Animal Rights, Animal Welfare or Animal Justice?

A carriage driver in NYC with his horse.

One thing occurring to me over the past couple of days is the misfortune of the controversial carriage horse issue in New York City, pitting animal lover against animal lover; animal rights advocate against animal welfare advocate.

.

The conflict places me in a weird position personally, as I have always considered myself to be more animal "rights" than welfare per se. But, now I am not so sure.  The welfare of humans, children and animals is important.  But, so are intrinsic rights.  Why should there be disparity between the two?

.

I'm not sure I recognize much in the Animal Rights movement anymore. -- Or, what it has seemed to morphed into.

.

A movement not so much based upon protecting and the saving of animal lives, but in some ways, one that is simply opposed to any human "use" of animals.

.

But, as previously touched upon, is all "use" inherently bad?  Humans use each other positively in work relationships, friendships and even marital partnerships. Animals use each other in flocks, herds and packs.  Animals of different species even use each other cooperatively for mutual benefit and in some cases, survival that is separate from mere predator/prey relationships.

.

Technically, the relationship we have with companion pets can also be described as "use" as both, humans and animals benefit. The human benefits from the companionship, pleasure and unjudgmental affection a pet provides. And the animal benefits from being provided with safety, shelter, food, love and medical care. Such are reciprocal relationships. Or, to say it another way: "One hand washes the other and both hands wash the face."

.

I look at the carriage horses of Central Park and I see what mostly appears as a reciprocal relationship. The horses provide a pleasant service to humans (carriage rides through the park). In exchange for their work and services, the horses are provided with food, shelter, safety from predation, vet care, affection, stimulation and even love. These are not a "paycheck" per se. (What would an animal do with a paycheck?)  But, they are some of the things that a paycheck for a human would typically purchase and provide.

.

Why is that "abuse?" (If it is, then are not all human work associations "abuse?")  If some answer that carriage horses "don't have a choice" well, neither do companion pets. Their human caregivers control their lives and make most important decisions for them.

.

The use of horses for carriage rides (unlike many other uses of animals) doesn't involve infliction of pain, force (such as whippings), deprivation or an end goal of "product" and killing (such as for meat or animal skins).

.

While the term, "abuse" is derived from "use" and use can certainly descend into abuse, the two words are very different with one being primarily constructive and one being destructive. (I however believe most meat, fish and dairy production to be abusive as animals are not only killed, but most often tortured and deprived before early death. I believe meat and most fish and dairy consumption contributes to and supports animal suffering and abuse as well as it contributes to degradation of the planet.)

.

I obviously have a problem with some Animal Rights philosophy opposing all "use" of animals on its face.

.

Such philosophy dismisses entirely, situations of animal/human bonding and connection and animals actually making free choice to engage with humans.

.

The video below of a wild sea lion chasing a speed boat and jumping in to partake of a fish is just one example out of millions of this "animal/human connection/use" and self chosen engagement:

.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=792844407447686&pnref=story

.

But, what about the carriage horses?  Would they choose to pull carriages filled with people through a park, if asked?

.

It is doubtful how many humans would "choose" waiting tables over vacationing in the Bahamas if given any desire they wish. But, most people have to work a job to keep a roof over their heads. (And most people derive needed sense of purpose and accomplishment from work.)

.

It seems most domestic horses do, too.

.

Moreover, I am not convinced that most horses (like most humans) would want to spend their days just idling around doing nothing.

.

Purpose and duty are important to virtually all animals, including horses and humans. (Certainly purpose, duty and role are important to the geese and ducks observed over the past few years. -- They live for those.)

.

As far as jobs for horses, pulling a carriage through Central Park might be considered one of the easier and less risky jobs.  And there are "fringe benefits" such as lots of attention from humans (which the horses seem to enjoy) and regular treats.  

.

But, perhaps the greatest reason for my personal support of the carriage horses in NYC is the general awareness of the safety net that the jobs provide for horses who are otherwise displaced or up for sale. The overbreeding of horses in this country leaves too many, too often without any homes and vulnerable to "killer buyers."

.

Put simply, I do not support anything that ultimately results in more animals dying or being sent to slaughter (and a ban on NYC carriage horses would eventually result in just that). I believe that primary among "rights" for animals dependent upon humans is the right to continue living as all animals jealousy guard and value their lives above all else -- just as humans do. It is human duty and responsibility therefore, to properly care for those animals we have created and made dependent upon us -- even if that means humanely working with them for the benefit of both, human and animal.

.

So, is such Animal Rights or Animal Welfare position?

.

Frankly, I like to think of it as an Animal Justice position.

.

All things considered, I think its what the animals would ultimately choose for themselves -- something that incorporates the best from both, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                            ********

"All That is Nice to Soon Be No More"

Central Park carriage horse. Nice, but he won't win you a trophy.

Canada goose, Boat Lake in Central Park. Nice, but considered, "nuisance."

Banner in Central Park.

Another CP banner.

Central Park, apparently one big, treadmill.

Below is a news video from Indiana showing ("Get the Flock Out") Geese Police in action to get rid of "fowl visitors."  (Geese Police has also been operating in Central Park, New York City over the past several years.)

.

http://www.wthr.com/story/27295127/2014/11/05/only-in-indiana-geese-police-patrol-ponds-for-fowl-visitors

.

Toward the end of the video, we are told, "They're so good, they are putting themselves out of work!"

.

But, of course, it isn't really Geese Police "putting themselves out of work."  They are merely a disbursement tool.

.

Rather, it is the wildlife policies of cities, states and communities that will eventually make Geese Police a tool of the past. -- Policies of expanded hunting and wildlife "culls."  

.

In New York for example, hundreds of thousands of geese have been shot by hunters over the past several years and more than five thousand NYC geese rounded up and slaughtered by USDA "Wildlife Services."

.

Thus, Geese Police in Central Park has very little actual "work" to do anymore. Though Geese Police still patrols CP everyday, even they don't bring out the dogs to harass the family of four geese at the Boat Lake or the couple of geese who might wander into Harlem Meer on occasion.

.

It is in fact, surprising that Geese Police is still employed in Central Park considering the severely anemic number of resident geese there. Apparently, they are engaged in Central Park now to ensure that the migratory geese don't get chance to rest on any of the park's lakes or ponds. This is truly a sad reflection on our city's (and Central Park's specifically) intolerance for any wildlife -- even that simply passing through during migration seasons and seeking brief rest.

.

(On the latter note, it is interesting to observe that virtually all migratory geese passing through Central Park over the past few years, stop to rest at the Jackie Onassis Reservoir -- the one watercourse, they are not harassed because of lack of access. This is seeming testimony to the intelligence and memory of Canada geese to learn and adapt quickly. Very few migratory geese actually stop at the other CP watercourses anymore. -- Perhaps something Geese Police should be worried about as there truly is no "need" for them anymore. -- Add Geese Police to upcoming unemployment lines)

.

In yesterday's blog entry, I mentioned mute swans who used to live in Central Park, but exist no more there.

.

The last swan, "Hector" was in fact, harassed out of Central Park a year ago, last April. Its not clear if it was all the fishing occurring at Harlem Meer at the time or Geese Police that ultimately forced Hector out after he had spent the entire winter at the Meer. Likely, it was a combination of both.

.

But, the bottom line is that Hector has never been seen since.

.

All that was nice and is no more.

.

Also mentioned in yesterday's blog entry is the fact that a bill was passed by the state legislation to protect mute swans (for two years) from the state's intent to "eradicate" all of them by 2025. But, the bill has failed to be signed into law by Governor Cuomo.

.

Sadly, in NYC, most of the focus on animal issues has been directed towards the non-issue of carriage horses. (Apparently, geese, swans and other wildlife can go to hell -- which is exactly what's happening. Our city shelter system is also a mess, but apparently dying dogs and cats don't matter either.)

.

One suspects that the main reason carriage horses have been so fiercely targeted in NYC is because the horses are highly visible and easily accessible for endless "protests" (unlike most situations of actual animal abuse). The carriage industry is comparatively small and horse drivers and owners are not heavily financed or politically connected. (e.g "soft target")  Moreover, one could argue (or rather whine and complain) that a horse carriage ride through Central Park is "not necessity."

.

Rather, a horse carriage ride through Central Park is simply nice. 

.

Just like seeing swans, geese and other wildlife in Central Park is simply nice -- but also not necessity.

.

And perhaps in the end, that is what all these conflicts eventually boil down to: 

.

When is it appropriate to throw out all that is nice in favor of that which is convenient, sterile, inanimate, trophy driven or manufactured (can one say, "E-cars")?

.

In recent weeks, banners have been hung all around Central Park celebrating "your moment" as represented by marathon runs, bicycling and other forms of exercise.  -- As if the park was nothing more than one big, outdoor gym. (This is a bit ironic considering two people killed by speeding cyclists in CP over the past few months and dozens of others injured.)

.

But, there are no banners celebrating the "unnecessary" geese, swans or carriage horses.

.

They apparently have nothing to offer but niceness.

.

Yesterday, I talked with my friend, Liliana who is as much an "animal nut" as I. Liliana loves all animals and is disheartened seeing so much of the wildlife disappear or be harassed and/or eggs destroyed at Central Park.  She is also distressed about the campaign to "rid" Central Park of its beautiful carriage horses.

.

"Are we going to pet or give carrots to an ugly car?" she asked.

.

Good question.

.

I suggested to Liliana that if she wants to engage with or enjoy very alive carriage horses, she had better do it soon.

.

 "Because, just like the swans and geese, all that is simply nice is soon to be no more." -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                 *************

                                                            *********

Paving the Literal Road for Horses (Beauty vs.The Beast)

A safe clip clop through Central Park or a road to...?

"They don't belong in the city." "They stink up and contaminate the park."  "They represent danger."  "They need to be removed and replaced."

.

Are the above inflammatory charges against Canada geese or other wildlife in city parks?  Are they accusations by government bureaucracy, extermination companies or people who just don't like animals?

.

No and no.

.

Rather, they are charges against Central Park carriage horses. And they are alleged by people portending to champion "Animal Rights" and speak for the horses!

.

But if horses could speak, it is doubtful they would be pleased or agree with the derogatory and false charges against them.  Nor, one supposes, would they want to be banished from the life and people they have come to know and the security that keeps them safe from auctions and killer buyers.

.

Holistic Horse - Last Chance for Camp Horses

.

Nevertheless, the push to "rid" New York City of its beloved carriage horses and "replace" them with huge, ugly "E-cars" continues as witness this recent media and AR hype:

.

https://www.thedodo.com/horse-ecarriage-unveil-nyc-801304439.html

.

Personally speaking, I want to gag every time I see these hideous monstrosity "cars" and consider they might be added to already overly-congested Central Park as represented by thousands of regular cars, speeding bicycles, pedicabs and seemingly endless marathons.

.

But that they are being touted to replace beautiful, vibrant, majestic and very much living carriage horses is insult that is almost too painful to bear and nearly beyond belief. 

.

It was less than a decade ago, when Central Park was home to hundreds of geese and ducks and even a number of mute swans. People were also regularly observed riding horses on the bridal path. And of course, the carriage horses have been a mainstay of Central Park since the park was built in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

.

But, in the wake of the "Miracle on the Hudson" in 2009 (which involved migratory, not "resident" geese), thousands of resident Canada geese have been rounded up from city parks (and even a wildlife "refuge") and either gassed or slaughtered with the excuse that they "may" represent "danger" to airliners. Remaining and surviving geese in city parks (including Central Park) have been endlessly harassed to the point we can now count resident CP geese in single digits.

.

The swans have long since vanished from Central Park (probably due to the year-round goose harassment which also discourages duck numbers). Moreover, there is presently a stated goal by the Department of Environmental Conservation to "eradicate" all wild mute swans in New York State by 2025 under the guise that the swans are "invasive." (There is presently a bill on Governor Cuomo's desk that would protect the swans over the next two years, but he has failed to sign it into law and is unlikely to do so. It seems most of the activity of local animal activists these days is unfortunately directed towards emptying Central Park of its carriage horses; rather than saving the swans or for that matter, any animals.)

.

With the closing of Claremont stables a few years ago, riding horses also disappeared from Central Park, though there are efforts now to restore horseback riding in CP.  The problem is that most of the park has since been taken over by thousands of runners and cyclists and so it remains to be seen if the effort for riding horses will prove successful over the long haul.

.

But, out of all the animals that have come and gone from Central Park (or more accurately, been banished or pushed out), the carriage horses steadfastly remain.

.

The question is, for how long? 

.

It is hard to understand any campaign that deems to "remove," "replace," "get rid of" or "eradicate" non-threatening wildlife or other animals from city parks and other properties. 

.

But, it is even less understandable when pushed by self-described animal lovers or "Animal Rights" advocates.

.

Shouldn't the primary right of any animal be the right to continue living? -- Especially in an environment and situation where the animal is cared for, reasonably safe and protected?

.

It is sometimes said that, "The Road to Hell is Paved by Good Intentions."

.

Some years back, campaigns by well meaning activists resulted in horse slaughterhouses being shut down in this country.

.

That was a good development, yes?

.

Unfortunately, no.

.

Because the reality now is that instead of being killed in this country, horses are trucked hundreds or even thousands of miles to be slaughtered in Mexico or Canada where one can only guess at so-called "Humane Slaughter Laws" or even that they exist at all. Last year alone,142 thousand American horses made this horrifying journey to literal hell.

.

That we now have other self-described, "activists" crusading to "shut down" an industry that saves, rather than condemns the lives of horses, could be said to be another example of good intentions leading straight to hell.

.

How can one believe that adding 220 MORE horses to the huge pool of horses seriously needing homes or rescue is to the benefit of horses overall? Even if placement is found for NYC carriage horses, does that not condemn 220 other horses who might otherwise have benefited from and are in fact, desperate for such placement?  

.

One wonders why these questions are not being asked, much less addressed?

.

Instead, the inflammatory animal charges continue unabated and go seemingly unchallenged by most in media and politics:

.

"The horses may cause an accident."  ("The geese may fly into a plane.")  "The horses are contaminated the park." ("The geese are messing up the parks.")  "The horses don't belong in the city."  ("The swans don't belong in New York State.")

.

But, how can such arguments (e.g. the same as otherwise adversaries) be coming from Animal Rights advocates? Is the "right" we're championing, the right for animals to be ostracized and eventually dead?

.

One cannot help but question whose side we as AR advocates are actually on.  The animals or those who wish to banish animals from any place there are people?

.

Unfortunately, noting the push to "replace" the beautiful carriage horses of Central Park with huge, beastly E-cars, the answer to that question becomes tragically apparent.  (Beauty vs. the Beast and seemingly losing.)

.

The paving of the road to hell has already begun despite the otherwise, noble intentions of its creators. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                         ************

From the Goose's Wing to the Horse's Mouth

Warrior watching over and protecting mate, Princess.

Ragged and a little banged up, Warrior, nevertheless in healing process.

"The family" wooing admirers near Bethesda Fountain.

"Man" keeping guard while rest of family partakes of treats near Bethesda Fountain. They have it all figured out.

Friendly carriage horse taking time to pose for photos as driver points out tourist attraction to passengers.

Teddy pronouncing, "Hey, I like it here! You better not think to take away!"

It was quiet yesterday on the rock to the north west side of the Boat Lake in Central Park.

.

I sat with Warrior and Princess looking out over the still water.

.

Warrior is a gander who appears to have been in some battles with something --either nature or otherwise (hence, the name). The front part of his neck is missing feathers and seems now to be in process of slow healing over a previous open wound. My friend, Liliana and I had talked about the possibility of rescuing Warrior a few weeks ago and bringing him to the Wild Bird Fund for treatment.  But, it was ultimately decided instead, to monitor him closely.

.

Since there are so few resident geese in Central Park these days, removal of half of a bonded pair would condemn the healthy mate to status of "loner goose" -- something not usually beneficial to flock birds who mate for life.

.

In retrospect, the decision seems a wise one. Though Warrior may never be quite "normal" he appears capable of dealing with whatever physical woes temporarily challenge. He flies, he swims, he eats and he protects and looks out for his mate. Though still appearing ragged and somewhat, "roughed up," he looks better than he did a few weeks ago.

.

But, Warrior was anxious yesterday. Peering to the south side of the lake as if expecting the family of four geese to come charging over the water any moment to harass and chase him and Princess off the rock.

.

"Don't fret," I murmured to Warrior. "Its late in the day. I trust Man, Lady and their two brats are by Bethesda Fountain to beg treats from the people."

.

After some moments, Warrior finally relaxed enough to nibble a few morsels of cracked corn along with his mate. That part of the lake remained peaceful and devoid of both, other geese and ducks.

.

Curious as to whether my prediction was right, I eventually left Warrior and Princess  to go look for the family.

.

Walking south through the Rambles to get to Bethesda Fountain, I noticed most of the mallards were swimming in the water by Bow Bridge -- another very popular tourist spot. There, some of them came upon grass to pose for photos and occasionally garner a treat from their human admirers.

.

Whoever said these are "dumb animals?"

.

Chuckling to myself, I still had not found the family and so continued to Bethesda Fountain -- one of the main tourist attractions of Central Park.

.

And sure enough, there they were! The four in all their glory and boldness! Posing at the edge of the asphalt embankment for two young women taking photographs. (Apparently, basking in the light of human attention and occasional chips is far more appealing to Man, Lady and the kids than even chasing out their goose competition!)

.

I walked up to the four, congratulating them on how well they have it all figured out and what a "racket" they have. They know when and from where the good treats come. They enjoy the limelight and the admiration. Most of all, they seem to revel in all the human company and adulation.

.

(As for "Geese Police," Man, Lady and the kids have that figured out too.  -- Just a minor inconvenience every day. Who knows? Maybe at this point, it is all a game to them. There are always the tourists at Bethesda Fountain later in the day. They have only to wait it out.)

.

Laughing at the brashness and smarts of the goose family, it finally dawned on me that I was so far south in the park, I might as well continue on to see and visit some of the carriage horses.  (I left the goose family still happily posing for tourist photos in exchange for handouts.)

.

It is a short walk up some steps to note some of the horses clip clopping through the drive on 72nd Street.  Sometimes they stop briefly at the entrance to Bethesda Fountain for the carriage driver to point out the popular attraction to passengers.

.

One such horse stopped to the accolades of a family suddenly pulling out their cameras.

.

"He's so beautiful!" squealed a little girl, about ten-years-old in delight. The horse looked at her as if understanding the compliment and posing for a head shot. "Did you get the photo?" her father asked. "That should be a really good one!"

.

I stood there thinking how much the behavior of the horse was similar to the goose family I had just left. I too, took a photo of the horse who was so accommodating.

.

Feeling good, I continued on to 59th Street to meet and greet a few other horses. The time was approaching 6PM -- apparently when some horses are coming off shift and the evening horses come on.

.

One horse nearing end of her shift, was "Shaya" (not sure of the spelling). Shaya is a beautiful, chestnut 6-year-old mare who despite just having eaten a pail of oats, confidently nudged my chest for either treat or a rub.  Not having carrots on me, she had to be content with a pat and numerous compliments. "Wow" I said to her handler, "for a horse coming off shift, she doesn't seem at all tired. She seems raring to go!"

.

"Ah, yes," Shaya's owner/driver responded proudly. "She's a great horse, full of spirit and enthusiasm. Shaya would just as soon gallop back to the stables now as much as she wants to gallop coming here at the start of the day. I have to rein her back." 

.

John (I think) continued to tell me that Shaya was originally from Ohio, but purchased from Lancaster, PA (Amish country). Apparently seeing her job in Central Park as a piece of cake compared to harder work on Amish farms, Shaya was the picture of a contented horse seeming to enjoy and revel in the activity and compliments around her. (Unfortunately, the photos I took of Shaya were too close, and due to flash, too bright and washed out.)

.

Moving along, I happened along two drivers laughingly debating on who had the handsomest horse.  "There is no more handsome horse here than my Teddy!" declared one of the owners.

.

Fascinated by this bold assertion, I had to stop and inquire.

.

Teddy indeed is a very handsome and powerful looking draft horse who would be very hard to beat in the looks department. 

.

Though appearing far younger, Teddy's owner told me he is 13-years-old and has been working some years as a carriage horse. "He loves it here!" Angel said with total confidence.  "There's no where Teddy would rather be. Isn't that right, Teddy?"

.

Hearing the words and appearing to understand, Teddy pricked his ears forward and looked back at his owner. Yeah! Let no one take this away from me!  (OK, I am just imagining the latter, but that's what Teddy appeared to be saying.)

.

Asked if they were worried about the proposed ban on carriage horses, Angel displayed the same confidence that he did for his horse. "It will never happen!" he proclaimed. "We love our horses and our horses are happy. There is no way you can take that away."

.

John, the first driver spoken with, seemed far more concerned.  "I've been doing this for 13 years. I love getting up in the morning and getting to spend the day with my horse. There is nothing like it. But, yes, I am worried. These people are relentless and you cannot reason with them. 3,000 horses going to slaughter every week and they target us who love and take care of our horses.  I don't understand it." 

.

But, at least for those few moments last night, no one was picketing or shouting protests.

.

Walking home, watching the working carriage horses leisurely and confidently clip clopping through the park -- even amongst the rush hour traffic allowed for a few hours in the early evening -- I was struck by just how well they adapt to all the noises and stresses of the city --very much like the goose family at the Boat Lake.

.

From the goose's wing to the horse's mouth, "We like it here. We like the people and no one and nothing is making us go!"

.

That only that may be so for both, our beloved horses and our treasured geese.  -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                *********

                                                                 

                                                                    

Beating Hearts

"Don't cry for me. Rejoice."

 

A rainy, raw day in the city. There is thus time to catch up to articles, FB posts and even this blog.

.

Of all the animal issues, the one that continues to grasp media attention and spark controversy in New York City is that of the carriage horses. (This despite thousands of cats and dogs killed in city shelters every year, as well as geese slaughtered from city parks and properties.)

.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-31/nyc-carriage-horses-clip-clop-away-while-de-blasio-stalls.html

.

Sometimes, I ask myself this question:  Were we living in an ideal world where every domestic horse in America was guaranteed a safe, lifelong and responsible home with "bucolic fields" to romp in, would I still support the horse carriages of NYC?"

.

That is actually a tough question to answer. Maybe or maybe not. While horses standing or romping around a field present a beautiful, bucolic picture, it is not clear to me that horses (anymore than people) enjoy having nothing to do.

.

Certainly in nature, wild horses have plenty to do all the time. They have to constantly forage for enough to eat, they have to guard against predation and seek shelter from extremely hot or frigid weather. If stallions, they fight for leadership, breeding privileges and responsibility to manage the herd. If mares, they have to protect and raise their young. It can be a harsh life, but one that wild horses have adapted to and managed to survive for thousands of years. But, certainly it is not a life where the horses stand around and smell the roses all the time without a care in the world.

.

Some argue that the carriage horses of Central Park "have a miserable life." I don't quite see that -- especially as compared to the challenges to wild horses.  Domestic carriage horses have a comparatively easy life that doesn't involve having to forage for food, avoid predators, dealing with extreme weather or fighting for a place in the herd. They do "work" and one imagines there are times (as in human jobs) where a carriage horse may be tired, bored or even mildly stressed. But, the payoffs for the horses are many in terms of proper food, sheltering, relative safety, security and positive interactions with humans.

.

I suppose if having to answer the above question, I might still elect to keep carriage horses in Central Park, but I would want to improve their conditions and care even more than what is apparent now. (Shorter working hours, turnout and pasture time, longer vacations, for examples.)

.

But, all of this is a moot point as the fact is, we do not live in an "ideal world" where all domestic horses in America are guaranteed lifelong, responsible homes. Quite the contrary in fact.

.

As previously noted,155,000 American horses are sent to Mexican and Canadian slaughterhouses every year.

.

A grim fact that many anti-carriage folks seem to want to ignore of dismiss.

.

Rather, the anti-carriage people claim there is a "list of waiting homes" for the horses currently clip clopping through Central Park.

.

But, were that so, why are these homes not available for the horses dying now? Or, why do they not exist for the 40,000 horses up for adoption in overburdened horse rescues?

.

I have asked these questions several times on FB pages and newspaper article sites and have yet to get a respectful or illuminating reply from those crusading to add another 220 horses to the huge pool of those already needing and desperate for homes. 

.

One has to presume one of two prominent possibilities:  Either there is no "list of waiting homes" for the 220 horses or the homes only want the high profile (e.g.."celebrity") horses from our country's most famous park (and the focus of much media attention).

.

There is of course, one more possibility and probably the most likely one: That is, that wealthy organizations like the ASPCA or PETA would pay off horse rescues to take the 220 horses (assuming owners would even sell or hand over the horses to them -- a highly unlikely scenario considering the non-stop, scurrilous attacks against them).  But, this outcome would absolutely condemn 220 other horses to slaughter because the rescues would then be unable to save those horses for taking the carriage horses instead!

.

(Picture for example, a game a musical chairs. 220 chairs and 500 horses competing for them. Only in this case, the 280 horses not grabbing the chairs die. What is particularly disturbing is that 220 horses competing for the chairs did not have to play the game in the first place.  -- They already had safe placement.)  

.

None of the above possibilities is a positive one and thus this is the main reason I support keeping the carriage horses in NYC.

.

These horses are safe, they are beloved and there is even retirement sanctuary set up for those too old or frail to work in other capacity or to be responsibly adopted. https://www.facebook.com/equiculture

.

That we only had such guarantees for all the other horses in America.

.

Instead, there is this:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202968240467113&set=pcb.10202968243187181&type=1&theater

It is a rainy day in New York City, too. And like the woman posting the above photos, I too lament all the horses without celebrities to champion their cause or zealots to pressure politicians and most of all, without a safe place to go.

.

If I could rescue just one of the horses in the photographs and send to Central Park to work as a carriage horse, I would do so in a heartbeat.

.

Beating and fulfilled hearts is what its all about in the end.  -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                      ********

                                                        **********

"Pity the Poor Horses" (And Cats and Dogs)

Prince -- Carriage horse of Central Park. --To be "pitied" or loved?

 

"Pity the Poor Horses" (and cats and dogs) -- "They don't fit and they don't belong."

.

The above are familiar themes in Animal Rights in recent days. Carriage horses "don't belong on the streets of New York City." Companion cats and dogs "don't fit" into society.

.

If such sounds outlandish or exaggerated, one only need visit Facebook pages dedicated to the banning of carriage horses in New York City or to the abolition of all animal use.

.

An example of the latter is Law Professor and respected leader in Animal Rights philosophy, Gary L. Francicone's Facebook page:  (1) Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

.

Professor Francione has authored books on the subject of Animal Rights, lectures at Universities and is frequently interviewed in the press. While one can respect his dedication to the cause and his superior education, intellect and accomplishments, some of the philosophical aims and positions are troubling.

.

According to Mr. Francione, were there only two dogs remaining on the planet, he would not allow them to breed for the simple reason companion pets (as created and used by humans) "don't fit."

.

However, Francione does support and on a daily basis, promotes the rescue of "refugee" death list dogs and cats from city pounds. 

.

How are such actions consistent with a position that otherwise champions as end goal, the eventual extinction (through attrition) of domesticated cats and dogs?

.

Apparently, such rescue actions are founded in pity for the animals who otherwise would not be alive (nor could they survive) without the charity and intervention of humans.

.

But does not such position place domesticated animals below humans in philosophical thought and consideration as opposed to being "equals" as many ARists advocate for?

.

Apparently, the argument is that since domesticated animals are entirely "dependent" upon humans for care and survival, they are  unworthy of moral consideration beyond rescue and should not continue to exist on the planet. -- Domestic cats, dogs and horses "don't fit."

.

Friend and occasional contributor to this blog, "Doug from California," recently raised some of these questions to Mr. Francione and his representative (Linda McKensie) on the professor's FB page. Below are excerpts.

.

• Linda McKenzie Dougls Kerner, frankly I found your comments to be very contradictory and confusing and it's difficult to understand from them what it is you're really saying and where you stand. I feel that the reason for this may be, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that you while you obviously have some genuine interest in the Abolitionist Approach, as evidenced by the fact that you're reading Animals As Persons, and read the material I posted previously, at the same time you have an emotional attachment to the idea of pet ownership and still want to convince yourself that it can be morally justified. Since if I recall correctly you were asked by Gary previously not to defend pet ownership here, and indeed, it violates our Terms of Use, you seem to be falling back on implying that abolitionism is incoherent because of its stance on pet ownership rather than openly defend pet ownership. As you can see, that's not going to work. 
  
  The question uppermost in my mind at this point is, are you vegan? If you have a real concern for animals, the main thing is that you go vegan, if you haven't already, and end your own participation in animal exploitation. That's the priority. I think you already know enough to know that this is the right thing to do. If you have any doubts about that, then let's discuss that. There's not much point in discussing other issues concerned with animal ethics if you haven't yet gone vegan. That's the baseline, without which nothing else makes sense. Don't let your disagreement or uncertainty or discomfort or whatever it is about the issue of pets get in the way of making that fundamentally important decision. You don't have to agree with every aspect of the Abolitionist Approach right now to go vegan. But you can't sincerely or coherently claim to have moral concern for animals if you're not vegan. 
  
  Another quote:
  
  <<I understand that many people will be bewildered by my argument about the inherent problems with domestication. But that is because we live in a world in which we kill and eat 56 billion animals a year (not counting fish) and where our best justification for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. Most of you who are reading this right now are probably not vegans. As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as "pets" is not likely to resonate. I understand that.
  
  So take a few minutes to read some of the many other essays on this site that discuss veganism, such as Why Veganism Must Be the Baseline.>> 
  
  Please read these essays:
  http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-paradigm.../...
  
  http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/...

  15 hours ago · Edited · 3
• 

  Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Dougls Kerner: I do not understand what you are concerned/confused about. We ought not to continue producing domesticated animals, including dogs and cats. That said, there are millions in existence that need homes today and those who adopt/foster get as much back as they give if they take these refugees into their homes. But that does not mean we should continue to produce domesticated animals. My position is really very simple. I am bewildered as to what is confusing you.

  8 hours ago · 1
• 

  Dougls Kerner Okay, what's the plan?

  2 hours ago
• 

  Dougls Kerner 
  'morning Linda. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the delay on my end. Regret also that you found my comment "contradictory and confusing." My intention was to be consistent and clear. Yes, I have read the essay you commend me to - once before my prior comment and again, yesterday afternoon. And I bought the book.
  I feel like I'm navigating perilous shoals here. You have admonished me, again, that comments that "defend" pet ownership are unwelcome. I get that this is the Professor's page and respect that he can apply whatever restrictions he wants. So first confession: I am inclined to the view that companion animals,and if well treated whether they work or not, are a good thing for both the animal and their human steward. That said, I did not come here to defend that or anything else; I am trying to understand Gary's position better because if he is right, then I am wrong in that view. So are the huge majority of self-described animal rights advocates. I don't know what avenue other than discussion, even if skeptical or challenging, to take. (Think Descartes).
  Second confession: Your response back to me suggests, if I got it right, that unless vegan I am unqualified to the claim of favoring animal rights, and further even incapable of rational thought and question. Based on your approval of another responsive post, I might also conclude that only vegan children are capable of loving an animal for the soul and essence of the animal. (Were any of us raised vegan?) Anyway, I wasn't raised vegan. I am not vegan now. I'm not even a vegetarian. On the other hand, I eat a lot less meat than I used to, I do not approve of or patronize factory farming. If those admissions disqualify further discourse with me, stop reading, ban me under the terms of use or whatever. I hope you (well, Professor Francione - I can't believe it's up to you, no offense Linda) don't do that. 
  So, if you're still reading, and further to my pending question and having re-read the material you commended me to, two things jump out: First is Professor Francione's (personal I guess) statement that: "We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy and care for them, it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit." This invites me to recast my question to, "Is it your or my or some other human authority's role to decide whether an animal "fits" in our society or does not? How does that work with a vision where animals are the moral equivalent of humans? My dogs and horses "fit" fine with me so I found this confusing. 
  Second, Professor Francione dedicates "Animals as Persons" with "[t]o the two hamsters and twelve dogs who taught me the meaning of parenthood." I guess this invites the question whether "the meaning of parenthood" involves mere dominance or savior instinct, on the one hand, or the love that exists, in mine and everyone I know's experience shared between animals and their human companions? I think Gary means the latter, but your proxy response suggests that such love or joy is "incidental" to a relationship otherwise founded in pity and viewing the animals as "refugees" or "victims" who would not otherwise be alive or capable of surviving without our intervention and charity. I have a hard time with that because I'm not sure it is actually possible to meaningfully love someone we place below ourselves and view as an inconvenient burden. I know that I love my dogs and they love me. For sure I am the dominant animal in the household (which is kind of ironic since my dogs, or either of them, could readily take me apart if they wanted to) as there is in any pack, herd or flock in nature.
  10 or 15 thousand years ago, some guy tossed a piece of deer carcass to a wolf. Some while after that, there were dogs. Is this about ruing or atoning for that catastrophic mistake in judgment (query, which made the mistake? The man or the wolf?)
  My interest (and yours and Gary's) is in improving the condition of animals and as you undoubtedly have figured out, my concern is not getting in the way of that, through inadvertence or otherwise.
  Thank you again, Linda. You have been helpful and courteous throughout and these are dicey subjects. Doug.

  2 hours ago

Putting aside the supposition that this comment thread will likely be deleted because of the specified "terms of use" on the page, it raises interesting questions.

.

The one that most jumps out to me is, "Can pity and love co-exist?"

.

It seems not as we generally don't love (and look up to) what we otherwise view as hapless victims of societal's errors or life's misfortunes.

.

Thus, those who advocate for "getting rid of" the carriage horses in Central Park do not seem to see creatures of beauty, nobility, adaptation and free spirit. They do not revel in the admiration of majestic and powerful animals being proficient at "work" and enjoying human interactions and attention. Rather, they see "sad and broken" animals completely at the subjugation of "evil" humans, leading a "miserable" life.

,

Are the horses really these helpless, spiritless and abject objects of pity?

.

Or, are they magnificent creatures to be admired, respected, cherished and appreciated for their willingness to work cooperatively and enthusiastically with humans?  

.

If the latter be true, would we not want to keep the horses in NYC? Do we not normally want to keep the objects of our love (whether human or animal) with us?

.

Love is possessive and wants to hold on to. Pity wants to alleviate or remove.

.

Thus, the goals to eventually "eliminate" both, domestic pets and working horses, seem more to be about pity than love.

.

"The world is an unjust, miserable place where the animals only know perpetual victim hood and dependency at the hands of cruel and merciless humans. It is better that the animals not exist."

.

I don't personally subscribe to such theory and philosophy that places pity on a higher plane than love (which is apparently denied from even existing in human/relationships) and thus places domesticated animals on a lower level than humans. They are as objects to be forever pitied and eventually banished as they are unworthy to share the planet with us --elitist and forever superior, accomplished humans mired in pity rather than love. 

.

While compassion and pity are instrumental qualities in helping to achieve justice and fair rights for truly oppressed or abused animals (or humans), they should never be substituted for love which commands respect, admiration, desire to keep and raising to higher and equal level worthy of cherish. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                *********

                                                   ********