Michael Scott, Frank W. Davis eds. Schaffner ed. Understanding Animal Law by Adam Karp.
The Regulation of Animal Health and Welfare: Science, Law and Policy (Law, Science and Society) [John McEldowney, Wyn Grant, Graham Medley] on. Read The Regulation of Animal Health and Welfare: Science, Law and Policy ( Law, Science and Society) book reviews & author details and more at teolabfacon.tk
War of the Whales by Joshua Horwitz. Goble Legal Resource. Legal Resource. Academic Journals Animal Law eJournal The Animal Law eJournal, sponsored by the Syracuse University College of Law, provides a forum for posting both completed works and works in progress on legal, policy, and jurisprudential issues relating to animals.
Global Journal of Animal Law The Global Journal of Animal Law is an open-access legal journal that welcomes all submissions addressing the legal status of animals. How We Work Legal Education. Animal Protection Bills to Watch in Massachusetts — Legislative Session Massachusetts is considering a number of significant animal protection bills this legislative session. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is supporting several priority bills.
September 23, News. The Animal Legal Defense Fund Mourns Beulah and Karen and Fights for Change in Massachusetts The Animal Legal Defense Fund is deeply saddened by the death of elephants Beulah and Karen and is committed to supporting legislation pending in Massachusetts to prohibit the use of elephants and certain other wild animals used in circuses. To gain something we want or need, it is usually necessary to give up something we already have, or at least give up an opportunity to have gained something else instead.
For example, the more the public spends as a whole on government-funded projects such as highways and schools, the less it can spend on defense if it has already decided not to increase revenue or debt. Social trade-offs are not always economic or material. Sometimes they arise from choices between our private rights and the public good: laws concerning cigarette smoking in public places, cleaning up after pets, and highway speed limits, for instance, restrict the individual freedom of some people for the benefit of others.
Or choices may arise between esthetics and utility. For example, a proposed large-scale apartment complex may be welcomed by prospective tenants but opposed by people who already live in the neighborhood. Different people have different ideas of how trade-offs should be made, which can result in compromise or in continuing discord. How different interests are served often depends on the relative amounts of resources or power held by individuals or groups.
Peaceful efforts at social change are most successful when the affected people are included in the planning, when information is available from all relevant experts, and when the values and power struggles are clearly understood and incorporated into the decision-making process. There is often a question of whether a current arrangement should be improved or whether an entirely new arrangement should be invented.
On the one hand, repeatedly patching up a troublesome situation may make it just tolerable enough that the large-scale change of the underlying problem is never undertaken.
They will gain an understanding of the variations that occur at certain life stages and in various pathological states. A school may excuse a student enrolled in a course in which students are ordinarily expected to perform, participate in, or observe dissection who objects for any reason to performing, participating in, or observing that dissection and instead allow the student to complete an alternative project. Students must inform their teachers of their intention to replace an activity prior to the start of that activity. The course is different from other comparable programmes in part because of the range of animals covered, including wild, free-ranging animals, invertebrates, pest animals, and the welfare problems associated with them. Scientific advances in fields such as animal cognition, ethology and communication have increasingly revealed a diverse array of characteristics that are potentially morally relevant.
On the other hand, rushing to replace every system that has problems may create more problems than it solves. It is difficult to compare the potential benefits of social alternatives. In a very large population, value comparisons are further complicated by the fact that a very small percentage of the population can be a large number of people. For example, in a total population of million, a rise in the unemployment rate of only one-hundredth of 1 percent which some people would consider trivially small would mean a loss of 10, jobs which other people would consider very serious. Judgments of consequences in social trade-offs tend to involve other issues as well.
One is a distance effect: The farther away in distance or the further away in time the consequences of a decision are, the less importance we are likely to give them.
City dwellers, for instance, are less likely to support national crop-support legislation than are farmers, and farmers may not wish to have their federal tax dollars pay for inner-city housing projects. As individuals, we find it difficult to resist an immediate pleasure even if the long-term consequences are likely to be negative, or to endure an immediate discomfort for an eventual benefit.
As a society, similarly, we are likely to attach more importance to immediate benefits such as rapidly using up our oil and mineral deposits than to long-term consequences shortages that we or our descendants may suffer later. The effect of distance in judging social trade-offs is often augmented by uncertainty about whether potential costs and benefits will occur at all. If relative value measures can also be placed on all the possible outcomes, the probabilities and value measures can be combined to estimate which alternative would be the best bet.
But even when both probabilities and value measures are available, there may be debate about how to put the information together.
People may be so afraid of some particular risk, for example, that they insist that it be reduced to as close to zero as possible, regardless of what other benefits or risks are involved. And finally, decisions about social alternatives are usually complicated by the fact that people are reactive.
When a social program is undertaken to achieve some intended effect, the inventiveness of people in promoting or resisting that effect will always add to the uncertainty of the outcome. In most of the world's countries, national power and authority are allocated to various individuals and groups through politics, usually by means of compromises between conflicting interests. Through politics, governments are elected or appointed, or, in some cases, created by armed force. Governments have the power to make, interpret, and enforce the rules and decisions that determine how countries are run.
The rules that governments make encompass a wide range of human affairs, including commerce, education, marriage, medical care, employment, military service, religion, travel, scientific research, and the exchange of ideas.
The U. Constitution, for example, requires the federal government to perform only a few such functions: the delivery of mail, the taking of the census, the minting of money, and military defense. However, the increasing size and complexity of U. Today, the federal government is directly involved in such areas as education, welfare, civil rights, scientific research, weather prediction, transportation, preservation of national resources such as national parks, and much more.
Decisions about the responsibilities that national, state, and local governments should have are negotiated among government officials, who are influenced by their constituencies and by centers of power such as corporations, the military, agricultural interests, and labor unions. The political and economic systems of nations differ in many ways, including the means of pricing goods and services; the sources of capital for new ventures; government-regulated limits on profits; the collecting, spending, and controlling of money; and the relationships of managers and workers to each other and to government.
The political system of a nation is closely intertwined with its economic system, refereeing the economic activity of individuals and groups at every level. It is useful to think of the economy of a nation as tending toward one or the other of two major theoretical models. At one theoretical extreme is the purely capitalist system, which assumes that free competition produces the best allocation of scarce resources, the greatest productivity and efficiency, and the lowest costs. Decisions about who does what and who gets what are made naturally as consumers and businesses interact in the marketplace, where prices are strongly influenced by how much something costs to make or do and how much people are willing to pay for it.
Most enterprises are initiated by individuals or voluntary groups of people. When more resources are needed than are available to any one person such as to build a factory , they may be obtained from other people, either by taking out loans from banks or by selling ownership shares of the business to other people. High personal motivation to compete requires private ownership of productive resources such as land, factories, and ships and minimal government interference with production or trade.
According to capitalist theory, individual initiative, talent, and hard work are rewarded with success and wealth, and individual political and economic rights are protected. At the other theoretical extreme is the purely socialist system, which assumes that the wisest and fairest allocation of resources is achieved through government planning of what is produced and who gets it at what cost. Most enterprises are initiated and financed by the government.
All resources of production are owned by the state, on the assumption that private ownership causes greed and leads to the exploitation of workers by owners. According to socialist theory, people contribute their work and talents to society not for personal gain but for the social good; and the government provides benefits for people fairly, on the basis of their relative needs, not their talent and effort. The welfare of the society as a whole is regarded as being more important than the rights of any individuals. There are, however, no nations with economic systems at either the capitalist or the socialist extreme; rather, the world's countries have at least some elements of both.
Such a mixture is understandable in practical terms. In a purely capitalist system, on the one hand, competition is seldom free because for any one resource, product, or service, a few large corporations or unions tend to monopolize the market and charge more than open competition would allow.
Discrimination based on economically irrelevant social attitudes for example, against minorities and women, in favor of friends and relatives further distorts the ideal of free competition. And even if the system is efficient, it tends to make some individuals very rich and some very poor. Thus, the United States, for example, tries to limit the extreme effects of its basically capitalist economic system by mean of selective government intervention in the free-market system. This intervention includes tax rates that increase with wealth; unemployment insurance; health insurance; welfare support for the poor; laws that limit the economic power of any one corporation; regulation of trade among the states; government restrictions on unfair advertising, unsafe products, and discriminatory employment; and government subsidization of agriculture and industry.
On the other hand, a purely socialist economy, even though it may be more equitable, tends toward inefficiency by neglecting individual initiative and by trying to plan every detail of the entire national economy. Without some advantages in benefits to motivate people's efforts, productivity tends to be low. And without individuals having the freedom to make decisions on their own, short-term variations in supply and demand are difficult to respond to.
Moreover, underground economies spring up to match realities of supply and demand for consumer products.