[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]

Thank you for the clarity.

[shibumi]

Post #58 was not addressed to either of you, but in case you missed it goes to the heart of your disagreement.

Thank you Mr. Geek.

[RedHeeler]

There were already, well established animal abuse laws in Oregon. Make a point of looking forward, since foresight is almost as useful as hindsight.