Animal Law Forum - April 2 in Orlando at Barry Law School

Sorry for the another long posting hiatus, but I wanted to mention that the Barry Law School will be holding a animal law forum this Saturday in Orlando.  There are a number of great speakers and topics, including Adam Karp, who is a nationally recognized name in the area of animal law. Hope to see you there!

USDA acknowledges role in mass bird death

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article about the USDA's "Bye Bye Blackbird" program that was started in the 1960s to kill birds on behalf of farmers.  While the agency denies any role in the mass deaths in Louisiana and Arkansas, it did admit to using a poison to kill 5,000 birds that died in South Dakota. The birds were apparently defecating in a farmer's cattle feed across state lines in Nebraska.

The article also links to a chart that lists the number of animals that were taken by the USDA in 2009.   In 2009 alone more than 4 million red-winged blackbirds, starlings, cowbirds, and grackles were killed.  Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, starlings, and grackles to be killed under so-called depredation orders.  These killings are undertaken by private contractors that do not need to report the culls to any authority.

Bill to ban crush videos passes Congress, sent on to President for signature

After the Supreme Court struck down the ban on depictions of animal cruelty as a violation of the 1st Amendment, animal advocates have been urging Congress to enact a narrower law to address crush videos.  HSUS reports that the bill has passed the Senate and is being sent on to President Obama for his signature.  Wayne Pacelle's blog entry on passage of the bill is also being linked to over at the Huffington Post. 

Move to Limit Factory Farming Gains Momentum

The New York Times reports on a deal in Ohio that will curb some of the worst practices in factory farming, such as battery cages for egg-laying chickens, veal crates for calves, and gestation crates for pregnant pigs.  The article briefly references the less-sweeping restrictions that were adopted in Florida.  The article also features several quotes by Wayne Pacelle, the chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States.

Oil Spill: News roundup

• Scientists Discuss Potential Impacts of Oil Exposure on Florida Keys (Natural Resources Defense Council).
•  Gulf Coast Turtle hatchlings released on Florida's east coast (CNN).
•  NOAA: Impact of spill to linger for decades (Atlanta Journal Constitution).
• 20 turtles found in oil flown to Florida, 6 arrive at Mote. (Bradenton Herald).
• Gulf Rescuers Find Lesson, Hope in Oiled Birds, 89 Turtle Eggs (Bloomberg).

FWC cracks down on illegal internet sales

WINK News reports that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission's Internet Crimes Unit is cracking down on illegal sales of wildlife on the Internet. In just the past six months, FWC has made 151 arrests and issued 51 warnings.  To report wildlife law violations, including illegal Internet sales, visit MyFWC.com/Violation or call 888-404-FWCC (3922).

Animal intelligence underestimated

The news stand edition Time Magazine has a cover story this month on animal intelligence. The web has an excerpt, but the full article focuses on how science has underestimated animals' abilities to think and their cognition of the world around them.

USFWS releases new endangered species bulletin

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released its Spring 2010 Endangered Species Bulletin.  It is available in two parts as a pdf download and features articles on International Wildlife Conservation.

Kagan questioned on depictions of animal cruelty case

While I did not write about it at the time, I was disappointed, but not surprised, by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Stevens, which struck down the federal law prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty.  If you haven't had the chance to read it, I'd encourage you to at a minimum read Justice Alito's dissent.  The opinion is available from the Supreme Court's website at this link.  Justice Alito correctly criticized the majority's reliance on speculative and hypothetical cases that have not and would not be prosecuted under the law, such as hunting videos or depictions of animals being slaughtered for food.  Justice Alito focused his decision on addressing the actual case before the court that involved dog fighting videos and discussing the "crush videos' that the law was designed to combat.

I wanted to write a brief post now, because the decision came up again yesterday during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  As Solicitor General, Kagan's office had defended the law, but during the hearing Kagan stated that the law was drafted in a way that made it difficult to defend from a First Amendment perspective.  Josh Gernstein at Politico notes that the questioning came from Orrin Hatch. While both Hatch and Kagan agreed on the difficulty of defending the statute based on the way it was drafted, Kagan also pointed to Justice Alito's dissenting opinion as proof that the arguments he office made in defending the law were not without merit. 

While it's impossible to say with any certainty, based on her comments, it's doubtful that Kagan would have been a second vote in favor of upholding the law had she been on the Court.  Nevertheless, there are moves afoot in Congress to revive the law and be more precise in its drafting in order to address any First Amendment concerns.  Hopefully, Kagan will be supportive of this new law in the event that it is challenged.

Advances in Animal Law

Here's a link to an interesting article from the Examiner that points out a few interesting facts about the development of the field of animal law.  The author notes that ten years ago only nine law schools offered courses or training in animal law, but today more than 90 universities do so.  The author also states that professional interest in the field of animal law is outpacing demand.  Most new lawyers that have had this animal law training in school take jobs in firms that focus on other areas of law.  They only take animal law cases as pro bono work or when the rare opportunity arises in their practice area.

I agree with this sentiment generally.  I still know only a handful of attorneys that practice animal law exclusively and make ends meet.  However, I do think that the metrics on this are changing.  Given the number of people that write to me requesting free legal advice (please read my disclaimer) the demand is out there - potential clients just may not realize yet that animal law is no different than any other legal advice, i.e., you get what you pay for.

H/T to The Gavel