Anti-hunting, animal-rights extremist groups such as the Humane Socieity of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have always posed a great threat to sportsmen and women, using their political capital to advance a fallacious agenda. Recently, these efforts have promoted the idea that nonhumans (animals) should have the same rights as humans. While this idea of Animal “Personhood” seems contradictory, legislation similar to this concept has already been passed in Connecticut.
Anti-hunting, animal-rights extremist groups such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have always posed a grave threat to sportsmen and women, using their political capital to advance a fallacious agenda. Perhaps most recently this scheme has taken place in the form of “animal personhood”, the idea that nonhumans (animals) should have the same rights as humans. As contradictory as the idea sounds, legislation that is startlingly similar to the concept has already been passed in Connecticut.
H.B. No. 5344, also known as Desmond’s Law, was enacted in 2016. It allows for neglected animals to be represented in court by humans, who act as “advocates." These representatives serve pro-bono, providing the court with data pertinent to the case. This piece of legislation sets a dangerous precedent, one where legal “personhood” of animals stands in the not-so-distant future.
Points of Interest
- Granting legal “personhood” to animals would allow organizations like HSUS and PETA to sue zoos, aquariums, and even pet owners.
- Personhood has historically been rooted in human dignity, something not applicable to animals.
It is important to be familiar with the language used in Desmond’s Law, as it is likely that pro-animal personhood legislators will use similar terminology in other states in the future.
- “(a) In any prosecution under section 53-247 of the general statutes, or in any court proceeding pursuant to section 22-329a of the general statutes or in the criminal session of the Superior Court regarding the welfare or custody of a cat or dog, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. If a court orders that an advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice, the court shall appoint such advocate from a list provided to the court by the Commissioner of Agriculture pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.”
Animal personhood, while not yet regularly debated on the legal front, is recurring topic that is gaining traction. This idea endangers the very foundation of hunting, angling, and trapping, and subsequently, the American System of Conservation Funding. It is necessary that sportsmen and women remain vigilant, opposing any “animal rights” legislation.
For more information regarding this issue, please contact Brent Miller at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Which of these considered changes do you believe would have the most positive impact on management of the recreational red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico?Vote Here
- Granting full management authority (stock assessments, management of both commercial and recreational sectors, etc.) to the five Gulf states. (33.33%)
- Extending the states’ current 9-mile management jurisdictions to 25 miles. (19.05%)
- Permanently allow each state to manage its recreational sector allocation out to 200 nautical miles. (19.05%)
- Use of more appropriate management models, such as rate of harvest, rather than the commercial hard-poundage quota system currently in place. (23.81%)
- Inclusion of additional, non-federal data in stock assessments. (4.76%)