# Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare



## Daenerys (Jul 24, 2010)

So, I was reading this thread on another forum about the HSUS and PETA, and they were discussing the differences between animal rights and animal welfare. It got me thinking, a lot, about the differences and where I stood on the issue. 

Basically it was said that the difference between the two is that animal welfare is more about our responsibility to properly care for and respect animals, be it our companion animals or wild animals, whereas animal rights claims that people do not have the right to "own" animals as pets, that they should lead free lives and not be forced to be our food or our companions or provide us with fur or anything else.

I see the flawed thinking in "animal rights" people when it comes down to predator and prey. I often see this when it comes to feeding mice to my snakes. People who are "rights-y" tend to be the ones who say I am a horrible person for feeding DEAD AND FROZEN mice to my snakes and that my snakes are terrible creatures and should die. Well, snakes and mice are both animals, and both have to eat. So, does the snake have the right to eat, or does the mouse have the right to live? Should lions not be allowed to eat zebra? Everything has to eat to live, and some animals have to eat meat. Well, there's only one way to do that, and that's to eat another animal. 

I like this one person's way of putting it. "Its not the zebra's right to be rescued from the lion, but it is our responsibility for the welfare of the lion to make sure the zebra is there to eat."

We associate rights with law and government. An animal cannot participate in that, therefore they cannot have rights. With rights also comes responsibility, and we do not hold animals responsible for their actions. We also have the right to keep animals as pets, therefore we have a responsibility to their welfare. 

So, I'm sure you can see that I am for animal welfare, not animal rights. I think it is our responsibility to make sure that our animals are in a safe environment receiving the proper care and are free from neglect and abuse. I was just wondering how this crowd thinks.


----------



## Myia09 (Jul 24, 2010)

I love all animals..but because I do, I am for the humane treatment of all.
This means getting the proper diet. I don't think large reptiles should be legal; but they are. So they need to be fed the proper diet. That means things I am sure would make some people uspet on here. I wouldn't do it anymore, but if I owned a large snake I would have to. 

I also think PETA and what not are on teh wrong track..not everyone is a republican/democrat. So why do they think everyone is going to become vegitarians? People need to think like Temple Grandin...start working to provide humane ways to slaugther..not trying to stop slaughter.

So I am with you on animal welfare.


----------



## JadeIcing (Jul 24, 2010)

Animal welfare.


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Jul 24, 2010)

I am animal welfare


----------



## missyscove (Jul 24, 2010)

I remember commenting on this in another thread recently. As an animal science student it's a topic I've done a lot of thinking on and learning about.
In my opinion, people have rights and responsibilities; animals don't. One of our responsibilities as humans, however, is to help our animals lead the most stress and pain free life possible - to keep their welfare in mind.
I'm a strong supporter of animal agriculture - but I've also visited farms and seen how it's done which I feel gives me an advantage in a healthy discussion with others. I can proclaim my love of veal and when someone else comments on how horrible veal growers are, I can say that I've been to one - I've seen how it's done and visiting a veal grower only made me want to eat more veal.
My views on animal welfare have also contributed to my beliefs that banning horse slaughter and things like CA's prop 2 were huge mistakes for the animal agriculture industry here in the US. People don't recognize that even if we're not perfect, we're doing a lot better than say Mexico is when it comes to welfare and outlawing our more humane practices only leads to a worse fate for the animals.


----------



## Happi Bun (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm for Animal Welfare... However, if someone is for Animal Rights I will not judge them solely because of the label. I try to get to know a person first. That being said, I do often become frustrated by people that group animal welfare with animal rights activists. There is a difference. Regarding the HSUS; I agree with a lot of their campaigns (there end puppy mills campaign for one) and think they do a lot of good. Some things I disagree with though. 


*Animal Rights-*

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]_To end all human "exploitation" of animals - this includes, but is not limited to, raising and slaughtering of livestock for human or animal consumption, eating meat, hunting, using animals for any medical or veterinary research, zoos (regardless of how well managed), circuses, rodeos, horseshows, dogshows, animals performing in TV commercials, shows or movies (regardless of how well treated any of the above are), guide-dogs for the blind, police dogs, search__ & rescue dogs, and the practice of owning pets._ [/font]
*

Animal Welfare-*

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]_To prevent suffering and cruelty to animals. To provide care and good homes for pets in need. This often includes, but is not limited to,the funding and running of animal shelters (to provide a sanctuary for abandoned, abused, homeless, or unwanted pets, and to place them in good homes where possible, provide painless euthanasia for those that cannot be adopted, and to educate the public about the need for spaying/neutering their pets to prevent more surplus animals ending up in shelters), enforcement of anti-cruelty statutes (where their authority permits), initiating, lobbying for, and monitoring enforcement of legislation to ensure more humane standards of care for livestock, laboratory animals, performing animals, and pets._[/font]

Definition credit goes to http://homepages.sover.net/~lsudlow/ARvsAW.htm


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 24, 2010)

*Happi Bun wrote: *


> I'm for Animal Welfare... However, if someone is for Animal Rights I will not judge them solely because of the label. I try to get to know a person first.


True, not all the people for animal rights are the exact same. But animal rights...it just doesn't work! You can advocate for it all you want, but there is no way people will give up all of that. Its our way of life to eat meat, to have pets, to use animals in medicine....its just not compatible with our way of life. Besides, the majority of the people who are for animal rights more than likely directly and/or indirectly benefit from any of those things they claim to be against. 

Thanks for the more clear definitions of rights and welfare, btw. Took me a while to figure out how to phrase it in the first post as I am not always good at explaining things.


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 25, 2010)

Actually HSUS is even worse then PETA, they are sugar coated and put out a great media tear jerker menagerie of ads and commercials however what they claim is not their main ambition, its just to suck the money out of the soft hearted so they can continue to fuel their legal battles. Every once in awhile when it becomes an issue they will actually donate a small percentage to a shelter or something but its only to get people off their back. They are a political campaign group that hides behind the false pretense that theyre actually out their getting dirty and helping animals. They are just not as extreme as PETA is in their tacticts.

If anyone is interested here is a great group that keeps an eye on all that the HSUS does - http://www.humanewatch.org/


I keep and breed reptiles, that industry is always getting hit hard and fighting big battles with these activists and groups. Reptiles not being cute and cuddley are an easy first target to get laws passed to ban them, to the point where we have set up our own groups just to help fight these legal and political battles so we can continue to keep and enjoy our hobby. Fact is a lot of people dont care about reptiles, often their fears leading them to support bans, however these animal rights groups wont stop there, its a matter of picking off the lesser known and supported industries first.

Many people supporting animal rights just dont know what its all about, their hearts are in the right places they dont want sufferign and cruelty, but they dont know the extent of what they claim to be for, and where their money is actually going. If anyone here claims to be for animal rights they actually shouldnt be here, keeping rabbits and other animals as pets is cruel.

Take good care of your buns, give back to nature what you take, and dont support this crazy nonsense that anyone can see would cause more harm then good.


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 25, 2010)

A friend of mine told me a story about when he went into a pet store and bought frozen feeder mice. There was a girl who asked him what he planned on doing with those mice, and he said he was feeding them to his snakes. The girl went off on a rant about how he was going to hell and all his snakes heads should be chopped off.....it really doesn't make sense to me, because snakes are just as much animals as mice are, and these mice were already dead anyways...I suppose because I love and appreciate all animals I just don't understand how people can be all for saving the mice but want to chop the heads off the snakes. I think the snakes are just as cute as the mice! I mean, look at that teeny little face!!!






Newly hatched hateling corn snake! The little round head is just too precious!





Brand new baby ball python! I love the little periscope look!





I swear that is the cutest little forest cobra I have ever seen! And her name is Princess!!! Ahhh I could die from cuteness overload!!!!!!


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 25, 2010)

People don't realise that a single snake does far less damage then its food that would live if the snake was killed. Of course often those supportive of animal rights are so full of hypocrisies it hurts. "Animal testing is cruel but I need my insulin to live"


I swear it doesn't get much cuter then baby cobras.


----------



## Happi Bun (Jul 25, 2010)

HSUS does get their hands dirty and work on the front line. They helped the SPCA in our area with a big rescue of nearly 200 dogs. If you think they are just all expensive compaign ads without actually backing it up with physical work then just check out there YouTube channel. Like I said, not everything with HSUS I agree with, but I'm not going to sit and watch those videos and say they aren't doing any good for the welfare of animals. 


[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/BF3KQ71qp3M[/flash]


[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/v_K7lqMuRFQ[/flash]


----------



## undergunfire (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm more for animal welfare, but I also see many points of animal rights. I don't eat meat and I don't agree with most of the ways animals are raised for food...but I don't bash on people who do eat meat - I just wish they'd get their meat from places where they knew the animals were treated humanely before death (like local farms where they can visit). I also don't like rodeos, circuses, or hunting.


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Jul 25, 2010)

*undergunfire wrote: *


> I'm more for animal welfare, but I also see many points of animal rights. I don't eat meat and I don't agree with most of the ways animals are raised for food...but I don't bash on people who do eat meat - I just wish they'd get their meat from places where they knew the animals were treated humanely before death *(like local farms where they can visit).* I also don't like rodeos, circuses, or hunting.


I have been thinking about this more and more Amy,*I* want to be responsible for my meat, and have been trying a little at a time to get away from Factory farming and going with more free range and maybe local farmers who raise thier cattle and pigs for meat. I feel like i have started a little by getting my own chickens so now i know where my Eggs come from,lol


----------



## BethM (Jul 25, 2010)

*Luvmyzoocrew wrote: *


> *undergunfire wrote: *
> 
> 
> > I'm more for animal welfare, but I also see many points of animal rights. I don't eat meat and I don't agree with most of the ways animals are raised for food...but I don't bash on people who do eat meat - I just wish they'd get their meat from places where they knew the animals were treated humanely before death *(like local farms where they can visit).* I also don't like rodeos, circuses, or hunting.
> ...


I'm with Amy and Fran. I don't eat meat, but wish those who did would find sources of humanely raised animals. The vast majority of food animals out there today are not treated well prior to death. I do still eat some dairy, but make sure most of it (butter, cream, and milk) is from a local dairy that I can go visit any day I want. I am having problems with eggs, as I like them, but don't want to buy mass-produced eggs, but don't know anyone locally with eggs for sale. So I just don't buy them any more.

I am not for animal rights, in that I don't believe chimps should have all the legal rights as humans, but I do believe that chimps have the right to not have their habitat destroyed for petty human reasons. If that makes sense. 
So, I guess that puts me in the animal welfare camp.


----------



## Myia09 (Jul 25, 2010)

The problem with "Local farms" and what not is; not only do most of the US population do no live in places where there are local farms;

And local farms can't prouduce enough food for the US consumption. That is why mass producers exsist. That is also why organic, free range meat is about quadruple the price of wal mart. (If not more)

Some organic meat goes as far as $6 per lb; a family of four can't afford that. As onem personI can't afford that.

So I hate to say it; but that isn't a solution at all. :/


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Jul 25, 2010)

*BethM wrote: *


> *Luvmyzoocrew wrote: *
> 
> 
> > *undergunfire wrote: *
> ...


Beth it is ashame you arent close to me you could get some of my eggs :0)


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 25, 2010)

The youtube video of HSUS is a prime example of what I said about when they get too much negitive press they will put a very small amount of the actual money they get just to take the heat off of them, and of course they advertise it as if they do it often. The amount of money they get if they put it all towards actual shelters and helping animals it would actually make a difference, but they dont, howevery they make huge claims and implications that they do. Their name itself is an example, when people think of humane socity they think of actual shelters, thousands are donated to them based on that alone, too many people think they are an actual shelter.

Unfortunatly with the meat and food business we only ever see the bad examples and we see it over and over again, with many exaggerations and skewed information delivered by these animal rights groups. I can guarentee you most are not like that, most people who deal with livestock on a commercial level and smaller know that if their stock isnt healthy their product wont be. The FDA has extremely strict regulations as well. Many think dairy cows have it rough but in many of these top places its often more like cow spas. Animal activitsts simply overglorify and exaggerate and drill it in to where many people think thats always how it is when in fact its not. Actually PETA has been quoted to say they would rather have animals dead then in captivity or something along the lines, and do actually put down a lot of the animals they get. Search youtube for the Penn and Teller show about them.

Hunting, and the fee's paid for licences and tags has done far far more benefit to our natural land and resources, as well as the simple fact that it helps keep populations healthy. Many places are so overrun with deer and other game that without actually taking some out many are literally starving to death in the winter. They feast in the fields and multiply like crazy, but the land just cant support them all. Plus hunting is probably one of the most humane sources of meat too, the animal lived how it was ment to, wild and unpenned and died very quickly.

Also think of this too, nature isnt humane, predetor and prey as well as natural happenings can be extremely rough. The life we offer them even if we plan on consuming them is a whole nother world and much more kinder.


----------



## BethM (Jul 25, 2010)

*Myia09 wrote: *


> The problem with "Local farms" and what not is; not only do most of the US population do no live in places where there are local farms;
> 
> And local farms can't prouduce enough food for the US consumption. That is why mass producers exsist. That is also why organic, free range meat is about quadruple the price of wal mart. (If not more)
> 
> ...


It would be more affordable if people ate more realistic amounts of meat. I know people who routinely eat 8-10 oz of meat at dinner. A serving, according to the Food Guide Pyramid, is 2-3 ounces, and you only need 2-3 servings per day. (This is for ALL protein sources, not just meat.) Americans demand low meat prices so they can indulge in unhealthy amounts of meat. Stick to the serving size, and one pound goes a lot farther, making the higher price justifiable.

People used to spend a MUCH higher percentage of their income on food, and I don't think that is a bad thing. 

And personally, I don't think people should be living in places where food can't be raised locally. We're not meant to be living there. Other places, food CAN be raised locally, but it's not what we feel like eating, or the mass-producers have gutted the market to make it unaffordable for local operations to survive.


----------



## BethM (Jul 25, 2010)

*Luvmyzoocrew wrote: *


> Beth it is ashame you arent close to me you could get some of my eggs :0)


I wish I lived near you- I would TOTALLY buy eggs from you.


----------



## Myia09 (Jul 25, 2010)

Hehe me and you beth..always on the opposite sides of things! 

Well, I can't control nor can you what people want to eat, and how much. And population, has been rising, so if your comparing what was eaten in the 70's, or even the 80's, it is much different with population increases. So maybe it isn't so much how much per person is eating but per household. This is why I don't supporty PETA..you cant make the population agree 100% on something. It isn't going to happen. So you have to compromise. 

And the compromise is regulating large marketers..who actually do a great job and have really stict rules to follow and often do. 

Well, wouldn't it be great if the millions of people could live in places like yours? lol..No offense but that isn't realistic. That is why cities are cities..there is a vast amount of people. Not everyone can afford, or want to, live in a rural community, and simply stated, there is now ay to do it. There just isn't enough space in this world for that. 

I live near the Mexico border..so there are a LOT of cheap "mexican" meat...that is way cheaper than wal mart. I don't shop there because yes, Mexico doesnt have good humane laws. BUT technically that is a local farmer. But I would say it is a lot worse than shopping at wal mart. 

I am sure people used to spend more on food before inflation happend. Before everything became a lot more expensive...and taxes went up.


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 25, 2010)

I can't afford meat at all, locally farmed or not. I have to live off those $1.25 microwaveable dinners...oh how I long for the day I am no longer a poor college student.


----------



## BethM (Jul 25, 2010)

*Myia09 wrote: *


> I am sure people used to spend more on food before inflation happend. Before everything became a lot more expensive...and taxes went up.


People used to spend a higher percentage of their income on food. Has nothing to do with taxes or inflation. It has to do with people being greedy and superficial and wanting to buy a new cell phone every year, or always having to have the newest tv, or having to travel every summer, or wanting a house that is three times bigger than they need and then stuffing it full of things they don't need. I don't know a lot of people who are willing to save for things now, either, it all has to be instant. Now, it seems that most people value quality food a lot less than they value new gadgets. Thus, they demand cheap food prices, and mass-producers are creating this for them, sometimes at the expense of the animals they are raising. (Other times at the expense of their workers, but this topic isn't about that.)

Plus, inflation isn't exactly a recent invention. LOL. It was going on back then, too. 

And I don't live in a "rural" area, thank you. It just happens to have a climate that allows for food items to grow.


----------



## Myia09 (Jul 25, 2010)

Well, I didn't mean rural in a bad way. 
But I guess ARizona is one of those places..it is hard to grow food and raise animals..but you would be displacing the third largest city in america!

But inflation is realative; yes inflation has always been around, but the american dollar is at its worse now, and worth less, so yes, it makes a huge difference! 

But yes..people are more superficial..but again..that isn't going to change. And I know (esp for myself personally) I would LIKE to buy organic food, but there is no money between rent, insurance, school, phone bill (I have a dated phone with limited everything) to spend $6 on a pound of meat!


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Jul 25, 2010)

*TwistedSerpent wrote: *


> The youtube video of HSUS is a prime example of what I said about when they get too much negitive press they will put a very small amount of the actual money they get just to take the heat off of them, and of course they advertise it as if they do it often. The amount of money they get if they put it all towards actual shelters and helping animals it would actually make a difference, but they dont, howevery they make huge claims and implications that they do. Their name itself is an example, when people think of humane socity they think of actual shelters, thousands are donated to them based on that alone, too many people think they are an actual shelter.
> 
> Unfortunatly with the meat and food business we only ever see the bad examples and we see it over and over again, with many exaggerations and skewed information delivered by these animal rights groups. I can guarentee you most are not like that, most people who deal with livestock on a commercial level and smaller know that if their stock isnt healthy their product wont be. The FDA has extremely strict regulations as well. Many think dairy cows have it rough but in many of these top places its often more like cow spas. Animal activitsts simply overglorify and exaggerate and drill it in to where many people think thats always how it is when in fact its not. Actually PETA has been quoted to say they would rather have animals dead then in captivity or something along the lines, and do actually put down a lot of the animals they get. Search youtube for the Penn and Teller show about them.
> 
> ...


I will have to agree to disagree i guess, i am not pro Peta and am no Pro HSUS , I truely dont believe that these Factory Farm animals are living in a "spa". I feel "FOR ME" that going locally, small scale is better for me.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 26, 2010)

Hmm... well, I will say that I personally believe that an animal under human care has a right to humane treatment (food, water, health), and a quick death that does not prolong suffering.

The concept of a bill of rights for animals brings me back to Koko the Gorilla. She is a sentient, high-functioning being who has effectively adapted ASL into her method of communication. While she can't contemplate black holes and quarks with ease, she is able to show love to a kitten, and speak through ASL about what she sees, feels, and wants. 

I can't even contemplate choosing to euthanise someone like Koko - she is a "someone", with all the capacities of a human child.

And, if Koko is able to communicate with ASL, what about the other animals? What happens when we are finally able to communicate clearly with them? I think welfare and rights discussions will take on a whole new level of meaning.

Points to ponder, eh?


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 26, 2010)

I do agree that local farms are better as they produce a much better product and much prefer them over the large productions, I was just stating that we as the general public really dont know how they are kept or the goings on besides what these groups spit back out to us. The few glimpses I have seen though I havent seen anything majorly wrong, no neglect nor abuse like those videos show and am under the impression that those are not how the majority of factory farms operate. Of course conditions arent prime or optimum due to the demand of these meats, but even though I prefer wild or locally raised game I have no issues in that respect with store bought food.

I dont think we have to worry at all about animal rights with the more intellegent species until they become a lot higher advanced. Compared to us the most advanced of these are still young child level, none have shown the basic human points that allows us to have these rights. Until they start breaking away from primitive natural instincts there is no discussion. Yes they might have some of the more complex feelings however they are still very instinctual. Once we start getting into the areas of morals, virtues, right and wrong, art, religion, and other of the mental advances that seperate us from everything else then it will be a different matter, but until then I dont not want a creature that has no qualms about killing someone if instinctually it feels the need to any freedoms that it doesnt comprehend for the safety of both us and them. Basicly once we find out that these animals are able to comprehend that they should be allowed rights then discussions should be had. That his however not inculding the basic rights every single living thing from one celled organisms to us should have, the right physical needs met.


We can communicate with anything if we know how to speak their language. Once they start learnign ours is the next step however we are still limited by how quickly nature lets them evolve. When/if the time comes when they start realising that they should have these rights too then we will deal with it, however I would not let these crazy animal activists be the ones to decide it. Anyone who thinks letting a bunch of lab animals out free in the winter to starve or freeze is a good thing should not have a say in what a species has a right to have and do, a lot of people in these groups just dont have a healthy reality based view of how the world really is. Good or bad we have to look at all sides and find a median that works best.


----------



## BethM (Jul 26, 2010)

*Daenerys wrote: *


> I can't afford meat at all, locally farmed or not. I have to live off those $1.25 microwaveable dinners...oh how I long for the day I am no longer a poor college student.


Last I checked, there is meat in most of those. I eat a few microwave meals each week, it's a quick and easy meal when I'm too tired to cook dinner, or when I don't have a lunch to take with me to work. It is pretty difficult for me to find vegetarian microwave meals. I can basically choose from about 5 different Healthy Choice entrees, 3 different Kashi meals, or anything from Amy's. The majority the dinners in the frozen foods aisle have some sort of animal bits in them.


----------



## BethM (Jul 26, 2010)

*TwistedSerpent wrote: *


> I dont think we have to worry at all about animal rights with the more intellegent species until they become a lot higher advanced. Compared to us the most advanced of these are still young child level, none have shown the basic human points that allows us to have these rights. Until they start breaking away from primitive natural instincts there is no discussion. Yes they might have some of the more complex feelings however they are still very instinctual. Once we start getting into the areas of morals, virtues, right and wrong, art, religion, and other of the mental advances that seperate us from everything else then it will be a different matter, but until then I dont not want a creature that has no qualms about killing someone if instinctually it feels the need to any freedoms that it doesnt comprehend for the safety of both us and them.


There are humans on this planet that pretty much operate on a basic, instinctual level, too.


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 26, 2010)

It might be protien but can we really call it meat? I have found although pricey at the start you actually often save money buy buying fresh. You spend more to begin with but it lasts longer as there is much more of it, tastes so much better, and is so much more healthier. A whole chicken thrown in with some veggies will last me a good 3 days, fills me up better, isnt made of pure salt, and in the end with all the food I actually save money instead of buying so many of those one dollar boxes of cardboard and salt.


----------



## Amy27 (Jul 26, 2010)

*undergunfire wrote: *


> I'm more for animal welfare, but I also see many points of animal rights. I don't eat meat and I don't agree with most of the ways animals are raised for food...but I don't bash on people who do eat meat - I just wish they'd get their meat from places where they knew the animals were treated humanely before death (like local farms where they can visit). I also don't like rodeos, circuses, or hunting.



I agree, I don't eat meat and don't agree with most of the ways animals are raised for food. It doesn't bother me if other people eat meat. We all have to make decisions that are best for us. 

I use to really believe local farms were better. Until recently locally there was a farm that was severly abusing their animals. I won't go into details because it is very graphic. Here is the link if you want to read about it, but be warned it is ***very graphic. **** http://www.mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy/This is a quote from the article: After viewing the footage, Dr. Bernard Rollin, distinguished professor of animal science at Colorado State University, stated: "This is probably the most gratuitous, sustained, sadistic animal abuse I have ever seen. The video depicts calculated, deliberate cruelty, based not on momentary rage but on taking pleasure through causing pain to cows and calves who are defenseless." 

This farm is about 30 minutes from me. It is scary. Who can you trust? Even if you visited this farm, I doubt they would show this abuse in front of you. It is just aggravating.


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 26, 2010)

*BethM wrote: *


> *TwistedSerpent wrote: *
> 
> 
> > I dont think we have to worry at all about animal rights with the more intellegent species until they become a lot higher advanced. Compared to us the most advanced of these are still young child level, none have shown the basic human points that allows us to have these rights. Until they start breaking away from primitive natural instincts there is no discussion. Yes they might have some of the more complex feelings however they are still very instinctual. Once we start getting into the areas of morals, virtues, right and wrong, art, religion, and other of the mental advances that seperate us from everything else then it will be a different matter, but until then I dont not want a creature that has no qualms about killing someone if instinctually it feels the need to any freedoms that it doesnt comprehend for the safety of both us and them.
> ...





Yes, however what I suggest for them is usually thought of as illegal


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 26, 2010)

*BethM wrote: *


> *Daenerys wrote: *
> 
> 
> > I can't afford meat at all, locally farmed or not. I have to live off those $1.25 microwaveable dinners...oh how I long for the day I am no longer a poor college student.
> ...


I know, I meant I couldn't afford to buy the meat in the meat section of the grocery store. I doubt they offer the choice between factory farmed and locally grown meat in microwaveable dinners...


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 26, 2010)

*NorthernAutumn wrote: *


> Hmm... well, I will say that I personally believe that an animal under human care has a right to humane treatment (food, water, health), and a quick death that does not prolong suffering.
> 
> The concept of a bill of rights for animals brings me back to Koko the Gorilla. She is a sentient, high-functioning being who has effectively adapted ASL into her method of communication. While she can't contemplate black holes and quarks with ease, she is able to show love to a kitten, and speak through ASL about what she sees, feels, and wants.
> 
> ...


So because a gorilla is smart enough to use sign language, animals should be given rights? 

Koko is one animal. And she is still an animal, even if she does have the intelligence of a human child. The majority of animals are not that smart. Most are purely instinctual. 

Think about this: would you let a young child live an adult life? Children are still expected to live under the care of their parents. Koko is stuck at the intelligence of a child, I highly doubt she will make it to the intelligence of an adult human (which is quite variable anyways). Therefore, I don't think just because a gorilla can use sign language that animals should be given any sort of rights.


----------



## fuzz16 (Jul 26, 2010)

wow...

the right to food
the right to fresh clean water
the right to not be slaughtered inhumanely
the right to not be tortured
the right to be loved by someone

animals do have rights. 
they have the right to a healthy life without pain and suffering just as humans so do.

WE AS HUMANS should reconize this as OUR duty.


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 26, 2010)

Those arent the rights being discussed though, we all know and agree that every living thing has those no matter what.

At issue here are groups that feel animals have more rights then that, that they should all run free uncontrolled and untouched by us, and that they shouldnt be used or kept by us. 

However, a big point is that nature does not always provide those basic rights, and that us as their keepers and protectors are the ones who allows them to live life safe and happy. Animal welfare is just that, those who see the importance we have in keeping and controling them as well as the importance they have to us, instead of those who feel animals have the right to do what they want when they want and we cant do a thing about them or with them. You can imagine what sort of troubles that would cause.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 26, 2010)




----------



## kirbyultra (Jul 26, 2010)

NorthernAutumn wrote:
Whatcha trying to say, Autumn? :biggrin:


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 26, 2010)

*TwistedSerpent wrote: *


> Those arent the rights being discussed though, we all know and agree that every living thing has those no matter what.
> 
> At issue here are groups that feel animals have more rights then that, that they should all run free uncontrolled and untouched by us, and that they shouldnt be used or kept by us.
> 
> However, a big point is that nature does not always provide those basic rights, and that us as their keepers and protectors are the ones who allows them to live life safe and happy. Animal welfare is just that, those who see the importance we have in keeping and controling them as well as the importance they have to us, instead of those who feel animals have the right to do what they want when they want and we cant do a thing about them or with them. You can imagine what sort of troubles that would cause.


Exactly! Thank you.

The rights you listed, fuzz16, are not the rights being discussed here as they are the rights every living thing has. Beyond that is when things change.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 27, 2010)

Gah... computer is eating posts 

I was trying to say that I agree with the rights that fuzz16 wrote down. She said exactly what I'm trying to indicate. 

There is a set of intrinsic rights, as fuzz 16 wrote, that need to be adhered to. Unfortunately, courts don't necessarily think of these items as rights, as much as "welfare is an optional human thing to confer when we see fit."

Instead of rights be optional as people see fit, there needs to be a strict standard, with substantial punishment for violating an animal's intrinsic rights... not the 6 months in jail and a $500 fine bogus sentencing for those convicted of unnecessary harm to an animal. Rights carry more weight in court than human-determined optional welfare. I think the animal welfare movement is fab- iit just needs a bit more strength in the courts. Classifying intrinsic animal req's as rights would help with that.

As our knowledge and ability to communicate with animal species on a 1-1 level increases, dilemmas like Koko will continue to come up. When people say, "oh , but she's only functioning like a child...", that stilll indicates that she is operating on a human level. Once you know that she functions on the level of a human child, then it is really impossible not to accord her the rights of a human child. 
Obviously, a electoral vote won't be much use to her, but to decide to euthanize her would be the same as euthanizing a child.
She is more capable in a human capacity than comatose persons, or those in vegetative state; however, they still retain their human rights.

Anyhoo...

These are really complex moral issues that only get more complex with time and knowledge. I'm trying to be as open as possible to the fact that humans are just animals, like all the rest. It is hard for us to accept that sometimes - but it's on these sticking points that we should be as non-anthropocentric as possible. 
I know that my views on this topic have developed and changed over time as I learn more about the world around me. I'm not willing to draw lines in the sand where animals and humans begin anymore... I need a "range of grey" perspective- black and white is too simplistic! 


* Daenerys, we are all trying to participate in this discussion. You left it very open-ended at the beginning for contemplation, and people are writing in with their personal perspectives.
Please don't shoot their ideas down... more thoughts from a number of people lead to a fuller and richer conversation, right?


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 27, 2010)

I never shot anyone's ideas down, I am just stating my opinion like everyone else. I just don't agree that because a gorilla has the intelligence of a human child means it should be thought of as a human child. It is still an adult gorilla.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 27, 2010)

*Daenerys wrote:*


> The rights you listed, fuzz16, are not the rights being discussed here as they are the rights every living thing has. Beyond that is when things change.



I meant your dismissal of fuzz16s comment; sounded like you felt her comments didn't have a place here. I thought that her remarks added a lot to the conversation - rights have variable definitions outside of the context of the phrases of "animal rights" and "animal welfare". 

I wasn't talking about me - politely disagree with me as much as you like, lol!


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 27, 2010)

No I wasn't dismissing her comments because I didn't think they had a place here, I was saying that the rights she listed were not the ones I was talking about because those are rights that I view as being the basic rights of any living creature, ones that I feel I don't even need to discuss because they are so obviously attributed to all. To me, they're the basic rights of life. The rights I was discussing go beyond those basic rights to the kinds of rights you might see written in human law, for example the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, etc.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 27, 2010)

Thanks so much for the clarification


----------



## fuzz16 (Jul 28, 2010)

thank you, Autumn

and just to throw this out there by hopefully not offending anyone...in cases like Koko there are some humans who have a lower IQ than even that gorilla. Then should those humans have less rights also...
it shouldnt be about iq or what species of creature it is. we are not above anyone or anything out there...

someday we will be dead and cockroaches will be creating little cities. lol...


----------



## Myia09 (Jul 28, 2010)

This is all debate on rights and intelligence..

A gorilla can't vote, or make an essay, or get a bachorlers degree. BUT she/he deserves the best life possible. I don't agree with taking animals from the wild, but there are tons that are already in captavity and they need to be given the best life known possible.

Animal rights/welfaare has come SO SO FAR since the 70's it is amazing. Enrichment wasn't HEARD of before hten.


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 28, 2010)

*Myia09 wrote: *


> A gorilla can't vote, or make an essay, or get a bachorlers degree. BUT she/he deserves the best life possible.


Precisely! She still deserves the basic rights that all living things deserve, but she should not be given the rights we attribute to our own species specifically as she is still a gorilla.


----------



## jcottonl02 (Jul 28, 2010)

I am totally more for animal welfare, but in my own opinion, believe that animal life has just has much value as human life. We are all animals, and I don't believe that any life is more special than another.

As for 'animals have the right to not be eaten', well...I don't have the right to not be eaten. I would rather not, but if a big old black bear marched up to me and thought I looked like a tasty meal, then I have no rights there. If it wants to eat me, it will eat me. 

That leads me to another point- how can animals have rights, if they can't afford us those rights in return. If I don't eat a bear (I dunno why I keep using the example of a bear but you know), because I am respecting it's rights, who is to say it won't eat me?

However, I believe we don't know enough about animals, their intelligence, their minds, at all to even begin to decide whether they should have rights etc. Many years ago, black humans were thought of as no better than animals, with no intelligence or morales, and were forced into slavery for many years, just because we couldn't understand their language, and they looked different.

20 years before Koko changed the world's view of animal intellect, who would have thought a gorilla could learn sign language and communicate with humans, express her emotions etc. and show love and tenderness towards 'her' kitten?



I believe, imo, that all animals in our 'possession' (going against animal rights there- but any meat animals, any pets etc.) have the right to fresh and nutritional food, water, gentle and loving treatment, more than adequate space, any medications needed, and as happy and pain-free life as possible, full of social and mental stimulation. 

I believe any person wanting to 'own' a pet, should have to pass some sort of test and have to obtain a license, contracting they will fulfill all of the above I mentioned, and have researched the animal properly, and know a required amount about diet, housing, ailments etc. etc.

I also am totally against any animal use in circuses. I am in two minds about zoos. On the one hand, I believe if the pens are more than big enough and the animals are able to simulate natural behaviours, living in the correct social groupings etc. etc. then they can be a good thing- would Okapis still be here without zoos? I don't think so, down to our destruction of their habitats. But then on the other hand are there really any enclosures big enough? Is it really possible to allow them to exhbit their natural wild behaviour?

What I do believe though, is animal welfare is a huge issue, which needs to be addressed in all aspects- pet industry, meat industry, fur, clothing, animal working industry etc. The horrific documentaries I've watched about horses being used to pull carts in other countries where it's most definately animal cruelty....just terrible.

Jen


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 28, 2010)

*jcottonl02 wrote: *


> However, I believe we don't know enough about animals, their intelligence, their minds, at all to even begin to decide whether they should have rights etc. Many years ago, black humans were thought of as no better than animals, with no intelligence or morales, and were forced into slavery for many years, just because we couldn't understand their language, and they looked different.


That is so very very true... tells you how much the general perspective has changed in only the last 150 years. 

What will happen in the next 150?...


----------



## BethM (Jul 28, 2010)

Daenerys wrote:


> The rights I was discussing go beyond those basic rights to the kinds of rights you might see written in human law, for example the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, etc.



In reality, very few people, even among animal rights activists truly believe non-human animals should be given legal rights such as you are describing. This is a ridiculous idea that has been seized upon by anti-animal rights people to try to make pro-animal rights people look like a bunch of loonies, and thus discredit the entire movement. Many anti-rights people have a financial motive for persuading people that chickens really are fine living in a cage so small they can't turn around, or that corn is a perfectly natural and healthy thing for cows to eat.


----------



## BethM (Jul 28, 2010)

While I don't necessarly agree with many of the high-profile tactics that PETA engages in, it is very telling that they officially endorse The Body Shop as a cruelty-free company, even though they are owned by L'Oreal, which is notorious for animal testing. If PETA were really standing up for animal rights in the way a lot of PETA-bashers say they are, they would not endorse The Body Shop, and would certainly not endorse companies such as Burt's Bees, which is owned by Clorox (also tests on animals) AND uses animal-derived ingredients in it's products. 
I no longer shop at the Body Shop, or Burt's Bees, etc., because of the animal-testing policies of their parent companies, but I am not exactly radical in my views of animal-rights.

Arguing against non-human animals being able to vote is sort of a moot point, as only humans can conform to human laws. Anyway, voting isn't even a "right," there are humans in countries around the world who aren't allowed to vote. 

Also, for food-related things, I take my cues from the likes of Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle. As far as I know, both of them eat meat, and neither has a financial interest in getting me to eat food from one source rather than another. (Evidence to the contrary is welcome.) Both are quick to point out the failings of the organic food industry, as well as the conventional. I will never take guidance from anyone in the food industry, as they have too much financial motivation in telling me what they want me to hear. (Sorry, Missy, nothing personal.) People who take what food-industry spokesmen tell them to heart end up believing things like Wonder bread being good for you.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 28, 2010)

I ran across the article: 
http://www.all-creatures.org/stories/a-koko.html
Indicates that she can quantify a sensation, and attribute to it a number within the natural number system. She also understands occupations, and can interpret, then re-enact the future process of extraction. Finally, she makes an request for extraction using ASL.

Wow!
*******

The other thing to point out is that very few things that we do as humans are classified as inalienable rights. Essays and bachelor degrees, and driving cars are not rights. The right to bear arms is strictly an american thing.

Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
This is to be applied around the entire world.

The sections regarding court would not count with regards to animals, as it has already been determined by the majority of judicial systems that animals lack moral agency.
The only difference is that animals have been acquitted of moral culpability - therefore, can't be tried by courts for their crimes. Thus, animals are protected by the courts.

Just take a peek through, and see how limited our rights truly are. 
The scope of human actual rights is so limited, that they can be applied to animals quite easily.

Whether or not animals actively use a certain right at this point in time doesn't matter - many people do not choose to exercise their right to vote, yet they still hold all of their human rights 

(Yep, the right to vote has been ratified in the Declaration... however, some countries continue to act in violation of this right)


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 28, 2010)

Well, animal rights activists like PETA seem to think that domesticated animals have the right to be free. Do you agree with such thinking? Does a house cat have the right to live like a wild animal when it has been a domesticated species for so long? Does livestock have the right to be set free to take care of itself? Do animals that have spent their entire life in captivity have this right? Because people like PETA seems to think so, to the point of releasing such animals out into the cold winter atmosphere so they can starve and freeze to death. Animals like livestock and domesticated pets do not have what it takes to live out in the wild on their own. We have created them to be like this. Therefore I believe that these animals do not have such rights as freedom to choose for themselves. Animals act on instinct, and their instinct is not always enough to keep them alive, especially when their instinct has been influenced by so many long years of domestication. I believe that domesticated animals only have the right to be subjected to our care, and that we have an obligation to their welfare, to take care of them to the best of our abilities and give them the life that they deserve, that every living thing deserves. A life free of abuse, fear, hunger, thirst, a life full of love and happiness. However, wild animals do not get that sort of life. But wild animals have, in my opinion, the right to live as they do without our interference so they do not become so handicapped like the domesticated species we have created. Nothing more.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 28, 2010)

If the judgement of the animal was at the stage where it could accept the consequences of it's decision, knowing full well all of the potential ramifications, then yes, I would think that would be suitable. 

However, we are currently not capable of discerning their mental capacity, nor able to communicate fully and completely with animals on this subject. We safeguard underaged humans - when they are fully developed to understand and make a personal decision, we permit them to do so.

PETA is taking that decision from these creatures. They cannot communicate to the domestic animals what will happen to them, nor ask their permission. It is the same as turning a human child out of the home to fend for itself on the street. They simply do what they like to the creature, without consultation. As we cannot accurately judge mental capacity and understanding, it isn't fair to remove them from human protection.
I think PETA's actions in this capacity are reprehensible.

I am bringing up these ideas and perspectives because they are a part of the future; our knowledge will only grow, leaving us with a more complex situation as time goes on. That is why I think it is important to look at this concept from every possible angle 

Animal rights and subsequent welfare are very theoretically close together (though not in the current form espoused by the far ends of the spectrum)... I don't see them as mutually exclusive viewpoints.

(Very interesting conversation by the way... thanks for bringing it up  )


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 28, 2010)

Another thing I would like to point out is that I think wild and domesticated animals are so different that I do believe that they should be treated differently when it comes to stuff like welfare and rights...I pretty much showed that in my last post, summed up as follows: "Domesticated animals have the right to be provided with the best care by humans with much consideration for their welfare. Wild animals have the right to be left alone to live their own lives." 

Therefore I think it only right that we consider them as completely different from each other when it comes to deciding what rights/welfare should be attributed to them, yes? They live such different lives, and we involve ourselves as much as possible in the care and welfare of the domestic, but we should be involved as little as possible in the care and welfare of the wild animals. Domestics should be first in line for any rights animals may be given, because they are so closely involved in our own lives. We as a species are in contact with them every single minute of every single day, using them as food, clothing, medicine, companionship...it seems only fair they get first consideration.

But then there is also the fact that the wild animals are sometimes just as affected by our lives. For example, the species that are on the road to extinction because of how the human population is expanding so rapidly in size and taking over more of the habitats they occupy. Its impossible to think of us doing anything that might limit our growth, though, as even we live by the instinct to preserve our own species over the others. Could you imagine any sort of human population growth limitation that could be employed without basically going against human rights? So how would one deal with this as far as human vs. animal rights?


----------



## BethM (Jul 28, 2010)

I hate to be in a position to be defending PETA. As I have previosly stated, I do not agree with some of their tactics. (Though Ingrid Newkirk has stated that she does outrageous things for the reason of getting attention. Everyone on reality tv does outrageous thing for the purpose of getting attention.). However, I don't believe the PETA members that support releasing pets into the wild represent the organization as a whole, or it's official policies. They use the phrase "animal liberation" in their slogan, but also remember the phrase "Women's liberation," which has a figurative meaning.

If someone can direct me to reputable information proving otherwise, I would appreciate it.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 28, 2010)

So many good questions 

Found this resource online... they have lots of pro, con, and maybe arguments. I thought that all perspectives had a lot of great points 
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-animals-have-the-same-rights-as-people

The wild animal population issues with extirpation in favour of human developments is troublesome.Thankfully, there are some ways to legally protect portions of the environment, and some neat technological innovations. 

I wonder then if the onus doesn't fall on us as humans to moderate our growth so as not to cause the extinction of others. We would have to govern our actions with our moral responsibility to preserve the rights of the wild animals. So many facets to this discussion.


*** You are entirely right Beth, I should not have made a generalized comment about PETA members - not all hold the same convictions. My apologies!

ETA: I personally think this article strikes the right balance. Enshrines basic animal rights in law, but uses welfare concepts as the everyday tool. I think this would likely be the most workable solution.
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english/opinion/animalrights.html

This is also a neat article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 28, 2010)

[align=left]PETA sweeps many things under their rug to hide from most members, they need to generalize and tone things down and sugar coat things so they keep getting support. They have strong connections to terrorist groups who do things like arson, in fact a large portion of their money has gone to court fees defending these people who break into labs and burn it down after setting everything free. The number one thing is to take all their ads with a grain of salt, they are masters of manipulation and will shock anyone into sending them money, most memebers do not know their true motives. And yes I believe Ingrid herself was quoted to have said they aim for the total liberation of animals, and not figuritivly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MblfdR459Rk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MblfdR459Rk[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY[/ame] - language warning on this one, but has some great clips. Newkirk says herself she sees animals as slaves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


On the opposite side of the wild animal topic, how about those species that have simply thrived in our urban settings to the point of causing problems? Deer in many places are feeding so well in fields once that is gone in the winter they are all starving. Coyotes are moving into populated areas and taking pets and livestock. Rodents spread disease. How far does the right to live go when it infringes on our lives, and when often due to us their populations getting out of control to the point where they are suffering too? Its all about balance. We cannot restrict outselves, however since we have taken the step above everything else we have taken the responsibility of the world around us that is affected by us, and not always is that to let everything live and run free, it would be nearly catastrophic for them and for us.

For those that are domesticated, as said by The Little Prince -

_"But if you tame me, then we shall meet each other, 
To me, you will be unique in all the world...
To you, I shall be unique in all the world...
*You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed*"_[/align]


----------



## BethM (Jul 28, 2010)

No worries, Autumn. I do not condone the "rescue" of pets/domestic animals and releasing them into the wild. I have been under the impression that these acts are more isolated, and more in line with the ALF than with PETA. I would certainly re-evaluate my thoughts, if there were evidence proving me wrong. I will be checking those links when i get home.
I have a co-worker who is involved with PETA in a minor way, and she is one of the sweetest people I've ever met. She has two pets, and has asked to learn more about pet rabbits. 

Anyway. I think anyone interested in animal intelligence and such should also read more about Alex the parrot. http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html

I also HIGHLY recommend listening to RadioLab, which is an excellent science podcast. Lots of great info, presented in a smart and entertaining way. A couple episodes relate to this discussion: The full-length show Animal Minds, and it's related "shorts," The Shy Baboon, Fu Manchu, and Lucy (which is an excellent example of why domestic animals should NOT be released into the wild). The episode The New Normal starts out with an interesting story about a baboon troop that drastically changed behavior, and ends with a really interesting bit about evolutionary biology. (The middle story is good, too, but not relevant to this discussion.). http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jul 28, 2010)

*TwistedSerpent wrote: *


> [align=left]For those that are domesticated, as said by The Little Prince -
> 
> _"But if you tame me, then we shall meet each other,
> To me, you will be unique in all the world...
> ...


Great quote 

Thanks for the links, Beth  I look forward to reading them!


----------



## BethM (Jul 28, 2010)

TwistedSerpent, you should know that petakillsanimals.com is owned/administered by Richard Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_consumer_freedom
They are a paid lobbyist organization that also runs websites defending big tobacco, claiming there is no mercury found in fish, sun exposure will not give you cancer, etc. They are paid to publish the things they publish, and are NOT a reputable source for ANYTHING. You are claiming that PETA are masters of manipulation, butit seems that Richard Bermanand his organization is manipulating people into believing that.


----------



## TwistedSerpent (Jul 28, 2010)

I did not know that actually, I was looking for a different site that reports on non profits but only found that one. Ill look again later for the one I wanted, it had. All of their tax stats on It


----------

