The battle against animal welfare

No Gravatar

As the movement grows to protect animals from cruelty, the push back against proposals for animal welfare regulations seems to be growing as well.

I’ve got a couple of links below to highlight the effort to hide or protect those engaged in cruel acts. But first up today, I introduce a new award – the Haley Barbour Soft-On-Crime Award. It is dedicated to the Mississippi Governor who recently pardoned a number of convicted criminals – including murderers.

The Winston-Salem Journal reports the Stokes County district attorney and Stokes County Animal Control have agreed to drop 27 misdemeanor animal-cruelty charges against the owners of a breeding operation where 150 dogs were seized in February.

The charges were dropped on several conditions, including the order that the couple cannot “own and operate any animal breeding or animal sales businesses for two years.” – Just TWO YEARS. Animal welfare officials will have the right to inspect the property to make sure they are not breeding over this span.

The county manager was quoted as saying he wants to make sure no one operates a puppy mill in his county. Or did he mean to say that he wanted to make sure no one operates a puppy mill for the next two years.

Weak punishment only sends a message to other puppy millers that even if they are exposed, the end result will be a slap on the wrist. So for this decision, Stokes County gets the Pack Mentality Blog’s first Haley Barbour Soft-On-Crime Award.

In Missouri, a bogus bill has been introduced to make sure animals never get human rights.

The Dairy Herd Network quotes the bill:

The laws of this state shall not confer upon any animal a right, privilege, or legal status that is equivalent or that exceeds a right, privilege, or legal status as that which this state confers by law upon a human being. This provision shall not be construed as limiting laws that protect the welfare of animals in the state.”

Horrors!!! – Animals might get property rights or the right to vote. The state representative is quoted as saying his mission was to keep animal-rights organizations from coming into his state to impose new protections for animals.

Translation: “We don’t want anyone coming into our state uncovering cruel acts against animals. Some of us hate sunshine and we don’t really like animals either.”

He does stress that the new law would not weaken existing animal-welfare laws. That’s not very comforting for the animals who are living with the current level of very weak animal-welfare regulations. The bill is really designed to block any new protections.

The goal of every new proposal I’m seeing across the country is to protect animals from abuse and neglect. How is this being twisted into a claim that we want animals to have equal rights to humans? Yes, it’s true – we want both humans and animals to be protected from abuse and neglect. No reasonable person could oppose that – right?

On the other side of this issue, The Canadian ran an editorial on March 4 headlined: “Iowa bans coverage on Animal Cruelty — America’s march to Fascism.” People are calling the ban on undercover videos and photos on factory farms “Ag-Gag” laws.

In an article posted today on the Weekly Times Now website out of Australia, Joe Maxwell, the HSUS director of rural development and outreach is quoted as saying – “Anytime you try to block whistleblower-type activity, I think you wind up with horrendous outcomes and in this case, for the animals on the farms it could be, as well, for the environment or worker treatment.”

 

One Response to “The battle against animal welfare”

  1. D Gary GradyNo Gravatar says:

    “The laws of this state shall not confer upon any animal a right, privilege, or legal status that is equivalent or that exceeds a right, privilege, or legal status as that which this state confers by law upon a human being. This provision shall not be construed as limiting laws that protect the welfare of animals in the state.”

    Aside from the bad writing (it should be “equivalent to“) and the contradictory last sentence, this is just weird. Taken literally, it implies that if the law protects humans from cruel beatings, then cats, dogs, and parakeets can’t be protected from cruel beatings.

    As you say, this is a bogus law, one intended to distract people from real problems and scare the ignorant into thinking them dang animal rights people want cats to have driver’s licenses.

Leave a Response