 |
No More Homeless Pets Forum
March 15, 2004 Animal Rights Issues in Animal Welfare |
Kim Sturla of Animal Place and Dr. Susan Hall of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights will offer their insights and suggestions on how our work in animal welfare relates to animal rights. They'll answer your questions about setting policies that support a broader respect for animals and sharing your values with others.
Introduction from Susan Hall:
Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, the terms are used interchangeably by many people, but there is a difference! The fundamental philosophical differences can easily be understood, but in practicality there can, and should be, a lot of overlap. How do you, then, live, work and establish policies while being respectful of those of different beliefs while focusing always on the best for our non-human charges? Open, honest communication as well as respect are vital requirements.Questions
Being caught between animal rights and animal welfare
What are definitions for animal rights vs. welfare?
Where do you draw the line in accepting donations from business that may sell or use animals?
Animal rights people opposed to spay/neuter
Animal rights people opposed to TNR
Helping a shelter increase anti-cruelty ideals without nagging them
Should you refuse to financially assist a spay/neuter if the owner wants to declaw/earcrop their animal?
Serving meat at animal events
Working with the system vs. direct action
Treating with drugs tested on animals
Slippery-slope argument from animal welfare to animal rights
Pound seizure
Being caught between animal rights and animal welfare
Question from Megan:
I consider myself to be animal rights but because I work in a shelter, many of my animal rights friends say I have sold out to the mainstream animal welfare mentality. Yet my co-workers at the shelter make fun of me for being so radical and being a vegetarian. I feel caught between the two. I am surprised by the complete distrust and misinformation between the two beliefs. This may be naive of me, but I didn't think there were two "sides" that were so polarized in so many ideas.How do we start making the two realize that we are in this together and that it's a big enough job to persuade the public how to responsibly care for animals. We don't need to fight each other too!
Response from Susan:
I can totally understand your confusion!!! I was also very surprised by how much conflict there is between the animal rights/animal welfare communities when I first became involved. I think what is important here is for you to continue to explore your beliefs and be sure you are being true to what you believe. I wish this was a perfect world, but, unfortunately, no one can be totally animal-cruelty-free. We need to each draw our own lines according to that with which we are able to live. Meanwhile, I think it is important to allow others to have their opinions, educate them and keep emphasizing that, in practicality, there is at least an 80% overlap in the practice of these two philosophies.Response from Kim:
Megan, I can personally relate to your dilemma. During the 15 years I worked for humane societies, I encountered many same issues.First, I hope you don't let yourself get distracted by criticism from your shelter colleagues or animal rights friends. I think the "distrust and misinformation" between the two factions will help be resolved by your engaging in thoughtful discussion with both.
A few tricks I have used in trying to bridge the gaps include:
Bring vegan snacks to the shelter and share them with others in the lunchroom. People warm up to you a little quicker when munching your delicious chocolate tofu pie.
Try not to be judgmental when discussing animal issues. I often have to remind myself that being an animal rights activist is not the litmus test for being an ethical human being. It may be your animal "welfare" colleague is a primo recycler, avid conservationist, terrific mom, caring friend, conscientious consumer, etc. Our view of nonhuman animals represents just one area of our ethics.
Be the positive role model. All of us working for animals are educators by example and design. I bet you are acting as a powerful catalyst for change in your shelter and with your animal rights friends. Because when one member of a group changes, all the relationships within the group change - the old ripple effect.
Initiate educational opportunities. I don't know which shelter you work for, nor which department you're in, but perhaps you can help facilitate educational forums at your shelter that expose folks to different philosophical perspectives about animals.
Operating Animal Place gives me the excellent opportunity to sensitize people to farmed animals. There is no substitute to coming nose to snout with a pig! This past year I had two organizations (one commercial, the other an animal welfare group) schedule a group field trip to Animal Place in hopes that the staff would increase the knowledge and sensitivity to farmed animals.
Stay strong and continue bridging the gap. You are serving a very great need in helping to break down the misinformation and mistrust.
What are definitions for animal rights vs. welfare?
Question from Christina:
I always find it confusing trying to label what my beliefs are. I'm not even sure where I fall on the spectrum of welfare vs. rights. Maybe you could address the definitions of animal welfare and animal rights, because I think there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding for many people on what these terms mean.Response from Susan:
At its inception, the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee was looking for a similar definition and I'll tell you what I offered them. Understand there are no universally agreed upon definitions. Animal Welfare is a system of beliefs and behaviors that focuses on maintaining animals in ways that cause the least distress to the animals. The philosophy of animal rights states that animals have the right to live their own lives free from interference from humans.The welfarists run into trouble when they try to develop "humane" ways to exploit animals (e.g. animal research) and the rightists have trouble just living in today's society as pretty much everything can, in some way, be linked to some sort of animal exploitation (e.g. the gelatin in photographic film, rubber in our car tires, etc.).
Response from Kim:
Animal welfare typically represents a perspective that people should treat each animal as kindly as possible and should be required to do so. Welfarists, however, do not refrain from eating or otherwise exploiting animals. They want to be sure that the animal's life is as good as it can be in the process.Animal rights represents the view that animals have intrinsic rights and these should be guaranteed just as ours are. A rights perspective dictates that we do not do to other animals what we would not accept having done to ourselves. This means that regardless how "good" a life we might provide for farmed animals, for example, it would not be appropriate to kill and eat those animals.
Where do you draw the line in accepting donations from businesses that may sell or use animals?
Question from multiple members:
What are your thoughts about using adoption venues such as PETsMART and PETCO, who provide much-needed support to dog and cat adoption programs, but who continue to sell birds, reptiles, rodents, and other small pets? And, what about accepting money from these agencies?Is it okay to accept donations from organizations that profit from the sale of small animals? Is it more important to support the good things these corporations do - refusing to sell dogs and cats, providing adoption venues for rescue groups, donating money and supplies, etc. - or to take a stand and make it clear that our organization does NOT support the sale of animals of any kind. I realize there is likely no one right answer to this question, but any insight would be very much appreciated.
And how do you know where to draw the line? What about taking funds from a hospital that gives charitable funds to non-profits, but whose research lab may test on animals, including dogs; or drug companies that provide us with medical supplies for our spay/neuter clinic but that also test on animals; or a pet food company whose food is donated to your shelter, but whose labs were recently found to not treat the dogs in its care well. Help! How do you start setting boundaries and policies when it could be endless?
Response from Susan:
As you probably know there is no one answer that will fit all situations. Mainly, it is up to the organization/individual involved to make these very tough decisions. I'll give you my initial thoughts, though. As for using adoption venues that sell small animals, I think a lot has to do with whether or not other options (e.g. pet stores that don't sell small animals) exist. Discussion with management over your concerns may also be helpful.Dissociating yourself physically (e.g. be as far away from these areas that sell them as possible) and maybe even having a disclaimer visible may be possible (or not). I personally have never tried this! At the very least, be sure the animals present have the best environments and care possible. I do think, however that refusing in a polite way to use their facilities and explaining (educating) why is perfectly acceptable!
As for accepting donations from hospitals and drug and pet food companies who exploit animals, the first thing to do is to confirm the facts, and compare. For example, with the recent Aims concerns, it is important to understand that likely any commercial pet food company would probably measure up the same or worse! Otherwise, it is a matter of weighing the pros and cons and coming to a decision that your conscience allows you to live with. Again, this is not a perfect world and, sadly, compromises will need to be made.
Response from Kim:
So much gray area here. I have great respect for the different perspectives. The question was framed, "Where do you draw the line?" My response to that is wherever the line is drawn, make sure it is in pencil, so it can be easily erased and moved up a notch as we ethically evolve. But, that said, I approach issues such as this with idealistic pragmatism.First, when companies have made great strives in improving conditions for animals, such as PETsMART and PETCO, I believe animals can be better served by our trying to continue working with them. Perhaps in the future we can convince them not to be selling any animals at their stores. Meanwhile, a very positive partnership has developed, and I foresee even more positive change happening in the future.
Let me give you one incident I just encountered. A comedy club offered to do a benefit for Animal Place. Great news! After we outlined all the details, we promoted the event. One week before the benefit, the club owner off handedly mentioned that their kitchen would be open. And, their menu was primarily meat. I mistakenly thought just drinks would be served and explained that we can't have this fundraiser for farmed animals while folks munching on cows! After offering to buy veggie burgers, veggie dogs, etc. he refused. We finally agreed to keep the kitchen closed and Animal Place would take only a percentage of the proceeds as the club owner had hoped to make some money, to cover his expenses, from the sale of the food.
Accepting donated items from companies that exploit animals must be evaluated individually. At Animal Place, we also have a dog rescue program and donated dog food has been offered. We turn it down because we feed all dogs here a vegetarian formula from Nature's Recipe. However, if someone drops off donated non-vegetarian dog cookies during an open house event, we will give it to the dogs rather than waste it by throwing it away.
Comment from Jenn:
I wanted to comment on the fact that Animal Place rejects dog food donations from commercial dog food companies because their dogs eat a vegetarian diet. I am a vegan, and I believe in feeding dogs a vegetarian diet, but I would not reject the donation anyway. The donated food could be used for other programs. For example, for many people on fixed incomes, paying for pet food is very difficult. A bit of free dog food could well make the difference in whether a financially strapped senior could keep a beloved dog or be forced to surrender her. Just a thought.Animal rights people opposed to spay/neuter
Question from Julie:
I was very surprised when the other day I was having a discussion with a person who describes herself as hardcore animal rights. I found that she is completely, 100% opposed to spay/neuter because the animals can't make the choice and we are forcing something upon them.I guess I assumed that whether animal welfare or animal rights that we all believed in the importance of spay/neuter! I think most animal rights people do, except a small percentage. I am wondering how we can bridge that gap? It seems like they will never be supportive based on
this argument.
Have you found this to be a small, isolated belief? Is it bigger in the animal rights field than publicized?
Response from Susan:
From my perspective, I do believe this is a relatively small percentage of animal rights people who are truly opposed to spay and neuter. This argument stems from the basic statement that animals have the right to live their lives with as little interference from humans as possible.The only problem with applying this to cats and dogs (and pretty much any species humans have domesticated), however, is that we have already interfered a lot, to the degree that these animals no longer have the natural "birth control" (e.g. only alpha animals mating, food source limitations) seen in animals in the wild. It is up to us, then, with domesticated animals, anyhow, to try to control any detrimental effects of domestication.
Response from Kim:
Wow! I have never come across an "animal rights" person who opposes spaying and neutering. So, to answer your question, yes, that person represents a very small minority. While sterilizing animals is "unnatural," so are the domesticated animals themselves, which are human creations.I would try to bridge the gap with this person by reminding him/her of the health benefits that spay and neuter offers the animals themselves, such as markedly reduced rates of certain cancers. I would also remind him/her of the suffering and needless death of the 4-6 million animals killed in shelters each year due to overpopulation; there is clearly nothing natural, or morally acceptable, about that.
Animal rights people opposed to TNR
Question from a member:
There are some animal rights groups and individuals who are opposed to Trap-Neuter-Return for ferals, because they think it is more cruel to put the cats back out there and that they live short, miserable lives. I don't understand how animal rights people can reconcile the killing of these cats based on a "potential" risk when I thought the very premise of animal rights would be to protect these cats from being killed. All animals face risks whether they are companion animals - owned or not - and wildlife, so how can we arbitrarily decide to make that decision on ferals. I understand if they are sick but not when they are healthy. I'd be interested to hear how you think animal rights groups can make this argument, and isn't it hypocritical?Response from Susan:
Actually, the idea of "TNR" is currently being debated quite vigorously in the veterinary profession. Personally, I do agree with the concept when certain conditions are met (e.g. regular food source). The AVAR is currently working on a position statement regarding TNR. At this point, I feel the only valid concern is the environmental sensitivity of the location of the feral colony (indigenous wildlife).From an animal rights perspective, I can't see a valid argument for trapping and killing. It seems to me, again from an animal rights perspective, to either embrace total non-interference (leave 'em alone) or to "clean up the mess" our irresponsible conduct towards these domesticated species has caused in the most efficient and humane way possible. From what I've seen scientifically, TNR seems to be the least of many evils.
Response from Kim:
The feral cat issue has been a divisive issue within the animal protection community. Most of us are very familiar with the arguments presented by all sides, so I will not take the time to restate them all.I believe each feral cat colony needs to be evaluated separately. You mentioned a few of the criteria (i.e., if they are sick). I believe other criteria to consider includes location of the colony, impact to wildlife, safety of cats, and whether we can trap and place them.
Regarding how can animal rights folks reconcile the killing of feral cats... I find it tough to reconcile the killing of any healthy animal (human and nonhuman). Nevertheless, the killing of our domestic animals will continue until we stop the breeding.
Helping a shelter increase anti-cruelty ideals without nagging them
Question from a member:
Working at a Humane Society with people from varied backgrounds, I can respect that a person doesn't have to eschew meat or leather in order to be a good pet owner. I do feel very strongly however, that an animal shelter should be more supportive of animal rights than your average group.Yet, when we receive animals like chickens, turkeys or even rabbits, someone always makes a comment regarding taking the creature home and "frying it up." We always feature meat at our fundraisers (despite minor "accommodations" to my crazy veggie requests). Our director considered putting together a team for a charity bass fishing tournament and he actually proposed sponsoring a notoriously inhumane circus that was coming through town.
I don't think anyone is really acting out of cruelty; they just have a different perspective than I'm used to. They always seem to come around when I explain that by supporting a circus or encouraging sport fishing we may be alienating our animal-loving membership, but it's disappointing that it just comes down to money. Sometimes I feel like they'd organize a "Humane Society Canned Hunt" if they thought it would be profitable!
Is there anything I can do to help set my shelter on a path to greater anti-cruelty ideals without seeming like a constant nag? I'm not out to change any personal beliefs, just the organizational
standards. Am I a complete nut?
Response from Susan:
If you're a nut, then so are a lot of really neat people I know and respect! It's frustrating yet encouraging how often I hear concerns like yours. Having been involved with a humane society and other rescue groups, I can assure you that these kinds of conflicts show up a lot. Donor dollars are extremely important, and for people responsible for fund-raising, where to draw the line can be tough. It sounds like you've hit on my favorite mode of action - educate!!!When I worked at the humane society and they had meat at functions, and leather goods at auctions, etc. I just tried to remind myself that I was doing what I felt I should be doing and that I couldn't change the whole organization overnight. A lot of times, the best people to go to with educational information are the Board of Directors as they usually have the most power. Yet they can also be the most offended when it's pointed out that areas in their lives support animal exploitation (after all, they are on the Board of a humane society, so they must love animals!!) So, as is usual for any human interactions, try to be positive, non-accusing and respectful when pointing out some inconsistencies. But, I think you may still have to do a little "nagging" :)
Response from Kim:
Great question about how to set your shelter on a path to greater anti-cruelty ideas. Nevertheless, I was amused that you asked how to go about accomplishing this, when after reading your question, it seems you have accomplished just that! You stopped the fishing tournament and circus sponsorship. Congratulations. That is impressive progress.I think your approach is the best. Seize the opportunity to explain to the decision makers their inconsistency when supporting an activity that perpetuates cruelty. When you approach these conflicts with facts and constructive criticism, you increase the receptivity.
I agree with you that your shelter folks are not acting out of cruelty. They sometimes just have a different perspective, or they simply may have not thought about the implications of some of their actions.
I remember in my 20's loving animals, volunteering at shelters and eating meat. It never occurred to me in 1970 to become a vegetarian or not to wear leather. And, it wasn't until the 1990s when I gave any thought to which country produced the clothing I purchased. But, thanks to some dear friends who had greater awareness than I did, they educated me about looking at labels before buying something to see if it came from parts of the world that exploit humans to make the clothing.
My point is that none of us is completely aware of how our behavior negatively impacts others or the environment. It's a growth process for us all. I often have to remind myself of that humbling fact when feeling impatience toward those who contribute to the suffering of animals.
Thank you for being the conscience at your shelter and for speaking up. I know it often is not an easy task.
Should you refuse to financially assist a spay/neuter if they want to declaw/earcrop against your beliefs?
Question from Celeste:
We are a statewide spay/neuter referral and assistance service that sends checks made out to caller's veterinarians to cover the cost of spay/neuter surgery only. We try to stay 'on topic' when dealing with callers. We limit our advice to spay/neuter issues (such as advice for people wanting to Trap, Neuter, and Return feral cats).The one exception is we refuse to pay for a surgery if we know the pet guardian is planning on using the money saved to pay for a declawing procedure on their pet. Instead, we calmly and non-judgmentally explain the procedure and its common side effects, offer alternatives, and direct callers to websites such as www.avar.org and www.pawproject.org.
We would also offer advice if ear cropping was also being considered (although that hasn't happened yet). So far, we have been successful each time in convincing the caller to forego having their cat(s) declawed. My question is, if anyone ever refuses to get their pet fixed because they are so intent on either declawing or ear cropping at the same time, should we withhold funding? We're not sure if we should compromise and 'pick our battles' in that instance, or if we should hold firm to our 'animal rights' principles when it comes to taking toes and ears off animals for convenience or aesthetics.
Response from Susan:
This is a real sticky wicket, but I know that at the humane society where I worked, we had some similar decisions to make, and we would stick to our guns. I've found that if the people really want to get a declaw/earcrop done, they will come up with the money, so I wouldn't waste the money that will help more responsible pet people. It does sound like you're doing a really good job educating people here, though - especially the referral to AVAR's website:)Response from Kim:
Celeste, some "battles" are worth holding firm on. In fact, it is essential we do so.If someone needs financial assistance to sterilize their animal then I question how they can afford to declaw their cat or ear crop their dog. In fact, if you look at the cost of feeding a cat or dog, something continuously for many years, I would question how they can afford that, yet not be able to pay a small fee for something that would only be done once
I would not work from the assumption that IF you refuse to provide financial assistance to them to get their animal sterilized that they will opt to not have the surgery done. They very well may just go elsewhere.
Don't be held an emotional hostage in this situation. It's not even really an "animal rights" issue. Doing such surgeries are of no benefit to the animal and, often, cause substantial suffering. Stand firm when it comes to removing body parts!
Serving meat at animal events
Question from Beth:
I organize special events, and I would like to promote animal friendly menus. However, some people in my group get offended if there is no meat on the menu, even though they don't normally eat meat at every single meal. Do you have any suggestions on this topic or any resources to help?Response from Susan:
I'm really not sure why these people would be "offended", but, be that as it may, there are a lot of really neat cookbooks, etc. with delicious menus. The PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) does a lot with diet and health. They have a lot of resources for food and diet.Actually, I've served some of the "fake meats" to carnivores and they were none the wiser. I would encourage you to continue to serve the menus your organization promotes and continue to educate re: ethical, environmental as well as health benefits to eating lower on the food chain!
Response from Kim:
First, let me thank you for your interest in promoting animal friendly menus at your shelter functions.If you haven't already ordered, please get a copy of "Food for Thought: Adopting an Animal Friendly Menu." It also includes some great recipes. You can order online from Animal Place at www.animalplace.org, or e-mail us at kim@animalplace.org.
I also found that there are two groups with delicious veggie recipes to serve a large group of people: The Vegetarian Resource Group in Maryland and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, D.C.
Comment from Elaine:
This is a great topic, and I am glad that it is being addressed! I don't know where I would fall on the AR/AW line. But, as a person who rescues pot bellied pigs and knows the horrors farmed animals endure in modern agribusiness, it really hurts me deeply when shelters and other "animal" organizations conduct fundraisers and sell BBQ, hamburgers, hot dogs, etc.It cuts even deeper when they mock me or treat me like I am a lunatic for saying anything about it. (I am never confrontational or anything.) I especially hate the patronizing response of "we will have plenty of vegetables available for those who do not eat meat!" I won't go to fundraisers that serve meat. I wonder how many other people out there stay away for the same reason?
I have to admit, that it took me years to "make the connection", but now that I have, I understand that no matter what the animal, eating one species to raise money to save another, is just so hypocritical. They all have the same feelings and capacity for pain and suffering.
I have a hard time with the 2 extremes in the welfare vs. rights context. I am all for animals having the "right" to live a life free of cruelty. I would be glad if we could have utopia tomorrow in that NO living creature is being abused or exploited. However, when the pragmatic realist takes control, I realize that the road to the AR dream of liberation is going to be a long haul. Taking steps along the way to minimize and expose the suffering of those animals trapped in the systems of abuse TODAY is just as important as our working toward the goal of no more suffering/exploitation at the hands of humans.
Working within the system vs. direct action
Question from Sally:
I recognize that a lot can be accomplished for animals by trying to appeal to the mainstream and "work within the system". But, sometimes I get so frustrated at how slowly things move that I wonder if a more animal rights approach wouldn't move things along faster. I'd like to get your opinions.In some cases, I think a group stands a better chance shutting down a bad puppy mill by going undercover and getting footage than they do trying to work with the USDA to get it shut down on violations. Going after a bad pet store with protests and boycotts, rather than trying to educate about the benefits of adoption might give faster results.
Response from Susan:
I sure can understand your frustration! What you're describing is not really "animal welfare vs. animal rights" but rather two different methodologies of promoting change.Personally, I believe the most important thing is to know the law. Rarely is any long-term good accomplished when someone's rights are violated or any bodily harm is done. Having said that, I think that working with the system is paramount, however, I also think that there are situations where a more direct, aggressive approach is called for. It all depends on what you're comfort level.
Response from Kim:
Sally, I think we need a variety to strategies and tactics when working to change laws, educate people and confront abusers. Which strategies and tactics you select are based on many criteria. Sometimes it is clear which approach would be the most effective and sometimes not.I would not necessarily consider undercover work (at puppy mills for example) to be exclusively an animal rights tactic. Law enforcement officials also employ this approach.
With the example you gave of shutting down a bad pet store, I think we best serve all parties when we first try civil discussion. Oftentimes we can accomplish much with education and gentle persuasion. If that approach doesn't work, one can always escalate your efforts.
Additionally, sometimes working collaboratively with other organizations is effective. Each group can approach the "problem" from a different angle, which can put greater pressure on the puppy mill, pet store, factory farm, or whatever industry you are trying to change.
Causing change, unfortunately, takes time. We are trying to educate, in hopes of sensitizing - leading to a change in attitude, and ultimately a change in behavior. We need perseverance, patience, and tenaciousness.
Comment from Jude:
Sometimes, a little bit of subversion is worthwhile. My daughter and I go into the only local pet store that sells puppies and kittens. We have a sort of routine, where she looks at the adorable puppies and I tell her, "No! They are puppy mill puppies and poorly bred, ill/ill tempered and that you can find an adorable puppy at the pound or PetSmart that is healthier and much less expensive." We have this personal discussion in front of the people who are looking at the puppies and so far, we have not seen one single person buy a puppy while we were there :-).We don't do this very often, but others in the community do the same thing... so on at least half of the days, for a small part of the day, someone is there teaching the public by example. To be demonstrating off of the property of this pet store, you would be so far away that no one planning to go there would even know you existed! We find this "inside approach" more effective.
We usually buy some dog treats every time we visit, not to support them but to "hide" the reason we are there. I figure that for every one person we can educate about puppy mills, they will tell a few others. If even one less dog is produced in horrible conditions, it is well worth our time.
Comment from Sheryl:
I have joined a few online animal rights groups. Some are careful to keep the discussions calm and constructive; others are not above flaming when people express a view they don't fine hard-line enough.My style of elevating consciousness about animal issues happens to be ingratiating myself with people and groups and then introducing subjects in a friendly, inclusive way. For example, I joined my local Rotary Club. Every week, the restaurant where the club meets makes a point of handing me my vegetarian meal separately from the large containers everyone else gets served from. I let club members ask me about it, and they do! I'm always friendly and non-challenging, which leads them to ask more questions and get more interested in me (rather than avoiding eating lunch with an obnoxious person who lectures to them). I'm bringing in speakers to the club's meetings, such as the Director of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society.
But members of one of the animal rights groups chided me, saying, "How many people have been converted into vegetarians, because of your 'nice' approach? They need to be hit upside the head." (Figuratively speaking, I hope!)
I'm just not a paint-thrower, but I can't imagine that makes me care less than someone who does spray people's fur coats red! I guess I just don't believe that violence begets peace. I want to commune with my fellow animal lovers, protectors, and helpers, even the hard-line ones, but they think I'm a wuss.
Thanks for listening and for your insightful thoughts on these important issues.
Treating with drugs tested on animals
Question from Joan:
My friend, who works at our local shelter, has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She is very conflicted about the chemotherapy treatment her doctor prescribed. She knows that animals are suffering in laboratories to bring these drugs to market and feels terrible about being complicit in that suffering by taking the treatments.I am advising her to go ahead with the treatments, as she can do so much more for the animals by staying alive. What do you feel about these kinds of issues?
Response from Susan:
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, I sure wish her the best. This is definitely one of those areas that each must make his/her own decision, whatever conscience allows.So much of our society has its history of development based on the exploitation of animals, that it is probably impossible to totally avoid it. I was thinking today how many cosmetic companies are now "cruelty-free" yet many use ingredients that were at one time tested on animals, even though ongoing testing has stopped.
A similar observation may be made with some medicines. Your friend may be interested in looking into more "alternative" treatment - very carefully - perhaps a group like the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine may have some direction for her. Whatever her choices, she's lucky to have a friend like you who can support her throughout this challenging time.
Slippery slope argument from animal welfare to animal rights
Question from Ann:
Many times when I am trying to educate people on animal welfare issues I get the arguments from people that we are on a slippery slope. They say that if we give too many rights to animals, like strengthening cruelty laws or changing the language from "owner" to "guardian" that we will soon be advocating that people stop wearing leather or eating meat. They think that groups like PETA are against people having pets altogether and that our ultimate goal is to ban pets.So I have two questions. One, how do we convince people that setting some basic responsible pet care guidelines will not lead to animals ruling the world. Two, how does animal rights reconcile "owning" pets? I feel that pets, in general, enjoy living with us, but does this fit with an animal rights view?
Response from Susan:
Some good questions! I really, really, really am annoyed by the "slippery-slope" arguments. I ran into that at the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee when AVAR was trying to get them to state in their position that leg-hold traps are inhumane. It took about 10 yrs to get them to adjust their wording. I hear the same thing: we're trying to stop all hunting, eating meat, wearing leather, owning pets - and then where would veterinarians be? You're out to destroy your own profession!!"OK, I'll take a deep breath now. Responding to these people takes patience and showing respect and each case is different. Sometimes it is a real fear, and addressing those fears individually is the best. Often it is just ignorance and, my favorite, education is the key. Many times it seems these are just reactionary people who don't really want to bother thinking about what they are really saying and I tend to just try to keep them on the subject at hand an not fall for their baiting.
As for pet ownership, I think most animal rights people recognize that a dog is a different animal from a wolf. The fact is humans have selectively bred these animals (and all domestic animals) to basically be dependent on us. To relinquish them all ("set them free") would be very cruel indeed. I look at our relationship as more of a symbiotic one. We certainly get tremendous benefit from sharing our lives with these domestic animals, and we have great opportunity to benefit them. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of abuse and exploitation of our domesticated animals, and that is where the battles need to be fought.
