Fight for Animal Rights via Human Rights - by Anthony Marr
To all who love wild animals and hate hunting:
Kansas City activist Jason Miller (herein shown with "Bambi" & Anthony
who has fought a valiant and tenacious regional war on the mass slaughter
of deer at the Shawnee Mission Park first by sharpshooters (313 deer killed)
and another 80 to be killed by bow-hunters
as of this week, filed an application for a court injunction against the
latter, and, after a 45 minute hearing on Dec. 14 by a sympathetic judge,
nonetheless lost the bid due to a lack of support provision within the law
regarding the rights (or total absence thereof) of wild animals. Here is his
excellent report on his legal adventure:
For a better backgrounder, check out my earlier blogs on the subject in:
According to his lawyer-friend's advice, Jason's is launching an appeal,
and here are some thoughts from me on this move.
1. Research the FDAand EPA approvals of IC and stress that the
technology is now finally ready for field implementation. Previously, the
opposition had used the lack of EPA approval as the main argument against
the implementation of Immuno-Contraception (IC). What argument do they have
now? What are they waiting for? Whatever happened to the legendary "American
2. Previous to the sharpshooting of the 313 unfortunate deer,
another argument from the opposition is that we would have to cram 400 deer
into the 50 acre Deer Auto-Assembler (DAA), but now that they have
eliminated 313 of them, it leaves only about 80, which would be an ideal
initial number for a transition from lethal to non-lethal.
3. Here is a thought not entertained before. In animal protection
laws, domestic animals do have some limited rights, but these are not
exactly animal rights, but rather, in essence, the rights of their "owners".
If you steal or injure or kill a dog or a horse or a cow, it is basically a
transgression against the "owner", so, basically, it is not an animal rights
issue, but a human rights issue, where the animal is looked upon as property
and equal to, say, a TV or a car in the eyes of the law. In this light, wild
animals don't even have these very limited "rights" as domestic animals do,
since they are owned by no particular human. So, it stands to reason that
the court has nothing to stand on to judge in favor of wild animals.
However, if we link wild animals and compassionate humans in an intimate
manner, say, friendship between them inadvertently developed, e.g. by a deer
who frequents ones property and befriends ones child, or ones general
enjoyment of wild animals in the back woods, or the trauma and loss one
suffers learning that a favorite deer has been killed, or ones personal
paradise turned into a killing field, or when ones life or loved ones are
endangered but hunting and hunters, or when hunters enter ones property in
pursuit of "game"..., we might have our way based on our own human rights.
This last point has never been employed before as far as I know, and IMHO is
well worth including in our currently somewhat ill-equipped arsenal.
4. Hunter's claim their rights. How about non-hunters and
anti-hunters. Don't they have rights? How about the emotional anguish every
year when the hunting season approaches? How about the tears we've shed for
the beloved animals who died? How about those who used to love the Autumn
now dreading and even hating it? How about ones children having nightmares?
How about the cost of counseling for those who have been traumatized
(hunters should have to be held accountable for this)? How about all those
who are in constant danger to being shot by hunters who routinely shoot one
another and hikers and campers, even their own children or parents,
mistaking them for animals? How about those who have actually been hurt? How
about the loss of use of the park when hunters claim exclusive use of the
public property? How about the loss of ones basic constitutional rights such
as the Freedom of Speech as contravened by the state-level Hunter Harassment
5. As Dr. Steve Best has pointed out, defending oneself is self-defense,
and defending ones loved ones is extended self-defense. The right to
self-defense is written in the Constitution.
Human laws up to this point are still by and large anthropocentric, but
we if we play it smart, we can fight in that arena for the animals and win.
Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
From: Jason Miller ..
Subject: Taking the Deer Wars into the Courtroom...
To: "Jason Miller" ..
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 12:37 AM
I put together my summary of our legal battle for the deer, compiled
links to media coverage, and discerned and described what good came of this
Please cross publish it on your sites/blogs, link to it on your social
networking sites, and/or forward this email widely:
WARNING: graphic image
Taking the Deer Wars into the Courtroom…..
“A two minute conversation with an all-too-common empathy-deficient
dullard reveals how morally perverse it is that the prevailing paradigm
enables (and even encourages) those who derive pleasure from torturing and
murdering defenseless beings.”
Jason Miller and Bite Club of KC vs Michael Meadors and the Johnson
County Parks and Recreation District
Journal Entry by Jason Miller
On 12/14/09, my activist allies and I took the deer war in Shawnee
Mission Park (aka Death Park ) into the courtroom. We filed a Temporary
Restraining Order to stop Michael Meadors and the Johnson County Parks and
Recreation Division from slaughtering an additional 80 deer with bows and
arrows. As is the case with most grass roots animal rights activists and
groups, we operate on a severely limited budget, so I filed this action pro
se. Acting in that capacity, I could only represent the entity of Bite Club
of KC and myself. However, I spoke for billions of wildlife lovers, animal
rights activists and nonhuman animals as I sat in that courtroom.
Understand that just as we did throughout this crusade for the deer, when
my allies and I entered the courthouse for the hearing on 12/14 we had
monumental obstacles to overcome in order to stop the slaughter.
Six months of intense on-the-street activism (during which time I engaged
thousands of people in an effort to persuade them that we needed to manage
the deer herd via nonlethal means) gave me numerous daily reminders of the
ugly reality that many people wear blinders to shield them from the abject
cruelty of the war our species is waging on other animals (most of them
expressed support for our cause once educated), some simply give an
apathetic shrug of the shoulders, and, disturbingly, there are those who
take sadistic delight in inflicting misery upon our animal brethren.
Speciesism is a perverse worldview that is so tightly stitched into our
social fabric that it will take years of intensive efforts to extricate it
from our midst. A two minute conversation with an all-too-common
empathy-deficient dullard reveals how morally perverse it is that the
prevailing paradigm enables (and even encourages) those who derive pleasure
from torturing and murdering defenseless beings. Our anthropocentric,
speciesist legal system enshrines and protects the “rights” of these
sociopathic humans to molest and annihilate innocent sentients. In the eyes
of the law, nonhuman animals are objects, commodities, resources, or at
best, pets (who are afforded a bit more protection than other animals but
who are still classified as property).
Just as they had been throughout our campaign, the odds in the courtroom
were stacked against us in a significant way. Numerous groups have sought
legal intervention to stop wildlife culls, and despite having the advantage
of legal representation, few (if any) have been able to persuade judges to
issue an injunction. Since nonhuman animals have no legal rights, they have
no standing in a civil action. Acting as their proxy is a challenging
proposition because to get the courts to intervene, the people filing the
TRO or injunction have to prove that the cull would harm them in some way or
that officials had acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Despite knowing the odds, my tenacious nature spurred me to make the
attempt. And despite Judge Kevin Moriarty denying the Temporary Restraining
Order (a decision with which I never stated I agreed—I merely stated that I
appreciated his thoughtful consideration of the case) there were a number of
gains made on behalf of nonhuman animals and the cause of animal rights:
1. While I anticipated the possibility of a quick ruling against us,
Judge Moriarty considered assertions from both sides for 45 minutes before
rendering a decision. I disagree with his decision not to issue the TRO, yet
I applaud his sincere consideration of our case, his recognition that
nonlethal wildlife management would be superior to culling or hunting in
Shawnee Mission Park , and the respect that he afforded me and our position.
2. Judge Moriarty noted that people generally don’t like the idea of
killing wildlife and asked Meadors what they intended to do to prevent this
problem from arising in the future. Meadors stated that JCPRD intended to
use nonlethal means to manage the deer population in Shawnee Mission Park
3. I got an opportunity to expound upon the assertions I had made in the
Affidavit that I filed with the TRO– quoting from emails, citing
documentation, and elaborating upon my analyses and conclusions. While Judge
Moriarty ruled that, in his opinion, they weren’t enough to demonstrate that
Meadors and JCPRD had acted in arbitrary or capricious ways, my arguments
and assertions are now a matter of public record and a number of them led
Judge Moriarty to vigorously question the opposition, and in some cases,
express disdain toward them.
4. There were times throughout the hearing when I seriously thought Judge
Moriarty was going to grant the Temporary Restraining Order, and when he
finally concluded that, in his opinion, he could not issue the TRO within
the framework of the law, he was quite sympathetic to our position and
cautioned Meadors and JCPRD that he didn’t want to see us in this position
again next year. Because, as he stated, “that would mean that we hadn’t
learned from our mistakes.”
5. While the bow hunt (disguised as a thinning of an already decimated
deer herd) may run its course this year, my allies and I exerted tremendous
pressure upon Johnson County officials in myriad ways from many angles
throughout our campaign. My attorney friend commented that the Motion to
Dismiss that JCPRD filed in response to our TRO entailed about $5,000.00
worth of legal work. There were at least seven members of JCPRD upper
management present at the hearing. We may not have prevented them from
killing more deer, but as we did throughout our relentless campaign, we gave
the ‘powers that be’ serious hell, educated the public, inspired animal
rights groups around the world by showing that local grass roots groups can
go head to head with those with the power and money, and created some
serious obstacles to future slaughters in Shawnee Mission Park.
6. It is now a matter of public record that Meadors and JCPRD plan on
implementing nonlethal methods to manage the deer population in Shawnee
Mission Park going forward. Meadors also made a similar pledge in a phone
conversation that he had with wildlife defender and Global Anti-Hunting
Coalition founder Anthony Marr on 12/9/09.
We are going to hold JCPRD’s feet to the fire on their promise to use
nonlethal means going forward. And if Lloyd Fox, Ken Payne, and their merry
band of murderers think they’ve opened the door to an annual bow hunt in
Shawnee Mission Park , they’re in for one hell of a fight. Bite Club of KC
and now the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition aren’t going away, and next year
the pro-kill faction won’t have a severe deer over-population problem as a
means of duping the public into thinking a slaughter is necessary so that
they can engage in their serial killing in an urban park.
And who’s to say what else may happen before this year is out…..
Here are some links to local media coverage of our legal battle: