UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Conflicting values: the religious killing of federally protected wildlife

Identification

Clé publique

openalex:w2775683330

Auteurs

Tina S. Boradiansky

Année déclarée

1990

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.746855+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:15:09.551355+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Closely related to the idea of intrinsic rights of nature is the idea that those rights should be legally enforceable.The best known proponent of legal standing for non-humans is University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone.During a protracted fight over the proposed development of California's Mineral King area, Stone wrote a law review article timed to attract the attention of Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas.Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?. 45 S. Cal.L. Rev. 450 (1972).Justice Douglas adopted much of Stone's position in his Mineral King dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton.405 U.S. 727, 743 (1972) (Douglas, J. dissenting).Since that time, Stone has responded to criticism in a subsequent article, Stone, Should Trees have Standing?Revisited: How Far Will Law and Morals Reach?A Pluralistic Perspective.59 S. Cal.L. Rev. I (1985).Meanwhile, a tiny bird in Hawaii became an official plaintiff in Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir.1981).For a discussion of the idea of legal standing for nature and animals, see R. Nash.supra note 2, at 127.36.1O.For an interesting look at the economic view of wildlife, see Valuing Wildlife: Economic And Social Perspectives (D. Decker & G. Goff, eds.1987).For the most notable clash of economics and wildlife preservation to date.see Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill.437 U.S. 153 (1978); and see infra text accompanying notes 135-58.II. See K. Clark.supra note I. at 13-22.Within the United States there are various religions which use animals in religious ceremonies.For example, snake handling by the Holiness Church of God in Jesus Name was enjoined by the Supreme Court of Tennessee upon finding: "handling of snakes in a crowded church sanctuary with virtually no safeguards, with children roaming around unattended, with the handlers so enraptured and entranced that they were in a virtual state of hysteria required holding that defendants had combined and conspired to commit a public nuisance.. '" State of Tenn.ex.rel.Swann v. Pack, 527 S.W.2d 99, 113 (Tenn.1975), cert.denied.424 U.S. 954 (1976).In a footnote, the court noted that the founder of the religion, George Went Hensley, was bitten four hundred times in the course of his ministry, and finally died as a result of a diamondback rattlesnake bite during a prayer meeting at Lester's shed near Altha.Florida on July 24, 1955.Id. at 105 n.8.12.In 1989.for example, a federal district court in southern Florida heard a free exercise claim involving animal sacrifices.In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, followers of the Lukumi religion, also known as Santeria, claimed that a city ordinance violated their religious right to sacrifice animals.723 F.Supp.1467 (S.D. Fla. 1989).Testimony established that there were an estimated 50.000-60,000 Santeria practitioners in South Florida.Sacrifices included chickens.pigeons, doves, ducks, guinea fowl, goats.sheep and turtles.The court found that the city had three compelling secular interests: I) to prevent cruelty to animals; 2) to safeguard the health, welfare and safety of the community; and 3) to prevent the adverse psychological effect on children exposed to such sacrifices.Id. at 1477, 1485-87.Those interests were found to outweigh the religious free exercise claim.Id. at 1487. 13.Although religious practices differ amongst various Indian tribes, the word "Indian" is used in this Comment to include all tribes sharing the common characteristics discussed.14.An exception to this general rule is the Hopi practice of taking eaglets from nests, which are adopted into the tribe, fed by hand, and eventually sacrificed.J. Hughes, American Indian Ecology 36 (1983); H. Tyler, Pueblo Birds And Myths 52-55 (1979).According to Mr. Keith C. Frederick, of the Department of the Interior, the Hopis hold the only permit ever granted under the religious exception to the Eagle Protection Act to take live eagles.The permit is issued in the name of the tribal chairman, for twelve golden eaglets annually.The permit, first issued in 1986, is reviewed annually.Mr. Frederick stated that the taking of twelve eaglets is equivalent to taking approximately six adults, since the mortality rate is about fifty percent.Interview with Mr. K.C. Frederick.Ass.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2775683330

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2775683330

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.