'Animal rights' is a term that’s been tossed around for years. Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are well-known animal rights groups that are constantly putting out media about injustices animals suffer, be it slaughter for human consumption, cosmetic testing or serious cases of neglect.
As an animal lover and avid horseback rider, I’m very familiar with these types of groups, their work and the media they disseminate. But I don’t agree with them.
An animal lover that doesn’t agree with animal rights groups?
It sounds like a contradiction.
Rather than supporting animal rights, I support animal
welfare. Changing that one word really does make more of a difference than it
might initially seem to. Wesley J. Smith, author of A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy, describes the two movements
saying, “Both movements are concerned with the way people treat animals, but
that is where the similarity ends. In fact, animal welfare and animal rights
represent incompatible moral principles and mutually exclusive goals.”
So what are these “incompatible moral principles and mutually
exclusive goals”?
Animal rights activists are opposed to any use of animals
that prohibits them from living a natural, free life. They would like to see
animals have legal rights and equity with humans, and serve no purpose other
than to live their lives, no matter how benign the use is to them.
Animal welfare activists, on the other hand, believe humans
have higher moral value than animals, but that animals have intrinsic value and
it is the responsibility of humans (as the higher group in the moral hierarchy)
to treat and use animals humanely.
This stark difference is often not understood as “animal
rights” has become a catch-all term for the notion that animals should not be
abused, neglected or otherwise treated poorly. But the anthropomorphism (read:
applying human characteristics to non-human entities and objects) of animals
has led to some confusion on what is abuse and what is use.
Here’s an example that’s near and dear to my heart and
profession: horses. Horses are actually classified as livestock animals, not
companion animals. This is a HUGE distinction that is based on the primary use
of horses being for production and business purposes, not company. Using horses
for sports, farm work, recreational riding, scientific research and as pasture
pets are all in violation of animal rights, but not animal welfare.
There are many horses, and other animals, that depend on
humans for subsistence. Domestic dogs and cats need to be fed, many animals
need medications in order to survive. Animal rights activists would rather
these animals be in their natural habitats, despite many of them being unable
to survive there. This, and my belief
that other animals should be able to be used humanely by humans – for food, for
work, for companionship – is why I’m not pro animal rights.
I could go on and on, but the take-away is this: it’s an important difference that changing “rights” to “welfare”
makes. Changing that one word is the little known, but hugely important difference
between two drastically opposed ideologies. Changing that one word is the
difference between your dog being able to take you to court for not throwing
that tennis ball and being able to take your dog for a walk. Changing that one
word changes things for animals for the better.