What is happening now in pet legislation is so dangerously close to putting animal rights above those of human rights.

Is an animal, specifically a dog or cat, or maybe a horse, cow, sheep, or as some states define it, any living non-human creature (which would encompass everything from the smallest amoeba to the largest creature of them all, the blue whale), owned by its human? Many states define this as own, possess, control, guardian, care and a number of other terms. They state in statutes that these animals are your personal property. Animal rights activists would have you believe that the animal cannot be owned. Steven Wise argues this point legally in several books and law reviews. The H$U$, with its legal team of 16 attorneys and approximately 2000 volunteer attorneys, work and lobby towards the goal of no care, contact or control of any animal, period. Working alongside them are the ASPCA, PETA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Nonhuman Rights Project, and a number of other groups around the country. Many of these groups hide under the guise of being a 501C3 organization, while blatantly stating they are lobbying hard to change legislation nationwide. They apparently feel that if you don’t join them in their beliefs, they will make it a legal requirement for you to do so. They also play on the fact that Americans love their pets and feel sympathy for the animals in need, and donate millions each year to these groups.

On the Center for Consumer Freedom website, from its “Profile of animalscam.com”, it states: “The modern animal rights movement is not what it seems. Today's activists have perverted once-sensible animal welfare goals by putting animals ahead of human beings and employing a "by any means necessary" philosophy to achieve their goals of "total animal liberation." Led by PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and other activist groups, the animal liberation movement does not seek to improve animals' lives. Its goal is to place unnecessary restrictions on ordinary people like you. Today's activists want to force you to eat nothing but beans and greens; and wear nothing but cotton, rayon, and rubber. They want to ban hunting, fishing, zoos, rodeos, and circuses. Some want to permanently end Kosher slaughter. They even want to outlaw the use of animals in the search for cures for AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, and cancer. And a growing number take the law into their own hands, crossing the line from peaceful protest to violent crime. It's a terrible scam. The world deserves to know the truth.”

What is a legal right? Most define this as a legal advantage of one person over the legal disadvantage of another person. The Free Dictionary defines it as “In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law.” Another definition is “In constitutional law, “rights” are usually classified as natural, civil, and political. (i) Natural rights are said to belong inherently to each human being and include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (ii) Civil rights are those that through the Constitution belong to every citizen of the state and which are not connected with or part of the organization or administration of government. They include rights to equal protection under and by the law, marriage and choice of a spouse, to own property, to inherit, to a trial by jury, and so on.Let’s talk a bit about the Nonhuman Rights Project. Of course, the first thing you will notice on their website is the standard “DONATE”. This organization was started in 2007 by attorney Steven M. Wise. He believes it is time to “knock down the wall that separates humans from nonhumans.” To quote their website, “All have come together for one purpose: to break through the legal wall that separates humans from nonhumans, thereby gaining legal “personhood” for nonhuman animals…” In their goal statement is this: “A similar common law transformation from “legal thing” to “legal person” for a nonhuman animal is a primary objective of the Nonhuman Rights Project. The Nonhuman Rights Project intends to demand that American state high courts declare that a nonhuman animal may possess at least one legal right. Once a court recognizes this possibility, the next legal question will appropriately shift from the irrational, biased, and overly simplistic question, “What species is the plaintiff?,” to the rational, nuanced, value-laden, and policy-enriched question, “What qualities does the plaintiff possess that are relevant to the issue of whether she is entitled to the legal right she claims?”

Now, I have to pause here and ask a question-Given the fact that Mr. Wise is a pet owner, how does he answer the question at the veterinarian’s office of “Who is the owner?” Would his answer be yes, he is, or no, no one is; and if it is no, would he mind if anyone took them from him for whatever reason? I know how I answer that question-I am! While I dearly love my two male dogs and spoil them rotten, I am the owner and they are my personal property. NOONE will take them away from me by no means whatsoever. So, could Mr. Wise’s pets sue him for the pain of vaccinations or spay or neuter, since they had no say in this decision? If they do not like their food, can they sue him? According to his statements and practices, yes they can. But I am still curious as to how the “animal can claim a legal right.”

According to Greg Miller of Science Magazine in his April 2011 article “The Rise of Animal Law”, only a few law schools taught animal law up until about the year 2000. Now, approximately 125+ law schools teach animal law, including Harvard, Stanford and Columbia. Some of these professors claim to be animal activists. These schools have active endowment programs due to donations, such as $1 Million donations each to eight different law schools from Bob Barker-I guess the Price Was Right. To quote Mr. Miller, “Some of these legal scholars have proposed strategies for advancing animal rights through steppingstone cases that erode the notion of animals as property and grant them some of the same protections people have.” It is a rapidly developing area of law, with many of the law students getting into it due to that fact. After all, they know a continuing winning lottery when they see the dollar signs. The AR groups have been practicing it for years now.

According to Mr. Miller, “Mainstream legal establishments are taking notice. ABA (American Bar Association) created a committee on animal law under its Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section in 2004. The committee sponsors continuing education courses for practicing lawyers and develops policy proposals aimed at improving animal welfare. The Association of American Law Schools started a section on animal law in 2008 to promote education and professional development…One of the most active areas involves monetary awards for emotional distress suffered by pet owners, says Bruce Wagman, a lawyer who teaches at the University of California (UC) Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and developed the first casebook on animal law. “That’s a hotbed of litigation and judicial opinions,” Wagman says.”

In Mr. Miller’s article, he states “David Favre, a leading animal law scholar and professor at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in a 2005 article for the Michigan State Law Review, ‘animals, through self-appointed attorneys, should have the right to sue humans who violate their primary interests.’ “ (How does an animal self-appoint an attorney?) Again from the article, Alice Ra’anan, director of government relations and science policy for the American Physiological Society, says “If there’s a concern, it’s that there are relatively few lawyers who are interested in this who have an understanding and appreciation of animal research and of the laws that already exist to protect animals.” Mr. Miller states “Richard Cupp, who writes and teaches about the legal and moral standing of animals at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California… and applauds legal protections for animal welfare, but in several law review articles he has argued that establishing legal rights for animals would not serve society’s best interests.”

We have animals for our pets, companionship and protection. We have animals that are rehabilitation animals, whether it is in a hospital, correction institute, or another type of facility. We have animals that capture our imagination in art, photography and our state parks. We have animals that are intended to be food sources. We have animals that are service animals, and without them, human lives would be dramatically different. We have animals that entertain us. We have animals that save lives due to medical research and education. You have to ask yourself does the laboratory rat have the same value as the street rat? Are we to change the God given DNA of a lion so that he does not prey on a zebra or a water buffalo? Does an animal have the right “not to be property?”