The Pandora’s Box I opened up by begging for your favorite pet sites is only just beginning to reveal itself…starting with this post. It was the Animalblawg site, written by a couple of Georgetown law students on the subject of animal rights law that sunk its claws right in and refused to let me off easy. Now that I’m newly armed with some recently-informed, deadly opinions on the issue of animal rights, you’re in for the same—so get ready. Here goes:
Remember third grade Social Studies? That was right around the time most of us first learned of Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad and Abolitionism (as in, the movement that led to the elimination of slavery).
Well, there’s a new meaning to the term, “abolitionism,” and it has nothing to do with human slavery. It’s a term now recycled to refer specifically to the release of animals from the despotic influence of human interference over their God-given "sovereignty" (a term our dear President couldn’t define just a couple of years back).
Not that I want to advance an acerbic tone early into this discussion, but there’s a lot wrong with the concept of animal abolitionism. Ask any mainstream “animal rights” activist and you might find that even many of those who favor what most of us would term a “radical” animal rights agenda are in agreement with me on this: Animals are independent beings with intrinsic value, but that doesn’t mean they get to play on the level of the Harriet Tubmans and Martin Luther Kings of this world. (Stop me now, if you think I’m wrong on this.)
The issue with animals is that they are ultimately constrained by their cognitive abilities. As beings less capable of grasping what we [as humans] can, they are essentially relegated to the role of children, at best, and base property (like your toaster oven), at worst.
The reality is that, in the US, they are viewed neither as children nor as toaster ovens, but, rather, somewhere in between. So far, I think this gray zone-designation is appropriate. Problem is, there’s a lot of ground to cover between how we treat these two groups of “individuals.”
Abolitionists would have us fail to distinguish between how we treat adult humans and animals, asserting that even pets have intrinsic rights that preclude even petdom. In other words, we abuse by forcing them into a subservient, child-like position when we take them on as “pets.” Animal abolitionists would have us turn our backs on the evolutionary heritage that put dogs and cats into close proximity to humans in the first place (for more info on this natural history, check out Harper-Collins’ new release: Dogs: A Natural History by Jake Page)
Many of them reject the notion that animal-human emotional companionship has a symbiotic, sociobiological foundation—for both species. Ditto that for cows and other animals we eat who benefit, biologically speaking, from our preference for their disposition, metabolism and flavor—though sans the emotional component.
It might sound strange that as a vet with 12 years in practice and over 25 years in the industry I’ve managed to live so long without being fully exposed to this seemingly persistent animal rightist’s world-view, but animal abolitionism is something of a strange concept to those of us raised within the pet paradigm and schooled in mainstream animal health. After all, we consider pets and production animals, alike, as creatures worthy of care and protection—but we don’t raise them to the level of humans on instinct and principle.
And that might be wrong, I’ll admit. My upbringing and education may well be steering me wrong, here, but there are so many perils inherent in accepting animals as essentially on par with human children that it boggles the mind.
If healthcare, my domain, is woefully unprepared to tackle the consequences of an abolitionist perspective on animals, our world’s protein supply is even less ready to assume the burden of such moral imperatives. Granted, that’s not a moral argument, but a practical consideration. Nonetheless, society’s current needs and the daunting challenge of global “change management” renders such arguments null and void from a utilitarian standpoint.
Sure, we don’t want to be in a position to choose who of our sentient equals deserves to be cast out of the raft on the open seas when rations dwindle, but reaching that high plateau of general consensus on the subject of species equality is utterly devastated by the reality of inequity among the humans of this planet.
It’s easy to talk a big game when it comes to protecting the animals of this world, but in my view, it does no one any good once you cross over the line that separates animal welfare from animal abolitionism. To me, it seems that animal abolitionism is a dead end argument precisely because, philosophically, it knows no bounds. What’s next? Antibiotic restriction in support of bacterial rights? Soil power?
That argument may ring hollow when juxtaposed with pro-slavery contentions of the past. After all, these, too, gave voice to the practical implications of accepting racial differences as null and void. They might well have capped their claim with a similar line: “What’s next? Granting dogs the right to vote?”
Yet animal welfare advocates understand that some division needs to exist to further the cause of animals who are stakeholders in a functioning economy—and not merely because of extreme global concerns on 2007 planet Earth. Rather, we choose to accept the paradigm that animals are morally inferior due to their limited cognition and genetic otherness. Hence, they’re in a position to serve human needs.
But that doesn’t mean they deserve to suffer or have their basic rights denied (food, water, shelter, medical attention, consideration of their physical pain, etc.). The knowledge that we are morally superior, in fact, implies a moral imperative to care for them, especially when they are being “used” for our selfish human purposes.
I don’t claim to have all the answers on this—I’m certainly no expert. On the issue of animal abolitionism, though, I’ve pretty much made up my mind. I’ve decided to have faith in inter-species distinctions based on sociobiological paradigms (i.e., my genes come first). Maybe I’m wrong and that’s way too simplistic (after all, I'm just a vet)…but then you’re free to disabuse me of my selfish gene theory with your own. Go for it.
Add Comment38 Comments
I think I ran into this on Sunday....still not sure because it was so weird....I was walking Lottie through Harvard Square, doing a little shopping. On my way back to my car, I passed a rather eccentric, young couple. Not quickly, but one of those slow, awkward city- sidewalk-passes where I lingered on their left side for what seemed like a couple of minutes (Lottie has to sniff each tree) as I was scurrying back to my car. Anyway, it allowed me to hear this: "Look at that poor puppy, it's so sad" *me, eavesdropping: looking around for a puppy. where is it? on the other side of the street????* The Girl says, "look at it, on the end of that chain being dragged around". Me: LOOKING FOR THE PUPPY ON THE CHAIN - Where is the puppy on the chain????? Who is dragging a puppy on a chain!!!????
Then is dawned on me, since they were looking right at me, after no sign of a puppy on a chain: She was talking about my 7# dog on the end of her pink polka dot leash. WTF? And I looked around stunned *still looking for a puppy on a chain, mind you* and kept walking to my car. I just could not believe it. I'm still having a Seinfeld "jerkstore" moment, wishing so badly that I had said something. It was just so bizarre (though, it was H-Sq, so it's to be expected) and really caught me off guard.
These people are out there when you least expect it! It's a huge gray area, but I take my role as guardian very seriously. And I'm fairly certain that Lottie is one of the most content pooches in existence- even if I do "drag her around on a chain". I wouldn't even know where to begin to have a discussion with animal abolitionists. Interesting post!
Amy in Somerville October 11th, 2007 09:01:00 AM
I am also firmly in the anti-animal rights camp.
There is a great article by Dr. Temple Grandin, a high functioning autistic, called "Animals are not Things: A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological Complexity" that sums it up beautifully for me. It's available on her website; if any of you haven't read it yet, you should definitely check it out.
abc October 11th, 2007 09:26:00 AM
I remember one visitor to the farm that walked down the aisle of the barn. She looked at the horses in their stalls and exclaimed in horror, "Why are they caged":
My mouth was on the floor!
Judy October 11th, 2007 10:20:00 AM
So, these people would have me turn my Tonkinese cat, ms. catch-and-release-mouser, loose
to run free in southern California suburbia with the traffic, coyotes, possums and raccoons,
instead of having her current lifestyle maintained-- indoors, wet food served twice daily,
free-fed kibble, trips outdoors on harness & leash, daily human attention and playtime, and
regular vet checkups and vaccinations. At around eight years old, she's already been through
at least three homes and has outlived the average lifespan of a feral cat, and as far as I
know, she never contributed to cat over-population. I don't think she'd last through the
night outdoors.
These people are forgetting that cats like mine only exist because of human intervention.
We promised to make an effort to find a good home for this cat, and that's what we are
doing. It would be cruel to dump a little seven-pound creature who is socialized to humans
into the so-called wild!
kittymom October 11th, 2007 10:25:00 AM
abc: Thanks for the heads-up on this interesting article. I found it great reading but I have to wonder at the distinction between animals and lesser-developed organisms on the basis of the very human conceptualization of "fear" or "pain." Sure, that's all we have to go on, but noxious stimulus is recorded for amoebas every day in lab settings. By that definition that grants them the same protections as a cow in a chute. A very worthy read, despite my (very few) misgivings.
http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.thi...
Dr. Patty Khuly October 11th, 2007 10:41:00 AM
I'm a pretty firm believer that animals, such as dogs and livestock, made some evolutionary compromises in choosing to live a lives intertwined with humans, but they certainly got some perks. I know my dogs wouldn't do as well on their own. My most recent rescue dog spent the first three years of his life living without human contact, and a lot of dogs rescued from that situation did not make it and certainly wouldn't have made it had it not been for eventual human intervention. I've read that the average lifespan of a stray dog is about 2 years, which is far short of the lifespan of pet dogs.
I also think that the philosophies of organizations such as PETA are deeply flawed. The shelters that PETA operates have very high kill rates. I fail to see how death is considered more humane than finding an adoptive home. I'm especially irate about their take on pit bulls. They think they should all be put down. I've had a pit mix for the last ten years, and I fail to see how either of our lives would have been better had been euthanized.
Jen (SLC) October 11th, 2007 11:08:00 AM
I decided to give this "animal abolitionism" a try after reading this article. Clearly I have been very inconsiderate to my 1 year old walker hound mix, Baxter. I had no idea that he wanted to fend for himself and got to thinking that he was, perhaps, a little envious of the fact that I have the privilege of going to work everyday, while he has to make due with the company of my two cats and his frozen chicken/peanut butter Kong toy.
In light of this, I left the choice up to him... I threw him the keys to the car, along with the help wanted ads from the daily paper, which he promptly shredded. He couldn't quite figure out how to unlock the car with the keys, but he did remember that he thinks rabbits are kind of like living, furry PEZ dispensers, so he forgot about entering the workforce in lieu of scouring the yard in hopes of finding some of those little round taste treats before I could intervene.
Yep, these "abolitionists" are a bunch of wackos, that's for sure. But it did get me to thinking; if they think that animals and humans are the same, maybe I could start packaging up the bunny poop in my yard and selling it to these freakazoids as the "new granola" lol.
Brian October 11th, 2007 11:09:00 AM
Brian, that's hilarious. I have to say that every time my dogs are given a chance to "escape," they don't. Even my feral dog, who spent most of his life without people, clings to my side whenever he has the chance to be off-leash.
Jen (SLC) October 11th, 2007 11:39:00 AM
"It might sound strange that as a vet with 12 years in practice and over 25 years in the industry I’ve managed to live so long without being fully exposed to this seemingly persistent animal rightist’s world-view" - not so strange at all! In fact, the major animal rights organizations have worked pretty hard to conceal their true beliefs. They know that the majority of Americans like animals and enjoy living with them, and want to continue to be able to keep pets. PETA and HSUS and others appeal to our affection for companion animals in order to obtain millions of dollars in tax-free donations while oh-so-carefully concealing the fact that if they have their way, there would be no companion animals.
I read the comments on Animalblawg with interest - the authors continue to attempt to refute the fact that if all animals are "liberated" then most of the domestic species will cease to exist. And they probably wouldn't completely cease to exist - dogs and cats, for example, have proven themselves to be very resourceful feral animals. But they WOULD cease to be objects of affection for us.
I'll explain: the AR fanatics either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge a few basic human characteristics. 1. The law students can argue the concept of "property" all they want to, but the vast majority of people have a strong, practically instinctive concept of "property" with correspondingly strong impulses to protect it. We tend to like and value what is "ours" and dislike anything which may deprive us of our property. Animals who aren't "ours" - whether feral or truly wild - become the enemy as soon as they begin damaging our property (anything from a deer destroying a garden to a coyote killing a housecat). This is how our ancestors survived since the beginning of human civilization, and it seems to be pretty deeply ingrained behavior. 2. Humans tend to fear what we don't understand. That's why zoos and nature programs are so important - people will only come to like and respect wild animals if they have the opportunity to understand them. If zoos and wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife research all go away, then in another generation or so we would have a population who doesn't have any relationship whatsoever with wild animals, and therefore won't value them.
Oddly enough, I believe that if the AR fanatics get their way and we only "enjoy animals from a distance" (famous quote from PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk) then in another generation or two we would go to the opposite extreme, and have a population that sees no value in animals at all.
Barb October 11th, 2007 12:15:00 PM
I think what the whole animal abolitionist movement does for me - more so than make me irritated at the whackos out there - is just remind me to treat my surroundings with respect. The best way that I know to respect my two dogs is to take the best care of them than I can. Probably it's imperfect, but then i'm not the most brilliant person on the planet.
The story about the people talking about the puppy being dragged is pretty disturbing - and insulting. if anything, they should be criticizing the social construct, not one small way that it's being played out. Animalblawg had a post a while back about being a hypocrite - having to live within a world that is constructed counter to the way you feel it should be, while at the same time criticizing that world - it makes a person feel like a hypocrite!
I so often feel like a hypocrite, knowing that I'm implicating myself in a system that looks the other way when bad things are happening - whether that be animal cruelty or human cruelty! Both horrify me because both are instances of a complete breakdown of caring and awareness of the interconnectedness of everything.
I am certainly not in the abolitionist camp - that, to me, steps beyond an effort at greater awareness and goes right on into complete impracticality. However, I don't really regard myself as morally superior, either.
The bottom line for me, i guess, is that I wish people every where were as caring and thoughtful as people here obviously are.
Great discussion, guys!!!
Danielle October 11th, 2007 12:16:00 PM
The other thing that these extremists fail to, or are unwilling to, recognize is that animals benefit emotionally from there relations with humans as well. It is only logical that this manifests as increased physical well being in the long run. How many studies have shown the benefits of "therapy" animals visiting senior homes or the positive effect that they have on patients recovering from major heart surgery. To think that animals do not receive the same benefits from such contact is doing them a great disservice.
When I adopted Baxter, he couldn't care less about the food and water I put down upon returning home, he just wanted to sit at my feet while I scratched his ears and rubbed his belly.
Brian October 11th, 2007 12:48:00 PM
Michael Pollan has some very good discussions of animal welfare/rights, particularly in relation to the consumption of meat, in "The Omnivore's Dilemma"... It's worth a read. He even got Peter Singer (author of "Animal Liberation") to admit in regards to farm animals that a comfortable life ending in a humane slaughter are better than no life at all.
Animal rights advocates believe that we had no right to domesticate animals in the first place, so the argument is not that we should release all the pets we have now in order to let them fend for themselves, but that "We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic).
My response to that logic is that we never forced wolves to come live close to us, to scavenge off our food, and let us interact with them. There are many species that never have and never will be domesticated... No one can force those first interactions. There was an evolutionary advantage to being willing to interact with humans (there are several thousand wolves in the U.S.... and several million dogs), so humans are not the only ones who benefit from a relationship with dogs.
That said, there are serious responsibilities on our part to ensure that our domestication doesn't result in dogs who can't function as dogs..... like dogs who can't reproduce without a C-section, or whose conformation ensures that they'll be prone to hip dysplasia, etc.
Megan October 11th, 2007 01:13:00 PM
Ooooh, good one Brian! A vet told me once that - just as it has been proven that our blood pressure decreases when we're petting a dog or cat - the blood pressure of the animal decreases also. And no one with half a brain would argue that a well-cared-for pet has an infinitely better life - and better death - than a wild or feral animal has. For that matter, most livestock has a much better life than their wild hoofed relatives do, and even the worst slaughterhouse death probably isn't any more painful than being killed by a large predator, or being disabled by injury or disease and then being eaten by whatever comes along.
Barb October 11th, 2007 01:19:00 PM
What I really find so interesting is that PETA members have 'pets.' Talk out hypocrites.
Both my cats came off the streets and I think if they could talk they'd tell you that really prefer having yummy (non-poisonous) food to eat, nice warm beds to sleep in, fun toys, having all their medical problems and hurts taken care of to having to be out in the cold, being wet and eating out of garbage cans, having people throw things at them, etc.
And I agree that if we keep companion animals then we have a responsibility to them for a lifetime of care, and to not alter their structure to the detriment of their health.
2CatMom October 11th, 2007 01:41:00 PM
I take the entire issue with a grain of salt. Amy in Somerville- I'm sorry you had to deal with that. I wonder if they would have given you lip service if you had a Rotti on the end of that polka dot leash? I'm almost willing to bet they wouldn't have.
Can't talk about these kinds of issues without mentioning PETA. Ah PETA, wouldn't life be alittle kinder without them, but sometimes they do amuse me.
I contacted PETA a few years back inquiring about their stand on animals being kept in captivity and such. I was told that as long as people adopt animals it's okay, however, if people breed animals, it's different and those animals should be released. I admit, I didn't spend any time trying to wrap my brain around their reasoning as a person cannot reason with those that are demented.
I also find it interesting how most of these people preach about saving the animals by setting them free wear leather coats, have leather accessories like purses and handbags, have fur lined mittens, ect. I'm always tempted to ask them if the animals that they are wearing voluntered to be slaughtered to be worn or not. I haven't actually done it yet, but one of these days one of them will catch me in one of those moods were I'll be forced to inquire. When that day happens, I don't expect an intelligent answer as none of them seem to have a sense of reality, but I will listen.
Stacy October 11th, 2007 02:12:00 PM
I can't discuss this unemotionally, so consider that my warning label. My Libby is my service dog, and I think every brain injury survivor needs such a dog. My life is indescribably better because of Libby's help. I have been harrassed by PETA protesters a few times. I end up in tears, and Libby doesn't growl or anything when these people wave signs or cards in my face - she leads me to a safe place and guards me instead. She's better trained than they are.
There is a local mall where leader dogs for the blind are taken to train, so I feel most comfortable shopping there with Libby, no one ever tries to keep us out of stores/restaurants there. One day when I arrived the security team stopped me and asked me to stay in their station until "a disturbance" could be cleared up. PETA had tried to take the leash of a service dog used by a lady in a wheelchair and had tipped her over in order to get to her dog. Even that dog did not bite, but he barked until security came and kicked the PETA folks out.
Add in that my other collie's breeder has told me of breeders hiring full-time security guards at dog shows in order to prevent PETA nutcases from poisoning the dogs *in order to save them from their terrible fate*, and you get nothing but angry ranting about the animal abolition folks from me. I'll stop before my comments get family-unfriendly. Thank you for bringing this up, Dr. Khuly!
Cindy October 11th, 2007 03:13:00 PM
Wow Cindy! That's terrible!
I'm wondering... where is the media when things like that happen?? I know they do happen, but the general public never hears about it. So they keep sending their donations to PETA every year. Hmmm... I wonder how many news outlets are in PETA's pocket?
Barb October 11th, 2007 03:54:00 PM
So my three year old Psycho Kitty, who was separated from her momma far too early and is incapable of hunting, much less killing anything bigger than an ant, should be allowed to find her own way in the world? If I released her from our care right now (which she would take as outright rejection since she'd curled up asleep with my husband), she'd be back at the door at 6 pm sharp demanding her dinner and use of the litter box! Psycho Kitty is a bit of a princess. She cannot be seen to do her business anywhere other than in a box provided by her humans for that purpose. Then she would be at the window at midnight giving me dirty looks because I was STILL up. And assuming I feed her outside tonight, she would be back promptly at 7 am demanding her breakfast kibble. Psycho Kitty has her routine down far better than her humans do, lol.
The point is, domesticated animals, especially cats and dogs, choose to make sacrifices when they accepted the first pieces of meat thrown to them and the warmth of a camp fire. We humans have been clever enough to capitalize on those sacrifices and use them to our advantages. Cats kept rodents out of our grain. Dogs helped us kill and retrieve food. I firmly believe that some cats, as well as dogs, became guardians of our property (how many of us know a guard kitty?). Of course, most domestic cats and dogs are far removed from the original needs which brought human and animal together. That gives humans a responsibility to these animals. We have taken them out of their natural environment, bred them in ways that are completely non self-sustaining in the wild (how long would a long haired Persian last on her own?), and taught them through years of training and genetic selection to be dependent on us for food, walks, care, and affection.
Rather than releasing animals back to their natural state, I feel we are honor bound to care for them as well as we know how, because we were clever and ambitious enough to take these animals out of their natural state in the first place.
MeriGray October 11th, 2007 03:55:00 PM
Very interesting article, as usual Doc. Pandora's Box is right. I do know some veterinarians that are animal activists, but most vets are against the whole idea of animals NOT being "property" because of the liability involved. I think there's a small percentage of careless vets that DO need this kind of accountability though, and perhaps this would straighten them up a little. I support the word guardian over owner to try to change people's mindset that animals are "things".
I am shocked by these posts, and that everyone is on one side so far.
I strongly believe in animal rights, but certainly don't believe that domesticated companion animals should be put out on the street. I've heard PeTA being accused of that, but have never met one person, PeTA member/staff or not, that believes this is what anyone should do. I find the service dog being taken away at the mall story so unbelievable, not that the poster is lying, but this is absolutely unheard of.
Of course anyone that has spent any time in a shelter getting to know the animals that are in their final hours, sleeping on and then being killed on a cold concrete floor (or cold table for smaller ones), and tossed onto a pile of dead animals in the freezer, will agree that we should ALL be adopting, and not breeding or buying animals. I actually feel the same way about people given that there are so many kids in orphanages and foster homes, and there won't be resources left on this Earth for all these people soon.
There are many issues that I disagree with PeTA on, some that have been mentioned here like the fact that most of the companion animals PeTA takes "under their wing" are killed (can't use the word euthanize unless the animal is suffering), and their misguided view that pit bulls should be killed to prevent them from being abused and neglected like they so often are. Their view on feral cats is the same.
I will admit that things would be a whole lot worse for animals had it not been for PeTA being around for so long, but my point is you can't group all animal rights people in with PeTA. So many of these comments include the term "these people" which is never very PC. I guess you're speaking of the "abolitionists" which in all my years of activism, I haven't heard that term very much.
I don't know why we have to classify ourselves as being superior. We're different, can't we just let it go at that? We believe animals don't have the cognition we do, but it's just different. They live in their world, and we live in ours and we try to share those worlds. There are lots of problems associated with trying to treat animals as humans (though we are animals too) because they simply aren't. But it doesn't make us better, and it's kind of arrogant for us to think that. As philosopher Jeremy Bentham said oh so long ago,
"The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
They should always be treated as the sentient beings that they are.
That bacteria argument is really disgusting and it reminds me of a close-minded professor I had who had the nerve to call himself "Dr. Cows" even though he saw nothing wrong with the way these beautiful creatures are treated in factory farms and slaughterhouses. He likes to say that animals don't have rights because in order to have rights, you must have responsibilities. I argued with him that many animals certainly do have responsibilities, a few examples being mothers to their young, service dogs, military dogs, police dogs, etc. His comeback was that some animal mothers eat their young. I told him it was much more common in the human race for a parent to kill their child.
I don't believe that animals are here for us to use, and if you want to measure on which species is "closer to godlike", I would say animals are better than people. Most of society has been desensitized to animal suffering so that they will be able to eat their steaks and wear their leather, but just because there are those of us that are extra sensitive to the suffering of others (I do love people too) doesn't make us a nut or psycho or any of those other labels. I believe it means we have evolved, and I hope in my lifetime, the majority of people will too.
Sorry for the book I've written here. Keep up the interesting discussion! :)
Pam Holt October 11th, 2007 05:32:00 PM
My cat came from the streets, was rescued by the rspca, and ended up with me. If he wanted to go back to that life, he would do so, by leaving my place and not coming back - he has plenty of opportunity. But he seems to prefer a comfortable bed, toys, shelter and food on tap.
From the many documentaries and literature about dogs and man, it seems there is evidence that dogs chose to hang around us, not the other way around. Think about it - if you are a nomad, a dog can choose to stay with the clan, or go back to where he came from. There is nothing keeping him there except free will.
My budgie escaped from his aviary, and spent two terrifying weeks looking for food and being chased by cats and magpies. He survived, but I know which existence he preferred.
Robin October 11th, 2007 09:24:00 PM
Pam Holt- So what's PETA's excuse for destroying peoples property that they "thought" contained fur coats when in fact, they were faux fur?
What is their excuse for harassing small children for wearing faux fur coats? Why have they been in so much trouble with the IRS for not claiming all of their earnings? Why do they insist on telling people that milk doesn't come from a cows udders, mucus does. I actually had a arguement with somebody about that little detail. Fortunately, I know of somebody with a PH.D that knows a whole lot more about cows that PETA members do.
What do you mean you cannot use the word euthanize unless a animal is suffering? They euthanize perfectly healthy animals all the time. And what is their purpose for being involved in groups like ELF?
The questions about how this group acts goes on forever. Do I think they started out with good intentions at one time? Yes, but they decided that being greedy and aggressive to the point were people are actually having to do jail time. Animals don't burn down their enemies residence because they have a beef with their neighbors. This is not some peaceful group that is out looking to benefit the animals. They want money and they want to be in everybodies face with their all too often bogus propaganda.
There is nothing to be one sided about. This is the kind of stuff that PETA and other like-minded groups put out there and we're supposed to respect them for this vile behavior? Respect is earned not given because some group gave itself a name that has a nice acronym. And yes there are plenty of PETA members that eat steak, wear leather, drive SUV's, ect.
The woman I got into the arguement about over milk was proud of her collection of expensive cosmetics she had. When I asked her if her stuff was tested on animals and she avoided the issue. If she was all that that she claimed to be, she would know that there are plenty of companies out there that do not test on animals, but since she was around just to get people fired up with her speeches and such, she didn't like it when she was cornered with her own behaviors and purchasing habits.
Like everybody else that has posted here, none of my pets are banging down the door trying to get out. Last night Mojo spent most of his evening curled up around my neck like a scarf, purring. I was not holding him there, nor do I go to bed with a necklace of string cheese tied around my neck. He likes to cuddle and act like a furry, lumpy scarf which is fine by me. It keeps him out of trouble and it's one of the best ways to end a long day IMO. This is not the makings of a cat that is being severely deprived of anything while being kept "against his will" in captivity.
Stacy October 12th, 2007 09:54:00 AM
Hi Dolittler world, its Animalblawg! I've never commented here, and I'd like to build a relationship; I think these are important issues and I know that Gina and I at Petconnection have had similarly productive exchanges, particularly on pet issues.
I wanted to make a few comments about this post, I may also blog this later:
I find it interesting that people get furious (and rightly so) at the opposition to no-kill shelters in parts of the animal activist community, and then claim that the meat animals they eat are benefiting from the relationship with humans.
The "benefit" meat animals get from humans only accrues on the species-wide level, and then only because humans have transformed the animals through genetic engineering, breeding, and environmental conditioning to be meat producing freaks. Look at the turkey, for example. This is a very strange kind of benefit. The individual is then brutally killed, just for our hedonistic pleasures. The individual gets no ultimate benefit at all.
If it is OK to kill meat animals, if their relationship is "symbiotic" and consistent with their welfare, why not kill "unwanted" pets? Where are the no-kill shelters for pigs?
I think we should kill neither.
Another point, I've made it clear on Animalblawg that I believe that companion animals are entirely consistent with the proper end state. That argument is a straw man, at least as applied to myself.
Finally, the "protein problem" that you point out with a vegan diet is just not there. The current "protein problem" in this country is too much protein, not too little. The land currently used to grow grain to feed cattle and pigs would more than sufficiently supply protein through vegetable sources.
In addition, it would cut our land use for food down by about 90% of the current levels, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, more than halting every car in the nation.
Joel October 12th, 2007 10:48:00 AM
My cat killed a mouse in the basement last night. Should I call the cops and put her up on 1st degree murder charges? She''s been stalking that mouse all week, it's obviously premeditated.
That's the conundrum if you want to give animals "intrinsic rights." If a human is infringing on a cow's rights by eating it then a cat is abusing a mouse's right by eating it. Is a flea infringing on a dogs rights by consuming it's blood - or is the dog infringing on the flea by scratching himself and creating an inhospitable living environment for his parasitic visitor?
Nature doesn't have a constitution or bill of rights. Who are we to impose one? God help us all if the ACLU brings Kate the Cat vs. John Doe Mouse to trial.
Jen H October 12th, 2007 11:55:00 AM
Joel. Welcome to our lively exchange. In case you missed my saying so...I enjoyed your blog immensely. Congrats on its thoughtfulness and clear writing. The article I read on abolitionism (written by you, I believe) was one where you pointed out some of its dead-end arguments as well.
As to animal utility, in general, you'll find few of us here capable of making the no-utiity leap--generally that's because we're unwilling or incapable of shifting our worldviews so broadly. But also because animal agriculture is so fully systematized that it seems futile to reach for revolutionary goals when there are more pressing issues at hand.
So it is that most of us are looking for ways to make animal agriculture more environmentally sustainable and more humane. I, for one, believe that's where my energy is best focused.
As to a "protein problem," I think you were referring to someone's comment. And, yes, too much protein is part of our current system. But neither would I yield to an animal agriculture free world on that ground alone, as well-managed herds efficiently grazing otherwise-useless land are the norm in many parts of the world (including the US).
On the "no-kill" thing: We can't currently afford pets in this country if we also have to pay for the maintenance of the unwanteds. That's a sad, inescapable reality. And I agree that there are parallels to be drawn between pigs and pets on this front.
It seems that we'd both like the same things to happen with animals, save that you'd see animal agriculture abolished while I'd see it drastically reduced from its current levels. So back to the main point: why not kill cows for food? Is it more the suffering, the fact of utility or the insult to its genetic independence? Where do you draw that line between humans and others?
Dr. Patty Khuly October 12th, 2007 12:06:00 PM
I would be tempted to say that people involved in animal rescue are probably slightly more likely to be vegetarian. I've been vegetarian for years and vegan for a large chunk of that time because of the current practices in meat production in America today; I just have too many environmental and ethical concerns. I also don't agree with people who breed dogs for fun, and I'll buy vegan shoes if given the option. Given all that, I still can't agree with groups like PETA who are vehemently anti-companion animal and especially anti-pit bull.
Jen (SLC) October 12th, 2007 01:10:00 PM
Joel, you want a no-kill pig shelter? Here's one: http://www.pigpalssanctuary.com/ Didn't take me a full minute to find it, either.
Yes, humans can live and be healthy on a vegan diet. It's not the diet that's natural to us, however, and like Jen, I'm puzzled as to why, if all animals have intrinsic rights essentially identical to humans cats, dogs, opossums, other primates, other predators, are allowed to prey upon their innocent fellow animals, but it's outrageous and disgusting when humans kill in the cause of consuming our natural diet--usually more quickly and cleanly than animals kill their prey. Why should my cat not be prosecuted for murder, when she kills the odd foolish mouse that intrudes on our territory, i.e., my house?
However reasonable and realistic your other positions may be, we still have the problem of PETA, which kills 90% of the pets surrendered to them in the belief that PETA is MORE likely than other shelters to find them good new homes. Which wants to eliminate all domestic animal species--including guide dogs for the blind and other service animals. Who, despite the fact that such things are unheard of by Pam Holt, has organized efforts to take service animals away from their human partners, and efforts to "release" or kill show dogs, who assault women and children wearing fake fur (but not, interestingly, bikers wearing real leather. I wonder why that is?) Who partner with the terrorist organization, ELF. And who, somehow or other, maintain their veneer of respectability and are listened to, quoted, and broadcast by the mainstream media as a responsible animal-welfare organization, effectively pre-empting that media space from real animal-welfare organizations that don't have PETA's budget, reach, and PR machine, but who do actually care about the welfare of animals.
Domestic cattle--you say they're only better off on the species level, not the individual level. But domestic cattle have a secure food supply, shelter when needed, medical care that's non-existent in the wild, and safety from being ripped apart while not-quite-dead-yet. Yes, some of them get slaughtered for food eventually. And some of them don't. Cattle in the wild, some get ripped apart by wolves or other large predators. Is that better than being killed in a slaughter house? (Note: I'm strongly in favor of improving conditions for domestic cattle. I just don't believe that wild cattle are better off than the domestic ones.)
You may not want my dog and my two cats taken from my home and killed to "restore their dignity as animals." PETA does. And it's PETA that is dominating public discussion and dishonestly sliding animal-rights principles and proposals sugar-coated as animal-welfare policies into the public discussion. PETA and their fellow-travelers are going to continue to attract our anger.
Lis October 12th, 2007 02:01:00 PM
Stacy: The true meaning of the word "euthanize" is to painlessly end the life of an individual suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition. Healthy animals don't fall into this category, so it is killing, not euthanizing. Some would argue that being homeless is that condition, but that condition is curable with some effort. I'm afraid most shelter workers have to desensitize themselves to he animals' feelings in order to return to work day after day. I think this is the problem. There's a new book out called "Redemption" by Nathan J. Winograd that reveals the fraud of groups like PeTA and the Humane Society of the U.S. and their belief the "No-Kill" is unachievable. We just need more passionate people working in the shelters that are willing to do the work it takes to find homes and implement life-saving programs such as spaying/neutering and microchipping, but unfortunately most animal lovers can't bear to step foot in those places.
And Stacy, I'm not sure why you want me to answer those questions about PeTA. I'm not a member, and I can't answer for any of their members. I have known many members and haven't met anyone that is extreme as far as companion animals being set free and that kind of thing (as far as I know).
When animals kill each other, i.e. cat killing a mouse, that's not really the same as us doing it right? We can only be responsible for what we do, and if we can do better, we should and not come up with lame excuses and say "what's next... (insert ridiculous scenario here)?".
It benefits everyone to eat less meat though that's for sure: the animals, the Earth, and your health, so I hope more and more people will realize this.
Pam Holt October 12th, 2007 02:40:00 PM
Pam- I'm not trying to pick you out of the crowd, I merely went by what you posted originally.
I will never be a vegan, nor do I think if the entire world ate less meat that it would some how magically solve of of the worlds problems as some would like me to believe. I can certainly eat more fruit and veggies, which I do and I don't always need some form of meat in front of me. However, I'm not really fond of taking supplements for basic things like iron to prevent anemia, especially when most companies that produce such supplements cannot be trusted in the first place. The same can be said for all these genetically altered food sources regardless of what the food is.
Then we have the other groups that say that fruit & vegetables have feelings, so those shouldn't be eaten either. Where does the foolishness end one has to ask themselves. I'm not supposed to eat meat, I'm not supposed to harm a green bean or a peach as it may feel pain as after all, it did come from a plant or a tree, so what's left? I suppose I could eat all the processed garbage that comes from China, but I'm not really keen on that idea either and would rather eat tree bark, but then somebody would be crawling all over my case about harming the trees for striping them of their tough skins.
I'm trying really hard to wrap my brain around this and here's what I come up with. Humans can disappear by means of starvation or some other means just as long as the animals are free? No? Or did I completely miss something?
For all of those preaching about how raising cattle takes up too much space, how about all the malls, Dunkin' Donuts and everything else that builders are trying to cram in every knook and cranny? How many pizza places does one town really need? I have 3 and I live in a small town. And what about all these 5,000 plus square feet homes that only have 2 people living in them? Is that not a waste of space? I'm not trying to deviate away from the subject, but if we're going to talk about a waste of space, let's look at the whole picture, not just parts of it. Furthermore, are all of the homes of such people "green"? Are your floors made from bamboo? Did you skip the dishwasher as means to save water, which the fish need to survive. Do you ride a bike to work so that all the animals can be spared automotive pollution? It's never ending...
It's always interesting to me how when talking about animals or when people try to compare animals to humans that such subjects are always left out, just like in the example I presented before with the whole cosmetics deal. I shouldn't eat meat, but still these people are going to crank up their AC when it's hot outside, wear and use things that sometimes come from animals, and what not.
As for women and small children being tormented for wearing faux fur vs the bikers that wear leather? Bikers hang out in groups and have a stigma attached to them. Their big, burly and mean and wouldn't have a problem with giving a obnoxious PETA member a run for their money. Small children are easily bullied as are some women, especially when they are by themselves. They are an easy target, hence the bullying.
My brain hurts... LOL
Stacy October 12th, 2007 03:18:00 PM
And here's some links for anyone interested in looking into eating a cruelty-free diet:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/index.html
You can order free starter kits here:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/vegan-starter-kit.a...
http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/free-vsp....
You'll be amazed how much better meals taste knowing no one had to die for it.
And you'll also be amazed at how much better you feel not having meat rotting in your colon (which is what it must do before it can be digested).
Pam Holt October 12th, 2007 04:01:00 PM
Pam: There are other ways to eat cruelty free. Granted, it's not easy. Knowing your farmer's market well, belonging to community shares where meat and fish are locally grown by people you actually see and talk to in front of their animals, demanding that restaurants you patronize serve responsibly fished and harvested marine life, skipping all fast food...--not to mention growing your own. That generally means we'll eat much less meat, eggs and dairy. And I believe that's an atainable goal for all of us.
Dr. Patty Khuly October 12th, 2007 05:19:00 PM
Yes Doc, that would all be so much better than it is now. Greed (and probably demand) created the Factory Farm, which needs to be done away with. Animals should never be treated as they are there, as though they aren't living sentient beings.
Pam Holt October 12th, 2007 07:04:00 PM
Why is it OK for other animals to eat meat but not humans? If it the confinement/slaughter issue? Is it the amount we consume and the environmental impact? Is it all of the above? My husband hunts deer. How is shooting a deer that drop instantly or at least within minutes more cruel than letting it starve or get turned inside-out by a truck on the interstate? I'm a farm girl. I've eaten my FFA projects. Many of the lambs and calves I raised ended up in our freezer. They had names, I took care of them, trained them. Then they went to the butchers. It was hard at first but I look at the great wide world and see that this is how life works. Food chain, circle of life, whatever cliche you want to use.
As far as "waste" goes - yes, we it takes more acres to make a pound or beef than a pound of potatoes. But potaoes are the junk food of the veggie world. And it's not a shortage of tillable land that causes starvation, especially in areas like Africa. It is a shortage of cheap transportation and political corruption that prevent sneedy people from getting the food they need.
Jen H October 12th, 2007 07:17:00 PM
We could all possibly die a horrible death- getting murdered, hit by a car, etc., but does that mean someone should shoot us now to prevent this? Shooting a deer is heartless. Deer have family, as do other animals, and when one of their family members is brutally murdered, they hurt and mourn too. If you don't believe that, please do some research. Mother animals will stay with their dead babies, and things like this. I really can't understand what kind of thrill someone gets out of murdering. I know if people grow up around it, they get desensitized to the killing and don't find anything wrong with it, but there is. It's brutal. I don't want to hear about deer overpopulation because the species that is most overpopulating this planet is humans, but it's not OK to go around shooting people. Please see what is wrong with taking the life of another.
Again, another quote (a Buddhist one) since others say things much better than I do:
"All living things fear being beaten with clubs. All living things fear being put to death. Putting oneself in the place of the other, Let no one kill nor cause another to kill. - Dhammapada 129"
Pam Holt October 12th, 2007 07:40:00 PM
I'm so sorry- I just wanted to add that my problem with hunting is the thrill that people like Ted Nugent seem to get from killing. If you are hunting to feed your family, then that's a different story, but it just seems criminal to me to enjoy killing like I know most hunters (for "sport"- how the hell it got called that I'll never know since the victims are unwilling participants in the "game") do. Especially when you consider heinous practices like canned hunting and internet hunting.
OK, I know I've said more than enough for most of you, so I will keep quiet now unless I just can't help myself.
PEACE to all and BLESS YOU for all you do Dr. Khuly.
Pam Holt October 12th, 2007 09:33:00 PM
Pam - your numbers on the amount of grain used in animal feed is way way off. 85% of corn? Honestly, you actually believe that? You ought to try getting that information from USDA and US Land Grant institutions instead. Last I saw, the total tonage of grain going to feed production was between 40-50%. Especially with this ridiculous move towards increased ethanol production, more and more of that corn production is going there. That's why the cost of feed is getting expensive (along with everything else corn based from tortillas to coke).
And the reason people are starving in Africa is due to despotic governments not due to meat production. There is plenty of grain to feed the world, it just doesn't get to where it needs to go. IT's a political issue, not a supply issue.
And like it or not, meat is a part of a well balanced diet. Arguing otherwise is to dismiss a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Chip October 17th, 2007 10:32:00 AM
"In addition, it would cut our land use for food down by about 90% of the current levels, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, more than halting every car in the nation."
In which nation? The United States? Not even close.
You ARAs who keep flogging the FAO factoid really need to do your homework and actually read the report. There is a vast difference in the environmental impact of livestock in the US and globally vis-a-vis transportation. Direct emissions on both scales are dwarfed by things like transportation, and the systemic emissions model put forth by the FAO includes things like transportation, and the vast majority of indirect emissions come from deforestation and manure use. The former is mostly a developing country problem (like in Brazil) and the latter applies equally to your precious vegetables as it does to the source of the manure. The study also doesn't calculate the carbon emissions from a vegan scenario, so the net reduction from such a move is going to be considerably less than the 18% figure, whereas it's entirely feasible to have carbon-free electricity, transportation, and heat.
When all the ARAs have carbon-free electricity and stop driving their cars, then perhaps they might have an ounce of credibility on environmental issues, particularly climate change.
PD October 18th, 2007 04:24:00 AM
I will jump in with a couple of things.
Pam has covered many important things. However, I will spell out a few things more.
I reject all utilitarian ethics. So, it is totally irrelevant whether an animal would have existed had it not been raised for slaughter. None of it negates the wrongness of the killing. It is bizarre that Michael Pollan even thought the argument was worth anything.
Imagine if someone started raising a race of humans for food and used the same excuse. We would be outraged.
Strong spay/neuter campaigns would also be senseless. You may choose to spay/neuter for emotional reason or to avoid "wasting" life. But, we would not be able condemn those who do not; the animals are no worse off being existing and euthanized than not existing at all.
I have also heard the same excuse for abortion; the baby is no worse off being conceived than aborted than never being conceived. So, why should be deny women guaranteed pleasurable, consequence-free sex? We all know that it is the killing that matters.
I hope this matter is now clear and that no one brings the argument again.
Mike May 24th, 2009 01:49:28 PM
In 1981, ed hardy and his wife formed Hardy Marks Publications. In 2004, Christian Bale licensed the rights to produce the high-end Ed Hardy UK line, which is based on Hardy's imagery. Prior to the ed hardy clothing line, Bale was the Head Designer at Von Dutch Originals, which marketed the imagery of Kenny Howard. Don ed hardy, commented, As demand for my artwork continues to skyrocket, I felt it was ed hardy clothing time to take on a partner that could help me manage the demand and opportunities for the ed hardy T-shirts name. Iconix is at the forefront of brand management and clearly has the capabilities to dramatically grow the Ed Hardy UK business. I'm thrilled to have them as a partner. Cheap Ed Hardy are located in everywhere. We also believe that by owning the brand alongside ed hardy clothing, the founder, there will be opportunities to further leverage his iconic name along with his new artwork. Largest selection of Ed Hardy T-Shirts and Ed Hardy here
ed hardy sale October 24th, 2009 12:36:51 AM
Add Commment