Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS

Steve

AS always, there are indeed two sides to every story, and if welfare was the sole goal, I'd be right on the front lines with these people. It's not.

The goal is to cause everyone to follow their lead, veganism,if it works for you? Great! Your choice, and I respect that. I choose to eat meat, MY choice and others need to respect that.I make the choice to purchase eggs from humanely raised chickens as opposed to factory farmed eggs, I pay a lot more for those eggs, but it's my way of supporting humane farming for the chickens.Same with meat choices.I do my best to choose food products from sources that have at least a stated interest in the welfare of the animals they raise, or the earth they farm. Why? Because of education. Not because someone, or some group forced me to choose.

If the end goal was to improve the conditions/genetic health of commercially produced puppies? GREAT, I'm all for it.But it's not, it's all about limiting the breeding of companion animals. Educating people on how to find the right companion for their lifestyle and temperament? Let's do it! Do away with puppies in pet shops? Believe it or not, I'm all for that too, but let's provide education(that word again) on how to find a good puppy, from sound parentage, with a minimized risk of genetic disorders.

As far as HSUS being 'affiliated' please check your local shelters, ask them how much money they receive each year from any of these groups. My local shelter is pretty animal rights oriented, yet these same gals have nothing good to say about HSUS, nothing. Meanwhile, I host adoption days, refer folks searching for 'just a dog/cat to the shelter, educate customers on why it's a good idea to spay the cat before she has her third litter this year, why it's OK to have intact dogs if you choose, but how to make sure they're not out there breeding randomly

I'm all for educating people, offering low cost spay/neuter clinics and coughing up money to enforce existing laws. I cringe every time I see someone's dog sauntering around in the road, I hate what feral cat populations have done to wildlife in many areas, feral cats that started as someone's pet, but, I'm not at all in favor of a relatively small group of people dictating whether I may or may not own pet animals.

So while of course there is a bias in anti groups, (there is always a bias with a point of view, Wiki has a bias based on who is doing the writing) while Pacelle et al have done some good things, they are also not in the least truly benign in their agenda. I'm probably not the most gifted writer when it comes to trying to make a point, one of my many failings. But I would ask that you not dismiss out of hand the idea that these organizations do indeed have an agenda that if implemented, would mean that your only contact with dogs and cats would be watching them in their feral state, or telling your grandkids about the great dogs you had when it was 'OK' to have dogs in your home.

I see two other questions that are germane to the thread, Greger. One, which of these animals rights groups espouses giving animals the same rights as humans, as the thesis of the opening article states? Two, wherever you do draw the line, does it come up short of granting animals the same rights as humans?

I suggest the answer to question A is "none" and to question B is "no". I am looking forward to seeing evidence to the contrary.


http://www.aximsite.com/boards/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Terrorist.

But seriously, Sandy, how do you equate these folks with the terrorists who bomb abortion clinics? Don't those groups espouse such terrorism as policy? Which of the Animal Rights groups similarly espouses terrorism?

Steve,

Not a one of the many AR groups out there would publicly advocate violence, it would be the kiss of death as far as financial contributions go.

But don't kid yourself, there are indeed AR groups who do support violence as a means to an end, which is precisely why there is a federal law providing for the prosecution of groups who use violence or harassment as a method of closing down a legitimate business.
www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl102346.htm

""In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) -- an extremist animal rights movement -- has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail, Colorado, ski resort in October 1998................................"
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm

and yet some more interesting reading:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=42

After my day in the salt mines, I'll try and dig up some more interesting links to AR group actions for your reading pleasure<G>

Frazier:



Good post. I especially appreciate knowing how much you are doing in your day-to-day life to advance our human understanding of, and concern for, the humane treatment of animals. I conclude from your post that despite your obvious care and concern for our furry and scaly friends, you also do not find it "fashionable" to propose that animals should have the same rights as humans, which was the claim that started the thread. I have labeled that claim a "straw man" (or "straw animal" if you will ), and am still awaiting even the slightest shred of evidence that it is the least bit fashionable.

On to your post! You seem to know a lot about "these people" and their agendas. I am such a skeptic when it comes to figuring out what other people think, and what motivates them. I tend to draw conclusions from three factors, in order of importance: A) their actions; B) their words; and, C) what other people say about them. You've expressed what people in your own area who are concerned about animal welfare have said about them, and that counts. You've also described their actions - or lack of actions - at the local level. I've found evidence of their actions that is counter to what your locale has experienced. That counts too.


"Not in the least" is a strong accusation. it appears that we agree they have done some good things. I'd like to know what they have said or done to demonstrate that the efforts they made in bringing these good things about were "not in the least benign".




I'm not a vegan, I'm not even a "healthy" vegetarian, I eat so much crap. But I'm with you on the eggs. And heck, what's the diff, if they cost more? They TASTE SO MUCH BETTER! A happy chick lays better eggs. No doubt in my mind. I can make a big fluffy omelette with ONE happy egg that comes out flat and flacid with TWO prisonfarm eggs. So which is cheeper?

And I agree with you that education is more important than imposition. But looking at the laws that have been passed through the advocacy of groups such as HSUS, I have to ask:

• Are the people who are affected by these laws educatable?
• Do any of the laws go beyond reasonable concern for the welfare of the animals?
• Do the laws impose harsh or unreasonable penalties?
• Do any of the laws unreasonable impose the rights of the animals over the rights of the humans?

And getting back to the subject of the thread:

• Do any of the laws afford animals the same rights as humans?

BTW Frazier, we currently have 21 pets. One dog, one cat, and 19 fish. Ok, I admit it's a little strange to refer to fish as "pets", especially when most of them cost $0.125 each, but once my Beloved has given them names, they are members of the family. And she has named all of the fish. Except the two that I named.

Did I not read that PETA tried to stop circuses from having live animals to the point of picketing and shoving people who were in line to buy tickets? It happaned in San Luis Obispo when a traveling circus came to town. Did I not read that PETA actually bombed a medical facility where animals were being tested?

I ran an animal placement center in California and had members of Peta picket me for finding homes for puppies that had been left on our beach. I placed two puppies with a family from San Francisco who had lost their dog to old age and they took two of our puppies. Their kids were in tears they were so happy. Peta's Problem? The family was Vietnamese and Peta felt they would eat the dogs. I heard many times that these lost and homeless animals should be put to death.

There was a baby panda who was adopted by a private wild animal park and Peta demanded that they keep hands off the baby and let him die a natural death. After a while I get fed up with these protestors who have actually thrown paint on someone wearing an ermine or mink coat. I've spent most of my life protecting animals, having them healed by Vets, neutered and spayed by many of my friends who paid for this procedure. I turned my book store over to an Animal Rescue team to show the animals on my front porch of the store and keep track of who took what. All innoculations were paid by my friends and we had a number over 200 dogs placed in homes in our first year.

We took in oil covered ocean birds and if a car accident in our village left a dog without owners for a few weeks, they came home with me. Every park ranger in San Luis Obispo knew I would take in a sick or injured animal. I didn't see PETA show up for any reason than to shut me down for my work.

I had a pissed off Pelican dropped off at the store by a Park Ranger that had been shot in his wing. I had large cage and finally got him down to a wild life vet where he was cared for. It was the only time I got hurt was pushing a sardine down his throat and got my hand caught on that claw on the tip of his beak. 7 Stitches later I was just fine. Don't talk to be about PETA or any of those save the animal groups. I took many wildlife rehab training classes and never saw a PETA member in those classes. We took many trips to the Mammal Rescue group in Monterey and never ran into a PETA member at the meetings.

So in your estimation, Sandy, does PETA advocate that animals should have the same rights as humans? And, how are they related to HSUS? or Greenpeace? Just thinking out loud here - it seems to me there is a continuum of "save the animals" groups and somewhere on that continuum would be your animal shelter, your local no-kill animal shelter (we have one here - do you all have one?), your local Humane Society, HSUS, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front. Just like every anti-war group is not necessarily International A.N.S.W.E.R., I think there are a lot of folks who want to "save the animals" who aren't PETA people.

Like you, Sandy. Heck, you've made it abundantly clear that you believe in Animal Rights. Your actions prove you to be a Save the Animals kind of person. But PETA you ain't. Am I right?

No, Steve, I do not believe animals have the same rights as people. I'm not certain that people even understand their own rights. I've seen a lot of cruelty done to animals by people and consider them to be lacking in respect for an important part of nature. I also belonged to the "Save the Oak" society in the San Fernando Valley. Watching a 400 year old tree being cut down to build a parking lot upset me. Living in the Santa Monica Mountains saw much destruction in our natural rivers and when these water run off creeks were removed or even moved, we saw a lot of damage to people's properties. We tried to pass zoning laws to keep people from destroying the run off areas because these floods were blamed on God and no suits could be brought against anyone simply removing the top of a mountain causing major floods below them. To me a balance in nature is as necessary as a balance in political actions.

We have a sheriff in Maricopa County who has moved his prisoners into tents even during the summer months when he saw the dog kennels without air conditioning killing the animals. He brought the dogs and cats into the prisons and moved the prisoners into the tents. That seemed a bit extreme to me but I was not elected Sheriff.

I'm not in the business of mandating any treatments of animals and I realize that certain critters are bred for food, fur, and medical science. I have always supported the L.A. Zoo when we lived in the area and love the circus for the animals. When I saw the belly bands that were put on the bucking broncos and bulls, I quit going to the rodeos. We raised dogs, chickens, cats, and horses and we took the responsibility for their well being and their health. When people drop their unwanted pets out in the ranch areas and beaches I feel for their well being and being in a tourist village it was a good thing to place these animals with people who wanted them.

I have a very old black cat sitting here on my desk that 14 years ago was dropped out of a pick up truck taped in a box at a YMCA camp grounds where I worked. She has been on my lap and desk ever since.

The difference in my work and PETA is that they want laws written by the government to mandate that furs should not be worn or animals not used for medical reasons and that kind of government control is out of line in my world. You forget, my end game is a limited government not a Big Daddy directing my actions.

In the Santa Monica mountains we have forest fire storms and not all the animals make it. We had a large animal kennel run by the county that was a drop off place for burned pets and wild life. Many of us worked to help put these animals down to relieve their misery and many of us could not ignore this need and we pitched in to help the county vets. Funny, I never saw a single PETA member show up. They will never get their hands dirty to help the animals, they simply want the notoriety of the media.

I have no idea if we have a no kill kennel in this area. If Americans want to help the animal world it has to come from their hearts not from their laws.

Well said Ma'am

Steve,

Are people educable? Well that's a question in and of itself<G>
Some are, some aren't, but we keep on trying.

In answer to your question about assigning human status to animals, Ingrid Newkirk has stated that animals have the same rights as a retarded child, so yes, PETA's founding member does indeed believe animals have 'rights' as we define them for people. BUT, perhaps the debate should clearly define rights?

On the question of relations between groups, the national groups run the gamut from the extremists at ALF to the warmer and fuzzier images of PETA(with all their celeb spokespeople) though I have to wonder, do those spokespeople go beyond the surface of the AR movement? If you look at the membership/administrative lists, there actually is crossover of personnel, so a relationship exists.

Bottom line for me is this, fighting for animal welfare, and humane treatment? I'm all for it. Unfortunately when legislation such as AB1634 in California is introduced, and you really start digging into it, and realize that for all intents and purposes this bill is the start of the slope that leads to the outlawing of all breeding of dogs,cats, and once the door is open, many other companion species, it changes your outlook. This bill, as well as the legislation in Louisville KY, the nasty legislation in Denver CO that resulted in pets being confiscated from their homes and euthanized, the HEART ordinance in Albuquerque NM, all these efforts have been backed and supported by DDAL, HSUS, Peta and smaller groups of loosely affiliated AR folks. It scares the bejeebers out of me, and makes me angry as all get out. Yes, my outlook will enable some irresponsible folks to breed, own etc, however, those same folks aren't going to follow any law passed anyway, the only folks who do get hurt are those who currently live within the law, as always.

Georgia has some of the strictest breeding requirements in the country, if you have more than one litter of puppies in a 12 months period, you are required to purchase a breeding license,and open your home to inspection by the Ag department. Reality? This has done zip to cut down on the number of shelter animals, why? Because there is no enforcement other than on breeders of purebred animals who compete(because your name, dog's date of birth etc are all public access through show catalogs) How many wellbred Yorkies are in shelters? Next to none. What DO you find in shelters for the most part? Randomly bred dogs, a large number of larger breed/mix breed dogs,and a whole lot of cats. Why? Because there is no true effort at education. If we really applied revenue toward reaching out and educating people on the idea of voluntarily spaying and neutering their pet, it would be a start,if we offered low cost spay/neuter clinics to those who are income challenged, that would be a huge help, enforcing leash laws already on the books? THAT would do more than anything to cut down on the numbers of randomly bred litters in any area.

So, animal rights? Yes, they have a right to humane care, good food and secure shelter, they have a right to be protected from the dangers living in a human society exposes them to, but, (there's always a but<G>) there is a limit, such as removing the definition of property and assigning the term 'guardian' to owners(RI, CO) another slippery slope from a legal standpoint.

I could write volumes, but it's very hard to cover all these items in a couple of posts to a list, and I end up confusing issues<G> So I'll leave things here

Good post, Frazier. Yes, we have to keep on trying to educate ourselves. In the meantime, as you and everyone else (with one notable exception) posting on this thread agrees, we have to have some laws to protect what rights we agree that animals do have.

Are animals entitled to the same rights as humans? None of us here believe that, and no one has presented any evidence that it has "become fashionable" to make such a claim. But some animals are entitled to some rights, especially those animals that we humans take in as pets or companions, raise for food, or exploit for trophies or entertainment. On that we all seem to agree.

Again, with one notable exception. "Animals have no rights at all" is the opinion of one.