by James Beers, BS, MA
Writer, Speaker, and Consultant
Centreville, Virginia, USA
Retired Wildlife Biologist, Refuge Manager, & Law Enforcement Officer
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Submitted by Request to The Electronic Magazine of Veterinary Science
& The Latin American Association of Animal Welfare
Author's Note. During my 30 plus years with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service among many other assignments I worked at the New York Port-of-Entry
as a law enforcement officer in the early 1970's where I was concerned with
wild animal commerce and where I successfully investigated and obtained
prosecutions in several large smuggling cases (one of which involved many
South American pelts from giant otters, jaguars, ocelots, and margays being
shipped to Europe). I have been a field wildlife game warden in four
States
and a US Congressional Fellow in Washington, DC working with the US
Congress. During over 20 years that I was stationed in Washington, DC
with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service I served as the Operations Chief of the US
National Wildlife Refuge System and as the Federal Wildlife Biologist in
Washington, DC overseeing national wildlife research grants for things as
diverse as finding biological controls for purple loosestrife and
establishing a national wildlife information system. However it was my
final assignment that most prepared me to address this subject of Animal
Welfare. For my last four years with the US government I served on US
State
Department and US Trade Representative delegations working with Canada and
Russia to prevent Western European bureaucrats and animal rights groups from
banning the importation of furs into Europe. Under the guise of Animal
Welfare concerns I first became familiar with the international campaign to
not only destroy the fur industry and trapping but also wildlife management,
animal ownership, animal use, natural resource management programs
worldwide, and the ability of families and communities to maintain their
cultures and traditions.
Since my retirement in 2000 I have written and spoken all over the United
States on the subject of animal welfare, animal rights, environmental
proclamations, and their hidden agendas. My subsequent experiences and
work
have included a broad spectrum of Animal Welfare-related matters from a
comprehensive report on a national Animal Rights Conference*and a study of
government-caused pollution of the Potomac River to explaining
pet-welfare
claims meant to eliminate animal ownership and the widespread practice of
large predators to discourage ranching, farming, and rural lifestyles.
It
is this perspective and experience that I bring to this paper.
I wish to express my thanks to the Electronic Magazine of Veterinary Science
for their kind invitation to submit a paper on this topic. This is not a
simple courtesy on my part; it is gratitude for the subsequent discovery
that writing this paper has afforded me the challenge of presenting the
historic and current North American and Western European animal welfare
experience (as best I understand it) to South American Veterinarians.
Since
our (North and South America) political and governmental systems cover such
a broad variety, I found myself unable to use the USA-oriented vernacular
and social conditions that are the usual terminology I employ for my
readers.
Our political and social systems are not only different but the spectrum of
political thought and trends in South American nations today is so wide to a
non-political North American like me that it would be presumptuous for me to
comment on it or try to write as though I understand the various
perspectives at work in South America today. Equally, it would be wrong
for
me to presume to equate various bureaucracies or laws when the underlying
concepts of private property or of national versus local control of various
matters vary even more than the presence or absence of individual rights as
we know them in the USA. Realizing this has forced me to look for more
basic common ground to describe the moral and human freedom arenas that in
turn are expressed in our governmental systems. I am sincerely trying to
make this relevant to all veterinarians and people concerned with Animal
Welfare regardless of their affiliations or persuasions.
Two contexts, morality and the politics that express societal morality, are
the most basic and understandable dimensions I have chosen to facilitate
this examination of the concept and significance of Animal Welfare in the
summer of 2006. This challenge has forced me to expand my thinking and
significantly deepened my own perceptions of the Animal Welfare phenomenon.
It is this for which I am grateful to the Electronic Magazine of Veterinary
Science. Jim Beers
*This Animal Rights Conference Report, Jim Beers' Resume, and an abundance
of articles related to the matters mentioned in this paper may be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com
ABSTRACT: The author is a retired United States Fish
& Wildlife Service
wildlife biologist with a long history of working with Animal Welfare and
related matters. In this monograph he defines Animal Welfare and then
explores the laws and Treaties it has generated in the past 30 years in
North America and in the United Nations. He then discusses the political
and moral environments that both spawn and support the public commotion
surrounding Animal Welfare in recent years. Under "Discussion"
the author
attempts to explain and categorize the hidden agendas and organizations
behind Animal Welfare campaigns and the power they create. Finally,
there
are 12 questions and answers on matters of Animal Welfare that attempt to
suggest how concern for animals does not necessarily mean having to support
radical causes or the radical overthrow of society.
I. DEFINITION & BACKGROUND
When I mention Animal Welfare I mean: "Human perceptions regarding those
things that affect wild and domestic animals". This runs the gamut
from
beliefs that cockfighting is "inhumane", or horses should not be
slaughtered
for any reason, or calves should not be slaughtered for veal to concern by
rural dog owners about protected wolves that are killing and maiming their
dogs; to urban anguish over large-scale die-offs of large wild animals, to
the belief by hunters that dogs should be used for hunting to minimize lost
or wounded animals, to rural people that believe wolves should be controlled
lethally, to cockfighters that believe that this activity that has been in
their families for generations is legitimate and only the business of those
that "own" the chickens. Such attention to the welfare of animals,
both good
and bad, is something that has always been with us. Certain members of
any
society have always found animal slaughter or even annual festivals where
animals are used harshly to be repugnant while others either make their
livelihood from such things or look forward to them and participate in them
with eager anticipation throughout their lives.
The above definition admits to great latitude and interpretation. For
instance we might be very concerned about a pit bull dog that gets loose in
a city and attacks and kills neighborhood dogs and domestic animals or even
a child while excusing the killing of dogs, livestock, and a child in a
rural environment by wild wolves or cougars that government and
environmental organizations tout as "natural" in rural areas.
We may even
"fault" the owners of the injured animals or the parents of the dead
child
for not being prepared better in the case of wolves while anguishing with
them in the case of the pit bull. We may call for the elimination of
hunting any animals because it is "cruel" while telling a shepherd
that has
just lost two dozen sheep and a horse to a protected grizzly bear (that left
many of the sheep mangled, alive, and in pain for hours and a horse that
still struggles in spite of a half-eaten rear quarter) that the losses are
his fault and that he has to move his operation to accommodate the grizzly
bear. We may call for ever-more strict government requirements to keep a
dog, or call for laws to ban bobbing a dog's tail or cropping its' ears
while ignoring the horrific attacks by protected wolves on pets, hunting
dogs, and watchdogs. We may condone physically attacking and
intimidating
medical researchers and their families for testing medicine on animals while
taking the tested medicine ourselves. We may ignore the criminal
destruction of a mink farm business of struggling rural families while
wearing leather shoes and belts. All this and much more falls under the
heading of Animal Welfare.
The manipulative uses of "Animal Welfare" claims for hidden agendas
also
covers an almost infinite range. Young girls and their families may be
emotionally over-wrought by the news that horses are sold by other owners to
be slaughtered for pet food or human food or that some indigenous people or
some Asians eat dogs or use their hides for products. Rich urban
residents
that seldom leave the city except on vacation may be very upset by pictures
of animals being used in laboratories or animal in traps or hunters with
deer or geese. Reports that circuses or rodeos train or use animals harshly
upset a wide range of American society. Graphic descriptions of
cockfights
or turkey-raising facilities, claims of "animal rights", and
predictions of
criminal behavior by hunters appear almost daily in the media to generate
financial and political support in the USA and Western Europe for
organizations working for a radical overhaul of society. National and
international groups like the Humane Society of the United States, Animal
Protection Institute, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Defenders
of Wildlife, and 20 to 30 other such groups make millions every year by
exploiting the emotional aspects of these matters.
II. MANIPULATING ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS
The past 35 years have witnessed an explosion of environmental and
animal-oriented laws in the USA and Western Europe, and United Nations'
Treaties and Conventions that were justified in whole or in part on Animal
Welfare claims.
- The UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was
composed and executed by First World and UN bureaucracies in the 1960's
utilizing claims of the "cruel" and unjustifiable killing of such
"charismatic mega fauna" as elephants and whales. It was
signed by the USA
in 1969. Indeed the International Whaling Commission was taken
over during
the same period (mid-1960's to mid-1970's) by non-whaling nations at the
behest of and with the financing of international animal and environmental
organizations opposed to any whaling by asserting both insufficient
population data and the basic unacceptability of killing such animals under
any circumstances.
- UN Conventions ("Regulation of Whaling", "Antarctic
Seals", "Living
Resources of the High Seas", "North Pacific Fur Seals") and
Agreements such
as the "Conservation of Polar Bears" and various Fisheries Treaties
concerned with marine mammals from whales and seals to porpoises and sea
otters and polar bears. These inclusions were largely justified on the
basis of photographs of young seals (white-coats) being harvested by
Canadians on the ice and pictures of porpoises in tuna nets and whales being
hauled onto a ship or being butchered.
- CITES was used as the basic justification for the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) that was passed subsequently in the USA in 1969. This Act would not
have been legally possible before USA ratification of CITES the same year.
The USA Constitution says that ratified (by the US Senate and signed by the
President) Treaties "become the law of the land". The USA
courts have held
that CITES was a "Treaty" and that therefore things that were
previously
illegal (taking private property without compensation and seizing State
authority over plants and animals to name but two) were now new and supreme
powers of the national government. The subsequent growth in power and
authority at the national level over all facets of society has been
spectacular. Because of the Billions of Dollars involved each year,
national bureaucracies have grown dramatically, their ranks have been filled
with "no-animal use" and "no-natural resource management"
employees
graduating from Universities that have long since abandoned teaching or
researching or asserting anything that is not able to gain support from
government funding. Scientific "facts" today reject long-proven
animal and
plant management and use regimes while extolling the "sacredness" of
native
plants and native animals, the need to "save" and
"protect" plants and
animals, such imaginary ideals as "Native Ecosystems" and such
unachievable
goals but bureaucratically wonderful tasks as the elimination of plants or
animals that reportedly "arrived" after a certain date. Woven
throughout
this "science" are claims of "native" animals suffering
such cruel fates as
loss of their young and reduction of their range or numbers claimed to have
existed varying periods ago. "Native" animal harm to other
wild animals or
domestic animals and indeed to human lives and property is ignored and even
rationalized. Such rationalizations run the gamut of "people don't
'belong'
there" and "she was menstruating" or "he tried to
run" to "we are in 'their'
habitat" and "that land should be owned by the government for
nature".
- The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed in
the USA in 1976 subsequent to several UN Treaties that began the trend of
placing marine mammals in an almost quasi-human category. As with the UN
Convention (CITES) cited above and based on Animal Welfare photos and
descriptions of seal, whale, and porpoise harvests and "takings" all
marine
mammals were given Federal or national protection in the USA, in USA waters,
and in all commerce of the United States. While the law said, and
supporters claimed, that such absolute protection would be lifted when
"optimum sustainable populations" were achieved: 30 years later all
marine
mammals from high seas species to polar bears, manatees, and dugongs still
enjoy absolute protection both from harvest, management and even research.
Attempts to "delist" or renew sensible and sustainable management
and use
programs are never successful for marine mammals or declared Endangered
Species as the proponents of such moves are vilified and photos of baby
seals and accusations of how proposed changes will lead to human criminality
are heaped on proponents of management. The sole USA sealskin tannery
was
put out of business, Pacific salmon stocks are exploited today by
overabundant seals and sea lions while fishing is curtailed and marine
"sanctuaries" are declared, sea otters decimate abalone fisheries in
California while overabundant killer whales decimate Alaskan sea otters,
overabundant minke and other whale species and seals decimate North Atlantic
fish stocks, while African seals decimate rock lobster fisheries important
to local communities and struggling Third World nations. One need only
consider the standard scenario. "See the baby seal on the ice; see
the
hunter kill the baby; pass the law to save the baby seal; close the
tanneries and any commerce; lock up and fine anyone chasing a seal off their
boat and don't even mention super-abundant seal populations as you close
fisheries and declare marine sanctuaries due to a lack of fish".
Was the
purpose really the welfare of the "baby" seals or was it the closure
of
fishing and the elimination of boating?
**NOTE: As I was proofreading this paper for submission on 3 June 2006
the
following news article appeared in the Washington Post newspaper:
"Judge Rules Sea Lion Research Violates Laws -
A judge has ruled the federal government must halt studies of threatened
and endangered Steller sea lions because it did not properly assess how
certain research techniques might harm the animals."
This item appeared only five days after a related news item regarding the
widespread practice by doctors in England of recommending abortion for
unborn children with a clubfoot that will be mentioned later in this
monograph.
- The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was also passed in the USA in 1976. This
legislation was passed on a wave of media stories and concocted photos of
laboratory animals and pets. Rabbits hooked up to wires in cages and
dogs
seized from old ladies that tried to "care for" dozens of animals as
they
and the ladies aged together were mixed with photos of starving horses (old
animals mostly that no longer could keep any fat over their ribs) and
"behind the scenes" reports of circus and rodeo animals and
hyperboles about
cockfights that were all woven together to concoct a very effective mix of
calls for a new law to "control" certain things and
"prohibit" others.
University Committees financed under the law became magnets for advocates of
no animal ownership or use. Government agencies began by
"regulating"
"puppy mills" with licensing, then they tightened regulations, then
they
required frequent inspections, and finally they established draconian
penalties that put dog breeders out of business. City and county
governments were encouraged to follow suit with similar regulations by the
same Animal Welfare advocates and their organizations. "Rescue"
leagues
sprang up where certain dog breed owners took to "rescuing" unwanted
dogs of
their own or all breeds and then tried to find homes for them. Social and
economic class divisions were exploited as fancy dog breed associations
looked down on mongrel dog owners and cockfighters while elk-hunting
foundations looked down on rabbit hunters and trappers as everyone talked
about the need to cooperate while only looking out for themselves. Wild
urban cats were sterilized and released at great cost to do little more than
reduce male cat caterwauling during the night. Euthanizing domestic
animals
was rejected more and more as inhumane so that today everything from pumas
to bears and moose that wander into towns and cities are not killed but (at
great cost and futility as the problem either returns or just goes
elsewhere) live trapped and transported and fawned over by the media and
government agencies that always need "more money and people" for
this
"growing" problem. As with the steady expansion of the ESA
authority to
cover more areas and more species and subspecies and races and populations
and population segments and even the bizarre category of "distinct
population segment", and the expansion of the MMPA to prohibit any marine
mammal by-catch by fishermen or any control of species causing extensive
harm to other species or human interests, so too the AWA has steadily
expanded to cover more pet owners and veterinary services and medical
experiments and eventually every animal user. For instance, it was
always
claimed that mice and rats would be exempt but they were recently brought
under the auspices of the AWA as part of the incremental (and therefore
little noticed by all but researchers) expansion of national government
authority at the expense of State Constitutional authority, the rights of
property owners, and the cultural and traditional heritages of citizens.
As
I write this I am just notified that 10,000 American pigeon-racers (and
breeders and fanciers) have begun belatedly to fight being brought under the
AWA where licensing and regulation and inspection are expected to do the
same for them that it is doing to dog breeders.
III. POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF ANIMAL WELFARE
Animal Welfare advocates have often attained significant political
visibility. England under Queen Victoria in the 19th century saw a great
deal of radical animal protection proposals and activism by groups under the
banner of "anti-vivisectionists". Hunting, domestic livestock
regulation,
pet ownership and animal experiments for human medical purposes were all
roundly attacked. Periodic noticeable outbreaks of this phenomenon were
seen in Europe during the last century. One such period was the Nazi
emphasis on "restoring Pre-Roman flora and fauna", Hitler's'
repugnance for
hunting and taxidermy, and various anti-meat-eating campaigns touted by
celebrities and ephemeral "societies". It is however,
the past 35 years
that I would like to concentrate on for this description of Animal Welfare
political impacts.
Animal Welfare and its' shadow, Animal Rights (the belief that all animals
share with mankind "inherent rights") emerged as a political force
in the
USA in the late 1960's and early 1970's, a period of great social turbulence
("free love", anti-war movements, drug use explosion, and a belief
that a
"new age is dawning"). This is the period of the passage of
the
environmental and animal-related new laws cited above. "Animal
advocacy"
groups and "environmental" groups began publicity campaigns and
evermore
effective fund-raising drives that in turn created national political
influence and the growth of new and expanded national bureaucracies to
enforce and grow the reach of all the new laws. UN and European Union
bureaucrats and delegates were likewise lobbied and benefited directly from
this emerging phenomenon as evidenced by the Conventions and Treaties
mentioned above and the proliferation of national and European Union laws
and regulations concerning Animal Welfare during this same period. The
result was somewhat like a snowball rolling downhill as these Non-Government
Organizations (NGO's) and bureaucrats and politicians and University
professors (who benefit from Billions in Federal grant dollars and
international platforms for their specialties) all combine to expand
governmental controls and governmental spending with a blizzard of claims
and assertions that benefited only themselves at the expense of the
populace.
In the USA and at UN environmental and animal-related meetings the same
lobbyists appear representing all the same organizations year after year.
As with attendance at Animal Rights Conferences in the USA all manner of NGO's
(and their agendas) are represented. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) rail against trapping, fur, and pets while cautiously
justifying radical criminal groups that destroy lives and property like the
Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Greenpeace touts
the need to stop all management and use of sea animals and nuclear power
while the Animal Welfare Institute works to stop hunting and the Defenders
of Wildlife lobbies to protect all large predators as a way to discourage
rural living so that Wetlands and Wilderness groups can justify more
government land acquisition and more controls of private property, people,
and human pursuits. Clearly radical organizations such as those
specializing in calls for the abolition of animal farming and medical
experimentation on animals are always present on the fringes of these
meetings as they seek openings and opportunities to attain their goals.
The
synergistic success of this 35 year-old alliance is apparent to anyone
attending more than one of such meetings.
The results are steady and predictable. More UN authority over national
natural resources such as wild animals, timber, and waterways and less
sustainable use and management of those resources result from the Treaties
and Conventions and implementing regulations and "Lists". More
regimentation in the form of what is allowed and what is prohibited
regarding human activities with animals worldwide is enforced and tightened
by national governments. Animal use and the legal concept of animal
ownership each erode steadily and that in turn strengthens national
government authority claims over other property from wild plant and animal
communities to human communities and human rights that are desired by
powerful corporations or government administrators seeking powerful friends.
An example of the latter in the USA is that after 35 years of the national
"taking" of private property without compensation under the ESA (a
formerly
illegal practice) the USA has begun experiencing a rash of government
actions to force people from their homes against their will to give their
land to corporations for development or other configurations desired by
governments hungry for more tax income and rich land speculators hungry for
profit.
The political support for these increasingly harmful activities has evolved
alongside other abuses in the USA. Curiously, 35 years ago rich power
brokers of the Right and radical socialists of the Left were the primary
backers of the new laws that were resulting from the environmental and
Animal Welfare hysteria in the USA in the 1960's and 70's. The rich
power
brokers saw it as a means to control the masses and isolate their
landholdings while the socialists saw it as one of several means to remake
society. This same political and moral combination caught the eye of GK
Chesterton 100 years ago. He observed then in a collection of his essays
(The Outline of Sanity) the thing we must keep in mind today. "What the
two
systems have in common is that ultimately they are both opposed to the
widespread ownership of property. What the socialists do not tell us is
that the natural result of their philosophy is that the government ends up
owning all property and controlling every aspect of life along with it.
And
what the capitalists do not tell us is that the natural result of their
philosophy is the same result as a game of Monopoly: one person owns
everything, and everyone else owns nothing."
In very short order all politicians realized that these laws were harming
only small, isolated groups at a time and no organized opposition was
forming. By the late 1970's the strengthening and amending of these laws
became a sure-fire way to get votes at election time. For instance, the
MMPA was sponsored by a US Senator from a land-locked, interior state who
liked to joke (privately) that he was just getting some needed
"environmental" votes and the nice thing was "there wasn't any
of those
marine mammals within a thousand miles of any of my constituents".
Similarly, those harmed by these laws have proven unable to join together
for any effective campaign to form an opposition. Dog owners look down
on
cockfighters and middle-class trappers find little common ground with rich
trout fishermen. Urban cat owners can see no common threat with medical
experimenters and duck hunters only look confused when told of their stake
in pending legislation to regulate rodeos or circuses. All the while,
rich
citizens with large landholdings and urban professionals send money and
offer support to politicians and bureaucrats and organizations that will
reduce rural residents' rights like dog breeders or control animal uses like
pigeon racing that neither affect the rich, urban advocates nor anyone they
know.
The last two decades have seen an almost total embrace of Animal Welfare and
environmental changes by the Left in the USA by inclusion in political Party
Platforms and integration with all of the other causes of the Left from
abortion and same-sex marriage to gun control and bigger government. In
Europe, when the Socialists were elected recently after the train bombings
in Spain, proposals to ban bullfighting and to reduce hunting and gun
ownership were almost immediate. European Union Leftist policies
likewise
have made it almost impossible for new members like Finland to control
dangerous and damaging wolf and bear populations. In England the Labor
government outlaws foxhunting and takes aim at pheasant hunting while
half-heartedly protecting the few medical experiment company personnel left
in Europe. (Most such employees have now moved to the USA where attacks
on
employees and homes and businesses are being countered with high-level
prosecutions and prison sentences thus far.) However, as in the USA, the
Right is largely silent, half-heartedly supportive, or opportunistic when
they sense available voter support from "the middle", or they are
acquiescent at election time to avoid the negative characterizations.
Again
the point being there are no consistent and sensible alternatives being
offered and there is no determined opposition.
The reasons for the acquiescence on the Right are simple. Experience. Voters
vote FOR politicians that like puppies or deer or "the environment".
Voters
vote AGAINST politicians who are "hard-hearted",
"insensitive", and "cruel".
These labels are quickly applied to any opponent of "more"
government
authority for Animal Welfare. Think about it. Senator "Claghorn"
wants to
require that all dog breeders (not "dogs", they come later) be
registered,
licensed, and inspected. He wants to form a new national government
agency
to carry this out. Who could be opposed to that? If any politician
opposes
it, he is quickly labeled as "insensitive" and an opponent of Animal
Welfare. Newspapers, radio hosts, schoolteachers, University professors,
and NGO's enthusiastically join his opponent in the next election to get rid
of him. This has happened often in the USA in the past 35 years and it
is
happening as I write.
This political evolution has given us an issue today (the combination of
Animal Welfare/animal rights & environmentalism) that is openly embraced
by
the Left and tacitly supported by the Right in Western Europe and the USA.
This results in international demonstrations against "globalism" and
"capitalism" and "racism" that are interspersed with signs
and calls from
demonstrators to "save" this or that animal and to "stop"
farming or
ranching or meat-eating or pet ownership or medical experiments or fur or
circuses, etc. Tables of propaganda outside political meetings of the Right
are every bit as extreme in these matters as are the publicly embraced
propaganda passed out at political meetings of the Left.
I am reminded at this point of a chilling presentation I attended at an
Animal Rights Conference in 2001 by a young woman who was employed by a
national abortion-advocacy group. She was "on loan" to
"The Great Ape
Project". "The Great Ape Project" was several lawyers in
Washington, DC
that were preparing to go into Court at the first opportunity (utilizing
animal rights' NGO funding) to test the legal theory that one of the
primates could be considered a "citizen" or "man" as
mentioned in the US
Constitution and therefore entitled to all the rights of a human under the
US Constitution. As with the expanded laws mentioned previously in this
article, such a declaration (so far no such claim has been upheld in a
court) could then be expanded incrementally to cover other mammals in a sort
of descending order of "intelligence" (whales, seals, dogs, cats,
and on and
on) or other such criterion. This nexus between Animal Welfare, animal
rights, associated environmental and socialist programs and Human Life and
Liberty leads us to the other major dimension of the Animal Welfare
phenomenon: Morality.
IV. THE MORAL DIMENSION OF ANIMAL WELFARE.
Attention to and claims of Animal Welfare issues have exploded in the past
35 years in Western Europe and the USA as noted previously. This
phenomenon
has coincided with two other phenomena. First, church attendance whether
measured as weekly attendance or as regular financial support has declined
precipitously in these two areas of the world. Second, doctrinal dogmas
and
the beliefs they instill have undergone compromise, modification, and even
elimination in many churches.
Doctrinal belief modifications that began earlier in the past century and
then accelerated dramatically during the past 35 years include acceptance of
all manner of birth prevention, divorce and remarriage, abortion,
homosexuality, clergy promiscuity, same-sex "marriage", same-sex
adoption,
polygamy, euthanasia, pornography, gambling, children out of wedlock,
artificial insemination, genetic "engineering", and "living
together" to
name but a few. Today British doctors recommend abortions for
"club-foot"
(an eminently correctable condition) and USA University professors openly
propose making euthanasia of infants available for a period of time (6
months?) to parents of children that, for instance, have a cleft palate.
Only recently a USA professor at the University of Texas lectured that there
are "too many" people and that he would welcome an Ebola virus that
would
"wipe out" over "half of mankind".
The purpose here is not to ignite a controversy over social matters but
rather to point out painfully related and undeniable social phenomena that
are clearly related to Animal Welfare matters in society today. As
churches
continue to de-emphasize core moral beliefs and as people increasingly have
dissimilar or no inherent moral standards regarding what is right and wrong,
we witness the spread of the philosophy that "there is no right and
wrong"
and that "whatever I believe is OK". Absent a firm acceptance
of moral
agreement, anything goes. GK Chesterton, the English philosopher of 100
years ago, observed that the point is not that such people believe
"nothing"
it is that they will believe "anything".
In addition to understanding the acceptance by a segment of the public of
various Animal Welfare claims and their use as excuses for dramatic changes
in society, the presence of shared as well as hidden agendas must be
considered. Why is a pro-abortion organization funding an animal rights
project? Is it merely coincidence that the growth in claimed
"inherent
animal rights" and the drive to enshrine such rights in law parallel the
lowering of the value and legal protection of unborn, young, disabled, sick,
elderly, unwanted, and "over-populated" human life? How have
we arrived at
the point where a puma can kill a child and we blame the parents and cry out
to "protect" the puma? How can we force rural people to endure
introduced
or naturally occurring abundant and deadly animal populations from elephants
and crocodiles to wolves and poisonous snakes and look away when human lives
and families and economies are destroyed? By what right do we allow
medical
experiments important for saving human life to be eliminated because of
"harm" to another's property? How can we "protect",
under penalty of law,
the eggs of certain wild birds while funding and encouraging the casual and
widespread destruction of unborn humans?
Absent an underlying moral agreement, nothing is sacred. The Founding
Fathers of the USA (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al.) recognized
the importance of this fact when they composed our Declaration of
Independence (during our Revolutionary War against England) and afterwards
when they drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When nothing is
sacred then anything is possible and things are only sacred in a society
where there is moral agreement. Words alone form no shield to freedom.
When we no longer agree that murder is wrong or that "men" are
unique, then
even though the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths
to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." it is still possible to say that
killing humans is permitted and that "animals" are "men"
and should be
protected.
All it seems to take to attain these ends today is political power. In
spite of "guaranteed rights" in our Constitution (freedom of the
press,
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, State rights,
etc.); we see new laws and court decisions and votes that erode these rights
illegally for the first time in over 200 years in defiance of the
Constitutional provisions. The US Constitution and its' guarantees were
not
meant to be vulnerable to "majority votes" or "activist"
Supreme Court
rulings by judges. That is until recent years when increasingly such
things
are allowed to justify political changes proposed by politicians and
bureaucrats providing for their own self-interests at the expense of public
rights and freedoms. The answer as to why, is that we are coming to
believe
"anything" and the Animal Welfare philosophy as a moral imperative
is an
important part of that change.
IV. DISCUSSION
Invariably everyone that discusses Animal Welfare is categorized as either
"for" or "against" Animal Welfare. This is not only
untrue, it is a tactic
used by dictatorships and radicals down through the ages to marginalize and
eliminate any dissidents or non-supporters. I refute such
characterizations
and I ask that you do too.
We are all different while being the same. This is both a strength and a
weakness for societies. Guarding liberty to be free and to enable each
of
us to do our best with our lives should always be the primary role of
government. In recent years, in the USA and Western Europe, Animal
Welfare
has become a very real factor in the decline of liberty and freedom.
There
is no other way to describe the Treaties, Laws, Conventions, Regulations,
Bureaucracies, and Penalties that have proliferated based in whole or in
part due to Animal Welfare claims when describing their impacts fairly and
accurately.
The complexity of Animal Welfare issues threaded through the hidden agendas
behind the scenes is often belied by the complexity encountered in the
proposals themselves. Western European and USA animal rights and Animal
Welfare factions (both government and private) have tried to eliminate both
trapping and the fur trade. Except for the extreme radical groups
attacking
women wearing fur on the street or smashing windows of furriers, the
campaign usually begins with claims of "cruelty" and the need for a
"humane"
trap that kills instantly. Fair enough, but what emerges from this
concern
for Animal Welfare? Some disturbing facts come to light that make the
task
very different than what was envisioned. "Instant kill" traps
will kill
pets rather than hold a paw or leg that may be amenable to treatment later
and they are more dangerous for children. "Instant kill" traps
are often
unwieldy and impossible to fool certain species (like mink or marten) with.
"Instant kill" traps are often dangerous for trappers to set when
they are
all alone in the cold and they are often too unwieldy to carry more than a
few when "running" the trap line. When traps are set to drown
animals
(beaver, otters, mink) the time to death (like the time to death for
executed criminals) is never short enough. In other words, the concern
for
Animal Welfare is merely the emotional selling point for the unleashing of
new governmental authority to make everyone else (trapper, furrier, fur
user, and associated commerce) live as you desire, not as they wish to live.
Often a serious analysis of an Animal Welfare claim belies interlocking
hidden agendas involving Animal Welfare, animal rights, and environmental
schemes. Both nationally and internationally the organizations
representing
these campaigns meet together, work together, and share resources routinely.
When I attended a United Nations environmental conference in Nairobi, the
lobbyists I saw in the audience and in the banquets and working in the halls
were many of the same lobbyists I encountered whispering to EU bureaucrats
and politicians when I was working for the USA in Europe to defeat the
attempted fur import ban to eliminate trapping and they were some of the
same lobbyists I encountered at an Animal Rights Conference at a swank
Washington, DC hotel several years later. Whether it is the organization
to
outlaw farming or medical experiments or pets or hunting or trapping or any
of a dozen more traditional human pursuits, Animal Welfare claims often
begin and periodically support (as opportune) the radical societal and
governmental changes being sought.
Concern for animals and their use and treatment is a natural and very human
emotion. To treat animals with care and respect is a credit to Human
Ideals
and our capacity for empathy and understanding, characteristics Not shared
by other creatures. We should each be thankful for and manage wisely the
plants and animals that have been provided to us both domestically and in
the "wild". These are also laudable Human attributes that are
NOT shared by
any other creatures.
In order to extend our concern for Animal Welfare beyond our personal realm
(whether or not we have pets or hunt or enjoy a circus or eat meat or wear
fur) we must look to our moral and political beliefs. Morally there are
several questions to ponder. Do we believe that man is a very special part
of God's creation? Do we really believe that people should die so that
animals might live? Do we believe that the avoidable loss of any human
life
to an animal is an acceptable "price to pay" for any environmental
or animal
construct? Do we believe that animals are for man's use? Do we
think any
animal has any "rights" similar to or equal to those we ascribe to
man? If
we believe animals have "rights", who "endowed" them with
those rights? On
what basis do we assert that animals are NOT property that may be owned?
I
suggest that how we answer these questions indicates whether or not we
believe that our concern about Animal Welfare is something we practice and
work to encourage others to practice or something we believe must be imposed
on others no matter what it takes.
Politically, there are questions that enlarge upon our moral outlook
regarding Animal Welfare. Do we believe that governments are formed to
"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility" "promote the
general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity"
as stated in the US Constitution? If so, how do we justify destroying
the
property rights, freedom, liberties, culture, and traditions of
"ourselves
and our Posterity" for any reason? Do we believe that anything that
does
not affect "my style of living" (to quote a long-deceased Maine fur
trapper)
should be vulnerable to destruction if I object to it and can get enough
political support? In other words, is nothing (animal ownership, uses of
animals from hunting and pets to livestock and displays, experimental use of
animals for medicine testing, etc.) guaranteed us and therefore to be
PROTECTED by government or are all these things a "gift" or
"grant" from
government that can simply be withdrawn as circumstances dictate? Do I
agree that ANY cause that can generate political support (think Nazi
Germany, Stalinist Russia, Zimbabwe, or even ancient Rome) should be imposed
on others at any cost? Do I look to my government for
"Tranquility" or do I
look on my government as corrupt and whatever disrupts it is good for
speeding up the day when it can be changed? Do I enjoy the diverse natures
and pursuits of my neighbors or do I resent much of what those around me do?
Do I believe that protecting my neighbor's rights protects my rights or do I
believe that I should be able to impose my views on the rest "for their
own
good"? Do I really believe that animals have "rights" or
do I view that
claim as a necessary step to achieving other things? The answers to
these
questions will tell us much about Animal Welfare and where our personal
boundaries are for the extent to which we will attack our neighbors' rights
and freedoms over it.
I am NOT against Animal Welfare nor in my view should anyone be. Does
that
mean I would imprison cockfighters or farmers that raise calves for
slaughter (for the record I have never attended a cockfight and I enjoy veal
scaloppini)? I have hunted and enjoyed eating wild ducks and geese for
over
50 years and, according to my wife, there is little in my life that has
priority over that pastime for me.
Perhaps with all the foregoing in mind, the best way to conclude this
examination of Animal Welfare is to ask and answer some specific questions
to gauge where I come down on some of the more common areas of concern with
Animal Welfare today. I do this simply to suggest how this complex
matter
can be handled to accommodate legitimate concern for Animal Welfare as
opposed its' use as a tool for radical societal and governmental change.
1. Q. Are you "against" the Endangered Species Act and the Animal
Welfare
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the UN Treaties and
Conventions you mention?
A. No. Truly endangered SPECIES (not subspecies and
all the subsequent
subdivisions) should be identified and remedies and funding sought for
preservation through voluntary (on the part of governments and citizens)
actions. Marine Mammals, like all other abundant species, benefit from
monitoring and control to preserve them where and in what numbers are
compatible with human activities as well as minimizing or eliminating their
conflict with important human activities and interests. This goes for UN
documents that should be based on leadership and obtaining funding for
voluntary actions by nations primarily charged with the welfare of their
citizens as opposed imposing someone else's idea of their role. Wherever
possible, the management I suggest should be supported by reasonable user
taxes (licenses, excise taxes, etc.) for sustainable uses and management of
the resources.
2. Q. Do you support bio-medical experimentation.
A. Yes. That said, reasonable requirements by
governments for standards
that DO NOT unduly restrict the researchers from obtaining needed data for
Human medicine are a good thing. The only problem is that such initial
pledges soon attract activist participants that constantly use such
authority to ELIMINATE bio-medical testing. Maintaining control of the
designated government control to guard the rights of future people to
benefit from effective and affordable medicine is THE problem.
3. Q. Should Universities teach Animal Welfare?
A. Certainly. However, like bio-medical
experimentation (and
"Endangered Species" and "Invasive [i.e. 'Non-Native']
Species" and "Native
Ecosystems" and "Wilderness" "science") the research
and emphases quickly
shift to ideological and propaganda mills for Non-Government Organization
(NGO) and bureaucratic hidden agendas that are antithetical to the original
purpose. Since government (with NGO support and the politicians lust for
votes) provides the majority of the money for the teaching and research at
nearly all Universities, the original laudable topic is soon subsumed into a
flow of "information" and "findings" designed to pass new
laws, justify new
bureaucracies and more regulations, fund the future of each professors
"specialty", while ignoring or explaining away, the loss of
liberties that
provide the fuel for the government growth and NGO power over that
government.
4. Q. What about livestock production?
A. I agree wholeheartedly with the Founding Fathers of the
USA that the
welfare of animals raised for livestock should be a matter for State (not
Federal) jurisdiction. Interstate and foreign commerce in livestock
rightly
falls under Federal jurisdiction. With exceptions for potential animal
health challenges like BSE or anthrax or foot and mouth or brucellosis or
various bird diseases, etc.) State standards should be as varied as the
State wants. If a State is a large stock producer with no large cities
(to
house animal rights advocates) and it wishes to maintain minimal standards
and have its' University support that, so be it. If a State is
overshadowed
by a large city (the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois would be an
example of this) and wants stock to be kept on carpets and be massaged like
Kobe beef and therefore be uncompetitive price-wise, again so be it.
This
applies to so many of these Animal Welfare concerns. Taking this to an
even
lower (and more desirable) level of control. If a heavily Hispanic County or
a County has a long tradition of raising and fighting cocks and wants to
have a cockfighting ring I believe that it should be possible for a State to
permit such activity under reasonable rules it lays forth regarding nuisance
matters and disposal of birds.
5. Q. What about circuses, rodeos, movie production, races, and
competitions?
A. These should fall under the jurisdiction of State
governments to
allow or require certain practices. If one State wants to lure movie
producers or another wants to provide races (this is really because the
people of that State elect political representatives that support those
things as do the voters that elect them) then so be it. Does anyone
believe
that any State will permit horses to be shot or dogs to be dismembered for a
movie? Of course they wouldn't because the electorate would vote them
out
of office. If there is concern about the treatment of old racing
greyhounds
require that they be euthanized. We have become sentimental and
emotional
to a fault such that we reject more and more the need to kill certain
animals (unclaimed stray dogs, marauding predators, over-abundant deer,
stray cats, depredating birds, disease carrying animals like wolves, etc.)
while accepting the need to kill a dog that attacks someone or a domestic
bird flock if someone whispers "Asian bird flu". This
hierarchy of animal
(worship?, concern?, intelligence?, cuteness?, attention?, etc.) is
anthropomorphism run amok. It is fostered and encouraged by the animal
rights and Animal Welfare organizations whose agendas and goals have been
discussed here. The biological and moral truism is that there is NO
difference between the whale and the baby seal and crocodile and the cobra.
They are all wild creatures that do some beneficial things and some harmful
things and they should be managed (in distributions and numbers)
thoughtfully by the lowest level of government (because the lowest level of
government is most responsive to the control, needs and interest of the
people). Likewise there is NO difference between puppies and calves and
domestic turkeys and farmed fish. They are all bred, fed, housed, and
maintained for the benefit of man. They are the property of an owner and
governments' role should be one of protecting the interests of property
owners and the property owners will in turn take care of THEIR property.
Wild animals like wild plants are under the jurisdiction of both State and
Federal governments that in reality HOLD THEM IN TRUST FOR ALL.
Therefore
government has a responsibility to maintain these wild resources for all
people to use and enjoy in sustainable and self-financing (where possible)
ways in line with the culture and traditions of the human society that
creates the government.
6. Q. What about transport and slaughter?
A. Transport and slaughter regulation that protects human
health and
maintains animal health is a laudable and appropriate government task. But
here again, the initial high-sounding purpose masks a pernicious agenda.
When a Leftist Governor took over a strong dairy State recently, his animal
rights supporters and appointees had him close down 11 of the 13
slaughterhouses in the State. Ostensibly for "environmental"
reasons, the
real reason was to cripple the use of aging dairy cows and beef cattle for
human consumption and other products. Increased transportation costs to
more remote locations have crippled dairy farmers and closed many down.
In
a similar vein, the notion that slaughterhouse control achieves other
purposes has led to attempts for a national or federal law in the USA to ban
entirely ANY slaughter of any horse for any purpose. Campaigns to close
slaughterhouses have left only three in the USA that slaughter horses.
Formerly thousands of horses a year were used in the USA for mink and dog
food as well as exported to a thriving demand in Europe for human
consumption. The Animal Welfare advocates cite slaughter's
"cruelty" (more
so than other slaughter?), the fact that horses are not "inspected"
before
Europeans eat them (as if they care) and that there are "other"
animals for
feeding other animals. In fact it is the old, original Animal Welfare
coalition (in this case rich horse owners and radical socialist vegans) that
are orchestrating this "save the horses" campaign under the flag of
Animal
Welfare with purchased political support. Only this morning (this is all
too common in North American papers) I read a book review of "Chew on
This",
an anti-fast food book by Eric Schlosser meant to close McDonalds, Burger
King, etc. According to the author, these establishments "both
promote
dangerous working conditions at slaughterhouses and promote cruelty to
animals."
7. Q. What about zoos and wildlife refuges and parks?
A. First there are public and private zoos. Much of
the fuss about
animal conditions in certain public and private circumstances is generated
by the public zoos and their supporters and employees wanting to close all
other facilities. While the public zoo folks will work with animal
facilities that have government support the overall administration of
importation, export, and interstate commerce in animals should be a Federal
or national responsibility to facilitate human safety and the well-being of
the animal themselves. Facilities and standards otherwise should rest
with
State governments. People will avoid and complain about dirty or
dangerous
zoos and government will respond or fees will decline. Overpopulations
of
certain specimens or old individuals should not be treated as we used to
treat older human relatives but should be euthanized unhesitatingly for both
health and cost reasons. This means determined government action and
refuting emotional nonsense from the media, teachers, and other advocates.
Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and similar reservations are increasingly managed
as some sort of nature cartoon movie. Outright lies about how wolves
will
"control" certain animals (mostly they will eliminate them) and how
they
"don't" kill dogs or pose a threat to children and older people are
spread
by the same bureaucrats and professors that work to eliminate hunting and
trapping and fishing and logging and grazing (all renewable and sustainable
uses of these natural resources) on the same public lands. Our National
Park authorities have ignored vastly overabundant deer and elk herds that
have denuded all the vegetation up to six feet off the ground in the Parks
for decades. Recently, when the Federal government considered spending
millions to "fight Invasive Species" the Park authorities concocted
tale
after tale of how "Invasive Species" (both plant and animal) were
"denuding"
the Parks. It was all lies to get the money. When it was
"native" deer and
elk doing it and there was no new money, they could care less. Today,
they
spend millions having government "sharpshooters" kill a few deer and
elk
that doesn't even match their reproduction rates while refusing to even
consider hunters that PAY, hunt where and when told, and USE all of the meat
and parts and kill as many as you want, when you want. The lies and
distortions about euthanizing and lethally controlling populations and
species are greatly fostered and maintained by Animal Welfare claims and
distortions like "cruelty" and "unnecessary" that first
emerged to justify
"rescue" leagues and "shelter" funding.
8. Q. What about cosmetic surgery for animals?
A. If the owner wants it and the veterinarian will perform
it, what is
the problem? I had Dobermans when I was growing up. Like boxers,
who wants
a hard-boned tail on an excited dog swishing around a child's head or by
expensive antiques? Further if I want my Doberman's ears to be pointy,
why
is that anyone else's business? I respect a veterinarian that might
object
to such things but I would not use that vet after finding this out.
9. Q. What about "responsible" ownership in an urban environment?
A. Urban living always carries with it additional
requirements over
rural living. There are human health, animal disease, noise, and
nuisance
(smell, neighbor fears, etc.) considerations that should be the
responsibility of urban governments to employ regulations that address those
needs in line with the cultural traditions of each community.
Additionally,
recent years have seen an upsurge in instances of dogs attacking other dogs,
children, old people, and family members. Whether this is due to
breeding
(drug protection or personal protection in dangerous communities) or to
simply poor animal training and control by young and irresponsible owner is
debatable. Nevertheless, communities should employ all alternatives from
prohibitions of certain kinds of animals to restraints, licensing
requirements, and euthanasia. Animals are like vehicles. They are
owned by
citizens and simply because they are licensed or inspected by government
does not mean that these necessary government functions should be tools for
those opposed to vehicles to have them all taken away.
10. Q. What about the destiny of unwanted animals?
A. The past 20 years in the USA have witnessed
an explosion of "animal
rescue" and "animal shelter" societies, clubs, organizations,
and
governmental extensions of these mostly urban phenomena. The one thing
they
all have in common and advocate is "sheltering" animals and NOT
killing
them. This "No-Kill" attitude has spread to the response to
dangerous and
harmful wild animals and endangered animals and a sliding ladder of
"deserving" animals as exemplified by baby seals and whales and
elephants et
al. Unwanted animals and lost animals whose owners are unknown are a
large
financial burden to communities as well as nuisances, carriers of disease,
and a danger to humans. A modest timeframe to find a home or an owner
should be made by government to return animals when a fine or payment can be
made by the person that takes it. Private organizations should be encouraged
but their facilities should be no more of a nuisance than any other pet
ownership facility. Otherwise, problem animals roaming free and captured
animals should be killed or euthanized swiftly. When this is done fairly
and consistently, owners understand that they must contain their animals and
mark their animals and pay for damage the animal causes which in turn
creates "responsible ownership" and nuisance animal control in line
with
community resources and the good of the community.
11. Q. What about the bond between animals and man?
A. I am frequently accused of being
"cruel" and hard-hearted" and
"insensitive". For the record, when I recently had my
retriever euthanized,
I had tears in my eyes as I buried him. When I shot and buried a
retriever
pup because it had come down with distemper 50 years ago I likewise felt
very bad. That said, should the "bond" between rich, young
girls (many
horse owners are such in the USA) and their horse be a reason for ALL
horse-owners to be prohibited from selling old or unwanted and unmarketable
horses to a slaughterhouse? Should school children's letters to
government
to "save" all marine mammals based on pictures of baby seals be the
basis
for national policy? Should North American or European or for that
matter
South American residents be able to make their notions of African animals be
the basis for UN impositions on African communities that cause deaths from
crocodiles or elephants or leopards and destruction of crops by elephants
and deaths to untold numbers of humans from malaria that could be avoided by
the use of DDT? The answer is of course NO to all these things.
Once
mankind strived to form governments to protect them from others. Today,
too
often our task is to prevent government from being the tool of others who
would extinguish our freedoms and way of life every bit as thoroughly as the
barbarians and dictators of old.
12. Q. What about national and international associations for animal
protection?