Volume 29, Issue 1

Kyla Dayton-Woods, A Critical Moral Dilemma Within Animal Law Impact Litigation

Animals, as legal clients, deserve the same rights as people when being rep- resented by attorneys. There is no Model Rule of Professional Conduct to guide attorneys on how to ethically represent their animal clients. This gap in the law demonstrates an uncertainty in how lawyers are meant to fulfill their moral and legal obligations for their animal clients. Using the Nonhuman Rights Project’s representation of two elephant clients, Beulah and Karen, as a test, this Article proposes a Model Rule to fill the moral gap. If this proposed rule was incorporated into the Model Rules, Beulah and Karen’s attorneys may have ethically been required to use a different litigation strategy that may have been more successful, and could have changed Karen and Beulah’s lives.

Kacey Hovden, International Whaling: Reframing the IWC Moratorium for the Effective Conservation of Whales

The ocean once teemed with whales at seemingly every tide and crest, but due to centuries of overexploitation, whales are now a rare and coveted sight in many parts of the world. Today, the challenge of preventing these magnificent giants from extinction remains prevalent, with slow recovery rates and continued whaling practices in direct conflict. This Article examines the history of global whaling practices and the International Whaling Commission’s 1986 moratorium and argues for the establishment of an ef- fective regulatory scheme permitting commercial whaling only on abundant whale stocks. The scheme would encourage whaling nations to remain members of the IWC. This in turn would give the IWC more supervision over whaling industries and allow whaling nations like Japan to respond to their declining market demand for whale products without the international hostility that pressures these industries to continue. Ultimately, this Article contends that by reframing the Commission’s moratorium, the IWC will have a stronger international regulatory presence in ensuring the effec- tive conservation of whales.

Pegga Mosavi, Manure, Methane, and Money: The Anaerobic Digester Disaster in California

The small, idyllic family farms that come to mind at the first mention of farming are all but gone, replaced by enormous factories that churn out animals at record speed, with little regard for their health and welfare. These factory farms produce a host of issues, including pervasive water and air pollution, particularly in vulnerable agricultural communities like those of the San Joaquin Valley in California. While the detriments of the factory farm model are numerous, contribution to climate change in particular has garnered significant attention. Animal agriculture in the U.S. produces 36% of the country’s methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide. Despite the myriad of problems posed by factory farms, in- dustry has focused its attention on the climate change impacts of these enor- mous operations, and now purports to have the solution—anaerobic digesters. This technology captures methane from animal waste and pro- duces biogas, an energy source that can be used much like natural gas. States like California heavily incentivize this otherwise cost prohibitive technology. This Article argues anaerobic digesters are a false solution to factory farms. It posits that by promoting them, California fails to acknowl- edge the greater environmental threat factory farms pose to the environment and the environmental justice concerns surrounding the expansion of animal agriculture spurred by digesters. Accordingly, this Article examines a number of possible solutions to the recent growth of anaerobic digesters in California, including potential improvements to California’s environmental justice legislation, possible redress using environmental litigation, and a possible challenge to the funding driving anaerobic digester growth in California. Ultimately, this Article concludes that California should cease supporting anaerobic digesters and should focus instead on funding holistic solutions to factory farm issues in order to safeguard California’s most vulnerable communities.

Mikalah Singer, Paul Locke, Better Science, Fewer Animals: Catalyzing NIH Grant Making to Improve Biomedical Research and Meet Societal Goals

Animal models are currently the “gold standard” in biomedical research. However, new approaches that do not involve the use of nonhuman animals are evolving to address the public health and medical challenges for which animal models are less well suited. These alternatives represent important advancements and are being recognized as significant advances. There is a clear societal need to encourage such efforts, and there is widespread support to move away from animal-based research by the American public.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds the majority of biomedical research in the United States and should be a key player in developing new methods. There have been numerous bills introduced before the United States Congress that seek to change the way that NIH allocates its resources, with an emphasis on increasing funding for alternatives. To date, none of these bills have advanced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.
This Article examines how NIH could utilize the policy options availa- ble under its current laws and regulations to move toward a research envi- ronment that puts greater value on alternatives and, at the same time, moves away from animal models as the gold standard. The major advantages of this approach are that it can be implemented without changing current laws and regulations, is relatively straightforward, and can be executed relatively quickly. If adopted, these policy options have the potential to create a much-needed paradigm shift that will improve scientific research while responding to the societal desire to use fewer animals in the biomedical arena.

Christopher Wlach, Privacy in the Wild: Why Animals’ Informational Privacy Matters

As data privacy and security come increasingly into focus among lawmakers, regulators, companies, and consumers, concerns about animals’ privacy have gone largely unmentioned. This Article examines how both wild and domestic animals have informational privacy interests—that is, interests in protecting information about themselves. The Article discusses three examples of how informational privacy for animals is not merely a theoretical concept but directly relates to animals’ broader welfare interests. Finally, this Article discusses why privacy provides a helpful theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing these animals’ interests.