Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK, maybe I've been on this board long enough so that I should know the difference by now. Many things that I've long associated with the Animal Welfare movement have been accused of being Animal Rights propaganda. I always thought that Animals Rights meant that they believe that animals should have equal rights to humans. And that Animal Welfare meant that they believe that animals should be properly cared for.

For instance.....spaying/neutering. I would think that AR would believe that this is horrible, because of course you wouldn't sterilize a human against their will. AW, on the other hand, would support s/n, because uncontrolled breeding causes a lot of suffering. Yet, it comes up all the time on this forum that encouraging altering is AR propaganda. Maybe Animal Welfare gone rabid, I would believe, but I don't know if that counts as AR.

There are other issues, too. Such as chaining a dog. Of course AR would be againt that, because you wouldn't chain a human. Yet there are Welfare issues involved, too. So I don't know if discouraging chaining would count as AR or AW.

Hehe, I guess this all stems from when I was 13, and my BFF freaked out on me because I said I was for Animal Rights (her dad was rabidly against such "liberal" things)....because I thought all animals have a "right" to be treated kindly and respectfully. Of course now I realize that's not what AR means, but I'm still confused :confused: .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Essentially, the goal of animal rights is to eliminate all domestic animal ownership and use, whether we have them as pets, service animals, or other uses. The reason that AR is behind spay and neuter legislation is that if you get rid of the hobby breeders (as they are attempting to do now), spay and neuter all household pets, and then legislate the commercial breeders and puppy mills out of existence, pretty much all that will be left will be feral dogs--which is what they want, since we are supposed to "admire animals from a respectful distance." In part, the AR extremists started with "minor" legislative changes, such as changing the words "pet owner" to "pet guardian." Plainly expressed, however, animals have no "rights," since they have no responsibilities. When my dog can hold down a regular full-time job, pay his own bills, and pull the lever in the voting booth, then my dog can have rights as far as I'm concerned.

Animal welfare is much different. Animal welfare is concerned with the actual care and health of the animals with whom we share our lives. Animal welfare advocates want better food and housing and care for all domestic animals. Interestingly, the HSUS, one of the most radical AR groups out there, is starting to call itself an "animal welfare" group. Don't believe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,466 Posts
Essentially, the goal of animal rights is to eliminate all domestic animal ownership and use, whether we have them as pets, service animals, or other uses. The reason that AR is behind spay and neuter legislation is that if you get rid of the hobby breeders (as they are attempting to do now), spay and neuter all household pets, and then legislate the commercial breeders and puppy mills out of existence, pretty much all that will be left will be feral dogs--which is what they want, since we are supposed to "admire animals from a respectful distance." In part, the AR extremists started with "minor" legislative changes, such as changing the words "pet owner" to "pet guardian." Plainly expressed, however, animals have no "rights," since they have no responsibilities. When my dog can hold down a regular full-time job, pay his own bills, and pull the lever in the voting booth, then my dog can have rights as far as I'm concerned.

Now, now we both know one dog who's more than willing to "get a job" ROFL

Animal welfare is much different. Animal welfare is concerned with the actual care and health of the animals with whom we share our lives. Animal welfare advocates want better food and housing and care for all domestic animals. Interestingly, the HSUS, one of the most radical AR groups out there, is starting to call itself an "animal welfare" group. Don't believe it.
Good explanation, btw. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yeah....it just seems like "Animal Rights" (around here anyway) has become a meaningless epithet that farmers and hunters use to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with THEM. I'm sure the actual movement is far more harmful than that, and I hate to see the term minimized by overuse.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
572 Posts
Many things that I've long associated with the Animal Welfare movement have been accused of being Animal Rights propaganda. I always thought that Animals Rights meant that they believe that animals should have equal rights to humans. And that Animal Welfare meant that they believe that animals should be properly cared for.


Animal welfare has to do with the humane care & treatment of animals. Welfare consists of legitimate humane societies, animal control, and many indivigual rescue groups. People who want to help dogs for selfless reasons - because it's the right thing to do, because they don't want to see animals suffer, are involved in animal welfare. Most people supporting animal rights organizations are very well intentioned & truly believe their donations are benefiting animal shelters, caring for neglected animals, etc. If animal rights was that - caring for animals and not treating them like lesser creatures - I'd be all for it.

What animal rights really is, is a belief that humankind should not own any other living creature. They want humans and animals to disassociate from one another - the liberation of lab animals, hunting, show dogs is one such example of how they crudely carry this out.

Animal rights is not about treating animals as equals. For the record, I personally do not believe humans have an inherent right to this earth. We all belong here, but that's about where it ends for me. Animals are not my equals, yet that does not give us the right to exploit or abuse them. I think most sane people would agree with that. This is what the AR mentality plays on. Their mindset is that animal ownership of any kind is akin to slavery. Their goal is not to have animals treated better, to snuff out abuse while still maintaining human ownership of animals - it's under the guise of snuffing out abuse but in reality they will use this to, one single law at a time, abolish ownership of animals.

For example, several years back it started with the term "guardian" being used in lieu of ownership. Adopt took the place of purchase. Of course - these are all phrases used for a human parent/child relationship, instilling in the mind that animals are our children, our equals, and to own, breed, or have them to work would be like forcing a child into a sweatshop. Like child abuse ... They want us to begin to think of breeding, owning, working dogs as cruelty in and of itself. No matter how well cared for the dog, breeding it should constitute severe cruelty. The root of animal rights comes from a deep concern for animals but the kids these groups are recruiting are being brainwashed into thinking farming, eating meat, owning dogs is of the highest cruelty.


For instance.....spaying/neutering. I would think that AR would believe that this is horrible, because of course you wouldn't sterilize a human against their will. AW, on the other hand, would support s/n, because uncontrolled breeding causes a lot of suffering. Yet, it comes up all the time on this forum that encouraging altering is AR propaganda. Maybe Animal Welfare gone rabid, I would believe, but I don't know if that counts as AR.

The reason the ARs are so big on neutering every dog that moves is because when they see dogs, puppies in particular, it sickens them. They believe in their hearts that the breeder must have been a horrible puppy mill, greedy and terrible for having bred a puppy in exchange for money. They have a distorted view of humankind, as well. The new owners, they believe, surely do not know what they know and will end up abusing this dog. The pup will be condemned to a life of suffering because it's not done the way they would do it.

I believed very heavily in animal rights many years back. I was a supporter of PETA and became obsessed with the issue of cruelty to animals. I saw it everywhere, and liberated dogs that I believed were being abused/neglected. I know for a fact that this was the prevailing mindset, this was how the ARs viewed pups, breeders, and issues of cruelty. I have been in the midst of them, and they are, for the most part, a very sad, misguided lot, as was I. It was only when I began researching my own breeding program about 7+ years ago that my eyes were opened to what really goes on with breeders and was able to straighten out my distorted thinking. It was a period in my life when my mental health suffered greatly, so lets just suffice it to say that is why I believe many die hard ARs are literally out of their minds, not thinking like mormal people.



Hehe, I guess this all stems from when I was 13, and my BFF freaked out on me because I said I was for Animal Rights (her dad was rabidly against such "liberal" things)....because I thought all animals have a "right" to be treated kindly and respectfully. Of course now I realize that's not what AR means, but I'm still confused :confused:


I agree, it IS confusing. That's what got me into the AR movement when I was about 17-18. Really, what animal lover wouldn't want animals to have the right to be treated kindly?

Unfortunately, it's a catchy gimmick but in the end, a gimmick is all that it is. The movement is based in ultra liberal socialist ideals, it's current founders (such as Ingrid Newkirk, although she is not the original founder of the concept) have, by their own words, displayed an utter disgust for the human race. In fact, one of the first conceptions of the AR movement was popularized by ... Adolf Hitler :mad: It wasn't coincidence that innocent Jewish, homosexual, gypsies, etc. were subjected to vivisection. He would not impose this on animals, yet look. Just look what he did. It's an insult to the human race to read the laws the Nazi party imposed regarding animal rights.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Animal-welfare-in-Nazi-Germany

This is one reason why the AR mindset angers and scares so many who are "in the know". It's a dangerous belief system that, in the end, does nothing further to protect animals. In fact, it's NEVER the ARs who are protecting the animals. They are the ones demanding no kill shelters to operate - we have one in Long Island, NY which was pressured to go no kill by the ARs. They did, and not only were the animals piling up, the conditions were deplorable! Yet PETA euthanizes almost all the pets brought to them in their adoption drives. www.petakillsanimals.com A few of their workers were even on trial for animal cruelty a few years back for the way they disposed of the bodies!

The bottom line is this. None of us want to see animals harmed. But the definition of abuse has been distorted by the ARs, and they are clever. They have billions of dollars and instead of helping animals, they are backing animal movies (Chicken Run), buying lobbyists & politicians, and changing the laws, twisting the public's view of how animals should be kept one step at a time. Anyone who wants to continue to own animals should be disgusted by the very concept of any animal rights organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
That's a great article. Language is very important, many people do not stop and think why certain words are being used by certain groups, but it's important to examine what they're trying to express with their choice of wording. If you can change how people speak, you can also affect how they think.

Even 'harmless' changes like calling your pets 'furkids' or saying you're their 'guardian' instead of their owner, can play into the AR agenda to make animals to be the same as ACTUAL children and therefore demand the same legal rights for them.

It's hard, because we DO see our dogs as part of our family, and we all humanize our pets to a degree. But to do that LEGALLY (which is what AR wants) would actually be a disaster for all pet-loving people.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top