I have long been concerned with the balance between peoples needs and animal welfare. I believe in the humane treatment of animals, but I also feel animals are a "resource" humans should be able to use. Obviously, this statement is inherently conflicting, so please allow me to explain - as briefly as I may.
I feel people should not harm animals "for entertainment", for example dog fights, cock fights, etc. These acts, to me, are wrong and inhumane.
I have no problem with a family going out to hunt their favorite "game", as long as they are responsible and use the meat, pelts, etc. gained from the hunt. I find it disgusting when I come across a dead animal, who has been shot for the "mere fun of it" and left to die. I see this as a waste of food and fur, which could have been a valuable resource to a person in need.
I pause when animal rights come into conflict with economic benefits of people. This is a huge issue and one of the most controversial. For example, I love my dog, Dharma. She is a Boxer and is one of my best friends. I got her from the City of Neosho Animal Shelter ten years ago. I saved her from being euthanized. No one benefited economically from me getting her. However, if a dog breeder raises a puppy and a person wishes to purchase this dog somewhere - I see no problem with this - as long as the puppy is properly cared for and humanely raised.
I have no problem with Farmers raising pigs, goats, chickens, cows, etc. for human consumption. Animals were placed on Earth by God, for his "people". The Bible has many references to animals being consumed by man. I see this as a natural layer on the food chain.
I hold another controversial position, in that I have no problem with animals being used in research that can and most likely will save human life, even if some pain is inflicted on the animal. Now, with this said, I am not advocating "unnecessary" pain be placed on any animal. Rather, my position is this: if a person has cancer (for example) and this cancer could be cured by injecting an animal with the disease to find ways to defeat it - I find that acceptable. This must be done in a valid scientific manner, by properly educated individuals. Many people would disagree with me here, but I ask you to be totally honest - if giving a disease to an animal could save YOUR sick child - would you feel differently? If you would feel differently - were it YOUR child - deep down - you agree with me!
I could go on about this topic for a long time, but for now........I will pause here and encourage you to leave your comments below. I am particularly interested in opposing view points. Heck, I will even publish a post from someone with PETA if you are brave enough to accept my reply! BUT, as always - there is one RULE here - IF WE CAN'T AGREE - LET'S AT LEAST BE CIVIL!
From Matt Persinger - "I did not read this full article, but I have an idea of where it's going. I love virtually all animals, jess even more than myself, it makes me sick to see people abuse & neglect animals!
ReplyDeleteBut....groups like PETA & HSUS are going to ruin Am...erica & are going to make it to where NOBODY can afford to eat, have pets or have livestock!"
From Aaron Gooch - "Peta is a joke...hypocrites."
From Beth Ann Neff - "What Aaron said!"
From Christi David - "I think that testing on animals is certainly not a pretty thing, but watching a loved one suffer and die because science cannot test is the flip side. As long as testing is done as humanely as possible we needs to realize its neccessity. ...People who complain about it benefit from it every day by.their immunizations they received, pesticide safety of their food they ingest, safe over the counter prescriptions most use, prescribed medicines and not necessarily safety, but the makeup, lotions and soaps they use.
Now all that being pointed out, let me bring up and even more sad side of animals vs humans that I find ironic .... If you abuse an animal , it is taken for good for the protection of the animal and its rights... You don't get it back to abuse anymore, BUT you can abuse your children and get them back again and again until the most dire situation. Whose rights are more protected there?
I have 6 kids and 3 dogs...I love them all. My kids would ALWAYS come first ! And yes, as much as I love animals, I feel it is necessary. When any of us take our beloved animals to the vet to stay healthy, those dog immunizations, medicines, food, flea prevention....all had to be tested for safety as well!"
From William Joseph Paul Doubek - "You know I was K-9. During Vietnam, the vet ordered us to stop feeding the dogs c-rations because it was making them sick. When I asked about us, he said we could be replaced with the draft. The dog was more important!"
Bill, that is amazing! Matt, Aaron, Beth Ann, and Christi - thanks for your input
ReplyDeleteSteve I still cannot believe this was passed by the people. Animals should never be abused, but animals also do not have "rights". They are here for our use. Not too mention this was probably the worst possible time to damage a profitable industry in our state.
ReplyDeleteRyan, thanks for your input!
ReplyDeleteAaron Gooch said, "Go to google videos and watch penn & teller bullshit video on Peta. It is an eyeopener and hilarious."
ReplyDeleteAaron, I went to youtube and watched the video! It is excellent. Warning to others, the language in the video is graphic and crude. Also, there are graphic images of animals in the video.
ReplyDeleteBUT, with these warnings mentioned - the video is actually something people should watch.
The first in the series of three videos may be found at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-dCx4&feature=related
The other two videos are linked off of this one. Should be easy to follow. Videos document PETA's involvement with Terrorists. Check it out! I am still waiting for someone to debate the other side of this issue with me!
If we can't agree - Let's at least be Civil!
For my part, I think that how humans treat animals reflects on our cultural advancement. The more humanely we treat animals, the more humanely we are apt to treat other humans. For example, in less developed nations, animals are merely seen as a resource to be exploited and often times that's how they view their human population. But in developed nations, animals have, for some people, replaced having children, becoming irreplaceable members of the family. The more we can care for a non-sentient creature, the more compassionate we are likely to be overall.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for the proposition in Missouri, I think it's a good step. Animals do deserve "rights" just as humans do. And puppy mills are a pandemic that needs to be eradicated. Even humane puppy mills are still exacerbating the problem of animal overpopulation. Until every shelter dog has a forever home, I don't think puppy mills should be allowed to indiscriminately breed animals. Exercising some legislative control over animal breeders is certainly a good step in curbing the numbers of unwanted animals. And for the government's part, this proposition was probably in response to trying to decrease the thousands of dollars spent every year on investigating puppy mill abuse, seizing animals, caring for the animals and then placing them in homes.
The bigger issue that I'm passionate about is the legal and illegal wild animal trade. Missouri is actually one of the top states in the wild animal trade. It's a disgusting practice selling wild animals as pets or, more often, for private wild game hunts. Steve, I'm sure you're familiar with a certain panther that had to be shot by a deputy because it was trying to get into a house. Chances are very great that that animal had been an illegally obtained "pet" until it became too much to handle and then was set free to roam. The basic fact is that we humans CANNOT control wild animals. Nor should we. The process of domestication takes thousands of years, but in typical human superiority, we think we can make a pet of a chimp, wolf or a wild cat straight from the wild. It's not possible and it puts humans and animals at risk.
I don't agree with the methods that PETA and some other animal rights activists use. However, I do occasionally feel the need to beat some sense into the heads of people over how animals should be treated, so I guess I can empathize. However, I do believe that people have a responsibility to care for nature and animals. We’ve encroached on their territories. Our very existence has led to the extinction of hundreds of breeds of animals. For the religious, causing the extinction of one of God’s creatures should be the highest form of blasphemy.
Ultimately, animals will always be a natural resource that humans will use. Hunting and raising livestock is necessary. Having pets is necessary. What is not necessary is abusing or exploiting animals because we are either to lazy or callous to care otherwise.
Jennifer, Thanks so much for your view point! I don't agree with the way in which the term, "puppy mill" is used by you or the way it was used in the ballot language; however, I respect your opinion! "Puppy mills", as I envision them, are bad and never a good place to "raise" animals. I am against "Puppy Mills" and advocate for all legal remedies to rid our Nation of them. I don't want to see the term used against "good breeders" though and there are good breeders.
ReplyDeleteAs for your statement about adopting animals from shelters before we continue buying dogs from breeders, I have no opposition to this - expect to say - I believe in the free market and dislike Government restrictions on business. With that said, I would encourage anyone looking for a new "furry family member" to visit their local shelter - FIRST!!!