A first step - Defining Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

For years I've complained, railed, fought, and argued about animal rights vs animal welfare. Being a dog lover, owner and competitor as well as a breeder (once in awhile), my friends always assumed I was an animal rights person. You know - animals have the RIGHT to be treated well, not be abused, to be loved, etc. However, those are not "rights". Those are welfare issues, not rights. To truly understand, I have to go back and explain a few things. As I blog, I will do my best to produce these entries with good grammar, good spelling and coherent sentence structure. However, I was not an English major and would ask your forgiveness in advance for any errors in these areas.

I was first introduced to the concept of Animal Rights about 12 years ago on the ACLU boards of AOL. I stumbled on a group discussing "animal rights". It was a lively discussion, but it was also quite volatile. I could see immediately that the ARistas (Animal Rights advocates) were almost religiously fanatic in their application of their beliefs. There was little in the way of logic applied to their beliefs, they were instead simply that - BELIEFS. Their arguments were filled with phrases and words made up to support their belief that animals were indeed exploited by humans in all cases of interaction. There was almost no fact in their side of the discussion. Lots of talk of morals and ethics, though.

It was on those boards that I first learned that to argue against something, I had to be able to define it. Rights, as we know them, are a human construct. Rights are those ideas that allow us to live together in society without pure chaos. As our economic situations and governmental situations improve and change, rights are expanded to more citizens. Rights are not something you see in nature. The rabbit has no right to life in the wild, the coyote sees to that. There are no moral obligations from one group of animals to another.

In the world of humans, as a species, we are capable of understanding and constructing rights. Rights are not "god given" - there are simply too many "gods" for that to be true. As a species, humans can, and do, develope societies and governments and rights are what keep us civilized. No one in the US is freely allowed to violate another human's rights, even those who are physically or mentally unable to understand what rights are. Our system of laws is written in a way that those who are not able to understand are given guardians to help them do so.

Rights, as such, cannot be afforded to entire groups that will never have the capability of understanding what those rights are. Non-human animals (for the purposes of this blog and all my entries the term animal will mean NON-HUMAN animals) will never have that capacity as species. A wolf does not morally understand it should not eat a sheep, depriving it of life. A cow does not have the capacity to understand that 10 months down the road she made be headed to a slaughterhouse, she doesn't contemplate her future or death. Prey animals have the instinct for flight, predator animals for fight. Do animals have "feelings", yes of course. They are not, however, furry humans. To the best of my knowledge humans do not regularly roll in dead things, eat their own feces or the feces of other species, do not eat their own young if they feel threatened, or mate with a sibling to keep the pack going. These are all things animals do with great regularity.

Animal rights philosophy in its purest form is simple. Animals have one right - the right not to be owned. That means just what it sounds like - no pets, no farm animals, no service animals, no zoos, no rodeos, no riding horses, certainly no fur, no food animals. AR believers have one conviction - all humans will eventually become exploitive and cruel and just by confining a pet, a dairy cow, a seeing eye dog the human is cruel and inhumane. In the world of animal rights, there is no compromise. They may use welfare issues as a means to an end, but make no mistake the end is the same. As a human, you will never be able to be anything but cruel and exploitive when you interact with animals in any way.

Animal welfare - that's simple. We as humans must simply be sure that any animals in our homes, farms, businesses, whatever, are cared for in the best possible way for THEM. Whether we are raising animals for food, for companions, or simply have a dog or cat or fish tank - we must be the best stewards we can for them. If they are destined for food, it is our obligation to see that their lives are lived in comfort, with plenty of food, shelter, water and whatever else is needed to make them happy as their species needs it. NOT as we as humans think it should be. More to come...

 

That's my first entry! Hope you enjoy this and that you will come back for more. As I learn more about how this "blogging" thing works, I'll add more features!

Kathy Clark

This is me, cruelly exploiting one of my dogs, Lark (U-Ch/Ch Brynlea Clarken Unforgettable)

 

Comments

[WFTist]

How refreshing to read some common sense for a change.

Animal welfare implies owner responsibility, and responsibility is currently one of those not-so-popular topics.

For the ARistas, it's so easy to play the blame game without actually taking personal responsibility for improving animals' lives.

I'm lo0oking forward to hearing more from you, Pemmom!

[Kathy Dolge]

good job, Kathy
well stated!

[Tracey]

Wow, Lark looks really abused!
Well said, Kathy. Keep writing!

[Judith A. Brecka]

Great start, Kathy. Our animals depend upon us for food, shelter and care. Those of us who own animals provide those the necessities to ensure that their lives are comfortable and humane. Feral animals often have short lives due to predators, poor nutrition and lack of veterinarian care. Many animal rights activists are so dogmatic they forget we animal welfaristas are truly humane in our treatment and care for our animals.

[Pam Dent]

Kathy - I applaud you for stepping up to set people straight on this very important issue.

[Roberta Pliner]

Good work, Kathy. As one who wears reading glasses and
doesn't do lots of default computer type too well (and who was a magazine designer), I'd like to see shorter text blocks and a larger, darker typeface. But you've
stated your case very well.

Otherwise, as for your and Judith's argument that we who
care for our animals are more humane towards them than
people who just let animals be feral, I think the AR
point of view is to let all animals go feral, with the
fittest then surviving and evolving into species that
can live independently of humans.

I'll have a chance to see whether that works in about
20 minutes when "Gorillas in the Mist" starts on PBS.

[Diane]

Poor Lark, someone call the HSUS!!!! Kathy, well done. At Petsmart the other day, the cashier referred to me as Bonnet's mommy, and I said I'm not her mother, I'm her owner. My children aren't this furry and I'd never put them on a leash. You should've seen the look she gave me. I'm sick to death of the the term "pet parent."

[Jagdteckel]

Thank you for taking the time to help educate the public about the fanatical animal rights cult.
Keep up the good work!!

[Cathy Santarsiero]

Excellent, Kathy!

[Annie Baker]

Thank you for educating the public with good ole common sense.

[Diane Puntenney]

Well said, Kathy! Thanks for starting a sensible discussion of this usually religious issue.