The case that brought about this ruling involved the seizure of a horse named Grace with a body condition score of 0 (zero) without a warrant. The Court confirmed that the seizure was legal because the horse was in imminent danger of dying. This is what the mare looked like when rescued.
And this is her four months later.
The rescuers were surprised also that she didn't have major organ damage. She lived another year (she was about 28 yrs old) and was euthanized after a bout of colic. Her rescuers had promised her she would never suffer again.
Even though animals are property, there should be special exceptions to protect them from severe neglect or harm. Abuse is a defined crime, not an opinion, but that's not going to stop PETA and other extreme animal rights groups from having a field day with this ruling. My friend commented on the article and I agree with her statement:
Although I back the court's ruling, it is a fine line between protecting the welfare of animals and animal rights. In this instance, there was no doubt that the horse in question was at death's door and in need of immediate rescue. Her very life depended on violating private property rights. This is a rare circumstance and the court's ruling should be upheld for only this type of circumstance when there is immediate danger to the welfare of an animal. Grace fit the legal definition of an abused/neglected animal. This was not a judgement call which animal rights activists would take advantage of.Rescuing an animal from abuse should be like rescuing children from abuse. It needs to be done carefully so as not to deny parental/ownership rights, but it should be an option when abuse/neglect is certain.
The problem with animal rights is that its ultimate goal is to end the human/animal relationship and "restore" animals to a more "natural" state. That would be a death/extinction sentence for domesticated animals.
I oppose the animal rights agenda. I fully support animal welfare.