United States

Summary: A pragmatist can be thought of as someone concerned about the practical consequences of her actions or beliefs. It is likely that all animal rights activists, whose common goal might be framed as the eradication of animal oppression, consider themselves pragmatists. Theirs is a lofty goal. Oppression which has been thousands of years in the making could reasonably be anticipated to be a long time in the unmaking. In the intervening years, different ideas have emerged about the practical consequences of different actions or beliefs. These differences (sometimes categorized under the broad headings of'rights" or 'welfare'" have transformed, or been transformed, into a pernicious conflict between advocates. It is essential, if meaningful change is to be achieved, that this conflict be resolved and not casually remanded to the realm where all opinions are seen to be equally valid, and to each her own. Gary Francione, lawyer, professor and author, has recently attempted an analysis of this discord in his book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. The following commentary briefly considers some of the observations and conclusions Francione makes and some of the backlash his thoughts have engendered.

Summary: "In Rain Without Thunder Gary Francione makes a number of very interesting and original points. Space will not permit a full discussion of all these points, but I would like to mention at least two points regarding his after-the-fact analysis of PETA's campaigns and the danger of using -other types of exploitation, such as sexism, to further the animal rights movement I will then discuss in more detail a third point involving a distinction Francione makes that clarifies a number of problems and has great significance for the animal rights movement."

Summary: This article extends Gary Francione's analysis of these concepts from Rain without Thunder within the context of animal experimentation. Michael argues that Francione's work leads us to the conclusion that the notions of necessary and unnecessary suffering are empty of meaning, and no significant difference exists between them. That humans cause animals to suffer in abundance is reality. That their suffering is necessary in order to fulfill human purposes is fantasy.

Summary: This article is a brief discussion of some aspects of Marc Bekoff's research that bear on animal sentience and animal protection. First he considers how the comparative study of animal minds informs discussions of animal exploitation, then he discusses how humans interfere, often unknowingly, in the lives of wild animals. It doesn't matter whether "dogs ape" or "apes dog" when taking into account the worlds of different animals.

Summary: This article provides a brief look at "rights theory" regarding women in comparison to animals.

Summary: The scope of animal rights is much broader than the vast majority of individuals believe. People spend little time considering how our legal system's treatment of animals affects society. The law, created to protect beings from harm, has time and again proven itself a stubborn, static creation. However, through the efforts of people who have recognized the law's shortcomings and have sought to correct them, justice may eventually prevail. Unfortunately, the best means by which to accomplish justice for animals is not clear, and disagreements inevitably arise. The essays which follow are written by experts from various interdisciplinary fields at the request of Animal Law. Our hope is to give the reader a broader understanding of the need for animal protection, the complexities of the movement, and the historical context and current legal framework underlying the position of non-human animals.

Summary: This article gives a brief introduction regarding the obstacles to legal rights for animals.

Summary: This Georgia regulation has an exception for dogs in outdoor dining areas in the subsection of the regulation that prohibits animals in food service establishments. Subsection (5)(o)(vi) states that pet dogs may be allowed in outside dining areas of a food establishment provided patrons access the area from the outdoors and several other conditions are met. Pet dogs must not come into contact with any serving dishes, utensils, or tableware nor are they allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings. Employees and consumers must not provide food to pet dogs. The pet dogs must be kept on a leash and under control of the consumer at all times. At no time is the pet dog allowed to travel through the interior portion of the food service establishment. The establishment must also establish processes for training employees not to handle or pet the dogs and a procedure and equipment for the clean up of pet waste.

Summary: This article provides a review of the book "Animals, Property, and the Law."

Summary: This Virginia regulation states that dogs may be allowed in outdoor dining areas if: (1) the outdoor dining area is not enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls; (2) there is a separate entrance; (3) there is a sign at the main entrance stating that dogs are allowed in the outdoor dining area that is easily observable by the public; (3) food and water provided to dogs is served using equipment not used for human food service or is put in single-use receptacles; (4) dogs are not allowed to sit on chairs, benches, seats, or tables; (5) dogs are kept on a leash or within a pet carrier and under the control of adults at all times; (6) the establishment provides a means for picking up dog messes; and (7) there is a sign outlining some of these requirements observable to the public.