Anti-hunting groups don't make a lot of sense to me. I get people wanting harvested animals killed humanely and not left to rot in the woods. I want that, for crying out loud, and that's true of every hunter I know.
Yet hunters are also conservationists. Not only do they help thin herds so there's less competition for limited resources among animals like deer, but hunting license fees help fund government efforts to protect these animals.
These groups don't see it that way, which I guess is fine. Fortunately for us, though, it seems the courts agree with the rest of the world.
The saying goes, “the definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting different results.” One anti-hunting group has apparently never learned that lesson.
Animal rights activists seeking to rewrite centuries of law by declaring animals “legal persons” suffered yet another courtroom defeat after the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the Nonhuman Rights Project’s (NhRP) latest habeas corpus appeal. The decision leaves intact a lower court ruling that seven chimpanzees being cared for at the DeYoung Family Zoo are not, in fact, “persons” entitled to seek habeas relief and marks another setback for an anti-hunting litigation campaign that has repeatedly failed in courts across the country.
The ruling against NhRP is significant because it reinforces an increasingly consistent judicial message. Courts continue to reject NhRP’s efforts to use habeas corpus — a legal remedy designed to protect the liberty of human beings — to create an entirely new category of legal rights for animals. Yet despite a growing list of losses, NhRP continues filing substantially similar lawsuits in jurisdictions nationwide, hoping one court will ultimately establish the precedent others have declined to recognize.
Michigan Joins a Growing List of Courts
The Michigan Court of Appeals previously ruled that the chimpanzees could not pursue habeas corpus because animals are not recognized as legal persons under longstanding common law. The court also rejected NhRP’s argument that qualities such as intelligence or autonomy should determine legal personhood, cautioning there would be “no natural stopping point” if courts adopted that approach.
While this looks like a case about a zoo, it's not.
Once you can establish personhood for animals, you can then establish hunting as murder. Moreover, animal-based agriculture would be murder or some other evil as well. No more animal-based protein, which wouldn't be good news for your humble yet magnificent gun writer with a soy allergy.
Zoos are easier targets because the animals just sit there in relatively confined areas for public viewing. It's not difficult for people to see this and think there's something wrong with it. While zoos are popular childhood destinations, it doesn't change the fact that the animals aren't exactly roaming freely.
I guess they thought that because DeYoung Family Zoo is a private zoo with what's been described as "rustic" enclosures, they wouldn't have the resources to fight this sufficiently. Well, they did, and it probably didn't take many resources beyond pointing and laughing at the defendant's arguments.
Not that lawyers will do that, unfortunately. They should, but it's not happening.
Still, this is a terrible argument to make, and while I get that there are lines we should never cross with animals, either wildlife or farm animals, regarding their treatment and welfare, these nutbars want to take things too far.
In their honor, though, I think I'm going to fix me a big, juicy burger for supper tonight.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member