Oregon Supreme Court- Animals can be Victims just like People

[Koolblue13]

For starters, if an officer sees an animal clearly in distress, document (video) and rescue. If you have to question if the animal is clearly in distress, get a warrant. This ruling seems way to vague to me and leaves way too much to the officers discretion. Pets are clearly still labeled as property by this ruling, yet now property can be confiscated without a warrant. You don't see how that is troubling? 

Depends. Places like Denver, police don't need a warrant to confiscate and put down certain bully breeds, like Pits.

 

If my dogs were in distress, I would be fine with anyone helping them, even if they had to come into my home.

[gbear]

What about animal testing of pharmaceutical products?  I could see a situation where these animals are all released because they are in imminent danger.

[Koolblue13]

What about animal testing of pharmaceutical products?  I could see a situation where these animals are all released because they are in imminent danger.

Good. Circuses too. That stuff is awful.

[pointyfootball]

Even the poodles? 

[PF Chang]

how about, say... cutting up, cooking, and eating of animals?

 

i'd say that SOME definitely view that as cruel and inhumane, and others quite clearly do not.... right?

 

David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" about his experience at the Maine Lobster Festival is a great essay on this topic. 

 

http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster

 

 

The truth is that if you, the Festival attendee, permit yourself to think that lobsters can suffer and would rather not, the MLF can begin to take on aspects of something like a Roman circus or medieval torture-fest.

 

Does that comparison seem a bit much? If so, exactly why? Or what about this one: Is it not possible that future generations will regard our own present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero’s entertainments or Aztec sacrifices? My own immediate reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme—and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human beings;²⁰ and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (I have not succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.

²⁰ Meaning a lot less important, apparently, since the moral comparison here is not the value of one human’s life vs. the value of one animal’s life, but rather the value of one animal’s life vs. the value of one human’s taste for a particular kind of protein. Even the most diehard carniphile will acknowledge that it’s possible to live and eat well without consuming animals.

[Popeman38]

Nature is a ****. Lions eat antelope. Alligators eat anything that gets too close. Bears eat anything. Dogs eat other animals, including other dogs. Cats eat birds and rodents. Man eats certain animals. It's what omnivores do. We eat meat and plants. Should we do so in a responsible, humane way? I say yes, but I still buy beef from the grocery store. If you choose to refrain from eating meat, good for you. I won't disparage you. I choose to eat meat, and you shouldn't disparage me. This philosophical BS about a lobster feeling pain and whether it is moral/ethical? LOBSTERS EAT OTHER LOBSTERS. WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE. Yes, we boil them alive. Get over it.

[PF Chang]

Nature is a ****. Lions eat antelope. Alligators eat anything that gets too close. Bears eat anything. Dogs eat other animals, including other dogs. Cats eat birds and rodents. Man eats certain animals. It's what omnivores do. We eat meat and plants. Should we do so in a responsible, humane way? I say yes, but I still buy beef from the grocery store. If you choose to refrain from eating meat, good for you. I won't disparage you. I choose to eat meat, and you shouldn't disparage me. This philosophical BS about a lobster feeling pain and whether it is moral/ethical? LOBSTERS EAT OTHER LOBSTERS. WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE. Yes, we boil them alive. Get over it.

 

I eat meat. My actions in response to the essay are ultimately to shrug my shoulders and keep doing what I want to do. Nonetheless I can't refute anything Wallace wrote. I think it's worth thinking about, particularly the part I bolded, because I agree with the conclusion and yet I'm going to ignore it. 

 

If you'd like to stop that thought process at "well animals do it!" that's fine. There's really nothing for me to get over as I am not passionate about this, nor am I a lobster. 

 

Would you be okay with boiling a dog alive before eating it? Somehow I think not. It's evident that there is a thought process here, a line drawn somewhere so to speak. 

 

In the context of the thread, I don't know the answer to the legal side of this. But did the guy do something morally positive? Should we enforce it? Again, I don't know, but worth thinking about.

[Chew]

Kinda random, but it was POURING rain today after work. I was sitting at a red light and this homeless lady was standing at the corner asking for money. She had a really cute little dog tied up to a parking meter, soaking wet and shivering. I felt really bad for both of them.

I'm sure the companionship of a dog is great for a homeless person, but man that poor little pup looked miserable. There are a lot of homeless people with dogs around here.

[nuposse87]

What are they classifying as animals? Any multicellular eukaryotes? What makes a dogs rights more important than an amoeba's ethically speaking? Or any microbe for that matter. I mean **** I must commit genocide of the highest order when I wash my hands.  

 

I understand not wanting to purposefully hurt animals for sadistic purposes (as there is no reason to), but I see no reason to a lot them "human rights." I mean is hunting (which I am no fan of either) considered premeditated murder now under this ruling?

 

I guess I don't like the ruling since it seems like an absolute statement that leaves a lot of gray areas. If they can resolve those parts with clear definitions then meh, ok. I kind of hope the pharmaceutical companies and other scientific companies can get around this. In Vitro research (which I use to work in) has its limitations and the models we currently we have there can't replicate some of the findings you could have in animal testing. 

[Koolblue13]

There is a major difference between hunting an animal and starving one.

I also don't get why people get defensive about eating meat, when the conditions of the meat industry are questioned. Guilt maybe?

[nuposse87]

There is a major difference between hunting an animal and starving one.

I also don't get why people get defensive about eating meat, when the conditions of the meat industry are questioned. Guilt maybe?

 

Definitely not guilt for me. How an animal is slaughtered for food purposes is inconsequential to me. It is on death row anyways, how it reaches my stomach seems arbitrary. 

 

They still need to elaborate on what they are going to call "animals." The kingdom "animalia" has A LOT under it. I mean ant/pest exterminators in ORE will be considered mass murders if they follow the definition of "animal" as it SHOULD. 

[Koolblue13]

Definitely not guilt for me. How an animal is slaughtered for food purposes is inconsequential to me. It is on death row anyways, how it reaches my stomach seems arbitrary. 

 

They still need to elaborate on what they are going to call "animals." The kingdom "animalia" has A LOT under it. I mean ant/pest exterminators in ORE will be considered mass murders if they follow the definition of "animal" as it SHOULD. 

I thought it was pretty well explained. It hasn't changed any animal abuse laws, it just allows the police to intervene without so any loopholes, so if the life of an animal is in danger, they can respond immediately.

 

If you have a dog dying in your yard, chained to an axel. If I was a cop, I wouldn't have to go get a warrant to free it, turn it over to animal control and you would get an actual punishment for attempting to kill your dog,  in a very inhumane way.

 

If you think someone os in the act of fighting dogs, the police can stop it right away, instead of waiting until the next day.

 

This doesn't affect any description of the laws in place, only how they are responded to. . 

[kameuh]

Hell, If i can now call the cops and have them come arrest my neighbors dog for disturbing the peace when it will not stop barking at 2am then i'm all for it. Joking aside, this is wrong. Abuse is going to happen. In a few years you will hear a case where an anonomus tip about dog welfare leads to a swat raid with human fatalities. The cops will simply shoot the dog when they do the raid anyways.

 

It could happen like this. Pissed off ex-wife calls cops and claims ex-husband is starving floppy to death. Cops no knock raid the place and shoot floppy. Ex-husband thinks it's a home invasion, comes out to confront the "bad guys" and gets dropped. 1/2 the internet will then say this is a victory for animal rights as mr ex-husband deserved it for starving floppy. An autopsy on floppy finds him to be obese according to his doggie B.M.I, so your death was justified.

 

Or cops dog welfare check the wrong place. Kick in the door to save an animal thinking no one is there. Person comes out to confront intruders and gets dropped.

 

Or how about this. Corrupt person in town x wants piece of land x. Cops claim animal abuse and bust down your door when you arent home. Amazingly enough they happen to find a 1/2 lb of meth. Before you know it, you are serving time, corrupt person in town x is now living in your house as he bought the place at a forfiture auction. Interestingly enough, the guy didn't even own a pet or do drugs.

 

Or how about this. Animal rights are less important than human rights. Everything I listed above and more is going to happen now, because the authorities will need no warrant to enter your home. The war on drugs is bad enough, but wait until it's the war on pet abusers.

 

What's next, will my freedom be taken away because I use kennel rations instead of alpo? Wait until the dog food compaines legal departments get involved. They will send a lobbyist, or 10, to sponser the next get tough on pet abusers legislation. Buried in the bill is a section stating, all pet owners that do not feed floppy brand x are now felons. The bill will be named, "We all love animals and can all agree animal abusers should be ****slaped act."  Hyperbole, sure, but nothing would suprise me anymore.

 

BTW don't take anything in here to seriously. I've a bad case of bored insomnia.

[Riggo-toni]

If you feed your dog Kennelration or Alpo, you probably do deserve jail time....

[Huly]

UGH

 

It is not going to be used for crazy raids etc.  A prime example if someone leaves their dog in a hot car locked up the cop has no right to enter the car and remove/help the animal. 

 

Now they can!

 

I think this is awesome!

[Kosher Ham]

UGH

 

It is not going to be used for crazy raids etc.  A prime example if someone leaves their dog in a hot car locked up the cop has no right to enter the car and remove/help the animal. 

 

Now they can!

 

I think this is awesome!

 

I am not sure that they can rescue, but I feel pretty confident that the owner could be charged and penalized for abuse.

Why not raids ? Some of the stuff that those folks do is insane to me. What mentally stable person treats an animal that way ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

...and the countdown to PeTA using this to further validate their fanaticism and their push to end all meat consumption begins now....

 

Seriously, I TOTALLY get strengthening animal abuse laws, but when we start treating animals as humans under the law then we have a LOT of repurcussions. Today it is about abuse, what about the buying and selling of animals.

 

Death by a thousand scratches.

[zoony]

So the same folks who are outraged about government agents conducting questionable raids and the NSA overstepping the bounds of privacy are overjoyed at the news that our judiciary has given law enforcement even more latitude to conduct warrant less searches. All righty then

In other news, I know several people who raise dogs to hunt wild boar. Should these people be put in jail? Curious what the sentiment is there

[Zguy28]

Kinda random, but it was POURING rain today after work. I was sitting at a red light and this homeless lady was standing at the corner asking for money. She had a really cute little dog tied up to a parking meter, soaking wet and shivering. I felt really bad for both of them.

I'm sure the companionship of a dog is great for a homeless person, but man that poor little pup looked miserable. There are a lot of homeless people with dogs around here.

If only we had the compassion for the homeless (or unborn humans) that we have for animals.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If only we had the compassion for the homeless (or unborn humans) that we have for animals.

If only we could keep the abortion comments in their own threads rather than threatening to derail a perfectly good thread about animals being treated as non-property by the state.

 

BTW, if animals aren't property any longer then can ranchers sell their cattle or do they have to be adopted?

[balki1867]

I'm all for this ruling, but sadly I know the ultimate endgame is that anyone with even a pet goldfish might be subject to the cops breaking down their door because "they thought they heard the animal suffering"

[Zguy28]

If only we could keep the abortion comments in their own threads rather than threatening to derail a perfectly good thread about animals being treated as non-property by the state.

 

BTW, if animals aren't property any longer then can ranchers sell their cattle or do they have to be adopted?

If you don't like it, put me on ignore. That's what I'm doing to you after this post.

[The 12th Commandment]

I hear that BS argument, why don't we take care of ******?, and it's just that....BS.  We spend inordinately more on Homelessness than we do on animal rights.  So much more that the comparison is insulting.

[Zguy28]

I hear that BS argument, why don't we take care of ******?, and it's just that....BS.  We spend inordinately more on Homelessness than we do on animal rights.  So much more that the comparison is insulting.

I wasn't referring to gov't programs and spending. That's a whole other issue... e.g. deferring to gov't instead of personally being involved. Much more can be accomplished by personal involvement than by bureaucratic programs.

[The 12th Commandment]

I wasn't referring to gov't programs and spending. That's a whole other issue... e.g. deferring to gov't instead of personally being involved. Much more can be accomplished by personal involvement than by bureaucratic programs.

Outside of government spending, which can be quantified, how do we gage the level of 'care' a society places on an issue?  

 

I would also suggest, without having figures to quote, that we spend inordinately more time and private funding on homelessness than we do on animal rights anyway.