Publication Year
2020
File
Description

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked the First Circuit to clarify what it means to “harass” a captive animal under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that the lower court defined the term incorrectly. While PETA acknowledges that the plaintiff in the lower court failed to meet her burden of proof, it argues that the lower court judge’s ruling that “generally accepted and Animal Welfare Act-compliant animal husbandry practices” do not violate the Act is incorrect. PETA argues that this summary leaves out a third prong of the analysis: whether the action is likely to result in injury to the wildlife. [To accompany Federal Case Law Update "PETA Asks 1st Circuit to Clarify ESA Harassment" from Brooks Animal Law Digest Issue No. 14]

Availability
Full content available online for free
Add to my list