The Pittsburgh Penguins seemingly thought it was a fun idea to add real, live penguins to the pre-game celebration of a recent hockey game. But animal rights activists disagreed. The penguins–the human team–played the Philadelphia Flyers in Pittsburgh last Saturday. The local zoo pitched in by delivering some penguins to play on the ice, but the pre-game show also included fireworks and pyrotechnics.

A video clip from the event shows the penguins reacting to the explosion and flapping their wings in alarm. This caused PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to send a letter to the CEO of the Pittsburgh Penguins in which it states that it is obvious that the penguins are “scrambling in terror.”

Everything about this is terrible. pic.twitter.com/RRYJSDaCeh

— m g (@kikkerlaika) February 26, 2017

The PETA letter continued:

It’s inherently stressful for wild animals–who naturally shun contact with humans and are extremely sensitive to environmental changes–to be hauled around, used as props, and exposed to noisy crowds.

PETA also criticized the Pittsburgh Zoo for allowing its animals to be treated like this. The zoo replied in a statement of its own, saying:

The penguins who attended the Winter Classic are some of the same penguins that participate in our weekend Penguins on Parade event. They are very comfortable around people and noises.

ACTUAL PENGUINS! #StadiumSeries pic.twitter.com/7VA5o9NKCR

— NHL (@NHL) February 26, 2017

The statement from the zoo said that the penguins’ reaction to the fireworks is similar to that of humans’ when they are startled and that it only took a few seconds before they were playing again. It also said that it was a “great enrichment opportunity for our penguins to be introduced to new sounds, sights and smells.”

PETA asked the Pittsburgh Penguins not to use live animals for promotion of its team in the future, but a spokesman for the team and one for the NHL said they didn’t have anything to add to the zoo’s statement. PETA has long campaigned for sports teams to stop using live animals as mascots at events, but it doesn’t seem like the sports world is ready to give that tradition up just yet.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Pittsburgh Penguins Borrowed Live Penguins, PETA is Not Happy appeared first on Law Street.

The status of the wild jaguar is “near threatened” according to World Wildlife Fund. Still, one of them was shot dead after an Olympic torch ceremony in the town of Manaus in Brazil on Wednesday.

The torch ceremony took place at a zoo and featured a jaguar, which is the Brazilian Olympic team’s mascot. According to an army statement, the animal fled from its handlers right after the ceremony. Veterinarians tried to sedate it using tranquilizers, but the jaguar resisted and lunged at a soldier, who saw no other solution than shooting it.

An endangered jaguar was killed moments after being used in the Olympic Torch ceremony. https://t.co/IScjZDedhv pic.twitter.com/Z5oatwHluB

— The Dodo (@dodo) June 22, 2016

The zoo was right next to a military center where soldiers handled the animal. However, using the jaguar, known as Juma, in the Olympic ceremony was actually illegal, said IPAAM, the Amazon state government environmental authority that restricts the use of wild animals. No one had applied to use the jaguar and therefore no permit was issued. IPAAM will investigate the incident.

The official organizing committee for Rio 2016 posted an apology on its Portuguese Twitter account that said the organization was wrong to have displayed the torch next to a wild, chained animal, and vowed that it will not happen again.

Erramos ao permitir que a Tocha Olímpica,símbolo da paz e da união entre povos,fosse exibida ao lado de um animal selvagem acorrentado.(1/3)

— Rio 2016 (@Rio2016) June 21, 2016

That assurance comes a little late for animal rights groups across the world. PETA issued a statement criticizing the whole thing, saying:

Wild animals held captive and forced to do things that are frightening, sometimes painful, and always unnatural are ticking time bombs—captivity puts animal and human lives at risk.

What were they thinking? Jaguar fatally shot following Olympic torch ceremony in Brazil https://t.co/Urceo7qJjc #RIP pic.twitter.com/lQYeywzd9x

— PETA (@peta) June 22, 2016

Animal behavior scientist Joao Paulo Castro told the BBC:

It’s neither healthy nor advisable to subject an animal to such a situation, with lots of noise and people. Often, jaguars already are stressed by being kept in captivity; that’s only compounded when they’re exposed to hubbub.

Others have also reacted on social media, calling for justice for Juma.

Rest in Peace poor innocent one #Juma the Jaguar who was mercilessly shot dead after Brazil’s Olympic torch… https://t.co/y6B7RXJNrn

— Broken Paws (@Broken_Paws_Int) June 22, 2016

Justice for Juma the Jaguar https://t.co/sOASnQ0hJC pic.twitter.com/zbgbZ5LbDY

— Compassion 4 Animals (@AmyRoseKathryn) June 22, 2016

I have met this jaguar. It lunged at me, but for a cuddle only. Sad to hear this https://t.co/EEfH883nvb

— Bill Bailey (@BillBailey) June 22, 2016

Despite not having even started, the Rio Olympics is surrounded by bad news–with the outbreak of the Zika virus, reports of being bankrupt, a high crime rate, bad organizing, and the impeachment of Brazil’s President. Hopefully the games will get its act together by the official start on August 5.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jaguar Killed While Fleeing Olympic Torch Ceremony in Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an annual tradition that always draws big crowds of protestors–the dog meat festival in Yulin, in southern China. On Friday, animal rights activists from around the world, joined by celebrities like Carrie Fisher, handed over a petition with 11 million signatures to the Chinese Embassy in London, in an attempt to stop the festival from taking place. The habit of eating dog meat is nowadays widely criticized in China, with activists saying pet dogs are stolen from their owners, treated with cruelty, and that the phenomenon is an “embarrassment to China.”

This backlash may be  due to the Westernized and increasingly young population of China–previously having pets was seen as too elitist, particularly under Mao Zedong’s rule. Today, having dogs as pets is more and more popular, and dying your dog’s fur to make it look like a panda is a huge trend.

so this is a panda dog…and I didn't know they were real…and I'm buying one… pic.twitter.com/xOFr61DD9P

— jules (@juliawrightt__) May 29, 2016

What seems morally impossible for many Westerners is actually a cultural-historical tradition dating back thousands of years for the Chinese. About 30 million dogs are slaughtered for their meat every year in Asia, and activists say more than a third of that number is in China alone. In the southern parts where the summers get scorching hot, dog meat is believed to help you keep cool. And as many other animals are said to help your health–tiger for potency, shark fin soup for showing off wealth, bird nests for better health in general–different dog parts are said to be good for different ailments.

No matter how traditional, many old-fashioned delicacies are illegal in China. In 2014 a Chinese businessman was sentenced to 13 years in jail for hiring poachers to kill tigers, so that he could drink their blood and eat their penises, which he believed would make him more potent. Three tigers died and were eaten before the police found out after another man filmed one of the killings with his phone.

Here's an idea. Why don't we stop eating meat altogether?
Yulin Dog Meat Festival 101: All You Need to Take Action https://t.co/4mp6TljGJK

— Kimberly Ventre (@KimberlyVentre) June 10, 2016

In the U.S., selling meat from cats and dogs is illegal–but personal consumption is actually legal in 44 states. The big problem is the treatment of the animals. A representative for the animal advocacy group Born Free USA told Consumer Affairs:

According to the tradition, if you scare the dog before it dies it makes the meat more tender. Dogs are either hung, electrocuted, or beaten to death while cats are boiled alive. The inhumane treatment of animals for the sake of a cultural tradition can no longer be justified in civilized society.

The dog meat festival in Yulin is scheduled to start on June 21, but activists hope it will not be a tradition for much longer.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Largest Ever Petition Against China’s Annual Dog Meat Festival Launched appeared first on Law Street.

At the Wat Pha Luang Ta Bua temple near Thailand’s western border with Myanmar, Theravada Buddhist monks live with and take care of full grown tigers. They cuddle. They smooch. And for $140, tourists can buy a day of playing with the cats as well, hand feeding and bathing them. But on Wednesday, as a government-led campaign to end the temple’s tiger tourism was underway, a large freezer was found. Inside: 40 tiger cub carcasses, some preserved in jars, others frozen, many dead for years.

The Tiger Temple–as it’s commonly called–was buzzing with Thai officials and police officers, as 64 live adult tigers were hauled away, and the grisly freezer uncovered and unpacked. The seizure was the beginning of Thailand’s Wildlife Conservation Office’s efforts to put an end to the temple’s tiger tourism activities, which have come under increased scrutiny from animal rights groups over the years for mistreating the animals and engaging in black market trafficking.

“The monks have the attitude, ‘I am over the law,'” Teunchai Noochdumrong, the director of the Wildlife Conservation Office told The New York Times a few weeks ago. “They say because they are monks, they have the right to take care of all the animals in that area.”

For years, the temple has faced allegations of trafficking in tiger parts–an illegal offense–and breeding the beasts to sell throughout Asia and especially China, where tiger bone liquor is a highly prized tonic. Trafficking accusations began when a former veterinarian discovered that three adult tigers had gone missing.

Animal rights groups have pressured Thai authorities to end what they saw as the temple’s rough treatment of the tigers. After months of legal battles between the temple and the Wildlife Conservation Office, the campaign to remove the estimated 137 tigers at the temple kicked into high gear this week. Officials say Tiger Temple will be emptied of its tigers by Saturday. 

For its part, the temple claims to be a bastion of harmony between humans and tigers, an endangered species with an estimated 3,000 to 3,600 animals left on the planet. The temple earns $6 million a year from tourism. Tiger Temple addressed the allegations in a Facebook post in March, when trafficking suspicions first arose:

We can only surmise why the rumours of selling tiger cubs started, and it could be that some volunteers have jumped to conclusions after seeing cubs carried out of the general area where our tigers are kept,” the post said, adding they put off responding to the trafficking rumors because “the Buddhist way is to keep silent.”

Journalists from London and Thailand commented on the post, asking why the cub carcasses were kept frozen instead of cremated, “as per Buddhist customs.” The temple responded: “The previous vet Dr. Somchai started this policy. Probably in order to combat the allegations of the temple selling the cubs.” Essentially, the Temple is claiming that it kept the cubs to prove that they weren’t sold, but rather died of natural causes.

The tigers will be moved to government facilities around the country. But on its Facebook page over the weekend, Tiger Temple posted a video of one of its former tigers, Dawie, in a cage at its new home at the Khao Pratap Chang Research Facility; the cat’s face was bloodied and cut.

“Our tigers are used to huge open spaces and freedom, not used to being confined in small bare cages,” the post said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thailand’s Tiger Temple: Live Adults Removed, Frozen Cubs Discovered appeared first on Law Street.

New York may become the first state to ban cat declawing. A bill is being debated in Albany that would make the practice illegal–but not everyone is on board. The move has pitted animal advocates and some veterinarians against each other over whether or not we should be able to declaw our four-legged friends.

The bill is sponsored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan, who sees it as an issue of treating cats humanely. Rosenthal claims that people only really declaw their cats as a matter of convenience; the state’s Veterinary Medical Society points out that sometimes declawing is the only way that a cat can remain in a family home if it has a habit of scratching and hurting members. According to a memo the society issued opposing the bill:

Clawing and scratching can be highly dangerous and detrimental to families with immunocompromised members or family members with other health issues; as such, declawing is one method to allow a beloved feline companion to continue to live in a household rather than relinquishing the family pet to a shelter. Declawing should remain a viable alternative to euthanasia if all other options have failed.

The society also claims that declawing is done in a way that does not hurt the animal, saying:

The surgical performance of an onychectomy by a licensed, trained veterinarian is done with proper anesthesia and multimodal pain control, making it indistinguishable from other surgical procedures performed on cats and other animals. In addition, when done properly, it should never damage the sensitive foot pads of a cat or result in nerve damage or intense and chronic pain.

However the Humane Society and other advocates in favor of the bill point out that “declawing” a cat isn’t as simple as cutting the claws, but instead requires a number of steps. According to Eileen Jefferson, a veterinarian and member of Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association:

This always includes the pain of having 10 to 18 separate amputations performed in one day and, in addition to that, it can include other effects such as limping, hemorrhage, chronic pain and infection.

The bill is in somewhat beginning stages, and no vote has been scheduled yet. While New York would be the first state to outlaw cat declawing, a few cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have already taken the plunge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will New York Become the First State to Outlaw Cat Declawing? appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian “Baywatch” babe and PETA activist Pamela Anderson appeared before the French Parliament Tuesday to endorse a new bill that, if passed, would ban controversial production methods used in making one of France’s most beloved delicacies–foie gras.

Pamela Anderson wants the French to ban foie gras https://t.co/jasXRl29jm pic.twitter.com/S4Gvp4f3Br

— Fortune (@FortuneMagazine) January 20, 2016

Foie Gras is made by force-feeding ducks in a practice known as “gavage.” The controversial method involves breeders using a tube to pump excess amounts of food into the ducks 2-4 times a day. The ducks, like other migratory birds, are then able to store the excess fat in their livers until they grow to be diseased and 10 times their normal size, which as it turns out, makes for a rich, buttery delicacy beloved by millions for centuries.

Grotesque Duck Feeding Below: Viewer Discretion Advised

In her speech, Anderson compared the practice to the clubbing of baby seals, and pleaded with the French people to stop eating the luxurious eatable. Anderson said,

I would like to respectfully call for the abolition of an industry that profits from horrific misery and abuse to produce a product that is toxic to not just the bodies of those that consume it but is also toxic to the hearts and souls of all of humanity.

Anderson’s attendance was, in effect, a  well coordinated publicity stunt on behalf of France’s Green Party. It’s clear that animal rights activists thought the actress’ star power would have some impact on persuading lawmakers, and to some extent it very well may have. According to Forbes, the former playboy model drew a record attendance in France’s male-dominated Assembly. However, according to Fortune, the vast majority of parliament does not support the ban. So, I guess this means we won’t be saying au revoir to foie gras anytime soon.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Pamela Anderson Convince the French to Give Up Foie Gras? appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan is a lovely state, arguably most famous as the home of the Great Lakes. It is also a state with many strange laws, especially a specific few pertaining to transportation. In Michigan, it is illegal to be drunk while on a train, and cars may not be sold on Sunday. Speaking of Sundays, the last one in June of every year is officially deemed “log cabin day.”

There are myriad laws in Michigan pertaining to the conduct of men and women. For one, adultery is illegal but only punishable if the affected husband or wife files a complaint. Also, men are banned from “seducing and corrupting unmarried girls.” If they do so, they face up to five years in prison.

Not if you’re an unmarried woman, missy!

Animal rights activists will be happy to know that in Michigan it is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber. They would also be happy to know that a law that would have previously angered them has been repealed; at one point, there was a bounty on starlings and crows killed in any “village, township or city” in Michigan. Granted, a three cent bounty (for starlings) and a ten cent bounty (for crows) probably wouldn’t lead many to make them hunting targets, but you never know.

I know you’ve all been anxiously waiting to discover what the dumb laws in Ohio are. Well, the wait is over! Until 2005, breastfeeding was not allowed in public, no matter the state of hunger of the baby. Ohio lawmakers also decided at one point to create a nice and obscure law to make it illegal to “mistreat anything of great importance.” That is quite a subjective term, considering we all generally think of different things as greatly important.

Criminals in Ohio can basically go wild on Sundays and on the Fourth of July. On those days, no civil arrests may be made in the state.

These days, the appearance of food is grossly misrepresented in advertisements and other images. Akron decided to put an end to this by enacting a law banning the display of colored chickens. The city also takes sports safety a bit too seriously and bans skateboarding after dark.

Last but not least in this edition of Dumb Laws in the United States: Indiana. Mathematicians must have argued substantially over when to stop reciting the digits in Pi, as there is a law officially deeming its value as three.

If an Indiana man wants to impress a lady by showing off his macho nature skills, he cannot do so by catching a fish with his bare hands. He also had better not walk around looking aroused–another no-no according to Indiana law.

Lawmakers must really believe into the power of prayer as those who pray for their dependents don’t have to pay for their medical care. And liquor laws in Indiana redefine ridiculous. Looking for a one-stop shop for White Russian ingredients? You won’t find everything you need in Indiana, where liquor stores may not sell milk. You’ll also have to go elsewhere for cold soda as a mixer, since liquor stores there cannot sell that either.

Not if you’re an Indiana liquor store, you don’t!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Michigan, Ohio, & Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just last week a fellow Law Streeter, Ashley Shaw, wrote a really great piece about animal rights in our judicial system. It was fun and informative so you all should definitely go check it out! Just a few days ago I came across an article about abused pit bulls in Delaware getting second chance thanks to a recent law signed by Governor Jack Markell.

I am a serious animal lover. I have four dogs and a fifth has stolen my heart (the boyfriend’s dog). One of my four dogs is a Pit Bull and Border Collie mix named Melou. She is a happy-go-lucky dog that likes to play in the yard and bark at everything that walks past our house. She can also be very territorial but in a good way, just like any other dog she is protecting her home. She has the aggressiveness of a Pit Bull and the herding skills of a Border Collie. Though she may have the not-so-great characteristics of both breeds, she also has a mixture of the great things. She is extremely playful and loving, and she can be overly aggressive when it comes to play time with other larger dogs, but it’s just because she loves to play. I have a friend who has a Pit Bull and Weimaraner mix, Dexter, that is massive and several years younger than Melou but they play well together.

It was heartwarming to read that Governor Jack Markell (D) signed Senate Bill 245 into law last week. This new law will allow seized dogs from fighting situations, mostly Pit Bulls, to be individually evaluated to see if they have a chance at being adoptable pets. Before Senate Bill 245 was enacted all dogs that were seized from fighting situations were deemed dangerous and immediately euthanized, including puppies and pregnant females.

It is unfair to classify all Pit Bulls as scary, aggressive dogs. Did you know it is actually illegal to own a Pit Bull in Miami-Dade County? Miami-Dade can actually fine the owner and forcibly remove the dog from his home. How unfair is that? I understand that Pit Bulls have a reputation of being overly aggressive and all-around scary, but anyone who has ever encountered or owned a Pit Bull knows that it is simply not universally true. Yes, these dogs can be trained to kill one another and to attack anyone but so can any other dog. Mind you it would be hard for a Chihuahua to kill a person because of how tiny it is, but any dog can be trained to do harm. It all depends on how it is raised.

Pit Bulls are very loyal, friendly, and full of energy — the best kind of family dog to have! Melou is sweeter to people who come over to my house than my little Chihuahua who gets overly aggressive, barks, and growls at everyone except certain family members.

There are only 13 states left that still support euthanizing all fighting dogs without really taking a look at them. The state of Michigan recently introduced Senate Bill 990, which calls for a change similar to the one made in Delaware. Even in 2011 the American Bar Association called for legislative and governmental bodies to “ensure the humane treatment and disposition of seized dogs.”

Thanks to Michael Vick and his pals, the American people were able to get a better understanding of the horrific side of dog fighting and take a stand against something so heinous. Vick’s situation also opened the door of rehabilitating used and abused dogs, which showed the world that even damaged Pit Bulls can become loving animals.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Dru Kelly via Flickr].

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Abused Pit Bulls in Delaware Get a Second Chance Thanks to Governor Markell appeared first on Law Street.

Corporations are legal people, right? They can commit crimes, they can sue other people, and they can vote…at least with their checkbooks. So why aren’t animals people? They can walk and have feelings and be family members; plus, they are just so cute when dressed in people clothes.

There is a real movement among animal rights groups to make animals people in the eyes of the court. Okay, okay. They don’t actually want them to be people, but they do want them to have legal standing to sue. And since people have taken animals to court before, I think it is only fair to finally give animals the right to retaliate.

People Trying Animals (In Court, Not at the Dinner Table)

Admittedly, the concept of a person suing an animal is an archaic one not used today, as far as I know. But at one point in history, mostly in Europe, it was an actual thing. A serial murderer pig kills a loved one in their sleep? Prosecute. A trained dog robber takes out one of their targets? Put that killer on the stand and condemn him to death. If they are capable of committing the crime, then they should be made to do the time.

Courtesy of I Can Has Cheezburger.

Pretty much, if it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim, it could walk, crawl, fly, or swim itself to court. This includes insects (though that one baffles me the most. When an insect causes me harm, I practice a much quicker, more vigilante sort of justice.) And murder wasn’t even all these villainous animals could be and were charged with. A donkey once allegedly committed bestiality, but apparently she had enough character witnesses, one being the local reverend, to be acquitted (the same could not be said of her human paramour, who was sentenced to death). And sparrows were taken in for being too loud in church (I totally get this one. I have wanted to sue birds who were being too loud outside my bedroom window at ridiculously early hours of the morning on more than one occasion.)

Among other animals tried were those accused of being familiars to local witches, those suspected of being werewolves, and one particularly scary rooster – yes I said rooster, not hen – who laid a Satan-spawned egg containing a cockatrice (which, according to Wikipedia, is basically a two-legged dragon with a rooster’s head.)

Not only are the offenses serious, but so are the punishments when convicted. A pig was once “sentenced to be “mangled and maimed in the head forelegs,” and then – dressed up in a jacket and breeches – to be hung from a gallows in the market.” A sow was similarly convicted and sentenced to be hanged, though without even the dignity of a new set of clothes, which must have been extra humiliating.

On the other hand, the court was nothing if not fair. Sometimes the animals would be acquitted, such as in the case of the kindly donkey. My favorite ruling came when a group of rats failed to make it to court. Luckily, they had a good lawyer who pointed out that, as they were a wandering band, they may not have received their summons, and, even if they had, they may have been too afraid of the local cats. Since court is only a requirement when it could be gone to safely and the townspeople refused to lock up their pets, the case was dropped.

Animals Trying People (In Court, Not in the Woods Behind Your House)

In a more modern and more American context, animals and the court are becoming an issue once again. Only this time, it is the animals’ turn for revenge.

In recent years, it has become a point of question as to whether animals should have the legal standing to sue humans for animal rights violations. For example, should a cow be able to sue its potential slaughterer for not making it unconscious before turning it into dinner? Should Tommy the chimpanzee be able to sue his captor for keeping him imprisoned?

As crazy as being sued by your own pet may be, the other side of the standing is that without allowing animals to sue, there may not be another form of redress for these creatures. To have standing, you have to have an injury. When an animal is injured, a human most likely would not be able to get standing on behalf of the creature as the human was not the one injured. Thus, unless animal rights proponents can think of more creative defenses to stop the harmful actions, there is little that can be done to protect the animal.

The downside of allowing animals to become legal people is that they’d become legal people. Detractors worry that granting animals people status will only blur the line between man and beast. As if they think the right to sue is the last distinction we have to tell the difference between a fellow human and a zebra. If a cat can hire a lawyer and litigate, albeit through the help of a guardian, then what is to stop it from driving a car or applying for the position that you yourself wanted?

Courtesy of GIPHY.

The disparagers also say that this would encourage frivolous lawsuits – something that no true human would ever do. In a more reasonable stance, some animal suit critics are afraid that if animals can sue, they will sue such organizations as medical research labs and zoos, which in turn could shut down places that theoretically could help humans and the animals themselves.

If this debate interests you, I encourage you to do some research. You won’t believe the fascinating things you will find, and, at the very least, you can see some really clever titles. (My favorites are Monkey See, Monkey Sue and So Three Cows Walk Into Court….)

So far, animal suits have not been successful, but what do you think? Should the courts start allowing whales and snails and things with tails to take the stand?  

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [istolethetv via Flickr].

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Standing on Four Legs: Animals and the Judicial System appeared first on Law Street.