| June 2005: David Favre |
|
David Favre graduated from the College of William and Mary Law School in 1973 with an interest in Environmental law, which he sought to practice for three years. After he became a law professor in the late 1970's, that interest evolved into wildlife and then animal law interests and focus. David started teaching a course titled Wildlife law in the mid 1980's and in the 1990's obtained the College's permission to teach two different courses, wildlife law and animal law. Last semester David had 20 students in his Animal Law course.
A combination of international wildlife and animal law has resulted in David having the opportunity to travel around the world to talk with people and organizations, giving speeches from Portugalto China. A year ago David was given the opportunity to help organize the first international animal law conference with speakers from around the world. The international theme continues with one of his most large ongoing projects - the Animal Legal and Historical Web Center. Additionally, with the help of some law students, he has just started the second law review in the United Statesthat deals only with animal law issues: the Animal Law Journal of Michigan State University College of Law. Our Interview with David Favre Why did you become involved in animal law?
When I became a law professor back in 1977 and was looking to find my own area for scholarly development, I found myself turning to wildlife as a topic not well explored by other legal writers. So I wrote a typical first law review article, with a lot of history, about the control of wildlife and an audacious proposal about legal rights for wildlife. After a long birthing process, it was published in the Lewis & Clark Journal of Environmental Law in 1979. (Wildlife Rights: The Ever-Widening Circle, 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 241 (1979).)
The article came to the attention of Professor Henry Holtzer of the Brooklyn School of Law. In 1981, he invited me to be a speaker at what was perhaps the first conference in the United States dealing with animal legal issues. I no longer remember what I spoke about, but many of the attorneys who attended that Conference met again the next year and formed a new organization, Attorneys for Animal Rights. Thus, with my environmental, wildlife background, I joined a group primarily interested in the pain and suffering of individual animals. Over the years this organization changed its name to Animal Legal Defense Fund and my scholarship continued to focus on animal issues. In 1983 I became the Treasure of the Board and retained that position until about two years ago when I became the Chairperson of the Board. The issues that I became aware of through ALDF seemed like issues worthy of my attention and once in this arena have never seen anything else I would rather do. As a law professor I have had the freedom to pursue my interests and be protected in salary and speech. It is an ideal position in which to be.
However, my more personal life experience of the past eight years has given me the focus of my present vision about animals. My family moved to a farm and about four years ago my wife started buying sheep and lamas. Dealing with farm animals (prey animals) on a daily basis has given me a different view from many individuals within the animal rights movement and has taken me down a different path, as will be suggested in our discussion. What do you think are the main obstacles to obtaining legal rights for animals?
The main obstacle to obtaining rights for animals is the political aspect of the legal system. In the US the federal legislature is at best indifferent to animal issues and at worst hostile to animal interest. At the moment the political priorities do not have animal welfare, let alone animal rights on the agenda. (This is a US perspective and the same can not be said about Europe and the EU where animal welfare is clearly on someone's agenda.) Why this is the case is a much longer discussion. But the answer is to make animal welfare a political issue. How do you think that legal change can best be effected- through the courts or through legislation?
I use to think that the best approach was the courts as the legislature was simply unapproachable. But I now think that judges will not provide the big break through we hope for, declaring animal rights the law of the land. It is simply too big of a step. We have to face the reality that in a democracy we have to deal with the legislature to redraft laws at a fundamental level. To what extent do you think that animals be protected (e.g. through litigation or legislation) within a system that classifies them as property?
You use the word "protected" in your question. We can make animals as protected as we have the political will and financial resources to do so. There is no limitation on the protection of animals because of their property status. We can conceptually protect animals as far as we can convince the political process to do so. (What does welfare mean? When is suffering necessary? What housing conditions are appropriate?) Welfare issues are a blend of scientific information and political decisions. There is no inherent limitation of the legal system that prohibits or restricts a path of animal protection. The issue of providing legal rights to animal is slightly more complex but still an issue of political will more than inherent limitation of our system of jurisprudence. Can you tell us about some of the highlights of your involvement in the Animal Legal Defense Fund?
Highlights of ALDF - Looking back over 20 years it seems like a slow dance of evolution from a group of activist attorneys distributed around the US with equally diverse ideas about what was important to do for animals, into a professional staff and national Board with a shared vision of helping develop the jurisprudential concepts for animal rights. Some of the painful lessons we have learned along the way include:
We had a six year battle before producing a break though standing case under our federal Animal Welfare Act. See, ALDF v. Glickman. At the moment we are dealing with a hoarding case in which we removed several hundred dogs from a collector. (See ALDF news release). It has taken over $100,000 to do this one case and appeals will keep the cost increasing for months to come. The dogs are still in limbo during the appeal (major short coming of our laws). While thankful for being able to help this set of dogs, we are also gathering information and experience to seek a better set of laws. What prompted you to establish the Animal Legal & Historical Web Center?
I have created the Animal Legal and Historical Web Center in order to provide information to the general public and to animal activists. Information is power. What the laws are and are not is a critical first step to providing the necessary change. My site is a hopefully a place where the worldviews of animals can be discovered. We all have the ability to learn from the efforts of others, and the web in the perfect place to hold and transmit this information. (E.g., see the model law for developing counties written by a law student and myself and sponsored by Humane Society International. Subsequently this draft was translated by a group in Peru into Spanish.) So I hope that the website will be an active library to foster insight and change. (Perhaps I can find some funding to further develop the Australian aspect of the site). Much of your recent involvement with the animal law movement seems to have an international aspect. For example, last year you helped convene the world's first international animal law conference. Do you feel that any 'themes' emerged from that conference? For example, does globalization pose a threat to greater animal protection?
Why an international focus? First I believe that largest issue in terms of suffering and numbers of animals is represented by industrial animal agriculture as it is promoted by the global corporations of today. Smithfield is a corporation which slaughtered 19 million hogs in 2003 and works in a dozen countries. No one set of national laws will adequately address this issue as the corporations will avoid animal welfare laws (just like they do environmental and labor laws) by seeking out places in the world with the least protective laws, allowing the cheap production of meat. Another aspect of this international issue is that world trade agreements are also an important legal context which impacts the quality of life for animals. We must develop the legal muscle to deal with the WTO and GATT issues, as that is the arena of the future. The state anti-cruelty laws of Michigan or Queensland are important to one set of animals but have no impact on the life and death of the animals eaten in Michigan and I suspect Queensland. Two years ago you wrote Animal Law: Interests, Welfare and Rights, America's second animal law textbook. You also teach animal law on a regular basis. Have your own views about animal law evolved as a result of this process?
Teaching has not really driven my thinking, but it is where I get to practice and try out ideas and legal theory. Teaching has brought home to me the steps necessary to talk about animal jurisprudence. The class is often a testing ground for explanations that later turn up in my speeches and articles. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?
To help the animals we first need the best legal mind available. Legal creativity is essential, but as with any creative endeavor, it is not readily available, you can not just go out and buy some. Some very well meaning attorneys will never be able to produce that creativity regardless of their passion. We are making progress. Today, the number of law students in the US who come to law school with helping animals as a goal, is amazing. There are two textbooks available, and the course is being taught in over 40 law schools, the American Bar Association now has a committee on animal law. Awareness within the legal system is growing. I must think that growing awareness within the political system is the next necessary step in this process. Working on animal issues is not a weekend's work. It can be an engulfing and satisfying focus of a lifetime. It can also be very frustrating and depressing work, with progress measured by the decade not by the day. It is not for everyone. Burnout is not unusual. The legal work is not black and white, but continually changing shades of gray. But, if you keep your vision high, and balance your life with family, beauty, friends and good wine, then working to make the world a better place for animals is the better and fulfilling life to live. |
