DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college. Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply. Current yearly subscription rates are $27.00 in the U.S. and current yearly Internet subscription rates are $27.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. Back issues may be obtained from: William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209. The Journal of Animal Law welcomes the submission of articles, book reviews, and notes & comments. Each manuscript must be double spaced, in 12 point, Times New Roman; footnotes must be single spaced, 10 point, Times New Roman. Submissions should be sent to [email protected] using Microsoft Word (or saved as “rich text format”). Submissions should conform closely to the 18th edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Authors should provide photocopies of the title pages of all sources used and photocopies of the phrases and sentences quoted from the original sources. All articles contain a 2009 author copyright unless otherwise noted at beginning of article. Copyright © 2009 by the Journal of Animal Law. J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee Taimie L. Bryant is a Professor of Law at UCLA School Of Law where she teaches Property and Nonprofit Organizations in addition to teaching different courses on animal law. Prior to receiving her J.D. from Harvard Law School, Professor Bryant earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from UCLA. Since 1995, she has turned her attention to animal rights, focusing both on the theoretical issues of conceptualizing such rights and on legislative and other legal regulations of human treatment of animals. Recent publications include Similarity or Difference as a Basis for Justice: Must Animals be Like Humans to be Legally Protected from Humans?, False Conflicts between Animal Species, and Transgenic Bioart, Animals and the Law. David Cassuto is a Professor of Law at Pace University School of Law where he teaches Animal Law, Environmental Law, Property Law, and Professional Responsibility. Professor Cassuto has published and lectured widely on issues in legal and environmental studies, including animal law. He is also the Director of the Brazil- American Institute for Law & Environment. He holds a B.A. from Wesleyan University, an M.A. & Ph.D. from Indiana University, and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. David Favre is a Professor of Law at Michigan State University College of Law. He is Faculty Advisor to the Journal of Animal Law and Chair of the Peer Review Committee of the Journal. As Editor- in-Chief of the Animal Legal and Historical Web Center, he has published several books on animal issues. He teaches Animal Law, Wildlife Law, and International Environmental Law. Rebecca J. Huss is a Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law in Valparaiso, Indiana. She has a LL.M. in international and comparative law from the University of Iowa School of Law and graduated magna cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law. Recent publications include Companion Animals and Housing in Animal Law and the Courts: A Reader; Rescue Me: Legislating Cooperation between Animal Control Authorities and Rescue Organizations; Valuation in Veterinary Malpractice; and Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companion Animals. Her primary focus in research and writing is on the changing nature of the relationship between humans and their companion animals and whether the law adequately reflects the importance of that relationship. Peter Sankoff is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland, Faculty of Law, where he has taught animal law, criminal law and evidence since 2001. Peter graduated with a B.A. (Broadcast Journalism) from Concordia University in 1992, a J.D. from the University of Toronto in 1996, and an LL.M. from Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. Peter has also worked as a law clerk for Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé at the Supreme Court of Canada and for the Canadian federal government as an advisor on human rights matters involving criminal justice. From 2002-2006, Peter was the Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN), a New Zealand group of lawyers and law students working on animal welfare issues, and also the editor of the ARLAN Report, a short journal discussing topics relating to animals and the law. In 2007, Peter won a $15000 grant from Voiceless, the fund for animals (with Steven White of Griffith Law School) to produce a workshop entitled Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue. From this workshop will emerge the first book on animal law ever written in the Southern Hemisphere, expected in late 2008. To learn more about this and other aspects of Peter’s work, visit: www.lawstaff. auckland.ac.nz/~psan009. Steven M. Wise is President of the Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights, Inc. and author of Rattling the Cage - Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000); Drawing the Line - Science and The Case for Animal Rights (2002), Though the Heavens May Fall - The Landmark Trial That Led to the End of Human Slavery (2005), as well as numerous law review articles. He has taught Animal Rights Law at the Vermont Law School since 1990, and at the Harvard Law School, John Marshall Law School, and will begin teaching at the St. Thomas Law School. He has practiced animal protection law for twenty-five years. J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 TA B L E OF CONT E NTS ARTICLES ANIMAL ETHI C S AND BR ee D -Spec IFI C LE GISLATION Bernard E. Rollin, Ph.D. ..................................................................1 This paper offers a conceptual analysis of the ethics of breed-specific legislation. It discusses the public’s ethical concern for the treatment of animals. It also asks whether it is ethical to regulate animals (i.e. pit-bulls) based on their breeds, rather than on their individual behavior. Additionally, it explores the effects of breed-specific legislation on the companionship between animals and man. SHOULD PE O P L E OF COLOR SU pp ORT ANIMAL RIGHTS ? Angela P. Harris .............................................................................15 There is anecdotal reason to believe that many people of color – in particular, African Americans – view animals rights as a “white” phenomenon. Taking the case study of a PETA campaign that compared animal abuse to the Atlantic slave trade, the author explores reasons why people of color might be justified in seeing the animal rights movement as incorporating racist stereotypes, but concludes that people of color ought to support an anti- racist version of animal rights. ANIMAL EQUALITY , HUMAN DOMINION , AND FUNDAM E NTAL INT E RD epe ND E N ce Tucker Culbertson ..........................................................................33 In this article, I argue for advocacy which emphasizes the fallacy of human dominion rather than the propriety of “animals’ rights.” Such advocacy would lead beyond unfortunately retrogressive debates over the similarities and differences among human and other animals, and could advance a jurisprudence of constitutional duties not triggered by another’s constitutional rights. Moreover, disestablishing myths of human dominion would unsettle troubling elements of liberal constitutionalism in the United States and elsewhere – namely, rigid constructions of state sovereignty and individual subjectivity – which often derive from the very myths of human dominion that also justify inhuman animals’ subordination. Disestablishing human dominion in the interest of inhuman animals can thus draw upon i and advance the ongoing development of an affirmative anti-subordination jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment of the Reconstruction Constitution’s enfranchisement of a radical constitutional subject – the person – which includes but is not limited to members of the human species. A NE W CALL TO ARMS OR A NE W COAT OF ARMS ?: TH E ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONM E NTALISM Deb AT E IN AUSTRALIA Olivia Khoo ....................................................................................49 There has been popular and political support in Australia in recent years towards a consideration of environmental issues, most notably in the form of a proposed carbon emissions trading scheme.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nonhuman Rights to Personhood
    Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 30 Issue 3 Summer 2013 Article 10 July 2013 Nonhuman Rights to Personhood Steven M. Wise Nonhuman Rights Project Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven M. Wise, Nonhuman Rights to Personhood, 30 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 1278 (2013) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol30/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DYSON LECTURE Nonhuman Rights to Personhood STEVEN M. WISE I. INTRODUCTION Thank you all for joining us for the second Dyson Lecture of 2012. We were very lucky to have a first Dyson Lecture, and we will have an even more successful lecture this time. We have a very distinguished person I will talk about in just a second. I’m David Cassuto, a Pace Law School professor. I teach among other things, Animal Law, and that is why I am very familiar with Professor Wise’s work. I want to say a few words about the Dyson Lecture. The Dyson Distinguished Lecture was endowed in 1982 by a gift from the Dyson Foundation, which was made possible through the generosity of the late Charles Dyson, a 1930 graduate, trustee, and long-time benefactor of Pace University. The principle aim of the Dyson Lecture is to encourage and make possible scholarly legal contributions of high quality in furtherance of Pace Law School’s educational mission and that is very much what we are going to have today.
    [Show full text]
  • Sterilization, Hunting and Culling : Combining Management Approaches for Mitigating Suburban Deer Impacts
    Poster Presentation Sterilization, Hunting and Culling: Combining Management Approaches for Mitigating Suburban Deer Impacts J.R. Boulanger University of North Dakota P.D. Curtis and M.L. Ashdown Cornell University ABSTRACT: Based on decades of growing deer impacts on local biodiversity, agricultural damage, and deer-vehicle collisions, in 2007 we implemented an increasingly aggressive suburban deer research and management program on Cornell University lands in Tompkins County, New York. We initially divided Cornell lands into a suburban core campus area (1,100 acres [4.5 km2]) and adjacent outlying areas that contain lands where deer hunting was permitted (~4,000 acres [16.2 km2]). We attempted to reduce deer numbers by surgically sterilizing deer in the core campus zone and increasing harvest of female deer in the hunting zone through an Earn-a-Buck program. During the first 6 years of this study, project staff spayed 96 female deer (>90% of all deer on campus); 69 adult does were marked with radio transmitters to monitor movements and survival. From 2008 to 2013, hunters harvested >600 deer (69–165 each hunting season). By winter 2013, we stabilized the campus deer herd to approximately 100 animals (57 deer/mi2 [22 deer/km2]), a density much higher than project goals (14 deer/mi2). Although we reduced doe and fawn numbers by approximately 38% and 79%, respectfully, this decrease was offset by an increase in bucks that appeared on camera during our population study. In 2014, we supplemented efforts using deer damage permits (DDP) with archery sharpshooting over bait, and collapsible Clover traps with euthanasia by penetrating captive bolt.
    [Show full text]
  • DTW Report 2019
    DOGS TRUST WORLDWIDE Annual Review 2019 CONTENTS Annual Report of the Trustees of Dogs Trust Worldwide Chairman’s report 4 Executive Director’s report 4 1. The grants programme 2019 6 2. Capacity building 11 3. Grant evaluation visits 13 4. Public benefit 14 Financial review 16 Independent auditor’s report 18 Financial statements 20 Notes to accounts 22 Organisational aim We are working towards the day when all dogs across the world can enjoy a happy life, free from the threat of unnecessary destruction. Cover: A happy client is pleased to be reunited with her still-drowsy dog, following their neutering operation, performed by vets working with the Bali Animal Welfare Association (BAWA). See page 8. Credit: Francesca Baker This page: A vet from BAWA checks up on a dog, post-surgery. See page 8 for details of how Dog Trust Worldwide helps dogs in Bali. Credit: Francesca Baker The trustees (who are also company directors); Philip Daubeny, Joanne Howard, Jim Monteith, Graeme Robertson, Phil White; present their annual report and financial statements for the year ended December 2019. 2 Chairman’s report Executive Director’s report Plans for 2020 Welcome to the fourth annual report and accounts for Dogs Trust 2019 has been a very busy and successful year for Dogs Trust In 2020, Dogs Trust Worldwide is planning to adopt a mentoring Worldwide. This year has seen us continue to make great strides to Worldwide. We have continued to support a high number of overseas role for some of our overseas charities that we support with grants improve the lives of dogs around the world, sharing our expertise in dog welfare organisations who share and uphold our vision and or training (“partner organisations”), providing more regular and dog population management and responsible dog ownership through values.
    [Show full text]
  • Amelioration of Pet Overpopulation and Abandonment Using Control of Breeding and Sale, and Compulsory Owner Liability Insurance
    animals Article Amelioration of Pet Overpopulation and Abandonment Using Control of Breeding and Sale, and Compulsory Owner Liability Insurance Eva Bernete Perdomo 1,* , Jorge E. Araña Padilla 1 and Siegfried Dewitte 2 1 University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain; [email protected] 2 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Overpopulation and abandonment of pets are long-standing and burgeoning concerns that involve uncontrolled breeding and selling, illegal trafficking, overpopulation, and pet- safety and well-being issues. Historical and current prevention measures for avoiding these problems, such as sanctions, taxes, or responsibility education, have failed to provide significant moderation or resolution. Globally, millions of pets are commercially and privately bred and abandoned annually, damaging biodiversity and ecosystems, and presenting road safety and public health risks, in addition to becoming victims of hardship, abuse, and illegal trafficking, especially in the case of exotic species. This article proposes a novel comprehensive management system for amelioration of overpopulation and abandonment of pets by using greater control of supply and demand of the pet market, highlighting the role of the compulsory owner liability insurance to prevent pet abandonment and all its associated costs. This system aims to act preventatively, through flexible protocols within the proposed management system to be applied to any pet and any country. Citation: Bernete Perdomo, E.; Araña Padilla, J.E.; Dewitte, S. Abstract: Overpopulation and abandonment of pets are long-standing and burgeoning concerns that Amelioration of Pet Overpopulation involve uncontrolled breeding and selling, illegal trafficking, overpopulation, and pet safety and well- and Abandonment Using Control of being issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy Australia Incorporated 3Rd Annual
    LEGACY AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED 3RD ANNUAL REPORT 2016 - 2017 CONTENTS PAGE CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 2 DIRECTORY 4 ABOUT US 5 BOARD AND COMMITTEES 6 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 7 NATIONAL PROGRAMS 10 National Governance 10 National Support / Legal Compliance 12 National Advocacy 13 National Programs – Social Support 16 National Programs – Educational Support 18 National Media 19 National Fundraising and Donation Management 22 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND STATUTORY REPORTS 26 TREASURER’S REPORT 27 STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME 29 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION 30 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY 31 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 32 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 33 DIRECTORS’ DECLARATION 43 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT 44 WELFARE PATRIOTIC FUND 46 INCOME STATEMENT 47 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION 48 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 49 DECLARATION OF THE TRUSTEE 50 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT 51 CHAIRS OF LEGACY AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED 53 1 | P a g e CHAIRMAN’S REPORT While this has been another busy year, I think there have been three major events which characterise the work of LA Inc. These events include; • The national Launch of Legacy Week, • Operation Legacy Kokoda Challenge 2017 (OPLACK 17), and • The National Conference. Once again, the Australian War Memorial hosted the national Launch of Legacy Week. Our National Patron, Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd) officially opened Legacy Week in the presence of a large number of distinguished guests representing the government, the Australian Defence Force, sponsors and Legatees and widows. The launch was followed by a reception hosted by Thales and held in the Captain Reg Saunders Gallery.
    [Show full text]
  • Burke County Animal Ordinance
    Burke County Animal Control Ordinance Ordinance No. 2017-08 Burke County North Carolina An Ordinance Amending the Official Burke County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, Animals Be it ordained that the Official Burke County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, Animals is hereby rescinded and replaced with the following: Article I. General Sec. 6-1. Definitions Sec. 6-2. General Duties of Office of Animal Control Sec. 6-3. Animal Cruelty Sec. 6-4. Inherently Dangerous Exotics Sec. 6-4.1. Exotic Mammals and Reptiles Sec. 6-4.2. Keeping and Control of Dangerous Animals Sec. 6-4.3. Establishment of Dangerous Animal Appeal Board Sec. 6-4.4. Requirements for Attack Training Facility Sec. 6-4.5. Reporting of Dangerous Animals Sec. 6-4.6. Provisions May Not Apply Sec. 6-5. Interference with Enforcement of Ordinance Sec. 6-6. Handling of Stray or Abandoned Animals Sec. 6-7. Animal Advisory Board Article II. Rabies Control Sec. 6-8. Compliance with State Law Sec. 6-9. Inoculation of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets Sec. 6-10. Report and Confinement of Animals Biting Persons or Showing Rabies Symptoms Sec. 6-11. Area-Wide Emergency Quarantine Sec. 6-12. Post Mortem Diagnosis Sec. 6-13. Unlawful Killing, Releasing, etc. of Certain Animals Sec. 6-14. Failure to Surrender for Quarantine or Destruction Article III. Impoundment Sec. 6-15. General Sec. 6-16. Notice to Owner Sec. 6-17. Redemption by Owner Sec. 6-18 Adoption or Euthanization of Unredeemed Animals Sec. 6-19. Procedure with Respect to Redemption or Adoption of Unvaccinated Dog, Cat or Ferret Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 29–40] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 Unnaturally Cruel: Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In 2010, over nine billion animals were killed in the United States for human consumption. This included nearly 1 million calves, 2.5 million sheep and lambs, 34 million cattle, 110 million hogs, 242 million turkeys, and well over 8.7 billion chickens (USDA 2011a; 2011b). Though hundreds of slaughterhouses actively contributed to these totals, more than half of the cattle just mentioned were killed at just fourteen plants. A slightly greater percentage of hogs was killed at only twelve (USDA 2011a). Chickens were processed in a total of three hundred and ten federally inspected facilities (USDA 2011b), which means that if every facility operated at the same capacity, each would have slaughtered over fifty-three birds per minute (nearly one per second) in every minute of every day, adding up to more than twenty-eight million apiece over the course of twelve months.1 Incredible as these figures may seem, 2010 was an average year for agricultural animals. Indeed, for nearly a decade now the total number of birds and mammals killed annually in the US has come in at or above the nine billion mark, and such enormous totals are possible only by virtue of the existence of an equally enormous network of industrialized agricultural suppliers. These high-volume farming operations – dubbed “factory farms” by the general public, or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)” by state and federal agencies – are defined by the ways in which they restrict animals’ movements and behaviors, locate more and more bodies in less and less space, and increasingly mechanize many aspects of traditional husbandry.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Briefing on Caged Farming Overview of Scientific Research on Caged Farming of Laying Hens, Sows, Rabbits, Ducks, Geese, Calves and Quail
    February 2021 Scientific briefing on caged farming Overview of scientific research on caged farming of laying hens, sows, rabbits, ducks, geese, calves and quail Contents I. Overview .............................................................................................. 4 Space allowances ................................................................................. 4 Other species-specific needs .................................................................... 5 Fearfulness ......................................................................................... 5 Alternative systems ............................................................................... 5 In conclusion ....................................................................................... 7 II. The need to end the use of cages in EU laying hen production .............................. 8 Enriched cages cannot meet the needs of hens ................................................. 8 Space ............................................................................................... 8 Respite areas, escape distances and fearfulness ............................................. 9 Comfort behaviours such as wing flapping .................................................... 9 Perching ........................................................................................... 10 Resources for scratching and pecking ......................................................... 10 Litter for dust bathing ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion
    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis of Production and Culling Rate with Regard to the Profitability in a Dairy Herd
    ADVANCED RESEARCH IN LIFE SCIENCES 1(1), 2017, 48-52 www.degruyter.com/view/j/arls DOI: 10.1515/arls-2017-0008 Research Article The Analysis of Production and Culling Rate With Regard to the Profitability in a Dairy Herd József Horváth*, Zsanett Tóth, Edit Mikó University of Szeged, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Economics and Rural Development and Institute of Animal Sciences and Wildlife Management, Hungary Accepted June, 2017 Abstract As milk prices move away from production costs, dairy farms are under increased pressure to find ways to protect profitability on the farm. Producers have some problems that they can improve. Improve the milk production, produce more milk to sell focused on quality (reduce the amount of high level of somatic cell count). The deterioration of animal health status (lameness, mastitis and different metabolic disorders) can have a serious impact on cow productivity, causing pain and discomfort, production losses and might result in a decision to cull the animal. Improving herd reproductive performance is an important aspect of profitable farm management. The aim of this work is to analyse milk production, reasons of culling and culling rate in different lactation on a dairy cattle farm. Key words: dairy cow economy, culling rate, productive lifetime, break-even point. Introduction replacement heifers. Furthermore, it allows cows In the dairy cattle breeding the longevity of cows to achieve maximum milk yield and increases the and reasons for culling are serious research proportion of higher yielding cows in the herd. [3] problems. The profitability of the dairy herd Culling of dairy cows is a serious economic depends on milk the yield of lactation and the decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2016 Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests David Lewis Rice III University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Rice, David Lewis III, "Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1650. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1650 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics: Questions of Inherent Worth, Etiology, and Teleofunctional Interests A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by David Rice Delta State University Bachelor of Science in Biology, 1994 Delta State University Master of Science in Natural Sciences in Biology, 1999 University of Mississippi Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Richard Lee Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Warren Herold Dr. Tom Senor Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Some biocentrists argue that all living things have "inherent worth". Anything that has inherent worth has interests that provide a reason for why all moral agents should care about it in and of itself. There are, however, some difficulties for biocentric individualist arguments which claim that all living things have inherent worth.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian War Memorial Annual Report 2013–2014
    EPORT 2013–2014 EPORT R L A L ANNU A ORI M R ME A N W A LI A AUSTR AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL ANNUAL REPORT 2013–2014 AUSTR A LI A N W A R ME M ORI A L ANNU A L R EPORT 2013–2014 EPORT AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL ANNUAL REPORT 2013–2014 Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2014, together with the financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General Images produced courtesy of the Australian War Memorial, Canberra Cover: Their Royal Highness The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in a moment of private reflection at the Roll of Honour. PAIU2014/078.14 Title page: ANZAC Day National Ceremony 2014. PAIU2014/073.13 Copyright © Australian War Memorial ISSN 1441 4198 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, scanned, stored in a retrieval system, recorded, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher. Australian War Memorial GPO Box 345 Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia www.awm.gov.au ii AUSTR A LI A N W A R ME M ORI A L ANNU A L R EPORT 2013–2014 EPORT Her Excellency the Honourable Dame Quentin Bryce AD CVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, on her final visit to the Australian War Memorial as Governor-General. His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge KG KT during the Anzac Day National Ceremony 2014 commemorating the 99th anniversary of the Anzac landings.
    [Show full text]