Do these little piggies have rights?

While not a prominent issue inside the Beltway right now, the legal rights of animals has become a divisive issue in political debates, both in state governments and overseas.

"Animal Rights" turned out to be a major election issue this fall, as the Humane Society and several other such groups sponsored ballot initiatives in eight states across the country. In its cover story "Referendum Wars," Campaign & Elections magazine ranked animal-protection proposals as the top referendum issue across the country -- ahead of drug-policy reform, school vouchers, health-care reform and others.

Since the mid-1990s, the Humane Society of the United States, other animal-protection groups and grassroots organizers have turned to the ballot box to get the reforms they want, and with overwhelming success, according to M. Dane Waters, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute.

Animal rights activists achieved a victory in Washington state, where voters passed a measure banning "body gripping" traps and prohibiting the sale or purchase of fur from trapped animals. Violators of the law can be punished with a $5,000 fine and a year in jail. The measure passed 55 to 45 percent

At the same time, the animal rights movement suffered a defeat in neighboring Oregon, where the nearly identical initiative, Measure 97, was rejected 61 to 39 percent. Hunters and fishermen united against an initiative that they charged was "poorly written and threatens Oregon's wildlife."

A measure prohibiting dog racing, Question #3, passed in Massachusetts. State Question 687 in Oklahoma amended animal cruelty statutes there to make it illegal to hold or encourage a cockfight, or even to be a spectator at one. In Alaska, Ballot Measure #6 was rejected handily, discouraging hunters from using airplanes to get to remote locations to kill wolves. The Measure prohibits landing an airplane and shooting wolves on the same day and shooting without a permit in authorized areas.

Meanwhile, the question of whether to continue the sport of fox hunting has become a major controversy in England.

Fox hunting, the 500-year-old sport of red-coated riders, baying hounds and pealing horns, has suddenly become endangered. After lengthy debate, the Labour-dominated House of Commons finally voted 387 to 174 to make hunting wild mammals with dogs a crime.

The ban reflects not only the traditional concerns of animal-loving Britons, but also the country's aggressive animal-rights movement. Hunt supporters have been subjected to physical abuse, arson, hound-nappings and even car bombings.

Also in Britain, measures to restrain the activities of animal rights extremists have been outlined by Home Secretary Jack Straw following violent demonstrations against several major pharmaceutical companies earlier this month.

Animal activists have been waging a long campaign to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), which carries out animal experiments for pharmaceutical companies. Having failed so far against HLS, activists have started to target the companies that use the firm. For the past several weeks, the company and its business partners have been the target of vandalism.

While few animal-rights activists advocate violence as a political tool, they do see their cause as a moral imperative. While most states have laws on the books to prevent cruelty to animals, most legal jurisdictions subscribe to "animal welfare theories," instead of "animal rights theories."

"Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice," declares the web site of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal's rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict. Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as "humane" guidelines are followed."

PETA and its allies still face considerable public opposition in changing the relationship between man and beast.

"Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans consider it acceptable to farm animals for any purpose, provided they're treated decently," according to Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal. "Activists have turned to truly cracked notions, that all us animals--pigs, rats, flies and humans alike--should live together in peace and harmony (a notion, it should be stressed, that the animal kingdom itself blithely ignores)."

The most prominent misstep on the part of PETA in recent months was their spoof the "Got Milk?" campaign. The organization erected "Got Prostate Cancer?" billboards several months ago, attributing Mayor Rudy Giuliani's illness to his consumption of milk. PETA opposes both the milking and slaughter of cows. After vociferous public criticism for making light of a man's illness, PETA dismantled the signs and apologized to the mayor.

Rethinking Animal Law	Avoiding Legal Extremes