Talk:Palila

Animal rights

From the article:

The palila was the first animal to have a 9th circuit federal case cited in its own name. Prior to Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 852 F.2d 1106 (U.S. 1988), cases were cited under the represented party e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992), this citing error opened a door for environmental protection agencies who in prior years had lost on issue of standing, e.g. Lujan. As the Circuit Court Justices so aptly realized, the fact that this bird had “winged itself into court” represented a major stepping stone for animal rights activists.

Firstly, claiming that this is a citing error is questionable. It seems unlikely to me that the judges or lawyers involved would do this accidentally. According to The New York Times the judge explicitly ruled that the species had standing.

Secondly, claiming that this was some sort of victory for animal rights activists is highly questionable. This case was about a species, whereas animal rights activists believe that animals have individual rights. The distinction between a species and an individual is critical here and there's no evidence that I can see that this ruling granted or extended legal rights to any individual bird.

Unless some references can be found for these two controversial claims I will remove them from the article. Pburka (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)