The American Spectator : The Nonhuman Animal

Text Size

The Nonhuman Animal

By Rev. Michael P. Orsi from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue

Wesley Smith on the human cost of the animal rights movement.

A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement
By Wesley J. Smith
(Encounter Books, 249 pages, $25.95)

The title of Attorney Wesley Smith’s book, A Rat Is a Fish Is a Dog Is a Boy, was borrowed from Ingrid Newkirk, president and co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and counsel for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, uses Newkirk’s line to sum up the attack on human exceptionalism by advocates of the oxymoronic “animal rights movement.”

Smith introduces us to the major players and groups, explaining their philosophies, exposing their tactics, and warning of the consequences if their misanthropic activities are left unchallenged. He begins by noting the difference between “animal welfare” and “animal rights.” The first is a well-established and quite legitimate cause that calls for the humane treatment of animals, while the second is a movement that puts forth the dubious notion that all sentient beings have inalienable rights to life and liberty akin to human rights. The idea that animals have rights is illegitimate because, he says, animals “are amoral and cannot conceive of the rights of others or of bearing obligations.”

The animal rights concept gained a foothold in the academic world during the early 1970s when Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer claimed that most people are guilty of “speciesism.” This is an imagined form of discrimination defined as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species.”

Singer’s outlook is entirely “utilitarian” and not concerned with rights, per se. The criteria by which he determines the “worth” of any life are consciousness or “quality of life,” and he holds that “animals deserve the same consideration as humans” in such evaluations. But while his work advanced the animal rights cause, his views are offensive to hard-core movement activists because, at bottom, Singer doesn’t believe in intrinsic rights for either humans or animals.

According to Gary L. Francione, professor of law at Rutgers and an animal rights proponent, sentience (conscious awareness) is “the only characteristic that should be required for personhood status and for having a right not to be treated as a thing.” Thus, an animal’s awareness of its surroundings or its impulses — to whatever limited degree it can be aware — is sufficient to imbue it with rights equal to those of human beings.

Despite such a radically egalitarian outlook, animal rights activists rely heavily on certain distinctively human emotions to gain sympathy. Groups such as PETA and the Animal Liberation Project (ALP) frequently employ graphic photos of animals suffering in laboratories and slaughterhouses. They make Holocaust analogies or employ anthropomorphic depictions of animals that would make Walt Disney blush. Their tactics range from educational propaganda, deceptive “investigative” journalism, political lobbying, and litigation right up to outright threats.

Smith cites the Silver Spring monkey case as an example of one approach. He describes the actions of PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco taken against medical researcher Dr. Edward Taub. Over a hellish period of seven years, PETA continually harassed Taub, who was experimenting with monkeys to find ways of rehabilitating patients suffering from loss of feeling in their arms due to traumatic injuries. Smith recounts how Taub was forced to stop his research and was even tried in criminal court for violating the Animal Welfare Act. Eventually, Taub and his experimental methodology were exonerated of all 119 counts of animal cruelty brought against him.

The holy grail of the animal rights agenda — and its most dangerous goal — is the establishment of constitutional rights for animals. Smith examines a 2002 voter-approved amendment to the Florida state constitution which granted a pregnant pig the “right” not to be kept in a gestation crate (a container humanely designed to prevent a sow from rolling over on its young). The practical prudence of the amendment aside, Smith notes that approaching this issue from the perspective of “rights,” as opposed to merely restricting a particular animal husbandry practice, has far-reaching implications. He insists that Florida’s constitution “is about the rights and responsibilities of people, not pigs.” To extend rights to pigs undermines “the unique status that humans enjoy under law above the natural world of flora and fauna.”

Smith debunks activist claims of the need for animal rights, providing numerous examples of efforts to treat animals humanely. He shows how laboratory protocols and even slaughtering techniques have been scrutinized and improved so that animals will feel as little anxiety and pain as possible. He also describes how zoos and aquariums have been improved to provide safe and comfortable environments. Such institutions, he says, are regulated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), which sets forth strict guidelines for the care and housing of animals.

But Smith’s primary concern is with the degradation of the human person inherent in the attempt to make animals equal with people. He demonstrates how this leveling harms science, medicine, education, good nutrition, and, of course, human dignity — all of which reflect the ultimate objective of the movement: elimination of people.

This anti-human agenda has progressed to the point at which some now assert that even plants may have rights. Smith relates how the Swiss added a provision to their constitution requiring that “account is to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants, and other organisms.” This has been interpreted by the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to mean that plants should never be harmed or destroyed “arbitrarily.”

Smith doesn’t connect animal rights activism with the broader environmental movement, but the similarly anti-human aspect of the “green” agenda demonstrates a natural linkage (which would make an intriguing subject for a follow-up book). One need only look at the environmentalists’ emphasis on caring for the ecosystem while decrying the damage done to it by human beings with their infernal “carbon footprints.” Both movements seek the reduction of human presence on the planet through birth control, euthanasia, eugenics — even by starvation, if you carry the policies they advocate to their natural conclusions.

Legislation and court rulings that buttress the concept of animal rights (and now, plant rights as well) undermine critical thinking about the uniqueness of the human species. Smith has done a marvelous job in pointing out the absurdity of animal rights and the concrete danger it poses. This book should be read by anyone concerned with human welfare. Religious leaders, especially, should take note and warn their adherents of the underlying threat that this radical movement poses to our Judeo-Christian belief system and to all human life.

About the Author

Rev. Michael P. Orsi is a chaplain and research fellow in law and religion at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Catherine King| 8.11.10 @ 7:33AM

I read the first few paragraphs only. The writer sounds like someone using scare tactics that were used to justify slavery and other such defenseless institutions. I find the writers views appalling. Tell me what is soooo bad about giving animals the 'right' to not be harmed by humans?

Tom| 8.11.10 @ 7:50AM

Catherine,
How do you define harmed? And why does limiting of harm have to be in the form of 'rights'? There are lots of animal cruelty statutes, if there needs to be more we certainly have no trouble passing laws. Do you think animals deserve the same considerations as humans?

Bret Lythgoe| 8.15.10 @ 1:23AM

Tom: What is all this fear of granting animals rights? No one's claiming that they should get more than their due. Certainly no one can legitimately assert that any animal should have the same rights as a human. They should only have rights, that are congruent with their particular spiecies flourishment. For a cat, for example, its rights would entail the right to life, a clean litter box, a place to move around, and be free of cruel treatment. For humans, rights entail, the right to life, liberty, etc.

Harry the Horrible| 8.11.10 @ 8:45AM

When animals agree to respect one another's "rights" and not harm on another, I'll listen to such crap.
In the meantime: "Meat: its whats for dinner!"

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 11:58AM

If others should respect rights before we do, then we should not respect human rights. Most humans don't. Human history of crime, warfare and genocide show that. Rather, we should act morally regardless of how others act.

JKS| 8.11.10 @ 1:40PM

Thank you for making the point of how idiodic the animal rights movement is. Animals cannot tell the difference between right and wrong because the are moral judgements and animals are amoral. No moral judgement...no rights. Should they be treated properly? Of course. We were given dominion over all the birds of the air, animals on the land and fish in the sea by God. When animals can reason, then they can have rights.

Maria| 8.11.10 @ 6:57PM

That means you shouldn't have any rights because you can't reason. You're basing your argument on an imaginary figure giving you dominion! Ha! By that "reasoning" I should be able to say that Santa Claus gave me dominion over not allowing fools like you to open your mouth and it should be so.

Maria| 8.11.10 @ 7:00PM

On a more serious note, do you think that because some people who are mentally retarded cannot reason that they should have no rights either? What about people in comas? I'd say those who cannot speak or are not strong enough to fight for themselves are the ones most in need of rights. That includes animals.

Me, Myself & I| 8.11.10 @ 10:29PM

Maria,
Scary thought.......but there have been nations that agreed with that statement.....Nazi Germany comes to mind.

However the vast majority of OUR species is capable of understanding their own rights & respecting the rights of others.......& not one single member of ANY other species is capable of that kind of abstract reasoning.
Just because someone is either temporarily or permanently unable to reason, doesn't deprive them of rights.
...that's not being illogical.....it's just a reflection of the fact that if you're human, you're assumed to be capable of higher thought.
We give the benefit of the doubt.
Because we know happens (re:Nazis)when a society decides to apply "criteria" for deciding which people should have rights.

Rick Z| 8.12.10 @ 1:00PM

@ Maria, who said, "I'd say those who cannot speak or are not ___ are the ones most in need of rights._____ That includes animals.

Check the Second Amendment ..... something about Keeping and Arming Bears.

g stubbs| 8.11.10 @ 9:24PM

it's not about whether animals can tell the difference between right and wrong. animals are sentient beings meaning that they FEEL just like we do.
can that dreary old line about Birds in the air and fish in the sea. this planet will never know peace so long as there is not a global shift in consciousness regarding the abuse and consumption of meat. that's what is AMORAL!!!

alice| 8.15.10 @ 1:07PM

sentient beings?? you mean like a lion who brings down an innocent gazelle.. one of the most beautiful creatures on earth and rip its guts out while it is still alive?? is that what you mean? Where is the gazelles right to live? behind the lions?

jude| 8.17.10 @ 1:40PM

you are an idiot!

Scott J| 8.11.10 @ 9:29AM

Rights are funny things, to be a right it cant negate other rights and they have to be universal. For animals to have rights they have to understand the rights they have so not to interfere with their neighbors (other animals) rights.
Since it is well known that animals can make no such distinctions they therefore have no claim to any rights. They merely exist in there own sphere to be of benefit to more advanced species in the food chain. Since Humans are tops in the food chain they are merely there to be of benefit to humans.
We can extend these animals any dignity we like but it isnt required. Do you require the cat that just caught a bird to kill it quicker or not kill it at all and instead live off of plants? No we dont because the cat is higher in the food chain. If you want to show the lesser species dignity then pray to God in thanks for providing that meal. Other than that they are here for our benefit.
Of course you individually are free not to eat anything you want. Just keep it to your self and stop projecting.

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 11:59AM

It's called a food chain because there is always another link. There is no "top" to a chain.

JKS| 8.11.10 @ 1:43PM

Really? So what animals specifially hunt humans as a food source?

sestamibi| 8.11.10 @ 4:49PM

Are you serious? ALL carnivores, not only big cats and bears but also large reptiles and piranhas, hunt humans for food WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF. They are unsuccessful because we have guns to stop them in their tracks.

Negro X| 8.11.10 @ 6:23PM

Homosexual predators.

Alan M. Abraham| 8.13.10 @ 12:58PM

JKS, actually that isn't such a silly question. Several State Departments of Fish and Game have been reporting the adaptation of wild animals to humans for food. It is not because there isn't enough food in the wild. It is because of human encroachment in the wilderness. Suburban housing in the Everglades and Western high desserts and mountains are examples. Some wild animals no longer fear humans and see them as easy prey. Humans can no longer jog or camp in the California wilderness unprotected from Cougars. Burmese Pythons are rampant in Florida and they and Gators have taken small children from backyards abutting canals. Coyotes regularly take urban pets and will not hesitate to take a small child and have in So. Cal. None of this is comforting, but give you food for thought.

Mosquito| 8.15.10 @ 12:16PM

I hunt humans. They were put on earth by God to be a source of nourishment to me and my kind. As a creature lower down the food chain, the human has no moral rights. The very notion of "human rights" is offensive to higher creatures like me and also to God, who created us in our appropriate places in the food chain.

Alan M. Abraham| 8.13.10 @ 12:47PM

Right On Scott! When activists use the word "rights" they also mean "freedom". However, "freedom" is not LICENSE! So, I guess animals will have responsibilities that go along with their new "rights" and "freedom". Won't that require a higher level of thinking...which they obviously aren't ready for? LOL

jude| 8.17.10 @ 1:42PM

yes,and in your next life,you will come back as a deer that is terrorised and shot by hunters.

Mark| 8.11.10 @ 1:27PM

If animals have rights, does this not mean that they have responsibilties as well? So, are we going to be trying birds for murdering worms? Wolfs for murdering sheep? To ask the question is to further point out the insanity of the animal rights crowd (as contrasted to the animal welfare crowd). Our society is in such tough shape because of decades of attempting to divorce human rights from human responsibilities.

Bret Lythgoe| 8.15.10 @ 1:13AM

Mark: It's a fallacy to assert that a being must have responibilities, if one has rights. We certainly realize that babies and mentally defective humans don't have responsibilities. When was the last time you saw a baby on trial?

Me,Myself & I| 8.11.10 @ 10:05PM

Catherine,
When you remove the distinction between humans & other creatures....by claiming that animals have a '"right" "not to be harmed by us", you run into a great big quagmire of inconsistencies & contradictions.

If humans aren't inherently different from animals(in having rights, among other things) then logic naturally leads to the conclusion that animals also have the "right" not to be harmed by other animals either .

....Or maybe humans really ARE different.
And perhaps animals don't have "rights" because they don't have the capacity to understand "rights"...... or respect the "rights" of others.

Rick Z| 8.12.10 @ 1:05PM

Yes, I agree there are rights associated with animals.

Laws preventing animal cruelty come to mind.
While these laws prevent mistreatment, they also serve to enforce humanity on us all. Preventing humans from descending into savagery is an ancillary benefit.

JohnD| 8.11.10 @ 7:56AM

Humans are created in God's image, and possess the ability to reason. Animals (non-human) are not created in God's image, and do not possess the ability to reason. They act based on instinct, not reason. A hungry dog will eat what is put before him, while a hungry human may refuse a bountiful feast laid before him by Satan.

Human's, unlike animals, possess the free will and reason to decide to do right, or do wrong. Animals, as the author above notes, are amoral and have no concept of the rights of others, or good or evil. To have rights, one must respect their own obligation to respect the rights of others - humans can do this, animals cannot.

I refer you to the Bible, Genesis 1-26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "

In other words, God made man in his image, and gave him dominion over the animals to use as he saw fit. That means slaughtering them for food, using them for work to raise his sustenance, using their hides to clothe himself, etc.

Implicit in this is man's obligation for proper stewardship of the animals and the earth. I would guess that fighting dogs for entertainment is not acceptable, but using them for medical experiments to save humans, wearing their fur, and eating their flesh is all acceptable.

To equate humans with non-human animals (not creaed in God's image, not possessed of morality or reason) is to degrade humanity. This is exactly what the animals rights people and environmentalists intend to do.

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 12:03PM

Along with Gen 1-26 comes 1-29 a few sentences later. God said, "Eat plants for meat." In Isaiah 11:6-9, God said, "Do no harm to humans or nonhumans." While we have permission to eat animals, it is clear that nonviolence is paramount to the message of God. If our parents give us permission to do something but tells us that they would rather us not do something, I would not take any joy in doing what they say is wrong. Instead, I would do what they want. Since God wants us to live in peace, I live in peace.

JKS| 8.11.10 @ 1:45PM

If "it is clear that nonviolence is paramount to the message of God" why did Jesus make a cat-o-nine-tails to drive the money changers out of the temple? As you say that was "clearly" not nonviolence in action.

KyMouse| 8.11.10 @ 9:59PM

Jerry, God doesn't tell us to be vegetarians. The "cattle" mentioned in Genesis 1 are for food, hides and work -- not for pets.

And lambs: Exodus 29, Leviticus 14, Numbers 28 are among the chapters that spell out the requirement to sacrifice them (as well as other animals) for the forgiveness of sins (fast-forward to John 1:29, 36).

In Isaiah 11:6-9, the prophet is looking ahead to the messianic kingdom of that Lamb; in it, peace and harmony will recall the idyllic conditions of the Garden of Eden. That kingdom has not yet come.

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:28AM

The record of so "proper stewardship" you mention has to date been appalling. When do you suppose the real proper stewardship will begin?

TURK| 8.11.10 @ 8:11AM

Our country is drowning in a sea of lunatics like like Catherine and her peta cohorts. Like Pelosi, Reid et al they hate themselves and everyone else; and their frequently violent acts contribute to the rest of the crazies and their attempt to destroy our society.

Have you counted the number of barking dogs on your street lately? Have you noticed their owners 'don't give a damn attitude at the resulting disturbance to the neighborhood? How about the dissapearance of lovely songbirds at the hands of feral cats? One of my sons has 2 sons and 3 yappy dogs. Whats up with that?

A.C.D| 8.11.10 @ 8:20AM

As I can see that the Judeo Christian belief of mans stewardship over animals is the driving force here against the prinicple of Animal rights, I would like to pose the question, do you honestly believe that we are being good stewards to our animals?
Although I know that the animal rights groups use horrifying images to draw parallels to the holocaust (which is more to shock and create dialogue, much like 80% of the inflammatory material printed here uses the precise same tactics) I have to admit that the modern farming and rearing tactics used completely remove any form of dignity the animal had in life. Their way of life is completely altered and are no longer able to live lives as animals (treating the gifts given to use by God with respect), but rather treat them as objects given to us by Satan. An animal may not be created in the image of God, but it is still a creation of God, which should be respected and treated as such. I have no problems with eating meat, wearing furs and using animals in the countless of products they are in, but I feel that they must have a life which better reflects their natural existance (like the one we shared prior to the massive, crowded factories they where put in after WWII).
And as a side note, the massive factory farms where almost all domesticated animals spend their lives pose ENORMOUS health risks in creating and spreading disease which will most certainly cause a greater loss of human life than any Animals rights cause may ever hope to achieve.

michigander_sandusky| 8.11.10 @ 8:50AM

A.C.D. I doubt you really have a clue as to how animals are really treated on the so-called factory farms to which you refer. I've worked in animal agriculture for over 30 years and can attest that advances in animal husbandry over that period are truly astounding. Are there "bad actors"? Yes, just like in every industry, but every segment of animal agriculture is working very hard to insure that all producers meet acceptable standards. I suggest you check out such programs as the one sponsored by the National Milk Producers Federation "FARM" program (http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/). FARM stands for "farmers assuring responsible management." As an animal science professor for a major land grant university I know that there is no incentive for farmers to mistreat animals. Mistreatment decreases productiveness which decreases profits. Instead of castigating animal agriculture Americans should celebrate the fact that the productivity of America's animal agriculture producers provides Americans the safest and most nutritious food supply in the world.

JohnD| 8.11.10 @ 8:57AM

" modern farming and rearing tactics used completely remove any form of dignity the animal had in life. Their way of life is completely altered and are no longer able to live lives as animals "

Animals have no dignity or way of life. They are amoral creatures, devoid of reason, devoid of dignity. The application of mass production techniques to, say chicken farming, or cattle farming, make prices for those foods affordable for humans, which serves God's purpose for the animals. Would it be preferable to create a "Club Med" type atmosphere for these animals, if it meant the poor and third world humans could no longer afford these foods and subsequently die? I say, no.

Poor stewardship would be slaughtering animals for mere sport, torturing them for entertainment, etc. No one is for animal cruelty for cruelty's sake, which I believe is an offense to God's will.

What about the average New Yorker who lives in a one-room apratment and works in a 6ft-by-6ft cubicle?

scot J| 8.11.10 @ 9:59AM

You make a lot of mistake in your argument. First off please provide us with statistics that the animal factories are killing more humans that saving. Animal farms and the technology that goes with them have completely eliminated starvation in this country so Again please provide your data to back up that claim.
Not sure how you would treat something given by satan or if that is even possible in this regard. If you want to show respect the bible has taught you how to do so. You pray and give thanks to God for providing that meal. There problem solved. Thank God for your food, for the Technology that allowed it to be purchased so affordably, for the abundance we have and the ability we have to feed millions around the world that dont have our Technology. I think that shows more respect than what you suggest. Since what you suggest would make human existence more difficult.

Le Cracquere| 8.11.10 @ 9:00PM

A.C.D., I think you make some decent arguments. Unfortunately, your worst enemy is the likes of PETA. By diverting the debate away from human stewardship of nature (and its attendant responsibilities), recent activists have made it solely a matter of inherent rights. And such terms renders the argument a zero-sum exercise: if they've got rights, animals have a veritably human-like menu of privileges; if they don't, we have near-infinite privileges of exploitation and cruelty (why the hell OUGHTN'T one be cruel, if that's the only issue and PETA's wrong about it?).

This leads to the worse problem: the animal-"rights" crowd has helped make kindness to animals look soft-headed, indefensible, and akin to various pomo anti-human innovations. They've helped anaesthetize the consciences of people who (rightly) have no time for PETA, and removed from the reach of sensible debate issues like the ones you raise--which aren't fatuous ones. But the stupid political theatre of PETA makes cheap dismissals of animal treatment easy, and casts the debate in a way that can only lead to two opposing and equally fatuous answers.

NavyBrat | 8.11.10 @ 8:29AM

"I Didn't Claw My Way to the Top of the Food Chain to Eat Vegetables."

My bumpersticker on my beer cooler.

JohnD| 8.11.10 @ 9:01AM

Referencing our conversation yesterday about our plans for the Ground Zero barbeque palace, I believe the pig is the most noble, and tasty, of God's creatures. Ham, Pork, Bacon, Sausage Gravy - there is no end to the great food we get from these wonderful animals.

NavyBrat | 8.11.10 @ 10:01AM

I agree. I was raised in a mixed religion household. My Dad was Jewish & my Mom Catholic. My Dad NEVER kept Kosher, except for the High Holy Days. He was a pork freak. I spent 8 years cooking in fine dinning kitchens & learned a love of all things pork that I never thought possible. G*d bless the noble pig.

PS. Anthony Bourdain is also a pork freak. The episodes where he's delving into roasted whole hog are incredible.

The Big E| 8.11.10 @ 12:12PM

Mr. Bourdain also uttered my all time favorite line about food -

"It just ain't a party until someone kills a pig."

Amen.

NavyBrat | 8.11.10 @ 12:45PM

Bourdain is THE MAN. Its just that simple. What a great line.

The Big E| 8.11.10 @ 12:13PM

Also, never forget, there is no such thing as too many ham biscuits.

Louis Jenkins| 8.11.10 @ 8:59AM

Wow. A lot of good comments here. My dog is house trained, but one day he had a slip and left a major #2 in the floor. When I came home his teeth were chattering and he was trembling from fear, afraid that he would be punished. No punishment for this dog was handed out, as he had already paid his retribution. The point I'm trying to make is that we should treat animals in an ethical manner. We should not allow animals to be escalated to equality with humans, but by the same token we should give them due care and consideration. Animals are the soft underbelly of the American population. Without the factories we would be on a different diet, and in our absence many of our beloved pets would starve.

scot J| 8.11.10 @ 9:41AM

Of course the difference is that he wasnt scared because what he did was wrong but because of association. Poo in house=smack on nose. Big difference from Poo in house=wrong. Animals have no way of knowing right from wrong only association. He coward because in the past he was hit in some way. If you never hit him and only used treats a dog would never cower when he missed up. This is behavior science 101.
Negative vs positive association.
Teaching your pet by smacking him on the nose isnt unethical as long as it is appropriate and useful. Beating a dog long after a mishap is un-useful. But with my dog it is a very effective behavior alteration, treats just dont have the same effect.
If a dog runs into the the street and you dont chastise he will do it again. If he gets hit by a car the next time would you still believe that you shouldnt have smacked him on the nose the first time? Just a moral thought...

Richard| 8.11.10 @ 11:47AM

scot j, Skinnerism is a superficial explanation of human behavior. It assumes that the animal is only a nexus of negative and positive reinforcements. Higher animals are far more than that. They do in fact reason albeit primitively as with goal oriented behavior and they do have a free will albeit rudimentary.

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 12:05PM

Scot, you say the same things that DeCartes said a few hundred years ago. Science has learned a lot since then. Even DeCartes's contemporary, Voltaire, showed that DeCartes's ideas had no merit.

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:25AM

You should not be smacking a dog. This is totally unnecessary and outmoded thinking.

jude| 8.17.10 @ 1:59PM

louis and john: i would like to punch you both in the nose.part of the animal rights movement is to stop the whole domestication of animals so that they don't end up being the recipients of stupid owners' idiotic treatment.

scott J| 8.11.10 @ 9:46AM

I agree though, treat animals well. It is just that your example was bad. I dont consider spanking a dog as mistreatment. Also because you assume that a dog has the ability to understand right from wrong. being scared of punishment to a dog is not punishment. It is only association. Keep that in mind, it will be helpful in your training.

Melvin| 8.11.10 @ 10:03AM

I wish some of you activists would make your minds up. The PETA types don't want us to eat meat, and the Sierra Club types don't want us to go into the fields and graze. So just what the hell are we supposed to do?
What is next rights for Sunflowers? This mass hysteria is what happens when activism becomes a business.
Unfortunately there are bad people out there that despite all the laws, and rules against animal cruelty are still take pleasure in being cruel to an animal.
So this type of mass punishment the activists want to place on ever body is just plain stupid.
Thanks to Walt Disney, there are people out there that equate wild animals to humans. "You mean Brown Bears can't walk, talk and reason like humans."
Not that long ago, a Chinese man in visited a zoo in one large city in China and crawled over the retaining wall and went to give the Panda that was inside a hug. Well, guess what, did the Panda return this man's hug and had tea together? No, the Panda being a Panda and a bear tore this man a new one. The Panda damned near killed this idiot.
I treat my dogs, most times better than I treat myself. They get a sniffle I take them to the vet, we take snoozes together, and watch TV. For some reason I have a Walker Hound that loves to watch TV, I'll turn the TV on and put on Animal Planet and Weiner is happy as a clam.
Even though Weiner is the most prescious creature to me on this planet, Weiner is still just a dog, with dog urges, dog instincts, and now matter how much I live with the illusion that Weiner can understand me when I talk to him, Weiner is still just a dog, and that is all he'll ever be.
But lowering the human species to lower species and awarding the lower species rights under our Constitution is just plain nonsense.

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 12:07PM

Melvin, you can satisfy both by not eating meat. Meat production takes 1000% of the land needed compared to plant production. So if we stop eating animals, 90% of the land can return to nature. The animals will be happy, and the humans too.

Melvin| 8.11.10 @ 12:38PM

OK, then what do we do with the Sierra Club types who do not want us to trample on the 90% of land that is returned to nature.
This group feels just as strongly about plant rights as you do about animal rights. With either group their is no middle ground, or negotiation. It is they're way or the highway.
So what are humans supposed to exist on?

JKS| 8.11.10 @ 1:54PM

You are a fool.

Petronius| 8.11.10 @ 10:48AM

In order to have rights, one must be capable of making and keeping agreements. Animals can't. So we generally accord the protection. Outside of the pet population, the FDA regulates meat packers. Our conservation commissions regulate hunting seasons. (This is PETA's real target in their war against rednecks). Then there are organizations that sanction horse and dog racing, kennel clubs, licensed breeders, et. al.
Then one thing people have in common with the rest of the animal kingdom is the urge to dominate. And that is PETA's objective.

dlm| 8.11.10 @ 11:43AM

A fetus is incapable of making or keeping an agreement, so clearly a fetus does not have rights.

Petronius| 8.11.10 @ 4:16PM

That begs the question: what form of life produced dlm?

cuban pete| 8.11.10 @ 4:59PM

Something between an amoeba and a tree frog.

Jerry| 8.11.10 @ 12:10PM

Meat eaters want to dominate nonhuman animals. PETA wants to wreck that domination. Saying that PETA is domineering is misleading.

JKS| 8.11.10 @ 1:58PM

PETA and you are tyrannical because you want to control what other people do. You are no different from any of the two-bit tin-horn dictators (including our very own prezbo) who want to run ruffshod over everyone else around them.

That makes you quintessentially un Amercian. So, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY AND STOP TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOMS!

Oh, just one question, Why do up to 90% of the animals that end up in peta shelters end up being put down? (And in some cases thrown in the dumpster.)

A.C.D| 8.12.10 @ 3:10AM

You seriously need to put down the meth because the paranoia is creeping in a little too much with you. Tyranny? The idea that they are trying to impose tyranny is laughable. Obama is not trying to impose tyranny or socialism or anything of the sort.
By your standards of tyranny, if someone asked you to quiet down in a movie they would be imposing tyranny. By your standards, requiring someone wear a seat belt is tyranny. You are not a patriot, you are not american, you are, by your own stanards an anarchist. So if I where you, I would sit down and ask myself, how in any way has my life changed for the negative as a direct result of Obama being elected president? You know the answer? I do...its nothing. He has done nothing to your life that has changed it in the negative in any way. The economy is not centrally planned, there are no bread lines, there are no socialist banners flying around. I challange anyone here to tell me how the american system has changed in anyway that would be considered worse. And dont say hollow BS like "He took my freedoms", because if he did, I would like to see EXACTLY which ones and how that affected your life in any way.

A.C.D| 8.12.10 @ 3:10AM

Conservative Bob| 8.12.10 @ 9:39AM

The abrogations of personal property rights ultimately affect every single American.

The takeover if GM and Chrysler where this administration in direct contravention of existing bankruptcy law gave the secured assets of a one group to unsecured political contributors.

The new financial reform law gives to the treasury the power to seize the assets of any company that the treasury at its sole discretion determines might negatively affect the economy.

As a stock holder or a bond holder your ownership of your property is no longer secure.

This is a fundamental change in our rights.

These are not necessarily germane to animal rights topic but your question asked for any example where this regime was violating anyone’s rights. I thought I would go to some of more egregious and fundamental, the seizure of private property without legal recourse or compensation.

Eric| 8.11.10 @ 12:20PM

I didn't read every comment, but it seemed that most of these (and the review) miss the point: this is not about *treating* animals better. It's about plain old fairness, which means no longer using other animals as mere resources.

If we as a society take seriously these two things:

1) All sentient beings are morally relevant, by virtue of the sentience that gives them morally relevant interests, such as avoiding pain or death, and

2) Justice demands that we give like interests like respect,

then veganism is compulsory for our society.

Given that our laws already recognize the sentience and moral relevance of animals (but makes the mistake of categorizing them as our property), it would seem that our society agrees with number 1. But because nonhuman animals are property, we fail as a society to fulfill #2, despite the principle of equality that underlies every non-reprehensible moral philosophy, and that means we need to change the way we do things.

*That* is the legitimate animal rights movement. It's a movement to abolish the property status of animals, which is ultimately what stands in the way of them being given equal consideration for their morally relevant interests. Only then can we say as a society that we are justly giving equal consideration for like interests to all morally relevant beings. Until then, the only justification for dominating and using animals is that we can, which is a very sorry state of affairs indeed.

Philip| 8.11.10 @ 1:40PM

Good arguments, Eric.

JohnD| 8.11.10 @ 3:18PM

Humans are created in God's image; animals are not. Animals are property and should be property. Wildlife is property of the State and the people, hence wildlife management scemes and agencies, hunting seasons, etc. Domesticated animals (Cows, Horses, dogs, chickens, pigs, etc.) are, and should be the property of their owners and tenders.

Conservative Bob| 8.11.10 @ 3:31PM

Morally relevant, Like respect.... Equal consideration.

Very imprecise terms what exactly does this mean in practice.

I cannot own a cow there fore i cannot eat a cow.

A fish is a free and independent being and catching one would therefore deprive it of equal consideration.

As I can not own a chicken the collection and consumption of its eggs would be theft of property.

You are in a vehicle traveling down a very narrow road it is a very steep hill.. The brakes go out one the vehicle and there is no way to stop. At the bottom of the hill are an 8 year old girl and a dog. There is only enough room to miss one the other will be killed.
Please tell me under your system which is the morally relevant choice?

I can not own a cow there fore i can not eat a cow.

A fish is a free and independent being

Conservative Bob| 8.11.10 @ 4:02PM

Not sure how the last 2 lines repeated but my post should have stopped at ....relevant chioce?

vb| 8.12.10 @ 7:15AM

Does a cat have a right to canned fish catfood? How can it choose a lawyer that will represent its rights? Or are we just to assume they prefer tofu?

Sheryl| 8.11.10 @ 12:21PM

Catherine King's comment is so typical of those who espouse "animal rights." She only reads a tiny portion of a well-reasoned argument about what is wrong with the concept of "animal rights" (vs. animal welfare, as the article says) and then asks, rhetorically I presume, what is soooo wrong with the concept of animal rights! The answer to her question was explained in simple and understandable terms right there in the article itself. Oh, and it's always a good idea to throw in unrelated words like "slavery" and "scare tactics" to really paint the author as a bad guy--all after not bothering to read what he actually has to say!

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:39AM

Maybe you should read more widely on animal rights and see what other books have to say. You will find that Mr. Smith is wrong on many issues. For one thing, there is no anti-human agenda because animal rights is linked to human rights, which people would understand if they weren't satisfied with shallow thinking and weren't so ignorant.

Pete| 8.11.10 @ 1:07PM

radically egalitarian = f'ing nuts.

Randy| 8.11.10 @ 1:47PM

Why do we keep beating around the bush? Let's call this exactly what it is: Paganism. The animal rights crowd and the eco-nazis are joined at the hip, and have exactly the same disregard for the sanctity of human life. Abortion and euthanasia are the natural result of this thinking. It all begins with the refusal to recognize the obvious: that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it.

A.C.D| 8.12.10 @ 3:02AM

How is it Paganism? You offer no argument what so ever, and attempt to clarify it all with biblical prose. Your scholastic argument is completely worthless.

Bob Miller| 8.11.10 @ 2:20PM

Man was given stewardship over the earth, which includes a responsibility not to cause unnecessary harm to animals and plants and rocks, etc. That is far from the idea that animals have rights. If any animals disagree with this, let them post comments to explain.

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:43AM

I am an animal and I disagree with your notion of "stewardship." Factory farms cause unnecessary harm to animals and are totally unnatural environments, or would you call this necessary and justifiable? Would you say you are an ethical person for accepting cruelty to animals in the meat, dairy, egg and fur industries?

Robert Brennan| 8.11.10 @ 4:53PM

I give an opposable thumbs up to this article. 46 chromosome packing bi-peds unite!

sestamibi| 8.11.10 @ 4:54PM

Here, read this--written in 1973!

http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-D.....amp;sr=1-3

Bea Elliott | 8.11.10 @ 10:58PM

Probably one of the most critical things to establish when defining acceptable "use" of animals is - Exactly what is "necessity"? Certainly not furs, zoos, rodeos, sports, and as it turns out... Not even "using" them for "food", given the availability of a plethora of other equally healthy choices.

I think it's very fair to say (in our modern world) that 99% of the time our "use" of animals is totally frivolous and lacks any reasonable justification. But only the courageous own up to that concept, because logically the conclusions require action. At least for those brave enough to walk the walk that is...

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:45AM

Agreed. Nicely put.

AaronC| 8.12.10 @ 10:46AM

Agree. Its quite bizarre that a lot of peoples primary reactions are to inflict hurt and pain, instead of evaluate the need to, or more specifically recognise the lack of need to hurt others. Why use barbaric logic where intelligence and reason is readily available?
And please, if you are going to have debate about animal well-being and suffering, please don't bring religion into it? God is invisible, unprovable-and to many (sane and well grounded people), make believe. However the suffering and unnecessary deaths of billions of animals is very real, factual, and undeniable. Gigantic difference.

Conservative Bob | 8.12.10 @ 11:50AM

Careful not to hurt your arm or sprain your shoulder there guys.
I mean you brave courageous types need to preserve your energy for the fight ahead…. I love how you so blithely proclaim the supremacy of your position and your superior intellect.
It is the common thread of so much of the progressive left.
Here is a novel idea if you don’t want to eat meat don’t if it offends you that animal hide is used to make certain products don’t buy them. Exercise your free will to follow whatever moral or amoral imperative you choose to follow, but do not seek to force your views or choices on the rest of us. If enough people come around to your way of thinking the market for these products will dry up. On the other hand if they do not you will have the personal satisfaction of knowing that you alone had the courage to bravely stand against the tide and did not contribute to the unreasonable use of animals and we can all still be happy.

Marc Jeric| 8.12.10 @ 12:48AM

Why stop with cows, dogs, fish, birds, lyons, etc.? What about the rights of microbes, mosquitoes, mold, amoebas, viruses, bacterias...? And then there are parasites, worms, marabunta ants, ...
Please add to this - I am out of breath.

vb| 8.12.10 @ 7:20AM

First addition: Do the bacteria that colonize our guts have a right to domesticate us for their food production?

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 9:56AM

I would have been surprised if this cliché had not appeared at some point. For many animal activists and vegans, the issue is the prevention of suffering. I think we can agree that bacteria do not have complex nervous systems or brains. It is highly unlike that they suffer in the way that animals do. The question of course is where to draw the line. The views on this vary, but the default for many is simply not to cause the death of living creatures.

Don L| 8.12.10 @ 7:55AM

I love that quote because it exposes the depths of sickness of these people. (How far down we've come from that "have dominion over..." thing) I came across it in my teacher's manual - which allowed me opportunity to reverse the sick propaganda of these folks.
My favorite PETA member was a hollowed-eyed
confused and angry young lady who castigated me for being a hunter and fisherman with the commment that we are just animals. I reminded her that if that's true than I can''t do what the other animals do and force my way upon you.
She staggered off dumbfounded with the realization of her stupidity.
On a higher plain, I believe that this (biodiversity) all species are equal is merely a diabolic attempt to reduce man to the level of animal so that he might act like one, insstead of the rational, creature that God calls us to be.

Stephen| 8.12.10 @ 10:22AM

Humans are animals. Indeed we share a common ancestor with all animals. I urge you to educate yourself about the reality of life on this planet.

Conservative Bob| 8.12.10 @ 12:05PM

As long as we are educating ourselves I would encourage you to take your own advice look at all of human history and you will discover that it involves our dominance over other species plant and animal. From primitive cave drawings to the present it is undeniable.
The fabled peaceful coexistence never existed; animals roaming freely at peace with us and one another in perfect harmony is a myth. You really need to get out more and observe life in the real world. Everything eats everything else and fights for survival.

Mosquito| 8.15.10 @ 2:15PM

Here's another, more in-depth review of Smith's book, by philosopher Jean Kazez. Her assessment: Smith's book is simplistic, full of logical holes, and not really worth spending your money on.
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2010.....oy_10.html