HSUS LITIGATIONS SIGNAL RADICAL LONG-TERM GOAL

A recent article on the Humanewatch website described the HSUS litigation group, headed by vegan attorney Jonathan Lovvorn. The group includes 25 paid in-house attorneys, assisted by an estimated 2,000 pro bono lawyers.

 

According to Humanewatch, HSUS lawyers are litigating particular cases that will pave the way for more radical suits in the future. The article quotes Lovvorn as saying, “The situation with regard to the property status of animals, the courts, Article III and our ability to get what we want is frustrating.”

 

Lovvorn’s former colleague, Katherine Meyer, reportedly said, “This is not going to divulge any great secret, but a lot of us here in this room are looking for the right sets of facts to bring those first guardian ad litem cases. This is where we are going. The way you get there is by bringing other cases first.”

 

The issue of “guardianship” has become a hot one for pet owners, livestock breeders and others who work with animals on a daily basis. In several cases, animal rights groups have pushed for legislation to change “pet owner” to “pet guardian” in city and state animal control laws.

 

Although extremists have claimed that this change is innocuous and merely intended to promote better animal welfare practices, there’s actually a much more dangerous legal precedent at stake—a precedent that goes to the very heart of the relationship between humans and the animals they care for.

 

The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), a broad-based organization that supports responsible animal welfare and animal owners, says such a change is the first step in an incremental strategy to deny humans the right to own animals at all.

 

“The guardianship campaign is run by animal rights activists who believe that animals should not be owned or used by human beings,” said NAIA founder and President Patti Strand. “These radicals equate animal ownership with human slavery. Their ultimate goal is to use guardian laws to give animals higher standing in court, and to tighten restrictions on animal activities they don’t like—whether or not those restrictions make sense from an animal welfare perspective.”

 

AGC spokesperson Gary Guccione said that these issues have serious implications for the greyhound community, and the greyhounds themselves.

 

“In our world, the responsibility for greyhound care ultimately rests with the owner,” he said. “If ownership becomes irrelevant, it’s much tougher to enforce our rules and ensure proper care for our dogs. Ownership brings accountability; it’s that simple.”