The Uneasy Conscience of the Animal Rights Movement
Based in Massachusetts, USA, the author is a certified wildlife control professional, founder of Wildlife Damage Control, and former assistant editor of Wildlife Control Technology magazine.
A specter has arisen in the world striking terror in the hearts and minds of everyone who utilizes animals in a consumptive way. This relentless ghost seeks to haunt everyone in the animal trade. Words like Injustice, barbarism, inhumanity and immoral comprise the mantra it screams against all who disagree. His motto is, "It doesn't matter if they (animals) can reason but whether they can suffer." Nevertheless, like Paul Harvey, he cites numerous stories recounting the kindness of animals toward people such as dolphins saving a drowning swimmer and dogs calling 911. These anecdotes are presented as evidence for the reasoning power in animals and as reasoning creatures ourselves we should not kill or harm our animal relatives.
What lofty ideals? What can be more wonderful than the Edenic world to which this specter points? A world where the lion lays down with the lamb and where humans no longer use animals for their purposes.
Despite its utopian ideals, this specter hides a deep dark secret. It has a guilty conscience. It has a gnawing awareness that these lofty ideals are based on philosophical incongruities, cultural bigotry and carelessness with the facts. At worst it realizes that this utopian world is a siren's call leading to environmental chaos, if not a decline in human rights. I contend that the animal rights movement is morally hollow. We need not be terrorized by this specter rather we need to turn on the lights and exorcise it from our society.
The first problem that confronts the conscience of the Animal Rights Movement (hereafter AR) is its philosophical incongruities. While a coherent philosophical system doesn't prove that its correct, an incoherent system is surely false. AR proponents claim that humans commit the sin of speciesism if they believe that human concerns always have priority over the animals. They contend that it is arrogant to think that our needs and desires should take priority over other living, sentient, and sensitive beings, we call animals. "Since animals can suffer and feel pain, we should do all that we can not to cause or increase their pain and suffering "(Teraspulsky's addition- "unless it is in their best interest as well" e.g. surgery) (cf. Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation).
On the surface this moral stand sounds so reasonable. After all extending rights to animals is just another logical step in the long history of civil rights. Let us consider the thesis that humans are just another form of animal. The question that never seems to be asked is that if we are just another kind of animal then why can't we act like one? As I have written elsewhere , I have never seen a coyote worry about his exploitation of a deer fawn. The animals I encounter seem to take advantage of every opportunity afforded them. It would seem, however, that AR proponents want us to operate on a different moral plane than what appears to be found in nature. My question is, "Where do we find the commandments or the instructions by which to live in this new moral plane?" Can this moral doctrine be found in the theory of evolution? I doubt it. My understanding of evolution is that the fittest animals survive. Maybe it's just my interpretation but that sounds like a pretty violent and uncaring world to me. Another problem is if evolution gave us this moral code, why don't all humans automatically accept it? Could it be that some humans are more highly evolved than others? I thought only Hitler believed that.
Perhaps the AR people believe that this principle no longer applies to animals that have achieved self-awareness. Unfortunately for them, they have yet to explain the mechanics for this change and how this "live and let" theory came to be. Could it have come from the Christian doctrine of loving thy neighbor? This is very possible. Unfortunately, the God of Christianity, namely Christ, did the terrible thing of helping the disciples kill more fish (John 21:6). I should point out that AR allows the killing of animals for self preservation. Given that Jesus didn't need the fish to live, he could have chosen to be a vegetarian, His decision to help the disciples kill more fish undermines the AR position. At the very least, we now know that one cannot be a Christian and an AR at the same time.
The next question our ghost needs to answer is how does one properly walk the path of cruelty free living? Assuming that we don't want to be speciest, how does one properly adjudicate suffering claims made between a human and an animal? If we have to stop being speciest certainly there are guidelines to help us make non-speciest decisions. Take for example, the conflict between a town and the local beaver population. The town is suffering property damage due to flooding and tree cutting and now the water sources are in danger of beaver pollution. Beaver, on the other hand, have a moral right to eat to survive. The question that the animal rightists need to answer is, whose suffering is greater? Of course, AR will claim that the needs of both parties can be met as with beaver baffles etc. However, as the town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts discovered, AR (Specifically The Friends of Animals) are not too quick to help end human suffering. AR have also failed to provide moral justification for actions that resists the beavers innate desire to expand its territory. Who gives us the right to decide that a beaver only needs a certain depth of water?
A third incongruity stems from the way human moral freedom is restricted. AR allows the freedom of animals to eat other animals under the belief that this cruel activity is "natural/or necessary." Yet the human animal for some reason doesn't have the moral freedom to eat other animals. By moral freedom, I mean that it is morally justified or correct to do something. The difficulty with this position is how do the AR know that trapping is not a human instinct? Humans have been trapping crop damaging animals and otherwise utilizing animal flesh as far back as we can accurately see. One need only consider the prehistoric cave wall drawings in France (dated to 25,000 years ago) that depict human stick figures hunting and trapping animals that resemble deer. Granted history doesn't prove an activity morally correct, eg. Slavery. However just because something is traditional or ancient doesn't mean that it is wrong.
A fourth incongruity is how AR claim that their actions protect wildlife/animals. What is surprising about the pro animal rights agenda is that it has the opposite effect on the public. In areas where animal rights has created legal restrictions on wildlife use, people tend to view the protected animals no longer as valuable resources but as a pest species. Take N.J. for example where deer populations have exploded in one sanctuary causing a great deal of damage. One resident called the deer nothing more than rats with antlers. Given that the public still holds a speciest view about rats, I would surmise that to call a deer a rat means that deer have dropped in this persons value estimation. Of course, this change in the public's perception takes time. Nevertheless, the change does occur. The AR position fails to compensate for human self interest. Humans, on the whole, will always work for their self interest to the expense of animals. By providing financial or environmental reasons for protecting wildlife, traditional wildlife management utilized this human trait to benefit the species/environment. Landowners may tolerate a little more property damage knowing that a trapper would be legally able to remove the beaver during the coming season. Another benefit to waiting was that the resource would be utilized rather than wasted.
One more area of inconsistency in AR's pro-animal philosophy is that they conveniently forget how trapping predators such as fox, coyote, raccoon and mink actually helps the survival of various nesting birds, some of which are endangered. Footholds have been used to thin out predator populations so that prey populations could bounce back to a more secure population strength. Their gospel of "hands off the animals" ignores the fact that human activity impacts animal dynamics. They seem to assume that people are bad and animals are good. Thus the AR by the their actions are saying that some species are more important than others and therefore don't deserve our protection.
Another key reason why the AR movement has such an uneasy conscience rests on its inherent cultural bigotry. You may be shocked to think that people supposedly so kind and thoughtful could be considered culturally bigoted. But the fact remains that a consistent AR philosophy requires one to reject and condemn the lifestyles of native Americans or Faeroe Islanders. If killing animals is wrong, then these native cultures need to be prevented from killing animals. The irony for the AR movement is while they may admire the idea of harmony with Nature they cannot swallow the idea that harmony with Nature includes killing and eating it. I would even go so far as to suggest that not all the animals the Indians killed were for food. I believe that some of them were killed to demonstrate the bravery and skill of the warrior. Sure they were probably eaten, but that wasn't the primary purpose for the animal's death. I should also point out that I have yet to find an AR activist make his/her living off the land and live consistently with their radical AR agenda. It is more convenient to talk about animal rights while sitting aloft in the downtown penthouse of your law firm than it is from the window of your farm house.
Thus the AR philosophy undermines the legitimacy of the way of life for many indigenous cultures. Aboriginal peoples in North America rely on the fur trade or sea mammals to support their lifestyle Sure the Indians could find other work by moving to the city, but they don't want to. Let us remember the outrage over the Canadian seal hunt. At no point were these seals ever in danger of extinction. But that didn't concern the AR movement. They wanted to end the seal hunt because it was, in their words, "barbaric" to kill such a "cute" baby seal. Granted the killing method of choice, clubbing, is not pretty. However, would the AR people have permitted the seal hunt if the hunters used lethal injection? What was the result of this vicious campaign? Newfoundlanders lost their jobs and seal populations are now rising to dangerous levels. One could add even more examples from the vicious assaults on the livelihoods of the Icelandic peoples.
The final problem with the AR movement is the way they distort facts to support their causes. Considering its philosophical vagaries and inconsistencies coupled with their lack of public accountability, we shouldn't be too surprised. Nevertheless, we should highlight a few of their misleading characterizations of the facts. Consider how the AR movement portrays trapping. Trapping is presented as a blood sport where animals suffer in a seeming never ending torture. Time and time again they drag out photographs of some animal caught in a foothold which subsequently had to have its foot amputated. While I have not doubt that this tragic event does in fact happen, what they don't tell people is how often it happens with illegally set traps and/or unethical trappers. Their usual response is, "How would a legally set trap have prevented the damage?" The answer to that is simple. Legally set traps are checked at the required times, set in appropriate locations and baited with appropriate baits. Is this foolproof? No. But state laws and trapping ethics would significantly reduce the incidence. The problem is however, that the AR movement has a zero tolerance threshold. If it can happen once than that is unacceptable. Funny how they don't require veterinary workers to also abide by a zero pain tolerance. I have seen a veterinarian technician forced to inject a raccoon twice (in order to kill it) because she missed injecting the right spot the first time. Just because she tried to do a good job isn't enough. I know trappers try to do a good job but sometimes they make mistakes. Funny how one person is forgiven the other isn't.
Here in Massachusetts an organization called Pro-PAW (Protecting Pets and Wildlife) succeeded in banning all footholds. Due to the law's language the bill has even banned traps not even invented yet. Conibears can still be used but one must obtain a special permit before using them and then only after box traps have been tried for 15 days. The ostensible reason behind this attempt is to protect pets and wildlife from these so called cruel traps. Unfortunately for the AR, the litany of horror stories concerning the cruelty of footholds are largely based on situations resulting from the illegal use of footholds. By conveniently neglecting to mention this fact, the AR can demonize footholds. The same withholding of information holds true for their condemnation of conibears. Legally set conibears rarely caught domestic animals in this state. For prior to Question 1, Massachusetts law required that conibears be completely submerged in water or set in or under a building. This highly restrictive and now defunct law essentially prevented the capture of non-furbearers and also reasonably ensured a timely death for the animal. Again, in light of the law, one must conclude that their desire to restrict conibears stems not from a desire to protect animals from a prolonged agonizing death, but from a real desire to end fur trapping. Finally, the story of "Big Boy", a cat allegedly caught in a foothold as stated in the Spring issue of "Animal Action" published by the MSPCA and AHES, carefully omits any mention of whether or not the trap was set legally. It also fails to note that the cat wandering around outside was probably out marauding the local wildlife. If one really wanted to protect wildlife, Pro-Paw would petition for a leash law on cats in Massachusetts. According to Robert Else in his article in the April 1995 issue of Fur, Fish & Game, there are approximately 60 million cats on the prowl in the U.S. If these cats average one kill per week, they will have eliminated 240 million animals by the end of the month. (Even the Humane Society estimates that there are 40 million cat owners in the U.S.) In light of these horrific numbers, AR doesn't work to ban cats. Instead they work on public education, suggesting to people that they keep their cats indoors (see Shelter Sense, March 1995: Please note the palpable lack of any strident condemnations against people who let their cats roam outside. Compare that to literature published by AR against trapping). If prudence suggests that one work to save the most with the least, then the energy of the AR movement should be spent on leashing cats.
The irony of course is that these cats are little more than four legged hunters. They don't need the bird, the mouse or the vole. They simply kill for the fun of it and then go home and eat their Fancy Feast. By contrast, hunters tend to eat what they worked so long and hard to hunt and even pay for the privilege.
What I find particularly despicable is their neglect of how much foothold design and use has improved in the last 40 years. I am regularly reading about dog proof or dog resistant sets. How to modify traps to prevent/reduce animal pain and non target catches. Does the AR movement give any kudos to this information? No. They don't want to ban bad trapping they want to ban all trapping. They are like people who want to solve drunk driving by eliminating driving. What the AR people don't want the public to know is how much improved trapping is today. Most states require trapper education and have implemented 24 hour trap check rules. Improvements within the traps themselves have reduced foot damage (ie. Pain) and the resultant chew or wring outs. Trapper education through print and classroom instruction have reduced the gross excesses of the past. The irony is that sometimes trap technology has moved faster than State law and this results in more pain and suffering for the trapped animal. For example, Massachusetts didn't permit the use of snares. Too bad because snares can be designed to prevent non-target catches as well as lethal catches.
We must also recognize that the box trap is not painless for the animal. AR people talk about the box trap as if the animals don't suffer. They don't seem to tell the public that many box trapped animals suffer from nose burn, pelt damage, foot damage and even death from exposure. Of course, I haven't even begun to talk about the alleged psychological distress incurred by a caged animal. To suggest that box-trap-only-trapping will usher in an age of humane trapping is a myth. What is more humane: a 120 conibear over a squirrel hole in a house where it will die relatively quickly? or a box trap on the roof where it might freeze before I check it the next day? I asked that question of a high level official in the Humane Society. You know what his answer was? He said the homeowner should have made sure his house was secure enough to prevent the squirrel's access in the first place. I responded, well that didn't happen so which method is more humane? He didn't respond.
The AR movement often preaches that caring for animals leads to caring for humans. I have serious doubts about the validity of that belief. Hinduism tends to have a high view of animals. Yet, has this high regard for animals translated into compassion for humans? I don't think so. One could argue that the evidence leads in the exact opposite direction. The literally tens of thousands of dollars spent on pets in this country could be much better spent on feeding the hungry and housing the poor. Animal shelters, which expend vast amounts of resources on housing animals could be used to assist human needs. Also has the animal rights movement with its concern about suffering taken up the cause of the unborn? I would think that an unborn child at the sixth month of gestation would have developed a sufficient nervous system to feel the pain of the Abortionists knife/suction tube. But I guess the unborn child isn't a human or even an animal in their mind. The fetus' status must exist somewhere in that moral twilight zone known as "Choice".
A more sinister way that the AR movement mangles the facts stems around its pro vegetarian stance. Vegetarianism, they claim, will save the world from hunger . Various statistics are used to show that the grain used to feed cattle could feed many more people if it was given to people and not cattle. More could be fed if grazing pasture was converted to crop production. While the statistics don't lie they do hide some painful truths for the AR position. First, starvation is more complicated than just a supply problem. To suggest that people are starving because cattle are fed expensive grain is simply wrong. For example, the great Ethiopian Famine had more to do with the civil war than it did with lack of available food supplies. Second, cattle can be raised in areas that are too dry for crop production. One need only look at the Middle East, ie. Israel, to see how cattle can be raised in areas too arid for consistent raising of crops such as the Negev. Sure irrigation would solve the water problem but would only endanger the soil to salination. Animals also eat plants and waste that humans have not found a use for. Thus cattle production can actually increase the total food supply of the planet. Note I have not even talked about harvesting the oceans. Third, animal protein is the most efficient way of providing necessary amino acids to the body. Fourth, meat from game species, such as deer, pheasant, duck etc., is used by humans. These sporting activities not only provide food for the hunter/trapper but preserve the forest from destruction by the plow or the bulldozer. Fifth, aboriginal peoples in the High North also rely on sea mammals to fill an important part of their nutritional need sand the needs of their economy. Vegetarianism just won't work well for Eskimos. Finally, vegetarians conveniently forget how many animals farmers must kill to protect their vegetable crops. It seems that the vegetables of the vegan are watered by the blood of the crop damaging animals.
A final area where AR are loose with the facts is in wild animal management. In Massachusetts, Pro-Paw rejects the contention that banning footholds and conibears will increase the incidence of rabies. They argue that there is no scientific evidence to support the belief that trapping controls the spread of rabies. There are a couple of issues here. First, how does one define the term "scientific" and second is there a difference between the notion of the incidence of rabies and the spread of rabies? Let us address the last issue first. If the AR mean that trapping won't necessarily reduce the geographical spread of rabies, I would agree. Rabies first emerged in Massachusetts not on its Southern border but in the Northern town of Fitchburg. It turned out that raccoon were hitching rides on dump trucks in Connecticut and getting off at the dump in Fitchburg. I seriously doubt that trapping would have prevented this. However, if we desire to reduce the incidence of rabies in a given locale, I think it is very clear that trapping would assist in this regard. Reducing the numbers of animals by definition must reduce the number of potentially infected animals. Fewer animals mean fewer potential contacts with people. If you doubt this, then why is it that in 1994 we were picking up sick raccoons left and right and in 1995 it seemed the raccoons disappeared. Rabies so ravaged the population that there were very few raccoons left. Only in 1996-7 am I beginning to see resurgence in the raccoon population.
As for the first issue, it boils down to what one considers scientific and scientifically proven. Unlike physics, biology is a soft science. There are many factors and issues that will affect a particular study. However, that doesn't mean that knowledge isn't gained or that conclusions can't be supported. It means that different people can arrive at different conclusions. Yet I would remind the AR people that Biology in regards to animal management can never be an armchair science. State biologists must respond to present problems. The farmer, the homeowner etc. cannot just wait around for years for all the evidence to come in. He needs to solve an animal damage problem now. These problems need to be handled in a cost effective way. Traditionally animal damage problems have been solved by using a free labor force that actually pays for the privilege to help, we call them sportsmen. While the facts may not all be in. I do believe that history has shown that management has worked for game and non-game species as well. The AR should spend more time in the field doing research than in court seeking injunctions. It would even help if they would set aside some of their millions and buy a couple acres of land for conservation purposes. Being the animal killer that I am, it would seem that having open space for the animals to live sounds like a pretty humane thing to do. But I am probably wrong since the AR groups don't spend their money that way.
My last criticism of the AR movement is over their perpetual argument that hunting deer etc. only increases the problem. They consistently argue that reducing herd numbers in various sanctuaries will only cause the remaining deer to rebound with greater fertility and therefore greater numbers. I guess this is why we shouldn't swat mosquitoes, because we will only reduce the population thereby making them return in greater numbers next year. Aside from the counterintuitive nature of the AR argument, it does have some evidence to support it. If animal populations are not reduced sufficiently enough, then they will rebound back with a vengeance. This fact, however, doesn't prove the AR point. All we need to do is to make sure that the deer population is significantly reduced to prevent this massive rebound. Second, the initial thinning still benefits the land by reducing the pressure on the indigenous plant life. I always find it amazing that AR people never seem to complain about animals starving. It is only when they are hunted or trapped does a moral problem arise. Third, hunting/trapping regulations ensure the propagation of the targeted species. Biologists want the excess removed not the stock. Seasons are typically set when the animals are not raising young. If significant population reduction was desired then a simple change in the season dates would easily solve this problem.
My contempt for the animal rights movement flows from a realization that their concern is only to stop any and all use of animals for human consumption. All the talk about pain and suffering is only a smoke screen. If people want to help me capture animals in a way that is effective and causes less injury to the animal, I am more than willing to listen. I don't get up in the morning saying, "How can I make an animal suffer today?!" I make my money solving human conflicts with animals. But the fact is, trapping will never be painless. The issue is whether the suffering is appropriate given our present knowledge and skill and is it justified for the activity. I believe that humans can morally consume animals. Once that is understood, the issue changes to how can I best use this animal resource? Until the AR movement changes its stance from non use to wise use, it will continue to have an uneasy conscience.
One final note, it is obvious to any casual observer that I have painted the AR movement with some very broad strokes. The reader should realize that individuals under the umbrella of the AR movement will be followers of differing degrees and stripes. My purpose behind this article is to attack the leadership and the essential philosophical and religious underpinnings of this movement. It is the leadership and their ideas which are the most culpable. It is their ideas that should be resisted at all costs. In closing, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: the animal rights movement is first and foremost a movement of faith. Anti's adopt their views because of a religious transformation. They cannot prove with scientific certainty that it is morally wrong to consume animals, any more than I can prove it is correct. Our positions result from prior religious convictions. One can never compromise with these people. I categorically reject the notion that what is needed is more dialogue. AR activists will not dialogue as demonstrated by their actions in Massachusetts and elsewhere. They had the opportunity to discuss ways to reduce animal suffering with me and other problem animal controllers and trappers. Speaking for myself, I was never contacted. Only after they rammed this law down our throats did one of them say we should talk. The talk is over until the AR movement changes its position to being one of animal welfare that assures the rights of humans to utilize animal resources. This debate is nothing short of a struggle for the hearts and minds of the public. Let us never forget that.
Back to Animal Rights / Home