tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2528682233619448192.post3287644067886292785..comments2024-03-18T05:13:44.778-04:00Comments on Tales, Tails and Feathers of New York -- PCA: By Their Own Free Will -- Animal RightsPCAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17396232670224427135noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2528682233619448192.post-89820447239724674292014-10-27T18:35:03.169-04:002014-10-27T18:35:03.169-04:00Thank you again, Doug, for thoughtful comment wort...Thank you again, Doug, for thoughtful comment worthy of reflection and response.<br /><br />Once again, there is agreement that some in AR do not think in curves and rather draw bright, red lines of absolutes.<br /><br />As you point out correctly, this may be interesting in terms of intellectual reflection (or demands for "purism") but can be very damaging, both in practical terms and gaining support from people in the middle who otherwise are sensitive to actual animal abuse and seek mitigation, if not complete elimination of it.<br /><br />On the most pressing and egregious animal abuse issue(factory farming), were everyone to cut back on meat and dairy consumption, it would force change on the industries that the public is not supporting with purchase dollars, this type of tyranny inflicted on billions of sentient beings. To some degree, this is already happening as witness the rise of "free range" and "humanely raised" animal products over the past couple of decades, as well as wider availability of delicious vegetarian options to meat and dairy. Is it enough? No. But it is slowly going in the right direction.<br /><br />Hopefully, the eventual goal is to lesson the demand for animal products so much that laws can finally be enacted that cover ALL animals under current animal welfare/protective laws and create newer and even stronger laws.<br /><br />As for all those issues in the middle of bell curve, I think we first need to draw distinction between those practices "using" animals such as dogs or horses for some reciprocol task and those activities designed to result in an animal's death, such as hunting.<br /><br />It is true that hunting itself presents its own bell curves such as you allude to. There is regulated hunting for "food" and there is hunting for trophy, "contests" and canned shoots in which the target animals have virtually NO chance of escape and are rarely utilized for anything.(Examples, "pigeon, coyote or squirrel shoots.")<br /><br />As an Animal Rights proponent, I personally don't support activities that result in deaths of animals as I believe that primary among the "rights" for animals, is the right to continue living (assuming they are not posing direct threat to humans or suffering untreatable disease or injury). <br /><br />But, for those supporting animal welfare more over "animal rights" perse, it is hoped we could agree on and work towards the elimination of the most egregious and indefensible forms of hunting as described above. <br /><br />As far as "working animals," I am inclined to agree with you for the reasons you describe -- specifically, animal/human connection and bond.<br /><br />However, it is important to point out that in any activity that benefits from the use or "work" of animals, great responsibiity falls on both animal stewards and law makers to ensure the animals are properly protected from abuse under the protocols of both,legal regulations and human decency.<br /><br />Personally, I support working carriage horses in NYC because of the laws and regulations overseeing their protection and propoer care, as well as observations that the horses are loved, appear to be at ease with their work and seem to enjoy human interactions.<br /><br />Moreover, as one who considers life to be primary among rights for animals, the reality in the modern world is that there is usually a grim future for horses without jobs. It should not, in my view, be a "goal" of AR to add more domestic animals to the lists of the already homeless whose lives are in peril for lack of caring and responsible humans to oversee their well being. <br /><br /><br /><br />PCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17396232670224427135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2528682233619448192.post-61285003434513719772014-10-27T11:34:56.867-04:002014-10-27T11:34:56.867-04:00Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure the disagr...Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure the disagreement is as sharp as suggested. Didn't mean to suggest that animals don't appreciate a comfortable life over a horrific one. <br /><br />My first entaglement with the confused AR "cause" led me to pose what I thought was a rhetorical question to counter the "use is wrong" contingent (carriage horses being the issue of the day): if that's correct, I asked, then why is it okay to have a dog?<br /><br />I was startled to hear that the answer according to some was "it's not okay." Maybe that is the official AR position; if it is then the cause, as with extremism generally, is doomed.<br /><br />In the comment you reply to here, I suggested a spectrum of animal use intended to represent extremes on either side and some grayer issues. It is not complete of course. Circus animals, responsible hunting for personal consumption, competition level frisbee dogs, lots of things along a bell curve. I was hopeful that there would be wide agreement on the extremes and expected disagreement at some points near the middle. It's up to AR to decide its identity I guess. We'll see.<br /><br />Current AR doesn't think in curves; the "wrongness" line is bright and vertical. I think that however intellectually interesting that is a practical mistake and risks distracting from addressing problems now that are easily agreed upon as such.<br /><br />An important step in that is to knock off the maligning of working and companion animals, and their human stewards. It's alienating,annoying and disregards the reality that animals and humans form connections of reciprocal (which doesn't mean equal) and mutual benefit and happiness.<br /><br />Doug from the Gold Country CaliforniaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com