The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 110
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan. 24, 2007
    Location
    small town, Ohio
    Posts
    613

    Default Animal rights VS. Animal welfare

    Originally Posted by Beverley
    It may be time for a thread on animal rights versus animal welfare, why it's important to understand the connotations of the two terms, and why it's important to avoid at all costs any support for or legitimization of outfits such as PETA and HSUS.

    Okay, Beverley, I'll start that thread.


    Opinions???
    Rhythm the perfect OTTB;Spock the will-be perfect OTTB;Mia the Arab/appendix COTH giveaway



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2005
    Location
    missoula. mt
    Posts
    1,729

    Default

    I think both of those "outfits" consider animal welfare to be a top priority. May be a bit misdirected at times (PETA), but I think their motives are pure and they are passionate about looking out for the best interest of animals. Is this going to be another anti-PETA thread?
    Just curious.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan. 24, 2000
    Location
    Out of the loop
    Posts
    3,094

    Default

    PETA's mission statement most definitively specifies that they consider themselves defenders of animal rights. Its leadership, middle management, and grassroots membership all espouse animal rights. HSUS and PETA are bedmates; they share officers. HSUS tries to be more subtle, but read their mission statements, press releases, internal docs. The language is eerily similar.

    Now, I was involved with PETA for many, many years and will give them credit due: they have played a key role in unveiling some truly atrocious practices in research and large-scale food production that clearly drift into the realm of animal cruelty. However, while those actions have been supportive of animal welfare, their driving concern is protection of animal rights, which is a dangerous slope to be perching atop.

    I found that most of the PETA membership at all levels, right up to the top had very little understanding of or respect for animal nature. Some have pets, but many abhor even that benign "slavery." Actually doing something with your dogs or horses or whatever is looked upon as very cruel slavery. Correction of bad behavior is the equivalent of evil "Massa" whipping "Toby." Selling animals? Many, many times I heard it referred to as "sending down the river," so the same analogy continues.

    Looking after our animals' welfare is every animal owner's duty. Those who fail to do so adequately should be punished under the cruelty/negligence laws in place.

    Animal "rights?" Animals have the right to be cared for appropriately to the needs of their species and their individual needs. They do not have rights equivalent to human civil rights. They just don't. And that needn't make anyone who keeps horses and loves them and practices good husbandry lose any warm fuzzies. Keep the warm fuzzies; they're fine.

    But be very, very careful you understand the ramifications of "animal rights." Follow the arguments all the way to their logical conclusion. Is that ultimately good for we who really do love and respect the horse? (Or the dog, cat, wildebeast, or three-toed sloth?) Is that ultimately good for the welfare of the animals we love and respect? In other words, if you remove your cherished horse from his "slavery" -- pull his shoes, take away his balanced feed program, turn him loose in the wilderness -- will he be better off?

    I believe, based on my experience, that springer is right in that members of PETA and HSUS are sincere in their desire to do what is in the best interest of animals. The problem is they don't have complete understanding of what that is and have gotten caught up in this fallacious notion of animal rights.
    Equinox Equine Massage

    In the depth of winter, I finally learned that there was in me invincible summer.
    -Albert Camus



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    25,494

    Default

    PETA and HSUS are Animal Rights...not Animal Welfare.
    Welfare is treating your animals humanely and ensuring they have everything necessary to live a comfortable and healthy life. Proper and enough food, fresh clean water, shelter from the elements, vet care when needed. Animal Rights is when the organization puts unrealistic demands on those things and adds in items...not usually to the benefit of the animal and almost always to the detriment of the owner. Animal Rights wants animals to have their own rights...that they are not property...that the owner has little say in their own animals. Such as Animal Welfare says "you can't abuse your horse when you ride it." Animal Rights say, "YOu shouldn't even be riding your horse." Animal Welfare says, "Your search and rescue dog needs to only be worked so many hours at a time in extreme weather." Animal Rights says, "The dog shouldn't have to search for missing people. It shouldn't have to work. And you probably shouldn't own it., it would rather be free or dead than owned by a human."
    Animal Rights almost across the board want to eventually exterminate any human owning an animal. They view animal ownership as slavery. There shouldn't even be wool sweaters because sheep shouldn't be shorn. (they should apparently be left in full wool to die of heat in summer) And Animal Rights orgs are the nutters who blow up places, set fires, "liberate" animals so they die, attack people, etc.
    Am I anti-Peta? You bet...I'm anti-animal rights period. I've dealt with Peta a few times...they're a cult, a money making mostly insane cult. They have zero interest in animals being treated well, they pander to media, they stage numerous media events and they recruit the most gullible and overly-emotional folks possible. And...they financially support ALF.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun. 24, 2005
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    15

    Thumbs up Consider the Five Freedoms

    1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.

    2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

    3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

    4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.

    5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.

    These are basic tenets of ANIMAL WELFARE.

    More info on the history of the Five Freedoms from http://www.afac.ab.ca/fivefreedoms.htm

    This is a very important topic for all members of society.

    Carry on,

    Susan



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2007
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    9,694

    Default

    Animals have the right to have an owner who cares about their welfare.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul. 4, 2000
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Also keep in mind that in order for a being to 'exercise its rights', it needs to have the cognitive capability to understand those rights and make informed choices. 'Animal Rights' as defined by PETA and HSUS is an oxymoron -- dogs and cats and horses and cows do not have the cognitive capability to exercises 'rights'.

    I'm all for animal welfare and I believe the Five Freedoms that Susan listed should be taught in school.

    *star*
    "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
    - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    52,545

    Default

    The trouble with the five freedoms as written is who is to determine what each animal really needs?

    Good animal managers are like setting hens, worrying about their charge's welfare and already trying their best to do right for them.
    Many poeple confuse abuses with standard management, as in the HSUS videos of cows being abused in that one slaughterhouse.

    How many hours they had to sit there waiting to get something like that on tape?
    Do most people realize that there are millions of cattle handled at slaughter every year and the HSUS had to look so hard to find the few examples of mistreatment they finally could video and that was someone working behind inspector's backs, against ALL regulations?

    As for what animals want, some really don't want, once mature or pregnant, to be with their kind, so there goes one of those requirements and so there are questions with so many of those.
    The devil is, as always, in the details.

    People object to confinement, on the people's idea that freedom is preferably for all.
    Well, in many situations, confinement is the best for all, INCLUDING the best interest of the animal, at least it can be the animal's preference, as in a feedlot, where you may open the gate and nine out of ten pens, the cattle will never wander out of that gate but once, will run back to their pen and never again go out, preferring that hotel hands on maid service and congenial friends there over any imaginary freedom they don't understand or wish for.

    Crated sows while nursing.
    Well, ask what the percentage of weaned piglets are to uncrated sows in any other situations compared with that of crated sows and get back.
    Do we want the piglets safe from the killer's sows temper and give all of them a chance, or do we, in the name of giving the sow some freedom, accept that she will kill a percentage of them?
    Is the idea of her "freedom" to include the freedom to kill piglets, or are their lives also worthy of consideration?
    For those that wonder, the pig industry is working on that, to placate those that don't like caged nursing sows and has some protocols, some with pherormones, that permit the sows some freedoms, while keeping them calmer and so saving most pigs, but they are not quite in commercial operations yet.
    Is such or other such better than crating?
    It probably would be more PC and make the industry look better, anyway.

    And so on...

    Here is the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Assn.) page on animal WELFARE issues, that are many of them:

    http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/policies.asp

    and their short stance on these issues:
    http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_we...e_brochure.asp

    Again, as posted on the other thread, for those still not sure who the HSUS is and what it represents today:

    http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...ew.cfm/oid/136

    and PETA:

    http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21

    Lets just keep in mind that if we want to keep OUR RIGHTS to own and confine in pastures and train and ride our horses, we need to decide if those ANIMAL RIGHTS groups are who we want to support.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct. 1, 2005
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    6,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by springer View Post
    I think both of those "outfits" consider animal welfare to be a top priority. May be a bit misdirected at times (PETA), but I think their motives are pure and they are passionate about looking out for the best interest of animals. Is this going to be another anti-PETA thread?
    Just curious.
    To answer your question first, I hope so, because animals would be better off if PETA and HSUS ceased to exist.

    As has been noted, PETA has done a few things that have legitimately benefitted animals. So has HSUS. But it is very clear from the policy statements of both organizations that they advocate radical agendas that have nothing to do with the wellbeing of animals. The ONLY reason for their occasional good deeds is to raise funds for those radical goals. They have millions of people snookered into thinking that animal welfare is their top priority, but sadly, it is not. So no, their motives are not pure. They don't hesitate to cause pain, suffering, and death in animals to further their agendas. They also mislead the public with false information, a favorite ploy is doctored videos purporting to show animal abuse, to win sympathy for the animals and-- mainly-- to get more money into their coffers.

    I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of members of both of these organizations DO have pure motives and have animal welfare as their top priority. But they are being deceived by the leadership of both organizations.

    So, I really, really hope that people will open their eyes, check the facts, and support organizations (usually at the local level) that really do have animal welfare as their top, and only, priority.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan. 12, 2007
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Saw this on an inlaws' t-shirt:

    PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beverley View Post
    TA and HSUS ceased to exist.

    As has been noted, PETA has done a few things that have legitimately benefitted animals. So has HSUS. But it is very clear from the policy statements of both organizations that they advocate radical agendas that have nothing to do with the wellbeing of animals.

    You know, Hamas and other terrorist groups hand out free food and building materials to people whose homes have been destroyed.

    Great way to garner support - and yet I'd not exactly call those groups charities.

    A charitable act by an extremist group is good press. Makes them look peaceable. Moderate. Egalitarian. People eat it up.

    Wolves in sheeps clothing.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun. 24, 2005
    Location
    Lorena, Texas
    Posts
    4,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by springer View Post
    I think both of those "outfits" consider animal welfare to be a top priority. May be a bit misdirected at times (PETA), but I think their motives are pure and they are passionate about looking out for the best interest of animals. Is this going to be another anti-PETA thread?
    Just curious.
    I think both started out with good intentions. In fact, I think until very recently HSUS was a good organization with a focus on welfare. Both have taken it to the extreme and gone into animal rights. Have they gotten some good things done? Yes! Have they gone overboard? Oh yes.

    My degrees are in Animal Science, in the ethology section - with emphasis on equine behavior, learning and welfare. So I've been down the rights vs welfare debate trail a few times.

    Animal rights: believe it is wrong to exploit any animal for any reason.

    Exploitation includes eating them, wearing their skin or fur, riding them or making them to work in any way, or keeping them as pets.

    Animal welfare: Believe using animals is ok, as long as suffering is kept to a minimum or eliminated. Animal welfare believes that animals deserve to be treated humanely and have their basic needs fulfilled.

    I think those that support animal rights really need to look at their lives. Do the wear or use anything made of leather? (Clothing, purses, shoes, furniture, car interiors). Do they take -any- medication? Do they use cosmetics, shampoos, deodorants, etc. that have been tested using animal models? Do they go to the doctor and are they treated for diseases? If so, animal models generally lead the way to determining treatment options.

    Its a huge issue - and I find it all pretty fascinating. I've met one of the leaders of the animal rights movement, and he was one of the kindest men I've ever met. He was also intelligent and interesting to talk to, but we would never agree on anything involving animals. Animals enrich my life, and so I feel it is my responsibility to make sure theirs are comfortable, safe, etc.
    Visit us at Bluebonnet Equine Humane Society - www.bluebonnetequine.org

    Want to get involved in rescue or start your own? Check out How to Start a Horse Rescue - www.howtostartarescue.com



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec. 13, 2005
    Location
    Strasburg, PA "Just west of Paradise"
    Posts
    3,969

    Default

    Guess this fits here ... I have also wondered why HSUS opposes the slaughter of horses yet thinks it's perfectly ok to put down thousands of dogs and cats daily. Some of you will say that Humane Leagues / Animal Shelters put down all the animal in a humane manner and horse taken to slaughter aren't. It's been awhile since I worked at a Humane Society when I was in college, but their method was a vacuum chamber to kill dogs and cats. I see a contradiction that, that because they Humane Leagues can't get control of small animal population itis ok for them to put them down. But its not ok to send a horse to slaughter and there are very valid reasons to do so.

    HSUS just jumped on that ban wagon in my opinion was to get contibutions and support.

    Now PETA - do you mean People Eating Tasty Animals?



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    52,545

    Default

    Most shelters today euthanize by injection, as chambers were considered not good enough by the public's perception of them.
    Here, injections are given gently, if the dog is amenable, or after some fight, if you have to snare the animal and hold it against the wall to get to it safely.

    Whichever way, it goes fast, people are trained to be swift and stay safe.

    You are right that those animal right's groups have milked every "cause of the moment", be it slaughter or wild horses, for all it's worth in their donation drives.
    Boy, have they hit the jackpot with those, looking at the figures.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 10, 2006
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    I'm glad this discussion has been started because many people just don't understand that there's any difference between rights and welfare at all.

    The only disagreement you'll get from me is whether the PETAs and HSUSs should be abolished. I don't think so and here's why: as a species, humans seem to be so trapped in inertia that we need sensationalism, lawsuits, and general overkill before we are roused to act.

    For example, do you think that Michael Vick would be in prison right now, or a racing commission would have been formed following the breakdown of Eight Belles IF the governing parties didn't wake up and say, "Oh Sh*t, PETA's here!"

    We seem to be incapable of fixing what's wrong without a giant boot in the rear, especially if money's involved.
    Barbaro Cultist, Metabolic Nazi



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    13,666

    Default

    "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are mutually exclusive concepts.

    The "Five Rights" suggested sound great on paper but, as MistyBlue points out, can be devilishly difficult in practice.

    Under our system animals are property. An owner is free, within broad limits, to do what they want with their property. Anytime an outsider interevenes in propery management, no matter how well intentioned. we need to worry about the "camel's nose in the tent" problem. Also, once the outsider intervenes they take RESPONSIBILITY for what they do. That should, althought it frequently does not, include financial responsibility.

    Or, put another way, if you want to impose YOUR standards of care on ME then YOU should have to PAY for it.

    I did five years as VP of a local humane society. I was also THE large animal committee. My fellows neither knew, nor particuarly cared, about livestock issues. They were not bad folks, but were very focused in their interests. Fortunately, they were also self-restrained and with one, notable exception, kept a pretty level set of heads on issues.

    If you view government as a positive force in life than you likely have no problems with government setting minimum standards of pet and livestock care. If you view government in a less benign light then you likely are very relucatant to see it become a standard setter.

    G.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    52,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm EBO View Post
    I'm glad this discussion has been started because many people just don't understand that there's any difference between rights and welfare at all.

    The only disagreement you'll get from me is whether the PETAs and HSUSs should be abolished. I don't think so and here's why: as a species, humans seem to be so trapped in inertia that we need sensationalism, lawsuits, and general overkill before we are roused to act.

    For example, do you think that Michael Vick would be in prison right now, or a racing commission would have been formed following the breakdown of Eight Belles IF the governing parties didn't wake up and say, "Oh Sh*t, PETA's here!"

    We seem to be incapable of fixing what's wrong without a giant boot in the rear, especially if money's involved.
    Yep, you are right EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, even the PETA's of this world.

    BUT, if they are the ones burning the barn down, they will have to bear the heat also.

    Those groups live for controversies, are obsolete without them, so they promote controversies that fit their advance.
    That those in their sights point to their shortcomings should be expected.
    There is no free lunch here for anyone



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    52,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are mutually exclusive concepts.

    The "Five Rights" suggested sound great on paper but, as MistyBlue points out, can be devilishly difficult in practice.

    Under our system animals are property. An owner is free, within broad limits, to do what they want with their property. Anytime an outsider interevenes in propery management, no matter how well intentioned. we need to worry about the "camel's nose in the tent" problem. Also, once the outsider intervenes they take RESPONSIBILITY for what they do. That should, althought it frequently does not, include financial responsibility.

    Or, put another way, if you want to impose YOUR standards of care on ME then YOU should have to PAY for it.

    I did five years as VP of a local humane society. I was also THE large animal committee. My fellows neither knew, nor particuarly cared, about livestock issues. They were not bad folks, but were very focused in their interests. Fortunately, they were also self-restrained and with one, notable exception, kept a pretty level set of heads on issues.

    If you view government as a positive force in life than you likely have no problems with government setting minimum standards of pet and livestock care. If you view government in a less benign light then you likely are very relucatant to see it become a standard setter.

    G.
    With your own words back at you for the bolded part, "can be devilishly difficult in practice", that also applies to passing the appropiate goverment regulations and even harder, budgeting for and enforcing them.

    We have many, many laws, rules and regulations and they do serve us well.
    We need to keep tweaking them as we go and that is what we are fighting over, with the slaughter horse controversy here and most any one facet of our lives we care to examine.

    As someone is fond of saying, the problems is that where there are two people involved, we may have three opinions about how to go about it.



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep. 15, 2006
    Posts
    1,511

    Default In most it's NOT the Organization, it's the LEADERSHIP...

    I'm not bashing PETA OR HSUS, but like several previous organizations, they started with a good cause, but the wrong people got in control, and turned them into something dispicable(sp?). In people groups you have the workers unions, they did a great job of making it SAFER for workers in factories and other dangerous jobs, but they also helped in driving the current state of affairs in the US, by DEMANDING more money, time off, etc, I grew up in a town area with 15-20 GM plants, their are NONE left now, too high a salaries drove the companies with CLINTONS help (Read NAFTA) to Mexico.
    " iCOTH " window/bumper stickers. Wood Routed Stall and Farm Signs
    http://www.bluemooncustomsigns.com



  20. #20
    Join Date
    May. 12, 2000
    Location
    NE TN, USA
    Posts
    6,233

    Default

    IMHO they're both scamsters separating suckers from their $$$.
    The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
    Winston Churchill



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jun. 19, 2012, 09:02 PM
  2. Animal rights gone wild?
    By tkhawk in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Apr. 8, 2010, 06:11 PM
  3. Justice? If the animal rights people get their way.
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May. 28, 2009, 10:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •