The social status of animals within human society has been evolving for decades in the United States, and therefore it is a fair question to ask: What direction is foreseeable for animals within the law in the future? Here, we can think of the future in the terms of three or so decades.

As animals have always been treated differently in law depending upon which community they share with humans, there is not just one path forward to think about. Perhaps four different streams are flowing forward in time; some may intermingle, some or not so much. Consider the rabbit. A rabbit may live in the community of wildlife, as a companion animal, human food, or exhibition. One legal rule does not apply to all those circumstances.

COMPANION ANIMALS

These animals who share a home with humans are on the fast track for enhanced visibility and protection in the legal system. In all states, they may presently be the financial beneficiary of an owner’s trust at the death of the owner.¹ In five states, the “best interest of the animal” may be taken into account by a judge when deciding custody of a companion animal during the property settlement for a divorce.² They already receive the full protection of the criminal anti-cruelty laws in all states.³ Note that this revolutionary change in legal status is occurring at the state level, without any action at the federal level.

In the future, many more states are expected to amend divorce laws to accept the new view of companion animals, that they are part of the human family, not just property. In the middle term of the future, the issue of damages for harm to a companion animal needs to be addressed. In a large majority of states, recovery for intentional harm to a loved companion animal starts and stops with market value; some states, but not a majority, also allow reasonable veterinary cost in excess of market value.⁴ Yet, the very real loss of love and companionship with the loss of companion animal is not yet recognized in the world of torts. Legal personhood for companion animals already has one foot in the jurisprudential door, and the future will see a widening of that opening.

INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE

This is both one of the most pressing animal issues but is also the most difficult with which to deal. The eating of meat is a long existent cultural, social reality. To feed that public demand, our capitalist economic system has evolved into billion-dollar global corporations.⁵ This level of money assured a level of political power such that dislodging the existing methods of raising meat animals (and dairy) will be very difficult. How we raise our agricultural animals can have visibility at the state level, as California Prop 12, “which set new conditions for raising hogs, veal calves and egg-laying chickens whose meat or eggs are sold in California,” has made clear.⁶ However, it is not yet a national issue, something on the national news feeds, something that presidential candidates discuss. But at some point that will be the case. Only when agricultural animal wellbeing becomes a national issue will the political will be generated to face and change our existing invisible food chain of meat. For the United States, it might well be the case that agricultural animal wellbeing becomes an issue with the rise of international treaties on the matter.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional change will occur first at the state level, and maybe in the distant future at the federal level. The push for both better welfare and legal rights for animals will ultimately need to create a clearer basis for legislative action within state constitutions. This is not impossible to contemplate for the west coast states and New England. This will clarify that animals are more than personal property in the eyes of the law. While I have previously proposed the category name of “Living Property,”⁷ there may be a number of different phrases planted in a state constitution. Such an amendment might mention why the amendment is happening with phrases such as “animals are sentient beings” or “animals possess their own living interests deserving of consideration.”

Such an amendment will not replace existing cruelty laws or details of living conditions, rather, it is a recasting of the breath of our society such that the legal system can be comfortable in acknowledging the reality of non-human animals as individuals whose interests may be accounted for within the legal system, by both the legislature and the courts.

TREATY LAW

The fourth path available and necessary to travel is at the international level. There is no treaty existing now which has individual animal wellbeing as a primary focus. There are many treaties which deal with wildlife, but they are in an ecological context, not animal wellbeing.⁸ If the issues of industrial agriculture animals such as pigs and chickens are to be fully addressed, given the reality that it is now a global market, then a treaty is the only way to reduce/ eliminate animal wellbeing as a key point of capitalist competition.⁹ If there are global standards for animal wellbeing, then capitalism can do its work in providing economically efficient products to the consumer without the creation of cruel conditions. This assumes that general agreement on what the standards should be can be reached by a significantly large group of nations. This may take some time, as presently animals in some nations simply do not have sufficient visibility or social/political concern for the acceptance of restraints on capitalism. A starter treaty for this topic has been recently drafted and is available for consideration.¹⁰

CONCLUSION

At one level the future is unknowable, but if we in the United States continue to have a healthy stable society, the concerns about animals will continue to be actively pursued both within the legal system of Michigan and on a national basis. In twenty years, someone should write a follow-up to this article so progress for the animals can be acknowledged.