Volume 29.2

 

Kacey Hovden, Bringing Dinosaurs Back: The Moral & Legal Complications

From Hollywood blockbusters to your local natural history museums, dinosaurs have captured the attention and wonder of the public for decades. The possibility of bringing these long extinct creatures back, once a sciencefiction fantasy, is now closer to reality than ever before through a process known as “de-extinction.” This Article dives into the exploitative nature inherent in the de-extinction of dinosaurs, studying the University of Montana’s Dr. Jack Horner’s “dinochicken project” and the moral considerations implicated when conducting mass genetic engineering on sentient beings. The Article then centers itself on the ecological and legal complications likely to arise if a dinosaur de-extinction project, such as Dr. Horner’s, is successful. Ultimately, although “bringing dinosaurs back” would certainly bring the dreams of many to life, the consequences in doing so suggest today’s world would greatly benefit from leaving these prehistoric creatures in the past.

Tamasin Ramsay, Kangaroo: Fields of Struggle

The Kangaroo, a symbol of the Australian landscape, is under attack by the Victoria government. Viewed as overabundant vermin, colonial law often authorizes killing many Kangaroos, a position that is directly at odds with the ancient law and custom of First Nations People. While Victoria law purports to protect the Kangaroo, in reality the current structure does more harm to the animal than good. This Article reviews the fields of struggle represented by the living tension of colonial law and chthonic law in Victoria and suggests genuine collaboration with First Nations and First Peoples to navigate this fraught terrain. Victoria must reconsider the fundamentals of its legal structure if all the residents of this land—including the Kangaroo—are to survive.

Miranda Groh, The Confines of Federalism on Farmed Animal Welfare

Although farmed animal advocates have achieved some protection for animals through state and local laws, Congress’s constitutional authority to preempt state law and regulate interstate commerce poses a significant threat to those achievements. Additionally, the practical constraints of the United States’ interconnected food system suggest that national, uniform standards are more desirable than a state-by-state, piecemeal approach to animal welfare. Despite the potential benefits of a state-by-state approach and some obstacles faced at the federal level, this Article argues that long-lasting legal protections for farmed animals should ultimately come from Congress, and that animal advocates should concentrate their efforts there. This is especially true pending the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, where the Court will rule on the validity of California’s Proposition 12, which bans in-state sales of certain products made from animals who were cruelly confined.1
Section I of this Article describes the shortcomings of the current sparse federal legislation for farmed animal welfare and concludes that farmed animals need additional welfare protections. Section II considers the United States’ federalist system as it applies to farmed animal welfare: Congress has the power to legislate interstate commerce and preempt state law, while the states retain the authority to prohibit conduct within their borders, so long as they do not burden interstate commerce. In particular, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence under that clause dictate the boundaries of permissible state regulation, and in Ross, the Court will issue an opinion that will determine the continued validity of animal advocates’ current, localized approach. Section III argues that durable protection for farmed animals will ultimately need to come from Congress, and that advocates should redirect their efforts to the federal level to ensure the best standards are promulgated there. In conclusion, while there are strategic reasons for advancing state and local legislation to protect farmed animals, the welfare of those animals is ultimately subject to congressional action, and additional efforts are needed at the federal level to establish lasting welfare protections.

Altamush Saeed, From the United States to Pakistan: Can Climate Change Pave the Way for an International Right to Animal Rescue in Disasters?

Over 69% of the world’s wildlife has been lost between 1970 and 2018. Catastrophic events like the Australian bushfires, the Amazon rainforest fires, and the ongoing floods in the United States have led to the deaths of several billion animals. Ongoing apocalyptic floods have put one-third of Pakistan underwater and led to the deaths of over a million livestock animals. Climate change, human rights, and animal rights have become so intertwined that all life—including human, nonhuman, and plant life—is on the brink of extinction.

Jaycie Thaemert, Animal Welfare Consumer Protection Litigation: Challenges and Possibilities for Bringing About More “Humane” Labeling Practices

Consumer protection claims have become a critical tool for animal welfare advocates to attack the misrepresentations that animal agriculture producers make about the humane treatment of their animals. Currently, these claims are an important accountability mechanism, as “humane” labeling standards have not been adopted on the federal level. As consumers become increasingly focused on making ethical food-purchasing decisions, consumer protection claim lawsuits have become more and more successful, drawing the attention of attorneys within and outside of the animal welfare movement. The primary limitation of consumer protection claims in the animal welfare space is that these lawsuits do not actually address the treatment of the animals themselves, but rather only what the companies themselves are saying about the treatment of their animals, using “humane” marketing as an advertising tactic. Still, consumer protection lawsuits represent an important opportunity to hold animal agriculture producers responsible for any misrepresentations they make about their treatment of animals. This Article explores the growth and challenges of bringing the animal welfare movement into consumer protection claim litigation.