Animal Rights VS. Welfare

[igloo9201]

Educating the public time!

 

Animal Rights:

 

Animal rights groups, such as PETA, want nonhuman animals to have legal rights equal to humans. They oppose:

 

Hunting, no matter the reason, even if it's for self-defense.

 

All zoos, aquaria, farms, and pets, no matter how well-managed.

 

Animals testing.

 

Any meat or fish consumption by humans.

 

Humans wearing any animal fur, skin, scales, etc.

 

Taxidermy.

 

Animal Welfare:

 

Animal welfare activists want nonhuman animals to be well cared for, conserved, and treated with respect. Their goals are:

 

To make sure hunting is well regulated, sustainable, and necessary.

 

To make sure all zoos, aquaria, farms, and pet owners provide sufficient care for their animals.

 

To conserve animal species and ecosystems.

 

Now for the debate portion:

 

Animal rights activists are pretty one-sided. All of them have basically the same views, with some extremists like PETA going so far as to bomb testing labs, dump red paint on fur-wearers, etc. They refuse to realize that hunting is regulated, usually necessary, and quite sustainable. They despise all animal captivity because it is "slavery," hunting "murder," and when it comes to eating meat, their key arguement is that if we don't keep humans on farms to kill and eat them, why do it to animals? The entire animal rights movement is based on heavy anthropomorphism and is supported by very little scientific evidence. PETA is also notorious for downright lying about things like fur farms, even skinning animals alive on a video and saying that all fur farms do so. They also euthanize thousands of dogs and cats a year that they "rescue."

 

Animal welfare is a much more two-sided debate, even though it shouldn't be. Many animal welfare activists still have uneducated opinions on hunting, fur farms, zoos, etc. and generally have an anthropomorphistic view, causing them to lean more towards animal rights. Some support zoos, farms, ect. and some do not.

 

So, what's the real truth? Where is the line crossed between valid animal welfare concerns amd radical animal rights claims?

 

Hunting:

 

Most hunting in the USA is quite sustainable. Some is badly managed, but it is usually good for the environment. Also, contrary to popular belief, most hunters do eat what they catch. Even animals we may find odd to eat, like wolves, are eaten by hunters. Then, the pelt will often go to a taxidermist who will turn it into a mount for decoration or even educational purposes. What is left at the kill site will decompose and enrich the surrounding soil. When done humanely, animals rarely suffer much. I am personally ill disposed to certain methods of hunting, like painful trapping or aerial, but most hunters are quite humane.

 

When hunting is bad: There are some hunters who waste what they kill. It can be picked of by scavengers, but it is my personal opinion that killing an animal and wasting it is rather disrespectful. And some hunters use inhumane methods, but that is quite rare, besides mass hunting. Then we have poaching, illegal hunting that is often done for money. It can orphan young animals by killing parents in the unregulated season, damage population stability, and be inhumane. The government has hunting regulations for a reason; to make sure that the environment is damaged as little as possible.

 

Animal Captivity:

 

I could talk for days. Well managed captivity is good. If anyone wants to debate, I'd be happy to.

 

When animal captivity is bad: Badly managed, inhumane facilities. 'Nuf said.

 

Fur Farms:

 

Well-managed fur farms are quite humane. If you care for the animal badly, it has a negatuve effect on pelt quality. What bothers most people is the belief that the meat and bones are wasted. Actually, the meat goes to zoos and some dog food companies.

 

When fur farming is bad: Badly managed, inhumane facilities. I would also prefer for social animals like wolves and coyotes to not be in fur farms, because they generally don't get a lot of socialization there. Plus, with normal minks, they don't need much space. But wolves, coyotes, and larger animals are less content in such a restricted area.

 

Animal Testing:

 

There's already a thread for this.

 

Food Farms:

 

I love animals, you guys know that. But screw humanity, okay? I can't survive without meat! They should be more humane, but humane or not, I'm eating my steak.

 

Any debating is welcome as long as it's educated. I'm really bored.

[octopi]

Please don't cite PETA as if it were a reputable animal rights organization. They literally hire people to torture animals so they can film it to convert people to their cause. And they kill most of the animals they "rescue", because apparently it's better for dogs to be dead than having any contact with humans.

 

Not really here for the debate, but it feels like most people care so much more about mammals for no real reason. Dragnet fishing is so awful, and not just because a few dolphins occasionally get caught in the nets. Not only are thousands of fish removed from the breeding pools, the nets themselves will also damage things like coral reefs and they're indiscriminate in which fish they haul up. But no one ever seems to do petitions against those.

[lightbird]

Not really here for the debate, but it feels like most people care so much more about mammals for no real reason. Dragnet fishing is so awful, and not just because a few dolphins occasionally get caught in the nets. Not only are thousands of fish removed from the breeding pools, the nets themselves will also damage things like coral reefs and they're indiscriminate in which fish they haul up. But no one ever seems to do petitions against those.

Yeah, people mostly seem to care about beautiful, "majestic" or whatever animals. Mostly mammals.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it is also perfectly understandable that most people care for other people's wishes and welfare over those of animals. Especially when it comes to people who say that they "care waaaaay more about animals than filthy, horrible humans" I would question their ethics, reasoning and actions in regard to that. Newsflash, most likely they're just posing and swooning over pretty woofs.

 

Humans are capable of doing great harm, but we are also the ONLY species in the world that is capable of widespread empathy that goes beyond the border of our own species.

 

If you work for a shelter, for more ethical keeping of food etc. animals, donate to animal charities and, in overall, strive to protect biodiversity, instead of saying loud words, kudos to you (general "you").

 

 

Not really gonna debate here either.

Edited April 23, 2014 by lightbird

[brairtrainer]

Trying to address what you brought up in order:

 

Hunting good: When used to keep populations in check

 

Hunting bad: When hunting endangered species for meat/sport/money

 

Main issue: Some places hunting is well regulated, in other places it isn't of the regulation of hunting is starving the people who live there. I won't begrudge someone killing a rare deer or antilope for food, but those who hunt for ivory are down right cruel. Nations need to work with the farmers/poachers to determine who is doing it because they need to support their family and who is doing it on a larger scale. Then perhaps other methods can be sought to hopefully help the people carve a new life.

 

Animal Captivity Good: when well managed or for rescued animals who can be used for education, as long as the animal isn't stressed.

 

Animal Captivity Bad: Horrible conditions, kept captive in ways that stress the animal out, and most wild-to-collection/pet status. I put most status here because hawks captured by falconors and some insects are gathered in this manner.

 

Main issue: Makeing sure people take care of their animal and aren't following false information. This includes training and disciplining your animal so that they can function in captivity. Catching wild birds for pets (tropical ones) should be heavily regulated and only done to keep up diversity in the pet population, but breeders who breed the birds should also be recruited to do a breed and release to keep wild bird populations high.

 

Animal Farms Good: Many animals that we have domesticated wouldn't survive out in the wild today as well today and would be easy pickings for preadators. As long as the animals are treated with dignity and respect they are fine.

 

Animal Farms Bad: Factory Farms are not ideal. I know why we get animals through them and I know at least in California it is almost necessary to factory farm pigs because of the rules regarding brood chambers (Illegal) for the protection of the baby pigs they breed.

 

Main Issue: PETA. That should sum it up, really. PETA has sent out so many false things or have twisted understandings that makes it hard for farmers to protect themselves and their animals from crazy bills that are passed. More 'humane' ways of killing may now involve two or more tries rather than the tried and true ways that were just one and done. Or making brood chambers (really just big boxes set to simulate a den) illegal because the mother pig is locked in by workers when she shows signs of getting ready to give birth.*

 

As for fur farms I'm mixed. Rabbit fur farms I don't mind (domestic) because pelt and meat are harvested at the same time there's a profit to be made to keep the animals healthy. Not sure about mink farms but I have heard of sustainable trapping in heavy mink populated areas to help keep the population in check.

 

*She is not locked in until she gives birth, but during signs she is put in so that she can settle in an area where the pigglets will be born to one side with a lower roof so she won't accidently squish them and the humans can get at her and them to make sure things go smoothly.

[sparkle10184]

PETA gives animal rights activists a bad name.

[Obscure_Trash]

PETA gives animal rights activists a bad name.

Is there an animal rights activist group that gives animal rights activists a good name?

 

(It's just that all the animal rights activists I've come across are very racist and very sexist like PETA, so I'm genuinely curious as to if anyone could name a better source?)

[igloo9201]

You know what they do to the animals in fur farm? They put them on a small cage where they have small space.

 

They take the fur out of those animals when they are still alive.

 

There are bad fur farms, but there are some good mink farms. Plus, PETA often makes pictures like that, torturing animals themselves to make fur farms etc look bad. Because they are insane.

 

@Pi Day: just trying to keep it proffessional, citizen. Carry on.

 

Yes, most care about mammals. But what you do have to consider is that mammals and birds have the most intelligence and emotions of the animal kingdom, and they can comprehend abuse and stuff more. But people should definitely pay more attention to bad fishing methods, not to mention the horrors of aquaculture.

 

@lightbird: Wolfaboos are the worst. The absolute worst. OMG LAEK SAF TEH WOFFS BCUS DEYR MAI PAEK OMGOMGOMG!!!!!

 

I, for one, care more about biodiversity than single animals besides maybe cetaceans, just because they're way too smart to be butchered.

 

@brairtrainer: I agree with almost all of this. I honestly don't mind capture as much as I used to. I want to do falconry really bad, and think of it like this; every time they fly, a captured raptor has the choice to leave. Oftentimes, when they are officially released, they come back. They don't want to loose that reliable food source and shelter.

 

@Sparkle: Animal Rights, in and of itself, is rediculous. Animal rights is really, to be honest, bad for animals.

 

@SockPuppetStrangler: No. There really, really isn't.

[JavaTigress]

All I can think of those pics is that I don't think ANYONE would buy the pelt of that animal.

 

I know that might sound callous, and I love animals as much as the next person, but it is the truth. The animal in the one pic doesn't look like it was abused, it actually looks like it is probably sick. Also. The person that said you need to consider the source is dead on. You can't always believe everything you think you see in photographs, what with photoshop.

 

I realize this is going to probably net me some hate BUT I must comment.

 

First, it seems to me that if an animal is raised in captivity, be it ultimately for food, their fur, or to do some sort of work; if you abuse and mistreat the animal it sort of diminishes its value. Farms and things have a vested interest in keeping their animals healthy, for the most part. It costs them MONEY to raise an animal, and if that animal dies before the investment is returned or becomes so sick that it is unmarketable, they lose that money; simple economics, really, even if you don't care about the animal as a living thing. I would also be willing to bet that some actually DO care about keeping their animals in as humane of conditions as possible. There is a large dairy farm near where I live and I happen to know for a fact that the owner would NEVER, EVER tolerate one of the workers mistreating the cattle that he raises for milk in any way. One offense like that and your rear would be fired from your job so fast you wouldn't even know what hit you. Second, disease can happen no matter how careful the caretaker/farmer is. People's beloved pets can become ill and it doesn't have to be because they weren't properly cared for.

 

Am I saying that abuse can't and doesn't happen?

 

No.

 

Am I saying that every farmer is a saint?

 

No.

 

Just... abuse is probably rarer then PETA would have people to believe. Just my two cents.

 

ALSO, on another but somewhat related note, I have to wonder about those people that go 'undercover' with cameras to farms and things just LOOKING to capture something inhumane on film. Do organizations even have the RIGHT to do that on someone else's private property or is that a violation of the owner's privacy?

Edited April 24, 2014 by Silverswift

[edwardelricfreak]

ALSO, on another but somewhat related note, I have to wonder about those people that go 'undercover' with cameras to farms and things just LOOKING to capture something inhumane on film. Do organizations even have the RIGHT to do that on someone else's private property or is that a violation of the owner's privacy?

Indeed, it could have just been a rare occurrence that the undercover employee just so happened to coincidentally catch. It might be a newer person or someone who doesn't care enough about the company/animals who abused them without the company's knowledge.

[JavaTigress]

Indeed, it could have just been a rare occurrence that the undercover employee just so happened to coincidentally catch. It might be a newer person or someone who doesn't care enough about the company/animals who abused them without the company's knowledge.

My point exactly, Sci.

 

The other thing that bothers me about this is that given the general ignorance of how food is produced and what it actually takes to raise these animals and keep them healthy, it is entirely possible for things that are routine care and, indeed, necessary to the animal's health to be ENTIRELY misrepresented. Many people wouldn't have a clue that what they were seeing was being taken out of context; they would view it as cruelty and never know the difference.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Silverswift

[Moonlight_Eevee]

I have to comment. The area I live in, the nearest pet shelter won't take any abandoned animals just because we don't live in the shame parish as them. So what happenes to any unwanted animal? They run wild. I have never met a person who has killed more dogs in my life than my neighbor. They get a puppy because they're like, 'oh it's so cute!' but then when it becomes an adult, they hardly give it a second glance. (Sorry if got of track there; if this is considered spam, then I will delete it).

 

My point is, what the use of taking an animal to the animal shelter if they won't even accpet it?

 

I used to have a problem with hunting, but now I see hunting helps regulate the enviroment. If we didn't hunt, there would be a mass population of deers, rabbits, crocodiles, etc.

[igloo9201]

All I can think of those pics is that I don't think ANYONE would buy the pelt of that animal.

 

I know that might sound callous, and I love animals as much as the next person, but it is the truth. The animal in the one pic doesn't look like it was abused, it actually looks like it is probably sick. Also. The person that said you need to consider the source is dead on. You can't always believe everything you think you see in photographs, what with photoshop.

 

I realize this is going to probably net me some hate BUT I must comment.

 

First, it seems to me that if an animal is raised in captivity, be it ultimately for food, their fur, or to do some sort of work; if you abuse and mistreat the animal it sort of diminishes its value. Farms and things have a vested interest in keeping their animals healthy, for the most part. It costs them MONEY to raise an animal, and if that animal dies before the investment is returned or becomes so sick that it is unmarketable, they lose that money; simple economics, really, even if you don't care about the animal as a living thing. I would also be willing to bet that some actually DO care about keeping their animals in as humane of conditions as possible. There is a large dairy farm near where I live and I happen to know for a fact that the owner would NEVER, EVER tolerate one of the workers mistreating the cattle that he raises for milk in any way. One offense like that and your rear would be fired from your job so fast you wouldn't even know what hit you. Second, disease can happen no matter how careful the caretaker/farmer is. People's beloved pets can become ill and it doesn't have to be because they weren't properly cared for.

 

Am I saying that abuse can't and doesn't happen?

 

No.

 

Am I saying that every farmer is a saint?

 

No.

 

Just... abuse is probably rarer then PETA would have people to believe. Just my two cents.

 

ALSO, on another but somewhat related note, I have to wonder about those people that go 'undercover' with cameras to farms and things just LOOKING to capture something inhumane on film. Do organizations even have the RIGHT to do that on someone else's private property or is that a violation of the owner's privacy?

Exactly. Anyone who hates on you for being smart is going to have problems with me! >:3

Because that's the dead truth. If animals are abused, their product quality goes down.

 

@Raptor: Well, that's a terrible shelter,

 

I'm the same as you with hunting. I used to hate wolf hunting, but I...accept it now, even if I don't 100% support it.

[brairtrainer]

Popping back in to say I got a chance to speak with a person who works a fur counter and learned a couple of things. First most mink is farmed. Second fox fur that is farmed is done under specific guidelines that include the breeding of the animals (they are regulated like zoos and people who have exotic pets). Third, coyote fur is being used more and more since it is easy to dye, and that fur is gathered through trapping.

 

Meaning fur farms have regulations to keep the fur and animals in good condition and part of the fur is used as part of conservation movements to keep coyotes population down.

[edwardelricfreak]

Popping back in to say I got a chance to speak with a person who works a fur counter and learned a couple of things. First most mink is farmed. Second fox fur that is farmed is done under specific guidelines that include the breeding of the animals (they are regulated like zoos and people who have exotic pets). Third, coyote fur is being used more and more since it is easy to dye, and that fur is gathered through trapping.

 

Meaning fur farms have regulations to keep the fur and animals in good condition and part of the fur is used as part of conservation movements to keep coyotes population down.

I've personally never really cared either way when it came to fur. It's all very expensive so whatever. Also, who in their right mind believes animals are beaten and seriously bloodied in fur farms? That would ruin the coats and make for very poor quality fur. I mean, I assume there are probably some awful illegal fur farms that might do that and sell cheap fur, but they're not the majority and probably get in loads of trouble when found, so.

 

So long as they don't kill too many coyotes, otherwise there could be problems like when wolves were almost totally exterminated and the ecosystem started falling apart...

[brairtrainer]

I've personally never really cared either way when it came to fur. It's all very expensive so whatever. Also, who in their right mind believes animals are beaten and seriously bloodied in fur farms? That would ruin the coats and make for very poor quality fur. I mean, I assume there are probably some awful illegal fur farms that might do that and sell cheap fur, but they're not the majority and probably get in loads of trouble when found, so.

 

So long as they don't kill too many coyotes, otherwise there could be problems like when wolves were almost totally exterminated and the ecosystem started falling apart...

@edwardelricfreak I'm of the same mindset, but the expense for the coats helps mitigate that a lot. Here in Ohio you're allowed to trap and shoot coyotes year around because of their high population, and the trapping and hunting is mostly done by farmers to keep them away from livestock.

[edwardelricfreak]

@edwardelricfreak I'm of the same mindset, but the expense for the coats helps mitigate that a lot. Here in Ohio you're allowed to trap and shoot coyotes year around because of their high population, and the trapping and hunting is mostly done by farmers to keep them away from livestock.

Which is good, but I brought up the wolf example because farmers and others were killing wolves (and probably also coyotes) to keep them away from livestock. So long as it doesn't get out of hand, I think it's fine. c:

[brairtrainer]

Which is good, but I brought up the wolf example because farmers and others were killing wolves (and probably also coyotes) to keep them away from livestock. So long as it doesn't get out of hand, I think it's fine. c:

From what I understand the coyotes are also being killed in an attempt to bring up the wild population of foxes because foxes are better mousers than the coyotes. Mostly the farmers that end up trapping them are the corn farmers (one guy I know places traps on his land and checks them when he's done in the fields) and the sheep farmers.

[JavaTigress]

On the subject of trapping, well ... I am not sure I have an issue with it, provided it is done humanely .

 

I am truly not sure I see any excuse for those awful jaw traps that are sometimes used for it. Those bother me because it seems like there ought to be a better way of trapping an animal , even if your intent is to kill it, than one that will cause it to sit and suffer in pain until the trapper has a chance to come and finish the job.

[Bajka20]

I support animal rights groups. And I`m Vegan.

 

[Banyanpan]

I dislike animal rights groups, they're always giving animal lovers a bad name

They aren't for animals, they're against humans. And they're willing to lie if it makes humans look worse.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

@Raptor: Well, that's a terrible shelter

 

It's not just tha shelter, it's any animal shelter we got in cantact with. They refuse to come out and do something about the srays in my area.

 

A few houses down from where I lived was a few horses that were being extremely neglected and none of the animal shelters would do anything; until my mom called a horse shelter and they came out immidiately and took care of the problem.

[brairtrainer]

It's not just tha shelter, it's any animal shelter we got in cantact with. They refuse to come out and do something about the srays in my area.

 

A few houses down from where I lived was a few horses that were being extremely neglected and none of the animal shelters would do anything; until my mom called a horse shelter and they came out immidiately and took care of the problem.

Shelters themselves can't take animals away from a property unless they are contacted by the owner or they are known strays (In situations like Pit Boss and Pit Bulls and Paroles the they rarely go after owned dogs, most are strays that if they are caught by the animal catcher they will most likely be put down.) Contacting animal control or ASPCA is better most of the time if the animals are owned, or if they are stray. Many shelters are overfilled and have to turn animal away.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Shelters themselves can't take animals away from a property unless they are contacted by the owner or they are known strays (In situations like Pit Boss and Pit Bulls and Paroles the they rarely go after owned dogs, most are strays that if they are caught by the animal catcher they will most likely be put down.) Contacting animal control or ASPCA is better most of the time if the animals are owned, or if they are stray. Many shelters are overfilled and have to turn animal away.

Ah! Logical explanation; it's a shame we don't have an ASPCA where we live

Edited April 26, 2014 by Raptor of Dragons

[igloo9201]

@Baijka20: Its great that you may personally be vegan, for whatever your reasons, but if you really care about animals, PLEASE don't support extreme animal rights groups. Almost all animal rights activists know next to nothing about animals.

 

Anyways, great convo on fur farms, trapping, and such! I'd love some furs if they weren't so expensive.

[PrinceVertigo]

As long as the animals aren't psychologically abused, and get proper physical treatment, I couldn't give a crap. Domesticated animals are fine. Most results show that owning a pet is mentally healthy for the owner, and in the right hands, the animals is cared and loved for. Hunting for food is plenty alright, but do it for sport and you've condemned yourself. If an animal is really that endangered, then we're going to set up a special enclosure and encourage the things to breed as often as possible, and should the population reach a point where repopulating is impossible due to lack of genetic diversity, then we can only hope the ecosystem around it will adapt to the loss without any major problems.

 

Fun fact, African elephants are slowly losing their tusks due to hunters killing off tusked elephants, meaning females are more likely to pick traits that help them avoid hunters, which is a lack of tusks. Did I mention they use their tusks to dig for food in the ground? Yeah, tragedy that.