Animal welfare versus animal rights

EGAR

Since it came up several times in past threads, I would like to clarify that most animal welfare groups are not to be lumped in with animal right groups.

I run a rescue, e.g. an animal welfare group of people interested in the rescue and rehoming of animals in need and, as a by-product so to say, in educating the public about animal WELFARE, i.e. responsible ownership, neuter/spay, speaking about the issue in schools and whatever else goes with it.

I do not believe that shock and PETA tactics work but that the key is in information and education.

I also do not believe that ramming your beliefs down other people's throats work.

I am anti bloodsports but that does not make me an animal rights activist - it simply means that I have an informed opinion re those issues.

And I am sure alot of welfare orgs feel the same way.

tomybhoy

Good post.
There is a massive difference between animal welfare and animal rights.
Animal welfare should be of the highest priority to all that look after animals.
Animal rights is a different thing altogether, you will find a lot of people involved with animals in one way or another are against blood sports of one form or another.
People do need to be educated on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, the animal rights philosopher Peter Singer is a good place to start if people really want to find out why animal rights is such an emotive issue with people who genuinely look after their animals welfare.
After Mr Singer you could also check out Steve Best and Tom Regan, they will open your eyes.
Maybe then check out Mel Broughton and Keith Mann, then possibly Ronnie Lee and Robin Webb.......it will become apparent very very quickly what type of people we are now seeing in Ireland.
Remember also that these animal activists aligned to the Green party are banking on jobs as inspectors if legislation is enacted, it is in their best interest to blacken the greyhound industry if they are to gain employment as a lot of them are unemployable.
I for one would not turn my back on an animal rights activist after reading the philosophy of Singer who states it is permissible for a human to have sexual relations with an animal, some activists have now decided to call themselves welfare orientated as it became apparent that the irish Population were not ready to accept a philosophy which allowed sex between animals and humans.

scartman1

EGAR wrote: »

Since it came up several times in past threads, I would like to clarify that most animal welfare groups are not to be lumped in with animal right groups.

I run a rescue, e.g. an animal welfare group of people interested in the rescue and rehoming of animals in need and, as a by-product so to say, in educating the public about animal WELFARE, i.e. responsible ownership, neuter/spay, speaking about the issue in schools and whatever else goes with it.

I do not believe that shock and PETA tactics work but that the key is in information and education.

I also do not believe that ramming your beliefs down other people's throats work.

I am anti bloodsports but that does not make me an animal rights activist - it simply means that I have an informed opinion re those issues.

And I am sure alot of welfare orgs feel the same way.

Egar
While I am in favour of field sports and we shall agree to differ on this point, I believe your post is dignified and succinct.
Obviously you care about animals and provide suitable welfare for them for which you must be complimented but I find your acknowledgement that you don't believe in ramming your beliefs down other peoples throats as being a most fair and rational position.

fatmammycat

Agreed EGAR, that's why I will voice any view I have here on the animal welfare section of boards and NOT in hunting and shooting, where people should be free to discuss their sport as they see fit. I am very anti-bloodsports - goes without saying, but not overly sentimental towards animals. I believe they should be fed, exercised, cared for and taken to a vet on time when ill and never abandoned. Nor do I equate animals with people.
I find a number of AR activists to be completely unhinged.
Have a good weekend,

Discodog

Well I don't believe that it is as black or white as the title suggests. Some of people who first discussed animal welfare including our own Humantity Dick Martin of Connemara believed that animals had a basic right to humane treatment. Martin's beliefs were fundamental in the formation of the RSPCA in 1824.

Animal rights has now become associated with extremism often to the detriment of animal welfare. Lawyers could argue that you cannot have animal welfare laws without an assumption that animals have the right to be treated humanely. One can argue that animal welfare is something that we grant to animals as a sign of our moral superiority or because they have a perceived right.

One can subscribe to the view that animals have certain inherent rights without being a disciple of any extremist group. Some religions believe in animal rights but it does not turn them into urban terrorists. I also believe that it is wrong to use the words "animal rights" as term of insult for anyone who opposes bloodsports. Banning cruelty is an essential part of animal welfare & some of us believe that these sports should be banned because of cruelty & not animal rights.

Extremism is the enemy & there are extremists on both side of the fence.

Tomybhoy's view is typical of those who assume that anyone who opposes their "sport" must be a criminal or worse. How can he can say that animal welfare must be the highest priority & then be involved in Greyhound racing or Coursing ?. Some of the suggestions regarding the employment of inspectors etc verges on the paranoiac. Inspectors will be employed by Local Authorities & will probably report to the County Vet. Oh & I occasionally fall asleep with a Greyhound on my lap so please feel free to say that I "sleep" with my dogs.

EGAR

Peter, this thread is not about individual users of this board or about yourself. I think we have plenty of other threads going about that already.

I am NOT an animal right activist, nor are many other rescues I have spoken to about this subject. And they as much as EGAR do not want to be lumped in.

tomybhoy

Discodog wrote: »

.

Tomybhoy's view is typical of those who assume that anyone who opposes their "sport" must be a criminal or worse. How can he can say that animal welfare must be the highest priority & then be involved in Greyhound racing or Coursing ?. Some of the suggestions regarding the employment of inspectors etc verges on the paranoiac. Inspectors will be employed by Local Authorities & will probably report to the County Vet. Oh & I occasionally fall asleep with a Greyhound on my lap so please feel free to say that I "sleep" with my dogs.

Excuse me but it is in the green party policy document that animal rights organisations will investigate cases of cruelty.
What you do with your greyhound is your business once you treat it properly.
You have no concept of greyhound racing or coursing imo and it is attitudes like yours that resulted in such a massive decline of the hare population in the north.
You should maybe think of how to get the 20 million it would take the government to enforce any legislation that bans coursing as the farmers will treat the hare as a pest and the itinerants will hunt with no thought what so ever to conserving the hare population.

Discodog

EGAR wrote: »

Peter, this thread is not about individual users of this board or about yourself. I think we have plenty of other threads going about that already.

I am NOT an animal right activist, nor are many other rescues I have spoken to about this subject. And they as much as EGAR do not want to be lumped in.

Surely this thread is a discussion & not an announcement. I do not see why anyone would associate EGAR with animal rights. By using the word "versus" you imply that it is a choice between rights & welfare. I am merely pointing out that it is is difficult to have welfare without establishing some right to it.

I too am not an animal rights activist but I don't feel the need to use capitals. All I am saying is that it is not clear cut. The animal rights group that you mentioned have some policies that I would strongly disagree with but I can agree with others, for example banning fur farms.

IMO it is wrong to use the views of a few extremists to damage the reputation of the many who genuinely care about animals. As far as I know the only organisations that investigate cruelty are the ISPCA & the DofAg. The ISPCA oppose the animal abuse associated with Greyhound racing but that does not turn them into animal rights terrorists.

morganafay

Maybe this doesn't make sense, but I think animals should have rights . . . like that they are as important or better than people. They're not as intelligent in the way we see intelligence, but I think they're better. But I have no problem with keeping them as pets, as long as they're looked after properly. Because I think pets have a pretty great life (if they're looked after), compared to people and wild animals!

I have my own beliefs, like I'm vegan and don't use products tested on animals, also don't like blood sports, etc. But I hate when people try to force their beliefs on people like some ARA's do, so I would never do that. I would never give out to someone for eating meat or something, because who knows if I'm right or they are and I'm not perfect so have no right to judge them. But if someone asks me why I'm vegan, then I'll tell them and people are usually interested to hear the reasons why and will agree or debate it. Either way it gets them thinking.

But some animal welfare people, in my opinion, are just as bad as animal rights people. In the way that they think they're better than other pet owners (just some, not all obviously!) But I know I have been given out to by people on the internet for saying I want to breed animals (I think that there needs to be some breeders, that do it properly so that people don't have to buy from pet shops or whatever). These people don't know me but think they can judge me. I've also had people who think that they look after their animals better than I do, when they definitely don't. I know lovely animal welfare people, but I find that some of them can be pretty judgemental. And not neccessarily people who work for a rescue, but people who have adopted rescue animals, or are pro-rescue in general.

tomybhoy

I think EGAR is rightly distancing herself from the extremists in the animal rights wing of the green party.
I would have thought personally that discodog was more than suitable for that extremist wing after reading her posts.

tomybhoy

morganafay wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make sense, but I think animals should have rights . . . like that they are as important or better than people. They're not as intelligent in the way we see intelligence, but I think they're better. But I have no problem with keeping them as pets, as long as they're looked after properly. Because I think pets have a pretty great life (if they're looked after), compared to people and wild animals!

I have my own beliefs, like I'm vegan and don't use products tested on animals, also don't like blood sports, etc. But I hate when people try to force their beliefs on people like some ARA's do, so I would never do that. I would never give out to someone for eating meat or something, because who knows if I'm right or they are and I'm not perfect so have no right to judge them. But if someone asks me why I'm vegan, then I'll tell them and people are usually interested to hear the reasons why and will agree or debate it. Either way it gets them thinking.

But some animal welfare people, in my opinion, are just as bad as animal rights people. In the way that they think they're better than other pet owners (just some, not all obviously!) But I know I have been given out to by people on the internet for saying I want to breed animals (I think that there needs to be some breeders, that do it properly so that people don't have to buy from pet shops or whatever). These people don't know me but think they can judge me. I've also had people who think that they look after their animals better than I do, when they definitely don't. I know lovely animal welfare people, but I find that some of them can be pretty judgemental. And not neccessarily people who work for a rescue, but people who have adopted rescue animals, or are pro-rescue in general.

Sensible posts like this one are to be welcomed.

Discodog

tomybhoy wrote: »

Sensible posts like this one are to be welcomed.

I agree. Just to clarify yet again that I am not a member of any party or group. Unfortunately we live in land of black & white. You are either an "anti" or a supporter of whatever cause.

I have been involved with rescues in the UK for many years & I can't ever remember anyone being worried about being associated with animal rights. Plenty of people that support rescues are affiliated to moderate animal rights groups. People are free to have an opinion & express it.

Some animal rights campaigners have become household names & TV stars such as the Sea Shepherds in Whale Wars. At times their actions border on the illegal but they receive massive support from the general population who oppose whaling.

Tomybhoy can carry on accusing. But if you read the posts on Greyhound data you will see that even some in the greyhound lobby are concerned about associating themselves with RISE & the hunting brigade.

ppink

morganafay wrote: »

But some animal welfare people, in my opinion, are just as bad as animal rights people. In the way that they think they're better than other pet owners (just some, not all obviously!) But I know I have been given out to by people on the internet for saying I want to breed animals (I think that there needs to be some breeders, that do it properly so that people don't have to buy from pet shops or whatever). These people don't know me but think they can judge me. I've also had people who think that they look after their animals better than I do, when they definitely don't. I know lovely animal welfare people, but I find that some of them can be pretty judgemental. And not neccessarily people who work for a rescue, but people who have adopted rescue animals, or are pro-rescue in general.

What is even more amazing about this is that that many of the animals rescues are themselves unregulated.

morganafay

ppink wrote: »

What is even more amazing about this is that that many of the animals rescues are themselves unregulated.

Exactly, and that some of them keep their animals is pretty bad conditions. Maybe they're clean and everything, but in small spaces with very little attention and all.

Discodog

Rescues are not regulated however many receive a Government grant & are inspected as part of the allocation process. The conditions in some rescues are poor especially by UK standards but so are the dog Pounds from where many rescue dogs have come from.

Irish rescues have to run on a shoestring & have little or no money to invest in better conditions. Ideally a rescue should only be a holding point & any dog should be rehomed as soon as possible.

Rescues will have to comply with the new DBEB but they will not pay fees & they will also have to comply with the proposed Animal Welfare Bill. The current legislation hinders rescues in that they have to pay for a general dog license & often they have to pay release fees to the Pound when they take a dog. This is especially bad as the rescue is saving the Pound the cost of upkeep & putting the dog down.