Highest Rated Comments


JessicaALDF40 karma

We at the Animal Legal Defense Fund believe that all animals deserve to live their lives in their natural environments, with their natural companions and family infrastructures. Yes, keeping animals in captivity is inherently cruel--especially social animals like non-human primates, marine mammals, and large carnivores--because they are deprived of their mates and because even the best zoos and aquariums could never approximate the ecosystem of their natural habitats. We don't consider ourselves radicals because we use the court system to advocate on behalf of animals, while corporations with millions of dollars are using the vary same system to advance their "animals-as-property agenda," which results in the suffering of billions of animals worldwide every day. Our position isn't radical. I'd argue theirs is.

JessicaALDF32 karma

ALDF has led the fight to free Tony the Tiger. We started many years ago by suing the state licensing authority for failing to ensure Tony was living in a licensed facility with an owner who was obligated to abide by the state's humane standards of care. We won that litigation, and Tony should have been freed. But then the Louisiana Legislature passed a law specifically exempting Tony from the licensing requirements and permitting his (and only his) owner to own a tiger in Louisiana. For the details, check out ALDF's features page. Look for more litigation in the future from ALDF as we work to get Tony's special exemption overturned. We will never stop fighting for Tony.

Edit: formatting.

JessicaALDF32 karma

ALDF strives to advance the concept of animal personhood in everything we do, but we don't think it's a politically controversial subject. The industrial machines that profit from animal suffering want you to believe that animal personhood means that animals will have the same rights as people, but that's not what it means. We want animals to be recognized as legal persons, that is we want animals to be able to assert their rights to humane treatment, autonomy, and self in court--just like corporations do (though they definition of "humane" has more to do with taxes). Everyone who works for ALDF eats a plant-based diet and refrains from economically supporting any animal products, so in short, we are vegan. Ideally, everyone could be vegan, but we recognize that is not realistic, so we advocate for everyone to do as much as they can in order to improve the lives of animals. If everyone ate a plant-based diet two days a week, we'd save millions of animals across the world in one month alone.

JessicaALDF26 karma

For more information about ALDF's involvement in SeaWord, here's a link to the story about the California Coastal Commission prohibiting SeaWorld San Diego from breeding orcas as a condition to obtaining a development permit. The Commission agreed to impose that condition after hearing an entire day of testimony about how terrible captivity is for orcas. For example, orcas are known to swim more than a hundred miles a day and dive hundreds of feet in search of food. Even in an expanded tank at SeaWorld the orcas would only be able to dive fifty feet while swimming in endless circles in a concrete tank. In other words, captivity in conditions like those at SeaWorld can never be considered humane treatment of animals.

JessicaALDF24 karma

For me, the most difficult legal battle is really the political fight wrapped up in every legal decision-making process. Even judges and juries feel passionately about animals, animal welfare, animal rights, and property rights. When we are deciding whether to bring a case, we have to consider those passions and the locality where we might file, which is frustrating because animals are suffering everywhere. For the Cricket Hollow Zoo case, which is the subject of this AMA, we wondered if Iowa was willing to take the Endangered Species Act to the next level, whether Iowa would be willing to apply the ESA to captive wildlife for the first time ever. Iowa is a state notoriously beholden to the "animals are property" industry professionals who profit enormously off animal suffering, so we were understandably worried. But this judge was brave in his conviction to uphold the law and do right by these animals.