Alaska is First State to Consider Well Being of Pets in Divorce Proceedings

Animals are legally considered property despite the fact that said designation often feels weird. It feels weird because both the humans and the animals can feel love, can hurt, can grieve and can suffer. No matter how much you love your car, your car can neither love you back nor suffer if you don't gas it up.

The courts and legislators struggle with this all the time as there is a universal recognition that animals are a unique form of property. Hence, animal welfare laws prohibit humans from treating their pets poorly and can actually prohibit some offenders from having pets at all. California was an early adopter of a set of statutes that permitted pets to be listed on restraining orders in cases of domestic violence. This was revolutionary at the time as doing so was akin to ordering someone to remain 100 yards from a stereo!

Alaska is the first state to go even further and now requires that in divorce proceedings judges may decide the issue of custody of the pets based upon "the well-being of the animal" rather than merely looking at who purchased the pet as one might look at a house or furniture. In other words, courts may analyze pet custody issues in an analogous manner to child custody disputes in that single or joint custody will be awarded based on the pet's needs rather than those of the humans.

Like infants, pets can't testify as to their preferences. I bet there will be some interesting witnesses and other evidentiary offerings to help the judge determine the issue and make a just and righteous call.

Stay tuned ....

Cats on Leashes - Seriously

courtesy google images

Taking your cat out on a leash is far from a crazy idea. This is exactly what is happening in Alaska.

We have succeeded, nationally, in drastically reducing the number of impounds of lost dogs. Spay/neuter efforts, leash laws, identification systems, and more committed pet owners have helped reduce unwanted dogs, reunite lost dogs with their people, and achieve buy in to the idea that families keep a dog for the duration of the dog's life.

Not so with cats. Not at all.

Many continue to let their cats outside to roam, intact and without identification, all to the detriment of the cats and other wildlife. First, people don't realize their cat is lost until it's too late. Second, authorities can't discern between a lost cat, a community cat and cat transitioning to feral status. Third, the cats on the street are breeding, ailing and serving as food for predatory animals.

Consequently, we are using resources to find a cat who already has a home, a new one, perhaps at the expense of a cat who never had one.  Instead of giving every animal an opportunity for a family, we are giving some multiple tries, and others, no chance at all.

Imagine if all pets were required by law to be contained on their property, or if out strutting, be required to be on a leash. Then imagine if all the funds, food, medicine and cage space were freed up for those pets who truly needed a home rather than for those just needing a different home with more committed human companions. 

This effort alone would result in a substantial decrease in the number of animals in shelters, the amount of euthanasia performed, and would propel us forward in our resolve to end the pet overpopulation crisis. As an ancillary benefit, we would learn to value the pets we have, thereby reducing the market for unscrupulous breeders. Only then would we begin to live an ethic that treats companion animals like family members rather than like disposable commodities or Doritos.
  
It would certainly help hoist me out of my existential pit. Isn't that worth something?

Polar Bear in Alaska Hazed to Death by BP Security Guard

A polar bear was shot by a security guard hired to protect BP's Endicott Field compound on the North Slope of Alaska. Polar bears are considered a "threatened species" and it is illegal under federal law to kill them. Measures to protect the polar bears notwithstanding, it is still legal to "haze" or scare them if they threaten humans but only by non-lethal means.

BP asserts that this was a hazing gone wrong. BP Alaska spokesperson Steve Rinehart claims the guard thought he fired a bean bag at the bear that was approaching the compound, but "accidentally" used a cracker shell instead which struck a fatal blow. Cracker shells are a type of ammo that is loud, has characteristics of an explosive, and can propel explosives large distances. There use has recently come under fire by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other government offices as too dangerous and unpredictable to use without a proper license.

Rinehart went on to say that the "polar bear death is the first time in 35 years of working on the North Slope that a bear has been killed by a security guard working for BP, and we dearly wish it had not happened".

Unfortunately it took the bear several days to die from the wound.  The United States Department of Fish And Wildlife Service is investigating the killing. I hope they answer these and other questions:

1. The bear was shot on August 3rd. Why are we just hearing about it? Was there a cover-up?
2. How does one confuse an explosive shell  with a bean bag?
3. How much training does the security guard have in the use of these weapons?
4. If he couldn't tell the bear was hit-how close was the bear really?
5. Was the bear actually threatening anybody?
6. Were permits needed for the shells? Did BP have them?
7. How much more of our wildlife and environment are we going to let BP destroy? Remember the Gulf of Tears

I "dearly wish" BP and its guard company are held accountable.


Article first published as A Threatened Polar Bear Killed by BP Security Guard in Alaska on Technorati.