Over the centuries, it has been a tradition in many countries to have beings race against each other for the amusement of the onlookers. The human being probably is the only being where running in a race is a choice, not a must.
As with other traditions there should come a time to think it over, to decide whether or not the tradition still is in any way useful, amusing or necessary.
Dog racing is a tradition that might have been amusing and even necessary to bring some entertainment into the lives of hard working people, where hardly any other forms of entertainment were available. But in the 21st century in developed countries there are millions of ways to be entertained. Hurting other beings for amusement should no longer be called a tradition.
Thanks to the consistent efforts of several humane organizations, dog racing will end in Texas. As of January 1st, 2016, there will no longer be any dog track in the whole state. It would be wonderful if more states would follow and dog racing would become one of the obsolete traditions.
Some may not believe in petitions and campaigns, saying they cannot change the fate of animals by signing and sharing these petitions. We all have read about the public outcry over the death of a lion in Zimbabwe, whose name, Cecil, has started to stand for the fight in ending cruel animal abuse, mostly ending in the death of a being who had no chance of survival.
But some stories show that the international community does have a choice, and can change a life, sometimes even many lives.
” HSI (Humane Society International), along with Animal Welfare Network Nepal (AWNN), have successfully convinced the trustees of the Gadhimai temple in Nepal to forbid animal sacrifice at future festivals. This means that animals like water buffalo, cows, goats, chickens, pigeons and pigs will be spared a grisly death by bludgeoning or decapitation in the horrific slaughter that happens there every five years.
This significant development comes eight months after the end of last year’s bloodbath that you stood with us to fight.”
It is hard to say what needs to be done first to change the plight of animals: change the human behavior by raising awareness or changing laws according to scientifically based research studies indicating that animals are beings, not things.
The Nonhuman Rights Project believes in the law and has gone to court to fight for the rights of two chimpanzees:
“The New York County Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe issued a 33-page decision in the case of the chimpanzees Hercules and Leo. They are being held in captivity in a Stony Brook University laboratory.
Justice Jaffe denied habeas corpus relief to Hercules and Leo only because, as she wrote, “for now” she is bound by the intermediate appellate court decision in Tommy’s case, which we have placed before the Court of Appeals—New York’s highest Court— seeking further review.
As with Tommy’s and Kiko’s cases, the legal battle will continue as our chimpanzee plaintiffs continue to suffer in captivity the way any self-aware, autonomous being would.
What Justice Jaffe’s decision does is allow us to appeal the decision to First Department which, unlike Justice Jaffe, is not bound by the decision of the Third Department in Tommy’s case.
As we work on what will be a prompt appeal of the decision, we’re pleased also to tell you that:
One, Justice Jaffe’s decision was thoughtful and comprehensive. We thank her for so carefully examining our arguments and for having granted the historic Order to Show Cause that compelled the Attorney General’s office to appear in court on May 27th to justify Hercules and Leo’s detention at Stony Brook.
Two, Justice Jaffe agreed that the NhRP had standing to litigate on behalf of Hercules and Leo. Indeed, she rejected one by one all the procedural barriers the Attorney General of New York attempted to place before her. She also rejected the argument that “opening the floodgates” to lawsuits on behalf of other nonhuman animals (also known as the “slippery slope” argument) was a sufficient reason for denying relief to Hercules and Leo and refused to follow the appellate decision handed down in Kiko’s case (which is also before the Court of Appeals for further review on our request).
Three, she concluded her decision on what we see as a sympathetic, positive note: ´Efforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees are thus understandable; some day they may even succeed.´We encourage you to read the entire decision and share this news with your friends and fellow nonhuman animal advocates.”