Very Complex Questions : Zoos, Animals, and the Law

In Sulawesi, Indonesia—forty-five thousand years ago, an artist painted what is now the world’s oldest known cave painting—a life-size image of a wild pig. Forty thousand years later, the elite of Hierakonpolis, Egypt, housed elephants, hippos, and baboons in the world’s oldest known zoo. Today, individuals keep exotic fish, reptiles, and birds as pets while zoos and aquariums display some of the largest and rarest animals on the planet. The human fascination with wild animals is clearly not a new phenomenon, but how and why we keep wild animals have evolved over time. Zoos in particular have changed dramatically just over the past few decades. Once filled with bare, concrete cages and focusing exclusively on human entertainment, the American zoological industry now prides itself on prioritizing animal welfare. Many zoos now house animals in naturalistic habitats and work hard to educate the public about conservation and wildlife issues in addition to contributing directly to global efforts to preserve endangered species and their environments. Although zoos and aquariums remain popular destinations, public backlash in response to the perceived welfare issues associated with keeping larger and more intelligent species in human care has escalated in recent years. In addition to boycotts, social media campaigns, and sensationalized documentaries, zoo and aquarium facilities also face a variety of legal challenges. This includes both legislation and litigation; animal rights groups regularly bring zoos and aquariums to court, often seeking to, inter alia, expand the legal scope of animal rights or prove animal mistreatment in a particular facility. Several federal statutes confer a variety of protections on animals both in and out of zoos. However, the structure and nature of these statutory schemes make lawsuits concerning alleged animal mistreatment challenging for courts as well as attorneys. In addition, animal facilities— such as zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries—do not regulate or even define themselves or each other consistently. Misleading or inaccurate—but popular—ideas about the best so-called solutions for animals in zoos only add to the confusion. This Note uses both court cases and the example of the real-life “Free Willy” to explore this unique intersection of the legal system and the zoological industry, looking in particular at what courts and zoos can do if a facility does not adequately care for its animals. Plaintiffs in these animal mistreatment cases generally ask the court to order the transfer of the animals in question—often specifically to a sanctuary rather than a zoo; typically, plaintiffs also alternatively request that the court at least order the defendant facility to somehow remedy its treatment of the animals. On a few occasions, courts have granted such relief, requiring a facility to either surrender the animals or make specific animal husbandry changes. One particular request— for the transfer of one or more killer whales, or orcas to a “sea pen”—has not yet been granted. A sea pen is an offshore area—often a bay or partially enclosed area on a coastline—separated from the rest of the ocean by nets stretching from the sea floor to the ocean’s surface. Sea pens are often suggested as a potential “happy ending” for orcas in human care. This Note examines the advantages and disadvantages of these three options—transferring animals to a different facility (the “transfer option”), ordering a defendant facility to change its treatment of the animals (the “treatment option”), or moving orcas or dolphins to a sea pen (the “sea pen option”). Part I provides background on the oversight, regulation, and definition of animal facilities. Part II explores the transfer and treatment options, while Part III evaluates the sea pen option. The conclusion considers wider lessons to be learned from these case studies

Siting Wind Energy Projects in Virginia: Recommendations for Addressing National Security Concerns through State Permitting Processes

This white paper first explains the federal and state wind energy siting approval processes and the military’s current involvement in those processes. In particular, the paper focuses on permit-issuing agencies as opposed to policy-making agencies. Parts I and II outline the federal and state permitting process, respectively. In Part III, the paper discusses the military’s concerns regarding wind energy siting. Part IV moves to the current status of Virginia’s onshore and offshore wind industries. Part V analyzes two case studies: Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island and the Pantego Wind Energy Facility in North Carolina. Finally, Part VI synthesizes recommendations to better incorporate Department of Defense (DoD) input into offshore and onshore wind energy siting decisions in the Commonwealth. This abstract has been taken from the authors\u27 introduction

Agricultural Research Service Weed Science Research: Past, Present, and Future

The U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) has been a leader in weed science research covering topics ranging from the development and use of integrated weed management (IWM) tactics to basic mechanistic studies, including biotic resistance of desirable plant communities and herbicide resistance. ARS weed scientists have worked in agricultural and natural ecosystems, including agronomic and horticultural crops, pastures, forests, wild lands, aquatic habitats, wetlands, and riparian areas. Through strong partnerships with academia, state agencies, private industry, and numerous federal programs, ARS weed scientists have made contributions to discoveries in the newest fields of robotics and genetics, as well as the traditional and fundamental subjects of weed-crop competition and physiology and integration of weed control tactics and practices. Weed science at ARS is often overshadowed by other research topics; thus, few are aware of the long history of ARS weed science and its important contributions. This review is the result of a symposium held at the Weed Science Society of America\u27s 62nd Annual Meeting in 2022 that included 10 separate presentations in a virtual Weed Science Webinar Series. The overarching themes of management tactics (IWM, biological control, and automation), basic mechanisms (competition, invasive plant genetics, and herbicide resistance), and ecosystem impacts (invasive plant spread, climate change, conservation, and restoration) represent core ARS weed science research that is dynamic and efficacious and has been a significant component of the agency\u27s national and international efforts. This review highlights current studies and future directions that exemplify the science and collaborative relationships both within and outside ARS. Given the constraints of weeds and invasive plants on all aspects of food, feed, and fiber systems, there is an acknowledged need to face new challenges, including agriculture and natural resources sustainability, economic resilience and reliability, and societal health and well-being

Very Complex Questions : Zoos, Animals, and the Law

In Sulawesi, Indonesia—forty-five thousand years ago, an artist painted what is now the world’s oldest known cave painting—a life-size image of a wild pig. Forty thousand years later, the elite of Hierakonpolis, Egypt, housed elephants, hippos, and baboons in the world’s oldest known zoo. Today, individuals keep exotic fish, reptiles, and birds as pets while zoos and aquariums display some of the largest and rarest animals on the planet. The human fascination with wild animals is clearly not a new phenomenon, but how and why we keep wild animals have evolved over time. Zoos in particular have changed dramatically just over the past few decades. Once filled with bare, concrete cages and focusing exclusively on human entertainment, the American zoological industry now prides itself on prioritizing animal welfare. Many zoos now house animals in naturalistic habitats and work hard to educate the public about conservation and wildlife issues in addition to contributing directly to global efforts to preserve endangered species and their environments. Although zoos and aquariums remain popular destinations, public backlash in response to the perceived welfare issues associated with keeping larger and more intelligent species in human care has escalated in recent years. In addition to boycotts, social media campaigns, and sensationalized documentaries, zoo and aquarium facilities also face a variety of legal challenges. This includes both legislation and litigation; animal rights groups regularly bring zoos and aquariums to court, often seeking to, inter alia, expand the legal scope of animal rights or prove animal mistreatment in a particular facility. Several federal statutes confer a variety of protections on animals both in and out of zoos. However, the structure and nature of these statutory schemes make lawsuits concerning alleged animal mistreatment challenging for courts as well as attorneys. In addition, animal facilities— such as zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries—do not regulate or even define themselves or each other consistently. Misleading or inaccurate—but popular—ideas about the best so-called solutions for animals in zoos only add to the confusion. This Note uses both court cases and the example of the real-life “Free Willy” to explore this unique intersection of the legal system and the zoological industry, looking in particular at what courts and zoos can do if a facility does not adequately care for its animals. Plaintiffs in these animal mistreatment cases generally ask the court to order the transfer of the animals in question—often specifically to a sanctuary rather than a zoo; typically, plaintiffs also alternatively request that the court at least order the defendant facility to somehow remedy its treatment of the animals. On a few occasions, courts have granted such relief, requiring a facility to either surrender the animals or make specific animal husbandry changes. One particular request— for the transfer of one or more killer whales, or orcas to a “sea pen”—has not yet been granted. A sea pen is an offshore area—often a bay or partially enclosed area on a coastline—separated from the rest of the ocean by nets stretching from the sea floor to the ocean’s surface. Sea pens are often suggested as a potential “happy ending” for orcas in human care. This Note examines the advantages and disadvantages of these three options—transferring animals to a different facility (the “transfer option”), ordering a defendant facility to change its treatment of the animals (the “treatment option”), or moving orcas or dolphins to a sea pen (the “sea pen option”). Part I provides background on the oversight, regulation, and definition of animal facilities. Part II explores the transfer and treatment options, while Part III evaluates the sea pen option. The conclusion considers wider lessons to be learned from these case studies

Siting Wind Energy Projects in Virginia: Recommendations for Addressing National Security Concerns through State Permitting Processes

This white paper first explains the federal and state wind energy siting approval processes and the military’s current involvement in those processes. In particular, the paper focuses on permit-issuing agencies as opposed to policy-making agencies. Parts I and II outline the federal and state permitting process, respectively. In Part III, the paper discusses the military’s concerns regarding wind energy siting. Part IV moves to the current status of Virginia’s onshore and offshore wind industries. Part V analyzes two case studies: Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island and the Pantego Wind Energy Facility in North Carolina. Finally, Part VI synthesizes recommendations to better incorporate Department of Defense (DoD) input into offshore and onshore wind energy siting decisions in the Commonwealth. This abstract has been taken from the authors\u27 introduction

Genome-wide scan for commons SNPs affecting bovine leukemia virus infection level in dairy cattle

Abstract Background Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection is omnipresent in dairy herds causing direct economic losses due to trade restrictions and lymphosarcoma-related deaths. Milk production drops and increase in the culling rate are also relevant and usually neglected. The BLV provirus persists throughout a lifetime and an inter-individual variation is observed in the level of infection (LI) in vivo. High LI is strongly correlated with disease progression and BLV transmission among herd mates. In a context of high prevalence, classical control strategies are economically prohibitive. Alternatively, host genomics studies aiming to dissect loci associated with LI are potentially useful tools for genetic selection programs tending to abrogate the viral spreading. The LI was measured through the proviral load (PVL) set–point and white blood cells (WBC) counts. The goals of this work were to gain insight into the contribution of SNPs (bovine 50KSNP panel) on LI variability and to identify genomics regions underlying this trait. Results We quantified anti–p24 response and total leukocytes count in peripheral blood from 1800 cows and used these to select 800 individuals with extreme phenotypes in WBCs and PVL. Two case-control genomic association studies using linear mixed models (LMMs) considering population stratification were performed. The proportion of the variance captured by all QC-passed SNPs represented 0.63 (SE ± 0.14) of the phenotypic variance for PVL and 0.56 (SE ± 0.15) for WBCs. Overall, significant associations (Bonferroni’s corrected -log10p > 5.94) were shared for both phenotypes by 24 SNPs within the Bovine MHC. Founder haplotypes were used to measure the linkage disequilibrium (LD) extent (r2 = 0.22 ± 0.27 at inter-SNP distance of 25−50 kb). The SNPs and LD blocks indicated genes potentially associated with LI in infected cows: i.e. relevant immune response related genes (DQA1, DRB3, BOLA-A, LTA, LTB, TNF, IER3, GRP111, CRISP1), several genes involved in cell cytoskeletal reorganization (CD2AP, PKHD1, FLOT1, TUBB5) and modelling of the extracellular matrix (TRAM2, TNXB). Host transcription factors (TFs) were also highlighted (TFAP2D; ABT1, GCM1, PRRC2A). Conclusions Data obtained represent a step forward to understand the biology of BLV–bovine interaction, and provide genetic information potentially applicable to selective breeding programs