TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › animal rights ponderings...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

animal rights ponderings...

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
two issues i've been pondering lately..

first one i'm sure on my stand. i watched a program today where some men were hunting. my dad was a hunter and i understand it though i'm not very enthusiastic about it but i can understand when it is a sport and the game is consumed. HOWEVER, tonight's program they were able to get some old circus elephants, fence them into an enclosure, and shoot them with massive firearms that were extremely powerful. is this fair and is this merely to say they killed a beautiful creature because it shows they can defeat a larger animal? aren't elephants protected in most countries? and is it a fair fight if they are put in an enclosed area? the next segment they were hunting elk which was fine but they enclosed it again and shot powerful long distance range firearms and used a tape recording playing a female elk in distress to attract them. it just makes me sick. this is not a sport anymore, it's just murder for no reason. i understand survival of the fittest. if i ruled the world, i'd make sure that hunting was truly a fair fight. no enclosures, no long distance guns, no tapes or tricks or cheating. send em out in the wilderness with knife and do hand to hand combat. then that is a sport.

second issue i thought i knew my stand till i recently watched a documentary. when you hear of "no kill shelters" you automatically think that must be the most humane thing, right? well, at least i did. then i watched this documentary about a woman against them. i see her point now. basically, there are no kill shelters that keep dogs that are too dangerous and unpredictable to be adopted and it would be irresponsible to adopt them out. at first, that sounds nice to do that for them and give them a home. but then i saw it is not quite what i imagined. the dogs are in small enclosures outside seperated by a see through fence. they are all stacked up next to each other like jail cells. they sleep on asphalt and have no human contact with the workers. they hear barking 24 hours a day and cannot get a decent night's rest. is this really a good quality of life? why do we put down dogs with a terminal condition that are in pain but keep dogs alive that have no peace, love, or comfort? just to say they are still alive? this one i'm torn about. i'm not sure all of the no kill shelters are this way but it makes me think twice before 100% supporting it. i'm not sure what to think because i don't know all the facts.

anyway, those are my two things on my mind i am venting about..lol.
post #2 of 24
I am against hunting for sport. I don't see the point in it if you're not going to eat it.
I get angered easily when I see those things on TV where animals are pent up and "hunters" come in and shoot them. What "sport" is in it?
If someone is "hunting" and they consume it, I don't mind but I highly doubt someone is going to eat a zebra, elephant or bengal tiger.

As for the animal shelter, I can't comment much as I try to stay away from them. Every time I go to the SPCA, Humane Society, or otherwise, I'm too tempted to open the doors on all the cages and set em free Jk
post #3 of 24
I don't agree with hunting, especially the "canned" hunting - where you turn an animal loose in a small area with no escape just so you can "be the big game hunter" - its sick. I feel like arming the animals with guns to shoot back!

And I've always wondered about the no-kill shelters too - you can't keep the animals forever and what do you do when you run out of room. If that is typical of the no-kill shelters, then I'd question their motives!
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tink80 View Post

HOWEVER, tonight's program they were able to get some old circus elephants, fence them into an enclosure, and shoot them with massive firearms that were extremely powerful.


Oh my god, I have never been able to handle the idea of hunting in general. This is just SICK!!!
post #5 of 24
I have no objection to hunting where the animal is going to be eaten - in fact I think hunting for food purposes is far less inhumane than the intensive livestock farming and abattoirs that put most of our meat on our tables. I do very strongly object to 'canned' hunts and I don't see any worthwhile purpose in hunting non-food animals, it just seems like such a waste!

As far as no-kill shelters, it's a good idea in theory. But really if you take an animal that you no longer want to a no-kill shelter, all you are doing is making it someone else's responsibility to provide it with food, shelter, and veterinary care - all of which is expensive. It's putting the financial burden onto someone else, or at the very best, a group of 'someone elses' such as donors and volunteers. And what happens when those people simply don't have the money or space to take in any more animals? They only have finite resources, and there are always going to be some animals that take a long time to get adopted, if ever. They can either close their doors to new animals, euthanise the oldest/least likely to get adopted, or conditions worsen. No-kill shelters aren't really the answer, people have to be educated that having a pet is a lifelong committment and that includes the responsibility to neuter, BYBs need to be put out of business, leaving only responsible breeders who will screen adoptees and ensure that their babies are going to lifelong homes, and take the responsibility to rehome those babies themselves should the owner no longer be able to care for them through illness or vastly changed circumstances. No-kill shelters are not a solution, it's like trying to fix a shattered limb with a sticking plaster. I think a lot of them do their very best in very poor circumstances.
post #6 of 24
A lot of no-kill shelters won't take animals that are too violent to be adopted. I agree, no-kill shelters work for animals that could be adopted but maybe won't be because of litterbox issues, or they're old, or whatever. The one here is cats-only and they don't keep them in cages all the time.

As for hunting, human practices have all but extinguished many species' natural predators. Animals like deer over-reproduce because they are compensating for non-existent predators. Then over the winter they all starve and most of them die, in the process destroying the ecosystem they live in. It is our responsibility to hunt them. Cleveland hires snipers to cull the deer in the Metroparks, and it really is necessary. I have a problem with what has happened so that they have no predators except us.
post #7 of 24
Sport? Hunting was never a sport! Unless the deer are also snuggled up in Gore-Tex jackets in cozy little treehouse blinds, armed with sniper-sighted rifles and recorded human calls, hunting "for sport" is nothing but a singularly perverse way for humans to convince themselves that they're tough.

Normally, I hate to offend anyone with my opinions -- but this is one where I just don't care. We humans ought to be evolved enough by now to see how wrong this is.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tink80 View Post
two issues i've been pondering lately..

first one i'm sure on my stand. i watched a program today where some men were hunting. my dad was a hunter and i understand it though i'm not very enthusiastic about it but i can understand when it is a sport and the game is consumed. HOWEVER, tonight's program they were able to get some old circus elephants, fence them into an enclosure, and shoot them with massive firearms that were extremely powerful. is this fair and is this merely to say they killed a beautiful creature because it shows they can defeat a larger animal? aren't elephants protected in most countries? and is it a fair fight if they are put in an enclosed area? the next segment they were hunting elk which was fine but they enclosed it again and shot powerful long distance range firearms and used a tape recording playing a female elk in distress to attract them. it just makes me sick. this is not a sport anymore, it's just murder for no reason. i understand survival of the fittest. if i ruled the world, i'd make sure that hunting was truly a fair fight. no enclosures, no long distance guns, no tapes or tricks or cheating. send em out in the wilderness with knife and do hand to hand combat. then that is a sport.

second issue i thought i knew my stand till i recently watched a documentary. when you hear of "no kill shelters" you automatically think that must be the most humane thing, right? well, at least i did. then i watched this documentary about a woman against them. i see her point now. basically, there are no kill shelters that keep dogs that are too dangerous and unpredictable to be adopted and it would be irresponsible to adopt them out. at first, that sounds nice to do that for them and give them a home. but then i saw it is not quite what i imagined. the dogs are in small enclosures outside seperated by a see through fence. they are all stacked up next to each other like jail cells. they sleep on asphalt and have no human contact with the workers. they hear barking 24 hours a day and cannot get a decent night's rest. is this really a good quality of life? why do we put down dogs with a terminal condition that are in pain but keep dogs alive that have no peace, love, or comfort? just to say they are still alive? this one i'm torn about. i'm not sure all of the no kill shelters are this way but it makes me think twice before 100% supporting it. i'm not sure what to think because i don't know all the facts.

anyway, those are my two things on my mind i am venting about..lol.

The elephant thing is just plain cruel and a show of masculinity.

As for no kill, unfortunately there will ALWAYS be animals that cannot be saved. If they are not reclaimed in a week and have feline aids, or have serious attitude problems, unfortunately it risks other animals and possibly humans live.

At our one there are house cats, they can be purchased, but they came to the shelter years and years ago so they are kept alive and fed, and they can wander around the grounds freely.

I dont agree with any killing but sometimes it cannot be avoided
post #9 of 24
On the no-kill shelter note.. I do agree that some should not be in existance.. mroe so with dogs unless they are in foster homes. I know I would not want to be caged or kenneled for god only knows how long.

I help run a no-kill rescue organization. We take in mainly cats.. although we do take in a few dogs as well (only 2-3 at a time)

We have 9000 square feet that the cats are free to roam. We don't believe in caging these animals, because we don't know how long they will be here. We have queen sized beds, as well as singles. TVs, radios, jungle gyms. Scratching posts, boards at different levels on the walls. And we are currently in the process of making an outdoor enclosure for them to go out in. We make is as much as a home as we can for them. And although I know it will NEVER be a home with a family.. at least they aren't in cages. They have no time limit. There should never be time set on life.
post #10 of 24
IMO we should have the animals fight fair - give them guns to shoot the hunters - see who shoots who first .....
post #11 of 24
Okay, I lied. I do care if I offend somebody. But I still stand by what I said.
post #12 of 24
To clarify, I agree with you about the elephant thing as well as any other canned hunt.

Normal hunting is what I was talking about.
post #13 of 24
This is a little heavy for the Lounge. I'll move it to IMO.
post #14 of 24
The thread title about animal rights caught my attention. Two issues were addressed: canned hunts and conditions at no-kill shelters. And I wondered, what do either of these issues have to do with animal rights? The first issue is just disgusting, hardly worth debating. The second issue is really worth pondering. But what do they have to do with rights? What rights do animals have, anyway?

The dictionary says a right is something to which one has a claim, a power or privelege one is entitled to. What are animals entitled to? And who grants them that entitlement? The U.S. founders claimed that mankind had certain "inalienable rights." They didn't say anything about animal rights, but their definition of mankind's rights had those rights granted to mankind by "their Creator." So if that's where mankind derives its rights, do animals derive their rights from the same source? And what would those rights be?

What I'm leading up to is that the two issues DO have something to do with animal rights, because I think that one right that animals have is the right to be treated humanely by mankind. If you accept the Creator derived definition of rights, the Creator also placed animals in the charge of mankind, and I say that means to be treated well, with respect, with regard to their feelings, pain and suffering. If from some other source, mankind certainly has the obligation to treat other forms of life with the same respect they wish to be treated. So, I conclude that animal rights include the right to humane treatment, and that's certainly being violated in both issues.
post #15 of 24
That is why many of us prefer animal welfare. If you take the animal rights thing too far (like, say, PeTA), you enter the quandary of what rights animals really have. That is, people like the nutters at PeTA believe that animals have rights equal or even superseding humans. This is based on a false dilemma-- either animals are equal to us or they are inferior.

IMO, they are just different. Yes, we are animals. And in cases where someone wants to build something for convenience and it will destroy a lot of habitat, or we want to use pesticides that destroy entire species, etc, in cases like that the animals should be considered to have rights, the most basic of all, the right to live.

As for domesticated animals (including pets), they have no real rights. Think about what we do to them. We spay and neuter them, decide what food they'll eat, where they live, what friends they have, even when they die. And yet, all of this is for their own good, and almost all of our cats here given the choice between leaving or staying, would stay.

This puts animals rights and animal welfare in direct opposition to each other.

I believe in animal welfare. That is, I believe all animals should be treated with respect, and as nearly all of them are forced to live in a human-dominated environment but don't have access to the human world (they can't talk to us, vote, protest, etc) we are responsible for their wellbeing. Animals should not be abused, neglected, trampled on, killed for profit or convenience. Domestic animals should also get adequate vet care and living space (main ethical reason for my vegetarianism in not that an animal is being killed but how they are treated on industrial farms during their lives). Pets should be spayed and neutered, not declawed, ear-tipped, tail-bobbed, etc, and not bred in a way that endangers their health (ie, making their faces so short it makes it hard to breathe). This also includes responsible environmental management, ie, culling the deer population.

Animal rights groups seem to think we should either completely cease having domesticated animals or we should kill them all.
post #16 of 24
I used to walk dogs at a no kill shelter. The problem is that shelter could only accept a certain amount of animals and often had a waiting list. And that was only for animals without any issues. I have also heard of people lying about their animals so they would take them.

Now I'm at a regular shelter, where animals are euthanized. However, it's definitely not taken lightly, and if an animal is considered adoptable, they go all out to get them adopted, especially dogs that have been there for a while. They take in whatever people drop off and let the people know that the animal may be euthanized. So though I wish there were no need for any shelters, I don't think a no kill shelter is really better than the others.

As far as hunting goes, there is NO need for it. And since I don't see people using killing as a humane method of easing starvation and overpopulation for humans, it shouldn't be used for animals either. And we can get rid of the slaughter houses and factory farms too, since I don't think a cow, pig, or chicken has any less rights than a deer, cat, or dog.
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuzy View Post
As far as hunting goes, there is NO need for it. And since I don't see people using killing as a humane method of easing starvation and overpopulation for humans, it shouldn't be used for animals either.
Yes, there is a need for hunting. Here in Ohio we have a massive overpopulation of deer. If they are not hunted, they will ALL starve to death in the winter, in addition to destroying the habitat of all kinds of other animals, and also causing all kinds of death and destruction on the roads.

It is cruel not to cull the deer here.

We don't cull human populations, nor should we, but overpopulation and starvation cause war, genocide, and massive violent crime. Look at places with a history of this. We manage to cull ourselves just fine without actually doing it.
post #18 of 24
I am all for hunting something i am going to eat. I would perfer a nice deer stake or burger over cow anyday of the week. We are made to hunt, that is
just how it is. People can sit there and say all the things they want, bad about hunting , but all they are doing is lying to themselves. If as stated some people seem to think its easy, lol well come along with me. I would bet you wont be saying that after you spend half the day just getting up the hill . not to menation having to carry out the deer.

as for canned hunts, they should be banned. if you want to hunt something, then get your gun or bow, and get out there, and work for it. They are gross.
those things have nothing at all to do with hunting.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
We don't cull human populations, nor should we,
hmm but sometimes i think we should,
oh wait i did not say that , really i did not.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
Yes, there is a need for hunting. Here in Ohio we have a massive overpopulation of deer. If they are not hunted, they will ALL starve to death in the winter, in addition to destroying the habitat of all kinds of other animals, and also causing all kinds of death and destruction on the roads.
Not too mention the risk of disease as well.

Most hunters out there are responsible people who eat what they kill. Canned hunts, poachers and those who kill just for sake of killing are what puts hunting in such a bad light. I, personally, have never hunted but I don't have any problem whatsoever with legitimate forms of hunting even though there are some methods used in some form of hunting that I don't quite agree with. I used to live in Michigan with some friends who were avid hunters. I helped dress I don't know how many deer. We had two freezers at the house that were stocked with venison, pheasant, rabbit and salmon. I would much rather eat venison than beef, it's a much leaner meat.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
This puts animals rights and animal welfare in direct opposition to each other.
Mmmmmm.....but only if one defines animal rights the way the extremists do. I'd say an animal has a right to animal welfare, and I think that's in line with what you were saying.
post #22 of 24
I'm just going to comment on the hunting portion. I'm from a family that hunts and eats what it kills. To me this is better food than most of the meat in the grocery store. The dear I'm eating isn't injected with anti-botics, fed a diet of God knows what, and can never see the outside world.

I can see the point where people would think it's cruel but the conditions in a slater house are much worse.

As for canned hunts, IMO that's just horrible. There is no sport in it and it shouldn't even be called hunting.

EDIT: Most of the hunters I know are also AVID conservationists. They want to keep the land where they are hunting clean and pure for the animals.
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Mmmmmm.....but only if one defines animal rights the way the extremists do. I'd say an animal has a right to animal welfare, and I think that's in line with what you were saying.
Yes, pretty much. The only difference I see is that by saying it is a right, we put the responsibility on the animals to exercise their rights. They can't protest if they are being treated poorly and often don't even know it until they're taken away and put in a home that loves them. I see it as a responsibility on our part, but that could be what you mean too, I just know it isn't what the extremists mean.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
....that by saying it is a right, we put the responsibility on the animals to exercise their rights. ....
Ah, I see. But the owner of the right doesn't have to be who exercises it. Mankind has a responsibility toward animals, therefore it's mankind who has to look out for animals' rights. In other words, mankind is the animals' custodian; and in fact, mankind is the whole earth's custodian.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › animal rights ponderings...