Election 2010: Excellent Article Lays Out the Animal-Related Initiatives (Potential Laws) on the Ballots in the Upcoming Election: Any in Your State??

I won’t say much here other than visit this posting at http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/on-the-ballot-on-tuesday.html to see if any initiatives are on the ballot in your state. You'll also see that the author tells you how to vote. I’ve posted the text of the article in below as well for quicker reading, but make sure you visit the posting as well.

You’ll also notice that the blog “Animals & Politics” at http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/ is listed below. Please also visit this site for more on animal rights-related legislative initiatives.

Article:

Animal law on the ballot

http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/on-the-ballot-on-tuesday.html

Animal-related initiatives are on the ballots in several states in this upcoming election. All but one involve hunting and fishing; one concerns the breeding of dogs. Unfortunately, no initiative this year addresses the most commonly abused animals in the U.S., farm animals.

Voters in four states will be asked to vote on a constitutional right to hunt. It's difficult to know what motivates these efforts, except the need for pro-gun groups to energize their hunter members. The NRA says the amendments are needed to head off attempts to limit hunting and fishing by "well-funded anti-hunting activists." This is not a serious statement, given that gun groups have exponentially more power and resources than those few animal rights groups that target hunting.

When these initiatives do pass, as others have, it's not doomsday for hunting opponents. The provisions typically recognize the state's power to regulate---they cover the right to hunt or fish "lawfully" or say these activities are subject to regulation. Courts have treated similar provisions in other states as basically inspirational. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for instance, has held an amendment establishing the right to hunt "does not affect our analysis of the DNR's authority."

The reasons for animal rights advocates to oppose a constitutional right to hunt are fairly miminal, though they outweigh the nonexistent benefit to animals. If any of these initiatives were voted down, it would mean that pro-hunting groups had wasted their time and money (though who knows, maybe a successful "NO" campaign would make proponents feel ever more paranoid about the alleged threat of animal rights groups). And, if there ever was an attempt to ban hunting---maybe around 2060?---these initiatives would be an impediment. On these symbolic initiatives, a symbolic NO is the way to go.

I've listed each of the ballot items below, with a recommended vote. For more election coverage, check out Animals & Politics, where Michael Markarian has been doing an excellent job, especially on the Arizona and Missouri ballot items.

Arkansas. Issue 1, if passed, would recognize a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and "harvest wildlife." It would also set these activities as the preferred method of wildlife control. The language would benefit from a comma, as a hasty reader might be shocked that "[p]ublic hunting, fishing, and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling nonthreatened species and citizens...." (The rest of the sentence makes clear humans are not in fact in danger.)

Arizona. Prop 109 would also enshrine a constitutional right to hunt and fish, and make hunting and fishing the preferred method of wildlife population control. In addition, the measure would shift the power to regulate those activities to the legislature, which may in turn, delegate it back to a commission, which presumably would keep doing what its doing. Feeling dizzy? This move contrasts with Arkansas's Issue 1, which expressly retains power for its game and fish commission, which is itself constitutionally based (see amend. 35). In a fine analysis, Kristin Borns and CJ Eisenbarth Hager point out potential problems with some vague language in the measure. Vote NO.

Missouri. Prop B sets regulations for large-scale "puppy mills," including giving dogs space to move around and to exercise. In contrast to the position of some in the debate over Prop 2 in California, it seems unlikely that the proposed regulations could increase the number of animals bred. Rather, it would reduce the scale of breeding operations and (if enforced) improve the conditions of animals being bred. Vote YES.

North Dakota. The North Dakota Constitution already has two provisions recognizing the value of hunting. Measure 2 would criminalize canned hunts of big game and "exotic animals." The measure's proponents claim it reflects "Fair Chase" principles. For folks opposed to factory farming, some of their ideas might be appealing: no breeding programs, no feeders, no government culls. People opposed to animal exploitation for food and recreation, however supposedly benign, could be less easily persuaded. For me, the question is whether fewer animals will be killed or wounded.

Supporters claim canned hunting makes all hunting look bad. Would a NO vote then reduce hunting? I doubt it. This is rare case where criminalizing an act might actually stop abuse. The proprietors of canned hunting ranches are businesspeople and, if there is enforcement, would be forced to shut down. If less canned hunting meant less hunting, I'd say to vote YES. But this is the sort of dispute, between different types of hunters, that I find difficult to find a good ethical position on.

South Carolina. Amendment 1 would recognize a right "to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued." The invocation of tradition could be a loophole: it would be hard to argue hunting "traditionally" occurred with high-powered scopes, or fishing with sonar and GPS (not that any law coming down the pike would ban these tools). Vote NO.

Tennessee. An amendment to the constitution would create a "personal right to hunt and fish." Vote NO.

“A Stevens-proof ban on crush videos?” A Deeper Look at the Bills Being Drafted to Counteract the Supreme Court Legalizing Animal Crush Videos

Insightful Article Asks: “A Stevens-proof ban on crush videos?” A Deeper Look at the Bills Being Drafted to Counteract the Decision by the Supreme Court to Make Animal Crush Videos Legal

We wrote last week on the issue of the likelihood of the US Senate drafting a new law to counteract the Supreme Court decision to allow animal crush videos - http://geari.blogspot.com/2010/09/us-senator-states-that-re-banning.html

Yes, for those who didn’t see it, the US Supreme Court decided to make sick animal crush videos legal.

This article again addresses this issue, but provides great insight as to the nature of both versions of the bill coming from the separate chambers of the US legislative branch.

Titled, “A Stevens-proof ban on crush videos?” I suggest that all interested in this issue read this article.

I posted in the text below for quick reading, but, please view the original at http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/a-stevens-proof-ban-on-crush-videos.html as the author provides MANY hyperlinks to outside resources.

Article:

OCTOBER 11, 2010

A Stevens-proof ban on crush videos?

http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/a-stevens-proof-ban-on-crush-videos.html

In April, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Stevens, its biggest animal law case since the Lukumi decision in 1993. The case involved a First Amendment challenge to a federal law designed to stop crush videos, pornography showing small animals being crushed to death. The government in Stevens ran with the statute and prosecuted a seller of dog fighting videos. The Supreme Court, on an 8-1 vote, held the statute was constitutionally overbroad.

The majority opinion faulted the law for reaching animal-related acts that are not defined as "cruel." The law, as written, required use of a depiction of "animal cruelty," but defined cruelty to include any wounding or killing of an animal that violated federal or state law. The court imagined various scenarios where a depiction of a purportedly uncruel act (e.g., hunting without a license) would nonetheless violate the law. It found particularly troubling that a person could be convicted of possessing a video showing violence against an animal that was not in fact illegal in the possessor's state.

The Stevens court held out the possibility that a more targeted law--one "limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty"--could pass constitutional muster. Now comes news that the House and Senate have passed bills aimed at crush videos that ... actually target crush videos.

I've put together a table comparing the language in the statue now, in the Senate bill, and in the House bill. The full texts of both versions are at Govtrack.us. Both bills do a better job of defining the depictions being banned, though the Senate does a better job still by not requiring the depicted abuse to also be a state or federal crime. Both contain findings that draw parallels to caselaw on obscenity and child pornography. Both in fact require the depiction to be obscene; given the descriptions in the case, I'd hope all crush videos would qualify.

I personally find it difficult to get excited about these bills. They target a tiny segment of the pornography market and a miniscule portion of the animal abuse in this country. How little Congress cares about animals is evident in one change between the House and the Senate bills. The House bill recognizes a compelling interest in "preventing animal cruelty," a good policy goal, if one rarely acted on. The Senate bill, however, finds a compelling interest only in "intentional acts of extreme animal cruelty." What of "mere" animal cruelty? Well, some arguably cruel practices are expressly excluded from the statute's reach by an exception for depictions (even obscene ones!) involving hunting, fishing, and agriculture.

The one bright spot I see in the legislation is in the Senate's definition of the offense. It criminalizes the sale, distribution, etc., of depictions of animals being abused in several specific ways (e.g., drowning, suffocation), but also includes a catchall for depictions of severe bodily injury against animals. Severe bodily injury is defines not once but twice in reference to existing laws against humans. The law incorporates the definition in 18 U.S.C. § 1365(h)(3), which contemplates the injury of "another person" and "any individual." Most strikingly, the Senate bill defines severe bodily injury to include "conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242." As the links show, these statutes define the federal crimes of aggravated and simple sexual abuse. The Senate bill thus implicitly recognizes that harm to nonhumans is of a similar kind as harm to humans.

The Senate bill is also notable for its definition of the animal being depicted. While the current law and the House bill cover "living animals," the Senate covers "non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians." On the one hand, this definition excludes insects and fish; on the other, it acknowledges frankly that humans are animals of a sort. This language parallels some state definitions of "animal" which expressly exclude human beings. See this Maine statute.