A Rabbit, is a Rabbit, is a Rabbit… not Under the Law
The author explains the implications of rabbits’ variable status under U.S. law based on how they are used — for hunting, companionship, entertainment, food, research, and clothing — and elucidates what legal protection is afforded as a result.
[Abstract excerpted from original source.]
“Animals are classified under the law as property. Domestic and captive wild animals are the personal property of their human owners, while free-roaming wildlife are deemed the property of the common and owned as a “resource” by the sovereign with jurisdiction over the land on which the free-roaming animals live. This property classification is fundamental to the law’s treatment of animals because it grants dominion to human owners over animals. The animal’s inherent interests, if legally recognized at all, are trumped by human interests in every case. Because property is a thing for human use, and animals are property, the law governing animals is organized around the humans’ use of the animal. The result is that a given animal will have different protection under the law depending upon the owner’s use and independent of the animal’s inherent interests. Let’s see what this means for a rabbit in the United States.”
http://www.gjal.abo.fi/?page=get_issue&id=2013-01