Master Feed : The Atlantic

Monday, November 7, 2011

Blog #12


1.)Read the article below and discuss your thoughts about the issue. 
2.)Your discussion must have two specific cited references from the article.  In other words, a response with just general information will not receive credit.  You must use the facts from the article to guide your response on the issue.  Refer to paragraph numbers for citations.
3.) Comment back to two classmates regarding their responses.

Response to me is due by Saturday, November 12th  = 5 Points
Responses to two classmates is due by Monday, November 14th.  = 5 Points
Total Points=10 pts.  Remember, the blog assignments are worth 20% of your grade.  Please refer to your syllabus and/or Engrade.
Can Animal Rights Go Too Far?
By Adam Cohen

Par. 1Starting in 2015, every egg sold in California will have to comply with strict hen-rights rules. Cages will have to be large enough for the birds to stand up, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of the cage. California voters adopted these rules for in-state egg producers two years ago. Last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that extended the rules to out-of-state producers who want to sell their eggs in California.

Par. 2The move was just the latest example of how animal rights are on the march — in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world. Even as human rights seems to have taken a few hits of late — with the U.S. government endorsing harsh interrogation techniques, also known as torture, and the Supreme Court whittling away at race-discrimination laws, defendants' rights and the Voting Rights Act — animal rights has moved further into the mainstream. (See the top 10 outrageous PETA stunts.)

Par. 3This enthusiasm for animal rights is also fueling a national movement to rein in the chaining of dogs, a practice animal-rights advocates regard as cruel and dangerous for the dog. Thirteen states now have laws that limit the chaining or tethering of dogs outside, such as to a metal pole or a tree. Several more states are considering such laws, which impose restrictions like requiring that chains be of a minimum length. Animal-rights activists have also been targeting foie gras in recent years because it is made by force-feeding ducks and geese in a way that many consider to be cruel. California has banned force-feeding to create foie gras, and Hawaii is currently considering banning the sale of the delicacy.

Par. 4Animal-law courses are now taught at many of the nation's leading law schools. Harvard Law School recently hosted a "Future of Animal Law" conference sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. A prime financial backer of the rise of animal law is Bob Barker, the longtime host of the game show The Price Is Right and a prominent animal-rights advocate. He has given $1 million gifts to the University of Virginia Law School, Columbia Law School and Duke Law School — among others — to endow animal-law programs. (Barker is also funding a $1 million campaign to stop live-pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania.) (See the top 10 animal stories of 2009.)

Par. 5It was not long ago that animal rights was all but an oxymoron. With few exceptions, you could do what you wanted to an animal — and it seemed bizarre to argue otherwise. Then, in the 1970s, animal-liberation activists followed in the footsteps of the civil-rights movement, the women's liberation movement and the gay-rights movement, and argued that "species-ism" was wrong and had to be defeated.

Par. 6If Barker is one of the financial leaders of the animal-rights movement, its intellectual leader is Peter Singer, a Princeton professor of bioethics, whose 1975 book Animal Liberation is often credited with giving birth to the modern movement. Singer and others have laid out the philosophical groundwork for regarding animals as deserving of greater respect and legal protection. (Singer, however, is not an absolutist: on a FAQ on his Princeton website, he allows that if a fire was threatening a human and a mouse and he could only save one, he would save the human.) Animal-rights supporters have even dug deep and discovered a little-known history of anticruelty laws, dating back to a 1635 Irish statute prohibiting pulling wool off of sheep (rather than shearing it) and pulling horses by their tails. (See where animal rights fits in among 2008's top 10 ballot measures.)

Par. 7Important as these intellectual underpinnings are, what is driving the animal-rights movement today is simple: a surprisingly strong level of popular support. When California's egg referendum was on the ballot in 2008, it won in a landslide, taking more than 63% of the vote.

Par. 8Europe is still far ahead of the U.S. in recognizing animal rights. Spain's parliament caused a stir two years ago when it passed a resolution calling for legal rights to be extended to nonhuman primates — a law that Singer declared to be of "world historical significance." The resolution urged that chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates have the right not to be used in medical experiments or circuses.

Par. 9Yet even Europe has its limits. Switzerland has a 160-page animal-rights law with some of the world's stiffest rules for the treatment of nonhumans, including the minimum amount of space that Mongolian gerbils must be given (1,500 sq cm) and a ban on keeping social animals, like goldfish, alone. In March, however, Swiss voters soundly defeated a referendum that would have created a state-funded system of lawyers to represent animals in court. Animals in Zurich remain in luck, however, since that canton has its own law giving animals legal representation.

Par. 10In the U.S., the animal-rights movement remains on the upswing, and it is not only on the East and West Coasts. This month, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio — a major farm state — brokered a deal between the Farm Bureau and the Humane Society. In exchange for the farm group's commitment to work toward a list of tough new animal-rights laws — including phasing out a particularly harsh kind of crate for pregnant sows and banning the strangulation of pigs and cows — the Humane Society is holding back on its plans to put an anticruelty referendum on the ballot this November.

Par. 11If animal rights can make it in Ohio, it can probably make it anywhere — and that is a good thing. Like any worthy cause, animal rights can be taken too far, and sometimes it is. (In a world full of woe, it is hard to get too worked up about the solitary goldfish.) But requiring animals, including animals that produce or become food, to be treated decently while they are alive ennobles not only the animals but us as well.

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board


106 comments:

  1. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    This issue is a very difficult and controversial one for me. I do love animals and care for their overall well -being. However sometimes I think some claims or actions are just going overboard. I agree with some issues brought up in the article. Such as: the process to get foie grass, which is force feeding ducks and geese (3). Ok that sounds cruel to me, how can you force feed animals like that? I also agree with the claim that chaining your dog up to a tree or metal pole is cruel as well (3). I unfortunately sometimes have to chain my dog up so he doesn't run away, I now know that is wrong and I will not do it again. However some claims are just plain ridiculous like the one that says its neglecting your goldfish if its alone (9). Really? Seriously? Look I know animals have feelings too but people buy goldfish for the specific reason that you don't need to be with them 24/ 7. This issue has really got me thinking, thanks Ms. Carlson I really enjoyed this one. Sincerely, Lawson Fernandes Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Ms Carlson,
    The article "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far?" by Adam Cohen is very catchy. I seem to think it has both sides. To me, I think it's a compare and contrast type of article. I agree with Lawson on how some claims are going over board. But, I do agree with some of the issues brought up in the article. (p3) Force-feeding ducks and geese are cruel, I hope they all do something to prevent it from happening. ALSO, I agree with lawson on tying your dog to a tree. (p3) Unfortunately, my dog is a pit-bull and it CAN be nice. He's nice if he knows you, but if your a stranger wondering around he's not so nice. So we have to tie him up for others safety. BUT we do let him run around so he doesn't feel like he's being avoided. However, I really enjoyed reading this article. It gives you a vision of animal cruelty in different perspectives.
    Sincerely, Jen

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Jeni Das,
    Thanks for agreeing with me on some issues. I agree with you that this is like a comare and contrast essay it really showed both sides of the issue which is nice. I like how you said it showed you a vision of animal cruelty in different perspectives, I too think that. I also relate to your dog story my dog is old to and if we don't tie him to a post he will run towards the road, its just for his safety. Nice response. Sincerely, Lawson Fernandes Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Lawson,
    Your very welcome! I really enjoyed reading your post. It made lots of sense and you were right about a lot. I know, I think everyone has to tie their dog if it's not trained. You wouldn't want your dog to die or someone else to get hurt. Either way it's better to be safe then sorry. As long as you take time out of the day and play with them so the situation becomes a positive aspect. Thanks for sharing with me Lawson!
    Sincerely, Jeni

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Ms.Carlson,
    I think that the issue of Animal rights is kind of stupid. I say this because of some of the things that the laws will make or restrict. Things such as banning "foie gras" (p3) because it is made by force feeding ducks. They shouldn't ban a food that is enjoyed by a lot of people just because animals are forced to eat. I mean what, are they going to starve them instead? Also i say this because of the law that was made for the "in-state egg producers" (p1) that makes them required to have bigger cages for chickens. That is a reasonable idea, but it will cost them more money to make it and it will use a lot more metal materials. I think it is right to take care of animals but some people go way overboard about it.
    Sincerely, Anthony Aiwohi pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Lawson,
    You did a very good job in interpreting both sides of the issue and then explaining each one. Also I liked that you were able to state the reasons why you would be on either side but yet staying neutral, unlike myself. You have also pointed out good points from each side that made me understand the issue about animal rights better.
    Sincerely, Anthony Aiwohi

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Jeni,
    I agree with you on the parts in your comment that talks about the reasons why it would be good to have rights. Things such as not tying a dog to tree. But I also liked how you talked about your reasons for doing so, about how he can be dangerous to some people. Also you said that it would be cruel to overfeed, but I think it would be okay if its for a good cause like making food for us humans.
    Sincerely, Anthony Aiwohi

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Anthony,
    Thank you for your comments and sharing what you believe. However, I do seem to think you have a good point about overfeeding. I guess its a positive aspect if you look at it in that way. You are right, its for a good cause as to making food for humans. Like Lawson and I agreed, their are different ways and opinions others may have. Once again thanks for sharing.
    Sincerely, jen

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Ms. Calson,
    The article “can animal rights go too far?” by Adam Cohen is very controversy. Though I agree with the animal-liberation activists when they argued “that "species-ism" was wrong and had to be defeated”(5). Some rules should be changed for the safety of others. Although “Thirteen states now have laws that limit the chaining or tethering of dogs outside, such as to a metal pole or a tree” this law could cause problems for the future(3). Animal-liberation activists “regard it as cruel and dangerous for the dog” but some dogs do need to be chained for people and animals protection(3). You can’t let a bull dog just wonder around if it’s not people or animal friendly. Also some times you need to chain up your animals so they don’t runaway.(however I don’t really have to worry about these problems because I have a gate and my dog listens.) When it comes to rights of anything it can be controversy depending on what side you believe is to be correct. For me it depends on whether the laws are good for both sides, if they are I fully support them.
    Sincerely,
    Jaxey pd6

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Lawson,
    I agree that some claims are overboard and that the only reason we do some of those things are for the safety of our animals like tying them up. As cruel as it may seem it actually saves them from running off and risking getting hurt.
    Sincerely,
    Jaxey pd6

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Anthony,
    I agree that some if not most laws that are for the sake of animal rights are a bit extreme. I also agree that though there may be reasonable ideas like bigger cages for chickens will cost more money. However, I think if it’s for a good cause you should put as much time and money into it as you think is necessary.
    Sincerely,
    Jaxey pd6

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    Much like what the other students have stated, I do find the issue itself to be a bit of a difficult, mostly depending if we really need these animal protection rules or not. However I do agree with some animal rights like makings cages for chickens “large enough for the birds to stand up, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of the cage” which probably would make the chicken meat and eggs in the factories more nutritious, but it would be a bit costly for factory owners (P1). On the other hand there are some animal rights rules that I find to be a bit complicated to go around like having “chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates have the right not to be used in medical experiments”, I mean if we can’t test cures for diseases like cancer on them, then what can we test these things on, even if we test on just samples of Bacteria alone we wouldn’t have a good visual aid as to how that affects a living person. (P8) So overall I find that Animal rights still remains as one of the most puzzling movements to ever be made in history, I mean we want to help the animals, but then would that only take away rights from humans at same time?

    Sincerely,

    Spenser T.
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Jaxey,

    I have to agree with you on some of your statements, especially the one concerning dogs. I do agree that if dogs are really dangerous and could easily run away, then they should be chained if necessary. However the only reason why some people find this to be cruel is that dogs would left chained for hours, while their lazy owners are out and about doing Lord knows what, causing them to bark all day long which can become a problem for some neighbors, I’ve known this from personal experience when the folks in my neighborhood would be gone for hours letting their dogs bark all day long, but I never complain about it, although I would get annoyed every now and again. If it’s a small dog or a harmless playful dog that’s being chained up I see no reason for it, but if it’s for dogs that can cause damage like Rottweiler’s, Pittbulls, and Dobermans then they needed to be chained up or at least placed in a kennel or a garage that’s safe from the rain.

    Sincerely,

    Spenser T.
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Lawson Fernandez,

    I agree with you that some animal rights laws do seem to be a bit ridiculous, like the fish one you’ve stated. When it comes to fish, how is not giving them attention considered cruel? I mean for the dog one it makes sense cause they’re chained but with fish they have lots of room to move about (depending on the size of your tank or bowl) , and you can never really tell how a fish feels since it’s not a very expressive animal with little to no emotions expressed. The only way how you can really tell how a fish feels is by what it does not how it looks, like for example with my fish which is a Chiclid, the only way it expresses itself is by banging himself against these glass bubble decorations my mother puts in the tank. Overall I agree that laws like giving your fish more attention seem pretty ridiculous.

    Sincerely,

    Spenser T.
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Anthony Aiwohi,
    Thank you for the nice comment. Also I like how in your response you just get straight to the point and don't sugar coat things like I did. You stood up for your opinion with great examples and perspectives that I never even thought about. Thanks great response. Sincerely, Lawson Fernandes Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete
  17. From the article I had no idea that chicken cages weren't big enough for the chicken to stand up, lie down or spread their wings without touching the sides. I also didn't no that so many rights movements were taking place in the 70's like speciesism, feminisim or ending segregation. This article has opened my eyes to animal rights.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    I thought the article was interesting. I am an animal lover and was glad to read that people are protecting them. I never heard of foie gras but was glad to read that even Hawaii is thinking about banning the delicacy since it's made from cruelly force-feeding ducks and geese (3). I also thought it was interesting that Zurich has a law where animals have legal representation (9). It sounded a little ridiculous but when I think about it I'm glad. There have been puppy farms where the owners were neglecting them. If each of those dogs could sue their owners maybe the owners would take better care of them.

    Sincerely,
    Derek Yamane
    PD 4

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Lawson,

    I love animals like you but I agree with you about some of the claims being ridiculous like the goldfish. That was going overboard. I also liked the way you took the article seriously and will think twice about not chaining up your dog.

    Sincerely,
    Derek Yamane

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Jeni,

    I agree with you about the article having both sides, some claims going overboard and some making good serious sense. I'm glad that even though you need to tie up your pit bull for safety you also let him run around for exercise.

    Sincerely,
    Derek Yamane

    ReplyDelete
  21. dear ms.carlson

    i think this article was interesting and sort of over board. i love animals my self and its nice to see that their getting some protection but the hippies go to far and start making clowning laws which is ridiculous.it was interesting that zurich made a law where animals have legal representatives(9).i didn't hear about the hen rights rule where cages have to be large enough for the birds to stand up lay down and spread their wings with out touching each other or the cage (1). but to me all of these laws are getting out of had and ridiculous they should just make little laws to protect them to make sure they stay healthy not all this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  22. dear derek

    i agree with your statement about how it is good to protect the animals and how they do some times go over board on things. also because i am a animal lover also makes some of these laws make a difference and we know how they feel.

    ReplyDelete
  23. dear anthony

    i have to totally agree with on your statement because the people are taking things way to over board on such little and dumb things when they don't even make sense to do them in the first place. i have to agree with you on the force feeding of the ducks and geese , it is stupid that they don't want the animal to be force feed but its not hurting the animals the animals are probably enjoying it eating when ever .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Ms. Carlson

    The last paragraph of the article "Can Animals Rights Go Too Far?" really got me thinking. "If animals rights can make it in ohio, then it probably can make it anywhere". That first sentence of the last paragraph is what really had me going and it made me realize that animals have feelings and that they are just like us as humans. Treat them as you want to be treated. The interesting part for me was where animals have legal representations (9). It was really wierd for me when i read it and kind of struck at me with a stupid comment but i thought about it and realized that animals donnt get treated very well around this world so i was happy.

    Sincerely.
    Lina fifita pd 2

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Lawson,

    i agree with your statement that its kind of ridiculous that its cruel to goldfishes when you dont give them enough attention. Im sorry about it but its just stupid and it doesnt make sense to me at all on how its cruelty just by not giving attention.

    Lina Fifita

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    The second I read the article I already had my own opinion. "Can Animals Rights Go To Far?" I read that and I automatically thought "yes it can". As I read it though they brought up the fact of force feeding ducks and geese to make foie gras (3). Yes that is a horrible thing to do. No animal deserves to be harrased like that. However, keeping a goldfish alone shouldn't be a crime. (9) In the ocean or a lake I guarantee that a fish (no matter what kind it is) is going to get lost at some point and be alone. To me that ban is just stupid and unreasonable.
    Sincerly,
    Kara Higa pd 5

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    The article "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far?" By Adam Cohen was a really interesting and detailed story. I actually enjoyed it! The first part, "Starting in 2015, every egg sold in California will have to comply with strict hen-rights rules."(P.1) was the begining of the animal rights movement. And it's amazing to me the strict rules they now have on farmers who wasnt to sell eggs in California. "This enthusiasm for animal rights is also fueling a national movement to rein in the chaining of dogs"(P.3) Now dogs will be able to have more of a freedom, like the hens. Which is good, because it shows that they don't only favor one animal at a time, they're slowly progressing to more animals. "In the U.S., the animal-rights movement remains on the upswing"(P.10) meaning that the Animal Rights Movement is progressing! I honestly hope that the Government, makes smart choices and the right decisions. Because how the Government is now, things will most likely be over done. And thats something that we can't deal with.

    Sincerely,
    Nahea Quereto. Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear Lina,

    I agree with what you said "Animals have feelings and they are like us as humans" Because they are, but we don't give them the right to choose what they want like we can. I think that all animals should be happy like we are, and enjoy life.

    Sincerely,
    Nahea Quereto.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dear Kara,

    I also agree with what you think, that aminal rights can get too far. I think that animals should have a say, but like what I added in my comment was that the government can take things too far. Father than they should! The goldfish being alone is stupid, cause their most likely alone in the wild! The government needs to understand the difference between "Helping Animals" and "Over Doing the Help".

    Sincerely,
    Nahea Quereto

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    The article "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far?" by Adam Cohen was very fact filled. But to answer that above question, I would have to say yes that they can go too far but in some situations, it might be a good thing that they are going to go through such lengths to stop it. Such as the "enthusiasm for animal rights is also fueling a national movement to rein in the chaining of dogs, a practice animal-rights advocates regard as cruel and dangerous for the dog"(3). The pros of this situation is that it lessens the chance of the dog straining themselves or any sort of harm to them. Although the cons could be that they are more likely to run off and cause trouble elsewhere and nobody would want to lock a dog up in your house all day, especially if you don't have a fence. It is true when they say "Like any worthy cause, animal rights can be taken too far, and sometimes it is"(11). We should still try to enforce animal rights but not to go overboard with it.

    Sincerely,
    Kuuipo Germo Pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear. Ms Carlson

    This article is ridiculous. Lawmakers are worring about the wrong things, such as laws that limit the chaining or tethering of dogs outside, such as to a metal pole or a tree(par3). this tells me that lawmakers would rather have a dog that is running around a neighborhood and putting children in risk of getting hurt or killed than having them chained. This tells me that the animals are more important than the life of a child. However, I agree with the hens right law(par1) because no human would want to be living in a house that gives you about half an inch in every angle and the hens should be comfortable in their enviroment. But when they start making laws about a dogs chain length having to be a certain length it starts to get out of hand because when humans misbehave, we are put into cramped cages(Jail). but when dogs misbehave they are able to be put on a chain that is long and making it dangerous for children to be around.

    Sincerely Aaron Salvador (pd.4)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dear Mrs. Carlson

    The article "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far" by Adam Ohen. This Article about animal rights has many facts. I personally think that this issue is going both good and bad. When I read through this article and seen that they were "targeting foie gras in recent years because it is made by force-feeding ducks and geese" (3). I made up my mind such as "animal rights can be taken too far, and sometimes it is" (11) because this is true. Why would you force animals to do thinds? It's just not right at all. It's okay to have animals but at least keep things at a minimum.

    Sincerely,
    Ken Miyata Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear, Geordan

    I adree with your response because i too love animals but these their clowning by making stupid laws and worring about animals and not worring about murders, theft, and gangs.

    Sincerely Aaron Salvador(pd.4)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear Anthony,

    i agree with you because why worry about force feeding ducks, when they are getting a meal and not starving because the last i checked, starving an animal was animal cruelty.

    Sincerely Aaron Salvador(pd.4)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Aaron
    I agree with your saying on this article is ridiculous. The phrase from the article in paragragh 3 makes a lot of sense be cause I wouldnt want to be living somewhere with only half an inch of space on all sides on me and I think the hens my feel the same.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Miyata Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear Anthony
    Your explaining of this issue was a bit.. akward to me. The reason for it was that, yes they do need to feed the animals, but why do they need to force feed it? They can easily lay the food down and let them eat it on their own and stop the production of foie grass.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Miyata Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    In the article, "Can Animal Rights Go To Far?" I found it as something that I'm not really sure how to feel about. After all, I love animals, but some of the laws that they are thinking about adding is really dumb in my opinion. For example, "California has banned force-feeding to create foie gras" (3), I mean what in the world? Sure the ducks or geese are being feed, but it's food that many have probably eaten since they were a kid. Why get rid of something that people might enjoy eating. Then there is the law in Switerland, "...a ban on keeping social animals, like goldfish, alone." (9) I mean what is with that law? It's absurb, the goldfish might actually die of loneliness. After all, humans are busy and watching a pet that is really socialable in nature will get lonely fromnot having a companion. And I know that some laws are understandable, it is hard for me to really take a stance in it. I mean, what if an animal is horribly injured and you can't save it. What do you do then? Do you let it continue living or put it out of it's suffering? I for one would put it out of it's misery. And besides, what about the people who are hunting like wild hogs? They are saving the environment that the hogs are damaging. So as I said before, I can't really take a stance in this. Though I'm more on the opposed side for more anticruelty laws. It'll be okay if it wasn't a lot and understandable, but if not, then I don't really care.

    Sincerely,
    Jessica "Sora" Pasadava
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear Ms. Carlson.
    I found this article rather interesting. It shows that animal testing can be very cruel but also that some animal rights go a little over board. I absolutely despise animal cruelty. For example (p3) when it says "Thirteen states now have laws that limit the chaining or tethering of dogs outside, such as to a metal pole or a tree." thank goodness. I hate seeing poor dogs getting strangled and such by those tight leashes. But on the other hand, things such as not leaving certain animals alone, such as goldfish, is just ridiculous. (p9) What is going to happen to a gold fish if it's left alone I ask? Maybe it will get a little hungry... Thats all. In conclusion, animal testing is not a very nice thing, but animal laws can get a little out of hand and absurd.
    Sincerely,
    Evangeline
    pd 5

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Anthony,
    It's true that starving animals isn't a good thing. But forcing then to eat something is cruelty. Imagine if you were constantly forced to eat food. You had no choice what-so-ever but to swallow. I'm sure that wouldn't be enjoyable at all.
    Sincerly,
    Kara Higa pd 5

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear Evangeline,
    I agree about the animals being chained up to posts and trees. However I find that a bit necessary. If you can't have your pet inside then your going to have to keep it outside. Tieing them up is the only way that you know that they won't be able to run away. People who forget to losen their colar's though are just plain inconsiderate.
    Sincerly,
    Kara Higa pd5

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear Evangeline,
    I also despise animal cruelty but i agree that animal rights can get a bit overboard. I feel that animals left out tied is cruel but the law about leaving one unattended, even a goldfish is VERY ridiculous. I don't agree with animal testing but I also don't feel animal rights isn't helping either.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear Geordan,
    I agree that these laws are unnecessary and ridiculous. I also didn't know about the hen rule until now, and i think its a good ting because who would wanna be cramped in a little cafe? not me. But I also think you're right that little laws to protect animals are fine, just as long as they're not ridiculous and overboard.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    I think it is a great thing to have laws to protect animals, but it has an extent to where the laws just get too strict and ridiculous to follow. The sentence that the author uses in the last paragraph leaves me with a huge question mark. He writes, "But requiring animals, including animals that produce or become food, to be treated decently while they are alive ennobles not only the animals but us as well. (11)" Does that mean that we need to be respected too when we are alive? Or could it be that the author is suggesting that humans are sometimes treated like animals?
    On a different note, the author also writes, "California has banned force-feeding to create foie gras, and Hawaii is currently considering banning the sale of the delicacy. (3)" Foie gras is gross because its the liver of a duck or geese and it looks nasty. I'm glad that Hawaii is thinking of banning that dish because liver is gross!
    Sincerely,
    Gianne Pabustan

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dear Ms. Carlson
    I personaly think that this topic is so rediculous, The only part I feel for is force feeding Ducks and geese(3)I think that is something lawmakers should make a big thing about. But neglecting Gold fish and if there alone,come on now I think that is so rediculous and just took to far.
    from jeremiah obrero

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Anthony
    I agree with you not feeding animals Is not a bad thing but I think force feeding a animal is worse. I really get hate people come up with dumb stuff like that

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear jeni
    I agree with you, I think all the animal rights is way too much and they need to make some sense in what they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dear Evangeline,
    That is really true! Leaving a goldfish alone by itself doesn't really do any harm to the little thing. Well unless you haven't fed it for 5 days, then you might see it floating belly-side up the next time you check on it. Also, about having the leashes a certain length so the dog doesn't get strangled, is it the dog's or the owner's fault that the dog got tangled in its own leash?
    Sincerely,
    Gianne Pabustan

    Dear Aaron,
    I agree with you that the hens do need to be comfortable. They are laying eggs and if they're not comfortable during "labor", the eggs might come out not being the quality that the sellers want them to be. Some animal protection rights do get pretty silly and ridiculous. One thing that I can think of that happened over here (though, I'm not sure if it was a law) is the thing with the shearwaters and the football games. That controversy raises a lot of issues and questions that some would call "ridiculous" or "the right thing to do".
    Sincerely,
    Gianne Pabustan

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    I think that this article is very informative on both sides of the argument of Animal Rights. He wrote "Animal-law courses are now taught at many of the nation's leading law schools." (P4) I think that is a good thing to do. Start off teaching kids about animal rights than having to teach adults about it because they'll just want to argue and ask so may questions when kids are already educated on it. I kind of agree having Animal Rights because animals also have feelings. What if we were to trade places with them? We would feel tortured as to the same feelings as the animals. Right? Humans need to think before they do something.

    Sincerely,
    JR Quilos
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear Jessica Pasadava,


    I agree with you 100%. I too really love animals but having to have too much laws and rules for animals is completely an example of stupidity because Animals belong in the nature. They don't belong in the political human world. What do animals know about laws?

    Sincerely,
    JR Quilos
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dear Aaron Salvador,

    I also agree with your statements because animals shouldn't be left in small places. If I were to live in a small area, I would feel so claustrophobic and I think I would die of anxiety. I don't think animals should be caged but I think being tied is perfectly fine. As long as they have a lot of space to move around and that their collars aren't really tight. It'd be better than being trapped and not being able to move at all.

    Sincerely,
    JR Quilos
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dear Mrs. Carlson,
    I feel that this article was quite powerful. It showed alot of evidence in what they are really trying to do for the animals. They are sticking up for what they believe in and i look up to them for that. For example "Cages will have to be large enough for the birds to stand up, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of the cage" (1). Or another exampledating back to a 1635 Irish statute prohibiting pulling wool off of sheep (rather than shearing it) and pulling horses by their tails" (6). These two examples show the cruelty being done to animals and how they are doing something in this world to prevent it or improve it. Animal cruelty is beyond horrible and reading this article made me especially happy because they're taking a stand for once!

    Sincerely,
    Penny Keough period 5

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dear Anthony,
    I totally agree with you on how this whole thing is stupid. And if I was to choose on who I would rather have stuffed to get eaten, I would say the goose so I can eat. Even if I never tried froe gras or whatever it is called. I just can't understand why people would come up with these rules that may be a disadvantage to the human race instead.

    Sincerely,
    Jessica "Sora" Pasadava
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    This article called "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far", written by Adam Cohen, was very difficult for me to comprehend. I couldn't really tell if they were for the animals or just trying to make people feel bad and give them consequences over something simple. BUT i do think animal cruelty is something people should be ashamed of if they do it. Some people do go over board with making some laws for animals. For example, you not being able to leave your goldfish alone or your supposedly not giving it too much attention. Really?! What can you possibly do with a goldfish besides feed it and stare at it? I do agree with Jeni and Lawson when you guys said that force feeding ducks and geese were cruel because it is! I mean really if they don't want to eat don't force them too just drop the food there and let them eat when their ready.
    Sincerely,
    Kehaulani Relacion Pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dear Gianne,
    I agree with you on where the laws that are being made can just go to far. I mean if that was to happen and it probably has in some places in the world, people are probably breaking the law everyday. I mean, I would just leave two goldfishes together and not care. I would probably get arrested in Switzerland for that. And that is just stupid.

    Sincerely,
    Jessica "Sora" Pasadava
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dear Lawson,
    I kinda agree with what you had to say about this article. You brought out all the main details that I saw too. I do agree that on some points they went a little over board, like the goldfish thing. BUT having a dog tied to a tree is cruel for anyone to do.
    Sincerely,
    Kehaulani Relacion pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dear Anthony,
    I agree with you too. This article is pretty stupid. I mean these people worry so much about their precious animals that they have no time to take care of whats more important HUMANS! I see that its cruel to do these things to animals but animals don't help run the world.
    Sincerely,
    Kehaulani Relacion pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dera Ms. Carlson
    I think the idea of the article called "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far", written by Adam Cohen is both good and bad in a way, the article says "But requiring animals, including animals that produce or become food, to be treated decently while they are alive ennobles not only the animals but us as well." (11) i do believe that animals have the right to be treated right and have a comfortable living environment but i do not think that people need to put so much money and energy into something like this when there are real children human children in other places who have even harder ways of living then some animals do. in this article is says "the process to get foie grass, which is force feeding ducks and geese (3) yes i will agree that is something i do not think should be happening people should not be harming animals for profit they should let them be and do as they would naturally do. But i also do not think this is a big enough issue for people to be investing millions of dollars when we have people who need food and housing.
    Sincerely Taylor Ochoa

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dear Kehua i agree with you i also thought that this article was a bit confusing as to exactly what is was they were trying to do, i also agree with the comment you made about the gold fish i think that was taking things way to far. I think you should treat animals right and stop worrying about all this other problems we have.

    Sincerely Taylor Ochoa

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dear ms Carlson,
    i think the idea of animal right is bad. I mean yeah they should actually have SOME consequences and laws about animal cruelty but they should also think about the economy and humans first. They should donate to charities and stuff like that. Having donating millions of dollars to universities in par (4) is just gay. Helpout the humans on the streets first other than animal life. in par(11) they said that animal rights can be taken too far sometimes. SOMETIMES!?! come on now, they have taken i t too far in this article.

    Sincerely,
    Edsel Lactaotao

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dear Penny
    yes i agree that the people are talking about something very powerful and that they are standing up for what they believe in but i don not think that this is a subject that needs as much attention as it is given there are other problems in the world happening to humans. I just think there are better things we can be spending our time doing then this.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dear jeni,
    i agree with you. they have to stop and think of how far they are taking this stupid animal rights thing. Sincerely,

    edsel Lactaotao

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear Taylor Ochoa,
    i agree with you. i think they should think first about the people who need housing and food and live on the streets than stupid animals.

    Sincerely
    Edsel Lactaotao

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dear Ms. Carlson.
    My personal thoughts on this article, "Can Animal Rights Go Too Far", varies. I think it's great that animals have rights and are protected, but I don't agree with the fact that Bob Barker (4) spend 1 million dollars funding a live pigeon shootings from happening. It's going a little bit over the top. One million dollars can be spent on a higher issue than pigeon shooting. I also approve on some examples they undergo. It says that they stopped people from force feeding ducks (3) which can be cruel. I agree with that matter because it's wrong to force something on anything.
    Sincerely, Jordan Vernola
    Pd.5

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dear mrs Carlson
    While reading this article made feel that animal should have rights and people should respect animals. Th author uses a lot of examples in this reading like haw people treat chikens before arnold swartzanniger made the law that if people wanna sell eggs out of state they would have to have the right treatment like how big the cages are, they have to be able spread there wings and lie and not touch each other
    Sincerely Edward Keoho pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dear penny
    I Agree that animals should have the same right as people in this worldand people shouldn't abuse animals

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dear Lawson,
    I agree on what you wrote because it's silly and outrageous. Animals have feelings but a gold fish, I always left mine alone...is that wrong? They take some things way to far. Chaining your dog can be cruel for days at a time, but if you're leaving for a hour I think it's fine, as long as you are loving. Somethings need to be lighten up on.
    Sincerely, Jordan Vernola
    Pd.5

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dear Jeni,
    I agree with your statement about the article going a little to dramatic on some things, and that some decision making was good. Im happy to hear that you tie your puppy up when it needs to be, but you also remember that your puppy wants to be set loose and run around. All pets deserve that.
    Sincerely,
    Adarah Fujita.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dear Edward,
    I agree with your statement that animals should have the same right as us humans. It's not right to beat on them. Animal Cruelty needs to stop. i really don't understand why people beat on there pets, it makes no sense to go through a whole bunch of effort to get your pet, then just beat them to death.
    Sincerely,
    Adarah Fujita

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dear Edward,
    I agree with your statement, reading this article did make feel kinda sad to hear that they wanna test stuff on animals. I too feel that all animals should have the same rights as humans because altho they may not talk back,they still can feel stuff and have feelings as well as human beings. They deserver to be treated right, think bout it, how would u like to be stuffed in a cage where you cant extend your arm at all, it sucks.
    sincerely, Dereck silva PD.5

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dear Derek,
    I agree with you on your statement because I am a animal lover also, and I think it's wrong to force feed animals. It's also new to me and I did not know we foie grass by force feed and I'm glad they are putting it to a end in Hawaii. I think it's wrong to force something on a animal when it's clear they don't want it.
    Sincerely, Jordan Vernola
    Pd.5

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dear Ms.Carlson
    I think that in the article "Can Animal Rights Go To Far" is sort of pointless at times. It gets a little stupid. Although i do agree about animal cruelty and how us humans shouldn't abuse animals. I also don't agree with the fact Bob Barker (para.4) spent one million dollars funding a live pigeon shootings from happening, that's crazy! (para.11) they said that animal rights can be taken too far sometimes, well in this case i don't consider this as sometimes.
    Sincerely, Cortney Higa Pd.4

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    This article really made me think a lot the controversy about animal rights. I love animals, and I think that they deserve rights too. But some of these claims are going really overboard. I agree with some of these issues, like how foie grass is made by force feeding ducks and geese (3). But one issue that really blew my mind was Switzerland's ban on keeping social animals, like goldfish, alone (9). I mean, really?! Like I said, I love animals, but I think that some of these claims are kind of ridiculous.

    Sincerely,
    Kierstyn Oshita
    Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dear Gianne,
    I too agree that there should be laws against certain animal cruelty. Like I said, I despise animal cruelty. But laws should be only to a certain extent. Things so ridiculous as neglecting a gold fish for a few hours just gets a little out of hand.
    Sincerely,
    Evangeline
    pd 5

    ReplyDelete
  75. Dear Jordan,

    I agree! I think spending nearly one million dollars on the issue of pigeon shooting is pretty ridiculous. There are bigger issues in this world that could use that kind of money.

    Sincerely,
    Kierstyn Oshita
    Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dear Jr,
    I understand where you are coming from when you say the author covers the argument on both sides. I never did know animal law courses are not taught in most schools. I think that that is sort of an important topic and should be briefly taught. I also agree that animals have feelings. I know that if I were an animal, I would not appreciate being beaten or left out in the cold at all. Animal laws do stand a good place for the most part.
    Sincerely,
    Evangeline
    pd5

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    This article really got me thinking about the animal rights situation. I'm such an animal person and they should have rights. Though some of the laws are quite true, some of them are really stupid. For example that one law about leaving your goldfish alone, ummm HELLO IT'S A FISH!(9) That's just dumb. they really should think these laws through because right now they're making themselves look like idiots.

    Sincerely,
    Traclyn Akiona
    Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dear Ms. Carlson,

    I do believe in animal rights however there are some points that I think could be considered unreasonable such as the 160-page animal rights law in Switzerland about keeping goldfish in separate tanks or the 1500 sq. cm. of space for a cage to keep gerbils in(Par. 9). Animal rights are something we have to keep in mind however, we shouldn't get out of hand when it comes to it.

    Sincerely,
    "Kirakai" Momohara Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dear Sora,

    I must agree with your indifference in the matter of this topic because I believe that when it comes to making laws on animal cruelty, there is a clear line that marks reasonable laws from laws that are just plain outrageous. For example, your point about the goldfish dying of loneliness. There's also the fact that even if its easy to take care us, pets can teach children responsibility.

    Sincerely,
    Kirakai Momohara Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  80. Dear Jaxey,

    I agree with your statement about the law about chaining up your dog. I think that it's ridiculous that they want to ban such a thing. After all, I remember seeing on the news a couple years back about dogs that attacked passing pedestrians because they weren't tied up or people friendly. The whole point of the creation of the "leash law" is to prevent things like this. However, for us who live on such a small island, I don't necessarily think we need to worry about it as much because even the animals that live here show just as much of the "Aloha spirit" as any human who live here.

    Sincerely,
    Kirakai Momohara Pd. 2

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    This was a very interesting story. Its very important to protect the lives of animals. But like they said "Like any worthy cause, animal rights can be taken too far, and sometimes it is.."(11) Which is very true! "...and a ban on keeping social animals, like goldfish, alone."(9) I mean i'm pretty sure that goldfish hate our guts for sticking them in a tank full of water and only allowing them limited space. Saving the lives of animals is a great cause, but when its that extreme it gets a little mind boggling.
    Sincerely,
    Sara Agoot
    period 4

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dear Lawson,
    I loved your response! It kind of made me laugh because i could hear your saying all of that stuff. Like the goldfish situation! Thats ridiculous!
    Sincerely,
    Sara Agoot
    period 4

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dear Aaron,
    Yes, it would be quite a hazard having dogs running around on the streets. And trust me, law makers are moe concerned for animals than they are for humans. I must remind you that if your neighbor catches your hitting your wife and calls the police, it's only a misdemeanor. But if your neighbor catches you kicking your dog and calls the cops, it's a felony! interesting fact isn't it.
    Sincerely,
    Sara Agoot
    period 4

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dear Ms. Carlson,
    After reading this article, I've learned something interesting that also involved Hawaii. As stated by the author, "California has banned force-feeding to create foie gras, and Hawaii is currently considering banning the sale of the delicacy"(3) caught my attention. It shows that Hawaii is participating in animal rights out of state. Referring back to the article, the author writes, "But requiring animals, including animals that produce or become food, to be treated decently while they are alive ennobles not only the animals but us as well" (11) tells me that we should respect animals especially since they provide us with nourishment.
    Sincerely,
    TJ West Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dear Kirakai,
    I agree with you that animals should have rights, but there's also a limit to how much rights an animal can have. Å 160-page animal rights law is certainly going out of hand.
    Sincerely,
    TJ West Pd.5

    ReplyDelete
  86. Dear Sara,
    I also agree with you. As I said in a recent post, animal rights are sometimes going too far!
    Sincerely,
    TJ West Pd.5

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dear Taylor,
    Wow! I never really thought about it that way! Yes this article is very powerful ad headstrong. It's about animal cruelty and in both of our opinions we feel that it is harsh and not right at all! However, I must agree with you on the fact that it gets way to much attention than needed! Of course it is an issue we should all be concerned about but it isn't the main issue that would destroy our world! Thank you for helping me see this!

    Sincerely,
    Penny Keough period 5

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dear Ms carlson
    in the article "can animal rights go to far" makes sense because cruelty to animals is wrong but is a little ridiculous. In para 4 Bob Barker funded a campaign one million dollars to stop live pigeon shooting when the money could be used for more important things. In para 11 said that animal rights can be taken too far sometimes, but is taken way to far in this article.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dear Sara,
    I also agree with your reasoning on the topic of goldfishes! I feel that it is so cruel to te fish to have toblivenin such a tiny space for the rest of their lives. It really makes me wonder how it'd be like for me if I was a goldfish! I put myself in their shoes and I know that I wouldn't want to be In a tank! Thats like prison for a human being!

    Sincerely,
    Penny Keough period 5

    ReplyDelete
  90. Dear Ms. Carlson
    I think that there should be animal rights laws, but some just seem ridiculous. The author does bring up a good point at the end when he says "but requiring animals, including animals that produce or become food, to be treated decently while they are alive"(11). The author did not really bring up any that seemed ridiculous tom me, but there are a lot of ridiculous animal rights rules out there.

    Sincerely,
    Kawika Wellington

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dear Ms. Carlson
    I believe that animals should have rights, however, i feel that certain animals should get treated less unfortunate. For example i agree with the dog inciden (par.3)too me it is ver understandable that dogs shouldnt get treated like that. But what i really dont understand is Bob Barker (par.4) who donated 1 million dollars to stop pigeon shootings. Yes they are animals too but how about instead of donating so much to a bird how about other animals too. But on the other hand i really enjoyed reading this article because i agree with having animal laws.

    ReplyDelete
  92. dear jeremiah
    i agree with you because force feeding Ducks and geese is horrible and thats the kind of things people should look into.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Dear Cortney,
    i definetly agree with you with paragraph 4 on Bob Barker. Sometimes people can just go to far with animals.

    ReplyDelete
  94. dear kawika
    i agree with you because some animals do suffer because there arent enough laws but other laws are ridiculous and need to be looked into.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Dear kira,
    i really like what you posted because i absolutley agree with you. animal right laws should be brought up and taken care of but why doesnt it have to be so ridiculous. its so unnessesary especially with the 160 page about the gold fish in switzerland. You brought up a really goodpoint.
    Sincerely,
    Amanda Catbagan

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dear Ms .Carlson,
    I do agrees with the chaining of a dog(par.3) but i don't think animals should have too much rights. An example that kind of upsets me in this article is in paragraph 2 they are stating animals have more rights then human to a certain extent and i think it should be the other way around but thats just my opinion.

    From,
    Noah Plemer

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dear Vance,
    I agree with your statement of animal rights going too far. Humans should have more rights the ducks and chickens look some people are homeless we can barely do anything about it but they expect to keep animals clean and put away not right.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dear Ms .Carlson,
    I think that animals should have rights against cruelty, but they should not have more rights then humans.I think we should worry about human rights before animals.

    Sincerely,
    Jonah Plemer

    ReplyDelete
  99. Dear Noah,
    I think your right people should have more rights then animals. animal rights are important but i think we should worry about ourselves before others.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dear Jr,
    I think its good for kids to learn animal rights because they are the future, but i think human should be focused on the human problems and then focuse on animal ones.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dear Ms.Carlosn,
    I agree that dogs should be on a chain(par3). But I think there are some laws for animals are outrageous. This reminds me of the story of michael vick and his pit bulls. He spent time in jail for fighting pit bulls that when animals have rights.

    sincerely,
    Steven McCabe

    ReplyDelete
  102. Dear Ms. Carlson
    I Agree With the title and i think animals should have rights but after reading this artical it seems like the animals has way more rights then us humans, but to be honest i really feel that little fishies can get lonely because i tried to picture my self living in a glass bowl and i dont think i would be able to live.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Dear steven.
    I aree with your comment I do think me dogs should be kept on chains but not left alone 24 7 I think that the owners should atleast play with them and not use them to fight and make money.

    ReplyDelete
  104. This Post is From Alexa.

    Dear Ms. Carlson,
    Much like what the other students have stated, I do find the issue itself to be a bit of a difficult, mostly depending if we really need these animal protection rules or not. However I do agree with some animal rights like makings cages for chickens “large enough for the birds to stand up, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of the cage” which probably would make the chicken meat and eggs in the factories more nutritious, but it would be a bit costly for factory owners (P1).The article “can animal rights go too far?” by Adam Cohen is very controversy. Though I agree with the animal-liberation activists when they argued “that "species-ism" was wrong and had to be defeated”(5). Some rules should be changed for the safety of others. Although “Thirteen states now have laws that limit the chaining or tethering of dogs outside, such as to a metal pole or a tree” this law could cause problems for the future(3). Animal-liberation activists “regard it as cruel and dangerous for the dog” but some dogs do need to be chained for people and animals protection(3).

    Sincerely,

    Alexa Thompson Pd. 5

    Dear Lawson,
    I agree that some claims are overboard and that the only reason we do some of those things are for the safety of our animals like tying them up. I always keep my dog in her cage or tied in my yard but I know a lot of dog run free in our neighborhood. As cruel as it may seem it actually saves them from running off and risking getting hurt.
    Sincerely,

    Alexa Thompson Pd. 5

    Dear Anthony,
    I agree that some if not most laws that are for the sake of animal rights are a bit extreme. Some are good but others are not necessary. I also agree that though there may be reasonable ideas like bigger cages for chickens will cost more money. However, I think if it’s for a good cause you should put as much time and money into it as you think is necessary.
    Sincerely,

    Alexa Thompson Pd. 5

    ReplyDelete