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.
None of us said you were. However, you are not someone I think should have pets, or really tend to animals in any way shape or form. You are not someone I would invite into my home, want as a friend or want around anyone or anything I cared for.
I wouldn't wanna break a nail slappin' you silly or ruin good shoes kickin' yer butt to the curb when you started tellin' me that my critters were nutin' but property ;)