Animal Rights

external image piglet.jpg

external image capt.ce569172aa4642028f35925950a26049-ce569172aa4642028f35925950a26049-0.jpg?x=400&y=250&q=85&sig=QEcEc.3cHUDOvUnUUSZ3Qw--

My goal for this project is to inform people of the horrors of the animal farming business. I want to expose the cruelties that animals must endure in order to supply us humans food and clothing. I believe that some legislation should be passed in order to protect the animals, and that they should receive the same care and treatment as humans. I want to learn about the current laws and punishments that are in place in an effort to protect our furry friends.

external image capt.e26251e583fc43469f8fe3384071a179-e26251e583fc43469f8fe3384071a179-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=lTHlAGM5zeb9DK.KQ52DNQ--
Blog #1
I am very interested in Animal Rights for a number of reasons. I first became interested in this topic because my older sister became involved with PETA and learning about the horrors of animal farms and the harsh treatment that animals endure on these sites. She is a vegan, meaning that she has excluded any animal products from her diet like dairy products, meat, honey and other such things and also doesn't use any materials from animals such as leather and down comforters. Through watching videos about the cruelty she has swayed me to become a vegetarian, and I have been one for over 2.5 years. I have two cats and two dogs living at my house and if anything ever happened to them then I would be devastated. I have very strong opinions about this topic because I believe that animals should receive the same treatment and rights as humans do. I’m very interested in finding out what specific laws there are about certain animal offenses. It disturbs me the way that some owners treat their animals so I believe that there should be a lot of reprimands for those offenders.

external image peta.jpg

Blog #2
Tady, Megan. “Turkey Industry Uses ‘Ethically Repugnant’ Breeding Practices.” The New Standard. 17 Jan. 2007. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. <>.
As consumer demand for turkey meat has grown, turkey breeders have genetically manipulated the birds to grow faster and to be heavier and larger-breasted. Calling it "unnatural" and "ethically repugnant," Farm Sanctuary, an organization devoted to protecting farm animals, released a video depicting the artificial-insemination process to accompany a report exploring the process. In the video, which was reviewed by The NewStandard, workers "milk" male turkeys to collect their semen. The video also shows the forced insemination of female turkeys, which Farm Sanctuary says takes place in "assembly line fashion." Farm Sanctuary said artificial insemination is part of a physically harmful breeding process. A 2004 study published in Poultry Science found that the artificial insemination process can create a public-health problem by spreading diseases such as salmonella in turkeys. Female turkeys may then be fertilized with the contaminated semen. Intensive turkey production and breeding has resulted in disfigured, unhealthy birds and an industry that requires unnatural measures to produce them," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, in a press statement. Whether it is on the farm or in the processing facility, the turkey industry acts responsibly in the raising, breeding, transporting and processing of all turkeys.

external image toy-poodle-0202.jpg

Blog #3
“Meter Man’s Killing of Poodle Justified?” AC 360. 23 Apr. 2010. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. <>.
This article alarmed me to a degree of disgust. The fact that a grown man killed a six pound toy poodle by "acting out of self defense" is a completely false statement and the meter reader should be ashamed that he would try and get away with lying. If he was truly acting out of self defense then he would not need to hit the dog with such force to bash the animal's face in and cause her death. I believe that the owner of the poodle should press charges. I'm disturbed that an animal control officer deemed the case "an accident". Sure, it was nice that the Southern California Gas Company offered to cover the veterinary costs and even to help them financially adopt a pet in the future, but a truly passionate pet owner couldn't be bought. The memories of the poodle can't be paid for and that's why there should be reprimands for the meter reader. I believe that the pet owner should press charges because there's no way that the dog could have caused serious injuries or death.

external image nuggetRED300.jpgBlog #4
Mears, Bill. “Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Dogfight Videos”. CNN Justice. 20 Apr. 2010. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. <>.
I believe that this law should have been passed. It would have made the making and distribution of dogfighting videos illegal. I don't think that this should have been denied because it is essential to protect the pain, suffering and even death of numerous animals. Although it would have only been the second time in history that the Supreme Court decided that an issue was undeserving of protection under the first Amendment, I think it should have been passed. Because of this overlooked issue, many animals remain unprotected from cruelty. The Supreme Court also threw out a conviction of Robert Stevens, a man who circulated videos of dogfighting. He was even dumb enough to advertise for them in the underground magazine for dogfighting. I believe this was a crucial error because this sends the message that the Supreme Court doesn't care about animals and that they are merely possessions and forms of entertainment for people.

external image PETA-protestor-circus.jpg

Blog #5
Elephant kills trainer at Pennsylvania circus”. CNN U.S. 10 Apr. 2010. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. <>.
This article discusses the death of a circus elephant trainer. It says that the animal struck out after he came into contact with electrical wires. It is a tragedy, but maybe if animals weren't used in circuses then the trainer would still be alive. The cruelty that the circus animals endure is monumental. Trainers often use harsh methods to have the animal do what they want them to do. Animals weren't meant to be put on display for people to ooh and aah over. They were put on earth to exist peacefully with their families, packs or prides. I’m sure the owners have the best intentions for their pets, but it just isn’t carried through. The idea of circus animals in general is just preposterous because they are most often treated terribly and beaten. There needs to be legislation passed to uphold animals being used in circuses because if people were ever treated like the animals then everyone would be outraged.

external image capt.202896a0a0c14e7184cee37423bdc97c-202896a0a0c14e7184cee37423bdc97c-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=wuoTEX6ZqErwnsa87mGQcA--Blog #6
Ward, Kate. “PETA Takes on Mike Tyson’s New Show.” CNN Entertainment. 23 Mar. 2010. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. <>.
I think that most animal reality television shows commit acts of cruelty to the stars. I am not entirely sure why the Animal Planet network would allow Mike Tyson to have a show about racing pigeons. I don't think that racing animals of any breed is acceptable. Dog fights are maybe the most heard about but they are cruel all the same. Testing the animals on their physical abilities is just unnecessary when there are other forms of entertainment out there. It takes a level of inhumanity to have the ability to fight other human beings for money or entertainment, I believe it could take this same level of inhumanity to bet on animals or have them fight each other. This is why I do not think it was wise of Animal Planet to allow Mike Tyson to have this television show. I am certain that negative events will come of this show.

external image 14-devocalized%20dog.jpg
Blog #7
Allen, Laura. “Three Barks for Logan’s Law!” Animal Law Coalition. 23 Apr 2010. 28 Apr 2010. Web. <>.
This article discusses the recent ban put into action by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick on the devocalization of dogs and cats. This is such a cruel procedure because a dog shouldn’t suffer because its owner doesn’t have a tolerance level or the time to train the animal not to bark. I don’t think this is acceptable at all and it should be banned nation wide. The only acceptable reason I can find for the cutting of an animals vocal chords is if the animal is in pain from its bark or something along those lines. There are so many other options for a dogs bark. If things came down to it, you could give up your dog to a no kill shelter, keep the dog inside, pay attention to your pet or simply train it not to bark. I have a Chihuahua and a Pomeranian, both small “yappy” dogs who love to bark whenever someone walks by our house. Granted, it does get annoying, but with some comfort and a good belly rub, they will stop barking. This is a simple solution to barking, and a lot more humane than having their vocal chords cut.

external image r3698074487.jpg?x=400&y=268&q=85&sig=lmb.GYMdXSBQ2i_AORvCLg--Blog # 8
Pro-Test: standing up for science. 29 April 2010. Web. <>.
This website is devoted to the pro side of animal testing. It’s based in the United Kingdom so they have somewhat different situations than in the United States. But one part is the same, the cruelty that the animals endure. If people on the pro-testing side believe that animals are key in saving human lives, then why wouldn’t they be willing to use humans to test on? Are human lives more important than animal lives? I don’t think so because I believe that all creatures, whether they are four legged or two legged, should be treated equally with the same rights. Just because humans are able to voice their opinion does not mean that they are more important. Without animals, humans wouldn’t be able to survive so I think that humans should cherish their animal relatives and treat them with respect. Also, we don’t know the exact effects that could come from the testing, and therefore the animals could be facing many issues in the future due to the testing, aside from the immediate effects. Due to this uncertainty, testing should be banned on any living creature.

Princeton Model Congress

Committee: Animals Deserve Rights Committee
Principal Author: Jean Stella
Bill No: 16787894F
Delegation: Albany

Title of Bill:
Banning of Animal Devocalization Act
Be It Enacted By The Princeton Model Congress


PREAMBLE: Whereas animals are treated not as equal as people, a law should be enacted to illegalize the “debarking” or “devocalizing” of dogs and cats. Since people are doing this not for the animal’s own safety or welfare, it should be banned since it is a painful procedure that has many alternatives to the drastic and agonizing process of having the vocal chords cut. And since Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has banned devocalization of animals on April 23, 2010, the Capital Region of New York State should follow his lead and sign a similar law into effect.

SECTION 1: This law makes its illegal to devocalize a cat or dog for the sheer convenience of its owner.

SECTION 2: Veterinarians or doctors who perform this procedure for human convenience should be investigated by the Health Department to see if they are conducting any other wrongful practices.
Sub-SECTION A: Wrongful practices would include unsanitary conditions or
conditions in which the animal’s life is being put at stake for the sake of the
human owner.
Sub-SECTION B: If a veterinarian is found to have conducted wrongful
practices they should be put on probation and have 10 days to complete the
necessary changes to bring the facility up to standards. If they fail to complete
the changes, they should have their license revoked and not be able to practice
veterinarian medicine anywhere.

SECTION 3: Let there be jail time of 30 days for any first time offender of this law, who decides to have their animal devocalized after this law was enacted.

SECTION 4: Let there be necessary literature available to the human owners before they decide on this process to sway their opinion into not allowing the procedure to be completed.
Sub-SECTION A: Let this literature be provided by the state and available in all
pet stores and veterinarian offices.

SECTION 5: Let the only reason for this procedure to be completed to be if a certified and licensed Veterinarian decides that the animal could be in pain if this procedure was not completed.
Sub-SECTION A: Let a licensed Veterinarian be defined as someone
practicing for at least 10 years and as someone who has never been in trouble
with the law.

SECTION 6: This bill shall go into effect 91 days after passage.