A SHELTER DOG DREAMS: A Poem

Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare: Confused? You Will Be . . .

“As I grow older I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” ~Andrew Carnegie 

 

The original idea behind this essay was to try and clarify some of the differences between animal rights activists and animal welfare supporters. However, as I delved into researching the topic I developed a freakin’ headache. It's not so much the topic itself as the hypocrisy shown by supporters of one position or the other. Hence the opening quotation. 

Animal rights advocacy is based in the supposition that all sentient species deserve equal rights with humans, especially as this pertains to the right to avoid suffering. Various terms are thrown around such as sentience (the ability to feel sensation), and speciesism (prejudice against another species). Many philosophers and scholars of ethics, from Immanuel Kant to John Stuart Mill, have thrown their hat into the ring regarding the subject, the latter adopting his utilitarian approach which is essentially a mathematical calculation of the harm caused subtracted from the amount of overall happiness gained. If you're familiar with the recent arguments known as personhood being proposed by the pro-life faction of the abortion debate and extend that argument to nonhuman species you may have an idea of what the extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum believe and advocate. At this extreme end advocates propose that all human use of animals ends, up to and including the ownership of companion animals. Vegan lifestyles are pushed and often extreme actions are taken. 

On the other hand, animal welfare advocates adopt a position that is, arguably, more one of stewardship. The use of animals for food, clothing, and companionship, for example, is accepted but the infliction of unnecessary suffering in the fulfillment of these uses is unethical and should be outlawed. 

That all seems clear, doesn't it? So where does the confusion arise? Well, to go back to the opening quotation, the words and actions do not always match. Supposed animal-rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually advocate, support, and encourage the killing of animals in rescue shelters. The theory behind this appears to be that killing the animals prevents the suffering imposed by a potential lifetime of confinement with limited exercise and interaction. I see several problems with this position…not least of which is the fact that the workers in most rescue shelters are kind caring people who interact as much as possible with those in their care and provide as much exercise as is possible, while seeking to find permanent homes. Perhaps more importantly, by an extension of this logic, if the rights of animals and humans are equal then those people confined to nursing homes or other forms of long-term care should also be killed? Ridiculous? Then consider this… In some of the more famous incidents involving PETA, activists threw fake blood on people for wearing fur coats. One has to presume that the thinking behind this action is, "if the animal suffered in making your coat, then we will make you suffer for wearing it." If that is the case then these people believe in equal suffering. Therefore, why are the remedies for supposed suffering not also the same? 

Also, consider the position of the abolitionists, the really extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum. If, in the interest of equal rights, we should not be killing animals and we should not own them then what happens? If we provide animals with an unfettered right to life but are not prepared to care for them then presumably they will all be running wild. I don't necessarily have a problem with that thought but it will inevitably create a situation where animals and humans are competing for resources such as food and shelter. We all know what happens in that situation! 

On the other hand, one would think that animal welfare advocates would be in favor of euthanasia in overcrowded rescue shelters, thinking that it would be in the best interests of the animals. Yet, animal welfare advocates comprise the majority of the no-kill movement. Animal welfare advocates unfailingly tend to be optimists. They see the best in human nature despite experiencing the worst, and believe that there is a compassionate side to human nature which, if appealed to, will result in the compassionate treatment of animals.  

I personally believe in an animal welfare philosophy. I believe we were intended, as the supposedly superior species (although that is debatable), to care for those sharing this planet with us while taking into account biological and evolutionary needs. We were designed to be omnivores not herbivores, but there is no need in farming to inflict unnecessary suffering upon the animals that we will eat. We do not have to be cruel to raise animals for food. We could at least have the common decency and empathy to ensure that their lives are comfortable and pain-free. Some animal uses are unacceptable, for example, the testing of cosmetics on animals. Also, we must preserve endangered species… The extinction of an entire species purely because of our own needs is proof of our own fallibility. It reduces the human species to nothing more than the locusts stripping their environment; it is, in terms of stewardship, a scorched earth policy! 

I have no doubt that some of you reading this rambling stream-of-consciousness essay will happily point out the flaws in my own logic. But that is exactly my point: attitudes towards animals must be considered at the emotional level, not the logical level. At the logical level I have more in common with the animal-rights faction but at the practical level I can be considered an animal welfare advocate. What hasn't been mentioned is whether we are discussing companion animals such as cats and dogs or we are talking about all animals. My own answers might vary depending upon the scope of the discussion, hence the confusion caused by the terms animal-rights versus animal welfare. There is an incredible lack of agreement on basic definitions.

 

If I have managed to confuse you then my purpose has been achieved. Are you for animal-rights or are you for animal welfare? Or does it depend on what animal we are talking about? This is why I opened with the Carnegie quotation… Don't listen to what someone tells you, watch what they do!

The Lament of the Animal Rescue Shelter

I originally created this for the Pet Rescue North Facebook page in May of this year.  I thought it was worth posting again here!  By the way, Penny--the dog featured here--a gentle, loving sweetie is still available for adoption through PRN.  Visit www.petrescuenorth.petfinder.com or www.petrescuenorth.com for adoption details.

Pet Limits: Is Keeping Your Neighborhood “Nice” Costing Lives?

Many of us, no doubt, have encountered local ordinances and regulations limiting the number of pets that can be maintained in an individual home. Even in counties and cities that have no such regulations homeowners associations maintain newly built subdivisions and limit the number of pets allowed. Those of us moving into such new subdivisions may even initially and superficially agree with the idea. However, are those regulations really keeping our neighborhoods safe, clean, and nuisance free, or are they unnecessarily reducing the number of cats and dogs that can be adopted or fostered from local shelters, often leading to unnecessary euthanasia?

A simple Google search using the phrase "pet limitlaws" shows that others have written more extensively and in greater detail than you will find here. My intention is only to raise questions. 

Pet limits often direct themselves at decreasing unwanted behaviors such as animal hoarding, excessive barking, animal attacks, inappropriate disposal of animal waste, illegal businesses in the form of animal breeding enterprises, and such like. If you look more closely, though, there is a common thread: every single one of these goals roots itself in the idea that animal owners are irresponsible! Another common theme is the fear of what might happen rather than any statistical prediction of what will happen. 

Responsible pet owners usually know their limitations when it comes effectively controlling and caring for their animals. Some owners are able to control and care for five or six animals while others may only be able to manage one or two. Additionally, many of the unwanted behaviors described above can be effectively controlled using nuisance laws rather than pet limits. In the case of animal hoarding, it is unlikely that any law would prevent this because it is often the manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder. 

In some states, courts have struck down pet limit laws asunconstitutionally restricting an individual's right to own property. Of course, that brings up the argument of whether pets are property or not, but that is an argument for another time. In the case of homeowners association agreements it is less clear whether there is constitutional argument against these restrictions because of the voluntary nature of the agreement.  

What cannot be argued against it is that many law-abiding homeowners accept these laws or agreements rather than challenge them for fear of bringing the litigious wrath of some regulatory body down upon themselves. Thus, many responsible pet owners sit and gaze longingly at the photographs of all the cats and dogs currently housed in shelters, often aware that those cats and dogs may be scheduled to die, knowing that they could rescue one or two more but feeling helpless to do so! 

I have no problem with the prosecution of nuisance owners for failing to appropriately control their animals: there are some people who should just not own animals. And legal remedies already exist for such irresponsibility. What I do have a problem with is unnecessarily restricting the potential for animals to find loving homes when shelters are crammed to capacity! When 4-5 million adoptable animals are killed each year imagine the difference if every animal lover capable of taking in one more animal was allowed to do so!

Don't Bark at the Big Dogs: The Fractured Politics of Animal Rescue!

When I first entered the arena of animal rescue as a volunteer it was based on emotion and a desire to help rather than on any education and experience. As the loving owner of several rescue dogs, like everyone else, I would see the television advertisements for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) with the photographs of abused and neglected animals shown over the heartbreaking sound of Sarah McLachlan singing "Angel"… I could do nothing else but reach for my wallet. We're all in it together, right? Over the last few years I have discovered that nothing could be further from the truth!

 At the national level the no-kill movement, spearheaded by Nathan Winograd, is in constant and open conflict with organizations such as the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals (PETA), and perhaps most surprisingly of all Best FriendsAnimal Society. Accusations and counter-accusations fly, ranging from the providing of misleading information and advertising to the promotion and championing of legislation designed to increase the number of adoptable animals killed each year. Organizations such as HumaneWatch.org and the Humane Society for Shelter Pets have risen to challenge and decry the misconceptions about organizations such as those listed.

At the local level, small rescue organizations scramble for the scraps that are left after the local behemoths have launched their latest fundraising campaigns, all the while trying not to get into competition with other small organizations holding similar goals to their own. Stories of misinformation such as interesting definitions of "no-kill" and of unethical practices designed to qualify animals for low-cost medical interventions are muttered behind closed doors rather than stated openly for fear of sudden inspections or sudden re-zoning of shelter locations or other such intrusions instigated by the powerful friends of the larger organizations.

Even campaigns designed to end inhumane methods of euthanasia such as gas chambers, come under attack from others because their goal is to replace such methods with more humane methods rather than embracing the no-kill philosophy in its entirety. Such campaigns may see their goal as a step in the right direction, but others see it as simply endorsing the death of adoptable animals by different means.

The common feature in the every one of these conflicts is that when the larger organizations feel threatened they lash out and target their enormous resources upon the smaller and less well-funded organization, in some cases causing the smaller organizations to close!

I realize that there is not a lot of specific information here but that is because every single one of these points could warrant an entire essay in its own right. Also, it is not my place to tell you where to donate your hard-earned dollars even though I personally align myself with Winograd and the no-kill movement. However, I urge each and every one of you to investigate before making such donations. Does the organization you're contributing to really match your beliefs? Some points to consider before deciding:

·         Is the organization an animal welfare or an animal rights organization? There is a difference and more of this will be discussed in the future.

·         What is the organization's definition of no-kill? Statement such as "we will never kill an animal to make room for another animal" does not mean a no- kill organization!

·         Does the organization really do what you want it to do? For example, the ASPCA and the HSUS are not generally affiliated with local shelters even if they contain the phrases SPCA or Humane Society. Are you looking to support a national or a local organization?

·         Does the organization, for example, accept strays, or does it only accept owner surrenders or rescue from kill shelters?

·         Are all breeds rescued or does the organization specialize in one breed only?

·         What will happen to the animals who are not adopted?

Let's just start the new outlook with a video for Pet Rescue North, a true no-kill shelter in Jacksonville, Fl. Saving the lives that nobody else will!

Enough Excuses: The Rebirth (Again) of the “What We Owe to Dogs" Blog

Anyone who's tried to read this blog will realize that posting has been really spotty. There have been a few reasons for this, the main one being that under a misguided belief  I thought that I could increase exposure by splitting time between this blog and being a Yahoo! contributor. As many of you may know, trying to do too many things at once leads to none of them being done properly! I am now committing to this blog and there are some things that I promise and some things that I ask.

 What to Expect:

·         at least one post per week

·         a variety of personal opinions regarding animal rescue, promotions of organizations that I support, anecdotes regarding dogs that I have owned or have known, and some of my favorite dog photographs.

·         the opportunity to engage in discussions regarding a variety of animal welfare subjects.

 What I Ask:

·         that you shared this blogthat all animal lovers share this blog with everyone they know

·         that whether you agree or disagree, you remain polite and respectful.

·         that you actively participate: disagree, agree, suggest topics, tell me I'm full of it (respectfully, of course), tell me I'm a genius, add links that you think might help, etc.

·         that you share your own experiences

 

My hope for this blog is that we can become a community. As in all communities, discussion and disagreement is the foundation of moving forward. The animal welfare community, as will be seen in upcoming posts, is fractured and we must agree on common opinions and common ground.

 

You may find that my opinions have changed since previous posts, but that is the nature of the beast. Since my initial involvement in the animal welfare movement which was based entirely on emotion I have read and researched more and my opinions have evolved. This doesn't mean that I believe I am right: it is simply my opinion.

 One thing to remember is that my opinions are not necessarily those of any organization with which I can be connected. The purpose of the blog is to state what I think, not what anybody else thinks!

 I look forward to an active and open discussion.

 Thank you.

 Ian F.