of environmental law in shifting paradigms of how we view the human/nonhuman dichotomy in nature. Legal systems are human constructs that can be reconstructed on a framework that redefines the legal status of nonhuman animals and elements of nature in order to provide ecocentric justice. In the face of some quite dire destructions and losses in the ecosystems humans inhabit and depend on for survival, human legal systems must safeguard nonhuman interests

Book Review: Coyote Warrior

The author reviews the book, Coyote Warrior, by Paul VanDevelder, which documents tribal chairman Martin Cross\u27s political fight to prevent the building of Garrison Dam and the latter legal battles his son, Raymond Cross, fought to win compensation for the land tribes were forced to give up when the dam was built

Idaho\u27s Ag-Gag Law Goes Down And Other States May Be Next

In 2014, an undercover investigator working for Mercy For Animals documented horrific animal cruelty at the Dry Creek Dairy in Hansen, Idaho. Video of the abuse was released nationally. The owners of the dairy instituted reforms and the abusers were prosecuted. But the law that was passed this time, within months of the video’s release, protects neither the animals nor the food supply, but the agriculture industry

A Better Tradition: Why Law Reviews Should Adopt a New Citation Format

ALWD Citation Forma

The Legal Rights of All Living Things

This article explores the nuances in the development of environmental standing, looking especially at the cases that can inform animal law. Because animals are part of the natural environment and some statutes protecting animals, like the ESA and MMPA, are often characterized as environmental law statutes, several of the critical cases are already animal law cases, including the fundamental case of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.12 For the purposes of understanding the development of standing for natural objects, Part I examines these cases in addition to traditional environmental standing cases. Part II addresses the lessons learned from those cases with an eye toward increasing the success of standing arguments in the future. Part III discusses where the jurisprudence of animal law standing will likely diverge from environmental law in the future— the developing idea that as sentient beings, animals should have some sort of legal personhood status and thereby standing in their own right