Rebel Without Identifiable Cause (Can Working Animals be Compatible with Animal Rights?)

Working partners or animal abuse? Can support for working animals be compatible with advocacy for Animal Rights?

I may be an older woman, but lately I feel like James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause.

.

That is because one discovers that when it comes to causes (especially contentious ones), if one takes moderate position in the middle, one can be viewed as enemy or sell out by both camps.  One either has to be solidly on one side or the other -- or just bail out entirely and take up video games or watching Dancing With the Stars.

.

(Perhaps this helps explain why our Congress is so ineffective.  Both parties in lock step position most of the time and very little working across the aisle.  Or, as Dylan so poetically put it, "Everybody talking and nobody listening" -- though one might change the word, talking, to spinning in today's terms).

.

In recent days, I have come out in endorsement for keeping carriage horses in New York City. (Details explained in prior posts.) From all indications, the horses are protected, well cared for, appear to be proficient and content in their work and the job is comparatively easy with regular periods of rest time and lots of human attention. (Moreover and importantly, the job is literally a life-saver.)  

.

It short, both people and the horses themselves benefit.

.

Tragically, the fact that 155,000 horses are currently sent to slaughter every year appears to indicate that it is usually a grim future for horses without jobs. I am not of the mind that horses are "better off dead" than leisurely pulling a carriage around Central Park. Its quite frankly difficult to understand why anyone would endorse such theory (unless just not liking animals in the city). 

.

One suspects that were horses able to speak for themselves, all would express preference to being alive and safe in NYC (yes, even with crowds, traffic and a specific job) than being dead. Billions of people, after all, live such lives. Few humans get a free pass in life or have rich relatives to support them. The same is true for horses. -- Only for those horses losing jobs, there is no Unemployment check or other government programs to support them.  

.

Nevertheless, taking a "pro-carriage horse" position puts one in poor standing these days with most Animal Rights folks, the vocal majority of whom either are actively pushing for a ban or tacitly supporting it.

.

But, if one expects welcome from those on the other side of the issue (keeping the horses in NYC), there are rude surprises there, too.

.

It seems many, if not most carriage horse supporters are vehemently opposed to even the concept of Animal Rights.

.

Perhaps it is understandable that those under such fierce and unrelenting attack for so many years by self-described, Animal Rights activists would now associate the very term with all things evil and destructive in the world.

.

It seems in some ways, the waters have sadly been poisoned for a reasonable dialogue between horse carriage advocates and advocates for Animal Rights.  That is truly unfortunate for as previously noted in situations like these, everyone ultimately loses -- most of all, the animals.

.

For the record, I AM a supporter of Animal Rights and have been for decades.  That does not change by taking what might seem to some, an adversarial position on a contentious animal rights issue.

.

I believe that animals (especially those domesticated over thousands of years like horses, dogs and cats) have the right to engage and connect with humans whether as companions or working partners in a mutually benefiting, give/take relationship.

.

I believe that animals have the basic right to life and to be in New York City as despite claims otherwise, it is generally a safe and protected environment for most. (Horses actually helped to build New York City and were necessary for transportation before the invention of automobiles.)

.

Most of all, I believe that animals have right to dignity, respect and proper and appropriate treatment specific to their species/breed or type.

.

Some might argue these are the components of Animal Welfare. (I.e. "Animals don't have rights. Humans have responsibility.")  But, in fact, rights goes further than welfare alone. Welfare suggests standards for humane treatment, but doesn't necessarily require them unless exacted by specific law. Rights denotes animals are entitled to and deserving of proper, decent and appropriate (to species) treatment by virtue of their being. This is true whether or not their is actual law or human "owners" and power holders are willing to recognize and bestow inherent rights for just and decent treatment for animals.

.

This might appear a meaningless or confusing discussion of semantics, but in human culture and law, words are important. Generally speaking, welfare doesn't require as much as rights do. Welfare is pertinent to the granter. Rights is pertinent to the recipient.

.

In saying these things, one might question how can one be an advocate for animal rights, while at the same time, support something that uses and derives personal benefit from animals? 

.

The reality is that humans use each other for personal benefit all the time whether in personal or working relationships (whether or not we admit to it).   Employers and employees "use" each other for mutual benefit. Friends use each other to help fulfill certain needs. And even lovers and spouses use each other.  In nature too, animals use each other. Flock, herd and pack animals organize themselves to establish leadership positions and each member's specific place or role in the order. That is, in essence, "using" each other both, for personal benefit and the benefit of the whole.

.

Moreover, though some might be loathe to admit it, pet caregivers and their animals "use" each other for mutually beneficial purposes. A well cared for dog or cat never has to worry about predation, shelter or where his/her next meal is coming from. The human caregiver derives companionship and reliable, non-judgmental affection from the pet(s). Everything is give/take and yes, that awful word, use. 

.

Of course, it can be a very thin line sometimes between "use" and "abuse."  Use is generally good and productive. Abuse is not.

.

That is where law and rights come in -- to interpret precisely where those lines are to be drawn.

.

Human workers in civilized countries are entitled to certain "rights" (by law) pertaining to salary, safety on the job, hours, vacation and working conditions. Working animals should also be entitled to similar rights and conditions according to species (although in lieu of "salary" obviously, animals are entitled to proper food, shelter, rest and veterinary care). 

.

Rights of course are also recognized for individual partners in marriage, children, the mentally and physically disabled, ethnic and racial groups and more recently, people of different sexual orientations.  

.

It seems a natural step in human progress and evolution to also consider seriously, the inherent rights of and for animals.

.

I believe in rights for animals which is why I currently support working animals in New York City provided their conditions and treatment meet all the criteria for fair, just and proper care.  So far this seems to apply to carriage horses in NYC, though there is always room in anything for further improvements and safeguards.

.

Moreover, it is extremely important to consider that virtually all the NYC carriage horses are rescues from other industries that could no longer use them. (Former Amish farm horses or retirees from the trotter racetracks.)  Horses don't even begin to work in NYC until 5-years of age.  They are not bred (or really, over-bred) to pull carriages in NYC.  The carriage industry rather represents a safety net (easier work and long term home) for horses who, in most cases, would have no where else to go.  The work is apparently so comparatively easy, most carriage horses are well into their teens having pulled carriages in some cases, over a decade.  How can all this reasonably and accurately be called, "abuse?"

.

It may seem I have gone into great detail over the past week to explain decision and position that ultimately doesn't jive entirely with either proponents of Animal Rights or proponents of carriage horses.  

.

The truth is, I am both supporter of both and critic to both.

.

Call me the enemy or friend to all sides -- or for the moment, the rebel without identifiable cause. -- PCA

.

.

                                                   ***********