I don’t think Malaysia realizes the value of their forests. Or they do and they don’t care. In addition to the above, they actively promote the conversion of tropical rainforest into palm oil plantations. I’ve had a tour guide tell me all about their lush and beautiful palm oil “forests”. More like face palm, Sir.
Dolphin mega-podapocalypse off coastal California.
Mega-podapocalypse is right!
» Take notes PETA. It might not be animal welfare related but the case was logical at least.
CANADA - The federal Court of Appeal has upheld a precedent-setting ruling that confirmed the federal government is legally bound to protect killer whale habitat, according to a judgment released today.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed nearly all aspects of the federal government’s appeal and ordered the government to pay the associated costs. This means that essentially all of the original ruling, which found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) had failed to legally protect killer whale critical habitat, has been upheld.
“Ecojustice and our clients are very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision,” said Margot Venton, staff lawyer at Ecojustice. “In upholding the original ruling, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that it’s time to get on with the business of actually protecting these killer whales.”
Ecojustice, representing a coalition of nine environmental groups, successfully argued in Federal Court last year that DFO had not met its legal obligation to protect killer whales. The court ruled that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must legally protect all aspects of killer whale critical habitat — including their food supply and the quality of their marine environment.
A completely wasted opportunity. So thanks, PETA for getting all emotional and blowing your time in the spotlight.
I’m no supporter of PETA, but this is interesting to me because it furthers, or at least tightens, the better arguments that some species are in need of stronger federal protections beyond the Endangered Species Act - especially in the new context of climate change. Antiquated laws need to be updated to address a new, unforeseen reality and accommodate new information. Things like stronger habitat protection with higher fines for violations; clear recovery plans for threatened species; and tighter restrictions on land-use development, especially mining and drilling. More on those issues, here.
PETA lost their case because the 13th amendment clearly establishes rights for people, but not animals. I’m surprised the case got as far as it did…
The case is one of the boldest attempts yet to establish legal rights for animals, and the first to attempt to do so on constitutional grounds. But some groups that support legal rights for animals say PETA’s case may end up hurting the cause.
PETA’s suit, filed in October, argued that the orcas “were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats” and forced to live in “barren concrete tanks in unnatural physical and social conditions.” Noting that orcas have highly developed brains and complex social lives, PETA argued that the animals deserve the same protection as humans under the 13th Amendment. SeaWorld countered that the 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, was intended to apply specifically to human beings enslaved by other human beings. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller agreed, ruling that “the only reasonable interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to non-persons such as orcas.”
“It was a foolish suit and a sure loser,” says Steven Wise, president and founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project (NHRP), which seeks to establish personhood and legal rights for animals. Wise argues that bringing a case in federal court on constitutional grounds was a huge mistake.