This video is making fun of animals not sticking up for themselves. It’s a debate that argues that animals are not doing enough to support themselves in the war for their rights. It also goes on to make fun of PEATA. It’s quite funny.

This is a USA Today article on laws regarding outdoor dog chaining. There are states that restrict chaining by requiring certain chain lengths and a minimum amount of shelter, but there aren't really any laws regarding how long a dog can be tethered.  The focus of this piece is an Illinois law proposal that would require dogs to be visible to their owners at all times while they are tethered outdoors.

I became interested in this topic when I noticed that a person in my neighborhood leaves their dog chained to a tree for hours at a time. One day he was left there for 9 hours straight, but because he was shaded by a tree and left with a bowl of water there was nothing that could be done when I called local officials and humane societies to check on the little pug. I am interested to see how laws develop to prohibit this sort of treatment as more and more is understood about animal behavior.

The trial that I chose was Brackett vs. State, it was the state of Georgia. A group of people were spotted by an officer surrounding a cockpit. The observers were watching two cocks fighting with spurs on their feet to the death. There was one other fowl that had already been slain pushed to the side. After seeing this the officer arrested all the observers and charged them with animal cruelty. The charge went through for all of the people but was then shortly over turned. The case was overturned because there was no actual evidence that any of the people involved had actually harmed any of the animals, even though it was clear someone had set the fight up. It was also determined in this same court that fowl shall be included in the group of animals that if abused one must pay the consequences.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2010/11/17/

puerto_rico_debates_12_year_term_for_animal_abuse/ 

 This article talks about a case in Puerto Rico where a man was convicted of animal abuse for dragging his horse behind his car and received a 12 year prison sentence. This sentence is being evaluated because many people think its excessive. The horse survived but has permanent physical and emotional damage. The man accused has a criminal record and openly states that the court should not be treating animals like they are humans. He goes on to say even second degree murder against humans receives a lighter sentence.  I think this says more about how Puerto Rico needs harsher second degree murder sentences, not lighter animal abuse sentences.

http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causca225calrptr531.htm

Katsaris v. Cook 

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Dog-Deemed-Dangerous-For-Killing-A-Chicken-95230809.html

"Bonnie Lake family's dog 'in jail' after killing chicken"

I read about the Katsaris v. Cook case, where a livestock rancher shot two sheep dogs because they trespassed on his property. The owner of the two dogs sued the neighbor for emotional distress, however, the courts denied the claim on the basis of section 31102 which states that: "[A]ny person may kill any dog in any of the following cases: (a) The dog is found in the act of killing, wounding, or persistently pursuing or worrying livestock or poultry on land or premises which are not owned or possessed by the owner of the dog. (b) The person has such proof as conclusively shows that the dog has been recently engaged in killing or wounding livestock or poultry on land or premises which are not owned or possessed by the dog's owner. No action, civil or criminal, shall be maintained for the killing of any such dog." There is no way of knowing the intention of the dogs unless they actually acted out on killing a farm animal, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to allow for people with livestock to shoot a dog for trespassing.

I found an article that is somewhat similar to the Katsaris v, Cook case, where a dog, Meesha, had been impounded for trespassing into a neighbor’s lawn and killing a chicken. The family of the dog are very distressed over their loss and have “fenced their rural yard, contacted police, talked to a lawyer, attended a city council meeting, gone to a hearing, even picketed City Hall. But more than three months later, Meesha is still locked up in the pound.” The family has contended that the city law is too vague and “elevates the chicken’s status to that of a human”.

http://www.nyshumane.org/manual/manual

HTML/X1CsLaw/PeoplevBunt.htm

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/advocacy-

center/state-animal-cruelty-laws/

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/cruelty_laws.html

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12577985541398778192&q=People+v.+Bunt&hl

=en&as_sdt=40000002&as_vis=1

"People v Blunt"

I read the case People v Blunt, a New York animal cruelty case from 1983. In the case the defendant brutally killed a dog with a baseball bat. He then claimed that the New York animal cruelty statute was unclear. A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, whether wild or tame…is guilty of a misdemeanor".  The statute is very clear. His defense is that the world animal is not clear as well as the rhetoric used in it. However, the state upheld the statute. The prohibited action, unjustifiably hurting an animal, is clear in the statute and also many other states have upheld the constitutionality of similar cases based on their own animal cruelty laws.

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjrDklgXYW8

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La1FFPchmP0&feature=related

This article is about the Supreme Court striking down a law banning dog fighting videos and other videos of animal cruelty. It was an 8-1 decision saying that it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The depictions shown in court of pit bulls engaging in dog fighting weren’t sufficient enough to be considered an exception to the free speech amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H38y2ZkwHaw&feature=channel

The article briefly describes the problem of animal hoarding, and how hoarding becomes a problem within animal law. Animal hoarding is dangerous because it puts large amounts of animals in unsafe conditions, and makes them susceptible to disease or death. The person who is doing the hoarding obviously has issues that must be dealt with, and unless the law becomes involved to stop these people then animals will continue to be harmed in this fashion. Hoarding is not simply having a large number of animals, but instead is a fundamental problem because the owner does not have the means to care for so many animals and everyone involved suffers. States are slow to passing bills on animal hoarding but there is a little progress in this area right now. 

http://www.animallawcoalition.com/animals-and-politics/article/1467

CHANGING THE ANIMAL LEGAL PARADIGM USING
THE UNITED STATES TAX CODE

https://culsnet.law.capital.edu/LawReview/BackIssues/30-4/Pyc.pdf

An interesting article/essay about how the United States' tax code can be used to support Steven Wise's arguments for providing limited legal rights for Chimpanzee's. The United States Internal Revenue Code has the power to advance non-human animal's position from "property", to perhaps the same status of that of a young child.

The essay comes in several sections.

Section II : will discuss the history of the tax code as a tool to achieve social objectives

Section III delves into the changes occurring in animal law today and what is forecasted.

Section IV analyzes how the tax code can be used to further the changes in animal law through a system of tax incentives and disincentives, applied to both individuals and businesses at the federal level. 

"The IRC can be used in two ways: to encourage behavior and to
discourage it. Ways to encourage behavior include exemptions from
taxes, tax deductions, and tax credits. Ways to discourage behavior
include the imposition of taxes and the denial of deductions, exemptions,
and credits."