Man vs. Animals
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I
intended for the article Medicur,
last month, to address the conversion of people's rights into privileges
for the sake of a cause. I used the animal's "rights" issue because
it's a good example and because the issue annoys me. However, responses
to the article have been more about animals "rights" than about people's
rights. So, I'm writing a little more about the animals.
One
reader suggested that, ideally, food animals should have a chance to make
informed choices about their futures. I have a little experience
at watching animals make choices, but I haven't seen anything to suggest
that they're capable of such abstract consideration of their options.
When I left the farm for the last time, I went out to the fence to scratch
Honey, my favorite goat, under the chin. She didn't have the foggiest
notion that I was leaving her forever, even though I told her so.1
I didn't have that conversation with Honey for her benefit, but for mine.
Offering an animal a choice about its fate is a silly idea. People
who advocate that sort of thing have been watching too many Muppet movies.
Domesticated
animals do make choices. However, their choices usually involve simple
and immediate things, like food. When a goat escapes from its pasture,
it isn't making a bid for freedom. It's usually trying to get at
the grass on the other side of the fence. Normally, such a stray
doesn't wander very far. If it doesn't get lost, it will probably
come back into its own pasture without human intervention. More likely,
it will wander down the fence line until it loses track of the broken place
and then "beller" to be rescued. Such strays are happy to get back
into their familiar surroundings, especially at feeding or milking time.
If a stray becomes permanently lost, it might not last long. It could
die from hunger, thirst, eating something that it shouldn't have eaten,
falling into a hole, getting hit by a car, getting killed by a predator,
drowning in a river, or some other such misfortune. Occasionally
a dog or a cat might survive long enough to become feral, but even then
it will usually lurk near humans and live on scraps. Unsupervised
free choice is a dangerous thing for a domesticated animal. To the
extent that they can choose at all, domesticated animals generally prefer
the fold.
I've
never yet heard an animal "rights" activist provide a general and unambiguous
definition of animal's rights. Opinions regarding such "rights" are
based on subjective assumptions and not on laws of nature. Someone
who believes that an animal is being abused has two legitimate choices.
One is to negotiate the purchase of the animal. After that, he can
feed it on a silver platter and bed it on satin pillows for all I care.
Failing to negotiate a purchase, he has only one other legitimate choice
mind his own business.
Personally,
I believe that animals should always be treated with as much care and respect
as possible, but I never forget that they're only animals a source of
beef, a source of milk, a source of eggs, something to pet or cuddle, and
so forth. Whether or not somebody loves an animal is irrelevant to
its legal status. I loved my motorcycle, but that didn't make it
human. People who claim animals as equals might be ignorant or delusional.
Maybe they lack the self-esteem to deal with people and so prefer the company
of animals. Maybe it's something else. I don't know what their
problem is, but I certainly don't want them using animals as an excuse
to destroy people's rights.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
|
^
|
... and my vision didnt blur at
all, not even a little bit. I think there was just a heavy fog bank
that blew suddenly across the pasture, making it hard to see. |
Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution.
I prefer cash. For checks, money orders, or PayPal payments, please
inquire.
frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
April 2004
Page 1
|
|