Animals can be ‘victims’ just like people, Oregon Supreme Court says

The Oregonian ^ | August 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM | Aimee Green

[Olog-hai]

In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals—whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats—shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings.

The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals.

“These are hugely helpful to the prosecution of animal-cruelty cases,” said Jacob Kamins, a Corvallis-based prosecutor assigned to pursuing such cases across Oregon. …

[Olog-hai]

Depending on what kind of liberal is in power, it may mean that (imagine no bullocks or capons!), or the extreme opposite (all pets sterilized).

[Salamander]

Cynically paranoid, much?

[Salamander]

Please elaborate on exactly *how* this will contribute to “degrading the status of people?”

[Salamander]

That is quite a quantum leap.

[Secret Agent Man]

well i tell you what.

if you’re going to take on the responsibility of having animals you better damn well care for them and not neglect them or abuse them. they aren’t people but they aren’t toasters either. i think if it’s clear you can’t take care of them properly, you ought not have them. i’m open to various localities setting their own standards by the people there deciding what is “proper” for them.

domestic animals depend on people for everything major, safety, food, medical care. how can we ask God, a higher being, to take care of our every need when we have no problem neglecting and abusing animals we’ve decided to supposedly be takin care of. how would we answer him if he said, and look how you treat the lessers you said you’d be responsible for?

the bible says you can tell a lot about a man by how he treats his animals.

i am for biblical stewardship. not econuts. animals fal in different categories but we as stewards are not to bve unnecessarily cruel to rhgem. and if you’re a decent person you know what neglect, abuse and cruelty look like.

[shibumi]

"I am not a he, for the record."

Years of careful investigation have corroborated this statement.

[RedHeeler]

...”old logical fallacy.” Ironic, is descriptive.

[Salamander]

Oddly enough, the tide is turning on spay/neuter, already.

*Many* vets and veterinary colleges are finally recognizing the detrimental nature of sterilization.

http://www.2ndchance.info/cruciatelongtermneuter.htm

My Dobes are un-neutered.

I will always regret every spay/neuter I’ve ever had done.

I witnessed first-hand the bad side effects.

[Secret Agent Man]

in your example no government was needed. if govt was involved they may hgave stuck aroubd to fine you for unsafe conditions.

common sense and stewardship is what your neighbor did. unfortunately govt doesn’t always operate that way. but obvious abuse/neglect cases are what this court case was about. hoarders for one. breeders keeping sh1tty conditions. yards fullof dead and dying animals. these are seen by humane officers all the time.

[Salamander]

Think pink.

[Olog-hai]

They are giving animals “human rights”. Did you read the story? Bad enough that they are not being enforced for humans, but imagine an activist judge taking this a step further?

Oregon’s liberalism has produced nothing good.

[Secret Agent Man]

well it does make a difference at what age spays and neuters are done. i know if done before sexual maturity it causes problems.

[Salamander]

*applause*

[itsahoot]

legal wording is specific and precise.

Then no need for lawyers, cool.

[skinkinthegrass]

:^)

[Secret Agent Man]

actually it’s about hoarders and visually obvious neglect and abuse cases.

[shibumi]

Mmnlphlf!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The Oregon Supreme Court, ruled, that they found a need of purpose- to rule animals as equals to Human Beings.

No, they didn't. The article clearly states the rulings:

(a) If a person abuses multiple animals at once, that person can be charged with animal abuse for each animal, instead of being charged only once for the entire group of animals.

(b) If law enforcement can clearly see that an animal is close to death due to abuse, they have the right to intervene and rescue the animal without obtaining a search warrant.

Both rulings are specific and limited in scope. Neither says anything about "animals as equals to Human Beings". Neither says anything about preventing hunting, farming of animals, or any other responsible use of animals. They clearly apply to animal torture, neglect and abuse - all crimes which deserve to be punished.

There is no reason to object to these rulings, unless one believes they should have the right to torment animals. The article makes inflammatory and false claims about animals being treated as humans in the rulings - but that's a problem with the article, not with the rulings.

[Salamander]

Neighbors have the freedom to be, well, neighborly.

LEOs are in a different class.

Neighbors don’t act in an “official capacity” so need no warrants or “permission” to come over and save your cat out of a tree.

Cops are legally [supposedly] bound by constitutional shackles.

[Salamander]

Nowhere in the article does it say that.

I think you’re seeing things.

[that you want to see]