Thursday, November 04, 2010

Election 2010: Results Bad for Animal Rights

Is it really that much of a surprise? Sadly, no.

As stated in the article below, “…voters in Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee approved constitutional rights to hunt and fish.” Yet, there were a couple bright spots as you’ll also read below.

I’d like to thank the author at for keeping track of these issues. I’ve pasted in the text below for those in need of quick information, but please do visit the site to read this and more.


Animal initiatives become law

I'm sure animal law is on few folks' minds this morning, given the changed legal landscape in our federal government and in many states. It seems safe to say the gains made by Republicans will have little effect on animal welfare, much less animal rights. Only animals in the wild are seriously protected by law, in the form of environmental statutes, and few politicians seem focused on environmental issues.

The election did mean some changes in animal law though, much of it anti-animal. As noted below, voters in six states were asked to vote on animal-related ballot initiatives. The results are in and voters in Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee approved constitutional rights to hunt and fish. North Dakotans rejected Measure 2, which banned the canned hunting of some animals. Measure proponents say "We were out-spent."

On the plus side, Prop 109, a proposed right-to-hunt amendment in Arizona was rejected by voters. Prop 109 was distinct from other right-to-hunt initiatives, since it also shifted the power over hunting and fishing from an administrative agency to the legislature. This political aspect, and the possibility that the law would limit future initiatives, allowed the opposition to paint it as a power grab. And successfully! A second bright spot is the passage, per USA Today, of Prop B, which regulates puppy mills.

No comments:

Search for More Content

Custom Search
Bookmark and Share

Past Articles