People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which claims to be the largest animal rights organization in the world with more than 800,000 members as of 2005, operates under the motto "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." Implementation of this motto would mean the elimination of all commercial animal operations—livestock and fur farms, animal research facilities, circuses, zoos, animal parks and aquariums, game ranches, hunting lodges, animal breeding facilities, pet stores, dog and horse racetracks, and so on. All of the people working in these businesses would be put out of work. The economic consequences would be enormous. Animal rights advocates point out that dismantling the slave trade after the Civil War was costly too, but it was done anyway because it was the right thing to do.
Besides an economic cost, there would be a scientific cost. Medical and scientific research has relied on animal test subjects for centuries. Some research and development would have to stop until alternatives could be found. Students in schools and universities would have to learn anatomy and biology without dissecting animals. Doctors, surgeons, and veterinarians in training would have to practice on something besides animals. Cloning, twinning, and other genetic manipulation of animals would have to stop. Eliminating the use of animals would disrupt the entire scientific community. Animal rights activists believe the move is overdue because it would force scientists to think about their research in new ways. Many school districts have already implemented alternatives to animal dissection, including computer models that accurately mimic animal bodies.
There are also implications to private individuals in terms of dining, fashion, sport, recreation, and leisure. None of these activities could include personal use of animals. Hunting, fishing, eating meat, wearing leather, and keeping pets would come to a stop. The activity that would affect the most Americans would be the elimination of meat and animal products (milk, eggs, cheese, etc.) from their diet. A Time /CNN poll published in July 2002 found that 4% of the respondents considered themselves vegetarians ("Should We All Be Vegetarians?" Time, July 15, 2002). Of those, 5% were vegans (people who eat no animal products). In other words, less than 1% of those surveyed avoided all animal products in their diets. Most animal rights advocates and liberationists are vegetarians or vegans. They believe that a vegetarian diet would not only help animals but would be healthier for humans and better for the environment.
Opponents of rights for animals are always eager to point out that keeping pets would be forbidden if animals had rights. PETA cofounder Ingrid Newkirk has been quoted as saying that pets are a symbol of the human manipulation of animals, and the notion of pets should be phased out. This idea is controversial even within the animal rights community because it is so radical. Many people involved in both the animal rights and the animal welfare movements refer to pets as "companion animals" and to owners as "animal guardians" or "animal caretakers." These terms are intended to downplay the ownership element between humans and animals.
Legally, most animals are considered property. In fact, the word "cattle" was derived from a Latin word meaning property. However, pets are gaining some legal status. According Rebecca J. Huss, between 12% and 27% of American pet owners have provisions in their wills for their pets ("Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companion Animals," University of Colorado Law Review, July 2003). As of 2005, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) recognized specific bequests to pets.
In 2000 Tennessee became the first state in the country to allow owners to sue for loss of love and affection if a pet is wrongfully killed. The Animal Legal Defense Fund helped the legislature draft the bill that was passed. It allows damages of up to $4,000 for the death of a pet assuming certain conditions are met—for example, if the person causing the death was negligent. Although many lawsuits are filed around the country seeking recovery of emotional distress damages for loss or injury of a companion animal, most are thrown out because of the legal precedent that animals are property.
Still, lawyers report many more cases involving animal law today than in the past. Some state bar associations have formed animal law sections to deal with the increase. The Washington State Bar Association has such an organization. The summer 2003 issue of its newsletter described the spectrum of animal law cases:
Legal disputes over pets arise in actions involving dissolution of property or custody agreements, nuisance actions, assistance animal privileges, cruelty allegations, landlord-tenant contracts, police or dog warden brutality, airline negligence, veterinary malpractice and, in the area of wills, trusts and estates.
In the same publication, legal scholar Carolyn Matlack suggested that companion animals receive a new property classification under the law—sentient property (feeling property). Matlack argued that courts could determine the best interests of sentient property based on the testimony of experts, as is done for young children and the mentally disabled.
Even wild animals are categorized by ownership. Private landowners assume power of ownership over wild animals on their land. As long as the animals are not protected by specific legislation, property owners may kill them as they please. Wild animals inhabiting government lands are considered public property and are treated as such. Consider the mission statement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): "To conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."
Public and private landowners exhibit implied animal ownership when they grant hunters permission to hunt on lands under their control. If these animals are assumed to have moral rights, then they can no longer be considered property.
Many animal welfarists are uneasy with the animal rights movement. They worry that it draws attention away from goals that are more easily obtainable for animals in the near future. They also worry that the radical statements and actions of some animal rights activists will turn the public against the entire animal movement. Radical animal rights activists have been known to demonstrate in the nude, splash paint on people wearing fur coats, and destroy and vandalize property. Many have spent time in prison for their actions.
Although welfarists and liberationists/abolitionists sometimes work together to achieve change, there is a philosophical gulf between them. This was made clear by animal rights advocate Joan Dunayer in her 2004 book Speciesism. Dunayer supports the idea that humans and animals should have "absolute moral equality." In her book she accused animal rights groups of compromising their beliefs by campaigning for "welfarist" reforms in animal treatment, rather than complete liberation. Dunayer compared the plight of animals to that of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, arguing that the prisoners would have begged their supporters on the outside to work for liberation rather than more humane living conditions or kinder slaughtering techniques.
Abolitionists ask welfarists to give up meat and leather; close down all circuses, zoos, animal parks, aquariums, and racetracks; and stop laboratories from using animals. Most welfarists are not willing to go so far, preferring to focus on finding practical solutions to problems such as pet overpopulation and cruelty to domestic animals.
At the other end of the spectrum is the radical element of the animal movement. This element does not debate philosophy but takes direct action—some-times illegally—to free animals from farms and laboratories. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is not really a group, as it has no leadership structure, but is instead a set of guidelines. On its Web site in 2005, ALF's mission was listed as "The … short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. [The] long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business." The Web site also states that any vegan or vegetarian who carries out actions according to ALF guidelines can regard themselves as part of the ALF. These actions include liberating animals from "places of abuse" and inflicting "economic damage" on the people involved. ALF followers are urged to take precautions to prevent harming humans and animals. ALF receives funding from the ALF Supporters Group, made up of people who believe in the ALF guidelines but do not want to be involved in criminal activities.
User Comments Add a comment…