[Melas]

Animal cruelty laws are recent, as in decades. Some locales still have none on the books.

1866 is recent? In decades? Either research your facts better, or take a math course.

[ScottM1968]

What laws I've been able to dig up supports my position that animal cruelty is not worthy of a felony (meaning that is consistent with my point).

I have stated from moment one that animals are property and should only be worthy of a misdemeanor.

For information on the Ohio law from before 1875 (Humane Society):

http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/GLROsp03.pdf

Another page filled with links is here:

http://www.animal-law.org/library/aplw_fn.htm

One exerpted quote shows what animal rights lawers are thinking:

FN37. It is interesting to note that the article on horses did discuss issues concerning the fairness to the horses, but the article on the dancing chicken did not discuss such issues. This reflects that the social tolerance for abuse to animals is much lower for horses than for chickens. In some jurisdictions, chickens are not regarded as "animals." See, e.g., State v. Stockton, 333 P.2d 735, 737 (Ariz. 1958). Indeed, the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 601- 02 (1988) and 7 U.S.C. §§ 1902, 1904 (1988)), does not cover chickens, thus reflecting a social attitude that chickens are, for some reason, not worthy of protection.

That last part is what scares me because the author's perspective is truly consistent. Why aren't chickens considered animals? Because if they were, they would have to be protected. It's all right there on the animal rights legal site.

I'm not crazy, guys.