The Great Animal Welfare debate

[Seshat]

The 'Great Porn Debate' thread started turning into an animal welfare thread, so I've created this thread.

There are (at least) two extremely different perspectives on animal welfare, from people who care about animals. One perspective comes from the farmers, one from pet owners.

I'll try to summarise the two perspectives as I see them, to start this thread off.
WARNING: oversimplification and generalisation ahead. Please accept these summaries as starting points, and not at all definitive.


FARMERS:

Animals are stock. Keeping the stock healthy and in good condition is an economic advantage, and caring about the emotional well-being of the stock is really nice. But ultimately, most of the stock is being raised to be killed for meat.

If the stock isn't, it's (usually) laying hens or dairy cattle. If it's laying hens, almost all of their children will be sold as food (eggs). If dairy cattle, almost half of the children (the male calves) will be sent off to be killed for veal.

Having a great emotional attachment to the stock is a good way to go insane.



PET OWNERS:

Animals (or at least the pets) are emotional supports. They're bred, raised, and trained to be someone you can cry on when noone human understands, someone to play with, someone to snuggle up to. They're part of your family.

Pet owners get to know the personalities of their individual pets, and form strong emotional attachments to them. Many - perhaps most - feel a great responsibility for the welfare of their pet, and will spend a great deal of money on veterinary care for an animal that most farmers would write off as poor bloodstock and suitable only for culling.

Pet owners can almost be defined by their strong emotional attachment to their animals, and may project that attachment or their awareness of animal personality to animals they don't themselves own.



SO ... with that starting point, let the debate begin.

[Sylvia727]

Thanks for starting this thread, Seshat.

I'll add another perspective, which might overlap with either of the other two. Humans should not unnecessarily harm animals. As humans are moral creatures and believe that pain is wrong, we should not cause pain to animals, nor should we injure animals for little or no reason. When we own an animal, we have a responsibility to that animal to care for it and protect it. Unnecessarily harming animals is a violation of that responsibility and that trust.

Many animals, including dogs, cats, and farmyard animals, have evolved with humans to be dependent on humans. Focusing on dogs, we as a species bred this species to work with us. Dogs help us hunt, herd, fetch, and guard, in exchange for membership in our packs. They work, we provide basic necessities and affection. As a species, dogs have these habits ingrained in them. Raising a wolf pup or coyote pup is substantially different from raising a dog pup. Wild animal species are more aggressive and dominant towards humans than domestic species. Since domestic animals have become dependent on humans, we collectively have an even greater responsibility towards these species to protect and nurture them when possible.

[AFPheonix]

To elaborate even further on your point, Sylvia, causing harm or stress to your stock intended for meat can affect the product and make it much tougher than it would have if the animal had been, well, happier during its life.
It's important even as the animal gets to the slaughter facility to make sure the animal doesn't feel too much stress or else it changes the meat. That's partially why home-killed beef tastes better and is more tender: the cow didn't see it coming.
Some of that has improved as slaughter facilities consider the animal more when they design the layout and how to actually put the animal down. Temple Grandin has been very instrumental there.

[rahmota]

Thank you seshat. This is a much better.

Yes you (seshat) have it pretty much along with what you other two have said about farming. Animals are an investment and a product and while they might be cute or a person grow fond of one making something you're going to be taking to market , or is going to be on your dinner plate, a pet is never a good idea. Yeah making their life difficult or hurting them for no reason or the fun of it is never a good thing but neither is pampering them too much. Its a balancing act between too much stress which makes the meat go "sour" and too little stress which doesnt build muscle. Thats why veal is so sweet and tender. They've had little stress and little time to build up stringy muscle tissue.

Now another thign is what is the end purpose of that animal goign to be and what are you using it for.A horse being used for a wagon puller is goign to have a different life than one thats just used for pleasure riding. I have a 23 year old riding horse. She's slowed down a bit from her prime I'm sure but she's still quite good shape and form. A 23 year old draft horse has maybe 5 or 6 years left to live. This is just because of the workload not due to cruelty or anything really extreme happening. Just the natural result of their life. Same way as a car has ac ertain lifespan depending on what you use it for and how well you take care of it. That draft horse is going to have the best care it possibly can because of the investment and need for it to be healthy enough to work. Thats it though, any emotional bond or attachment comes from the horses ability to work and provide a service nothing more and is done so at the discretion and risk of the owner.

One of the bigger perspective differences though is that we own the animals. they are not companions, they are not friends, they are not furry people or furry friends (I swear one person I knew called them that) they are animals. As fond as I am of my dogs there have been times when I have had to put one down. Yeah I'll feel a moment of sadness but I get over it as they are easily replaceable. Yeah I wont mistreat my dogs but I'm not goign to go out of my way to make their life a cushy pampered festival of hedonism as some people react.

Some folks seem to think that any animal doing work is cruelty or leaving cows in the pasture and a lot of the other normal practices of a farm are cruelty when it might be more cruel than not.

I mean a horse breaks its knee. That horse is done for. Even if you spend like a bazillion dollars to get surgury or whatever that horse aint gonna be fit to ride or work so put it down and get another one unless you can make money off its stud fees. Same way with a cow or something. A dog on a chain to keep it from running into the street and gettign killed or getting into the neighbors yard and getting shot (all perfectly legal in my county) is not cruelty.

Basically as I had come to me while I was responding on the porn thread that started this all animals are property. They are not free willed or sentient creatures able to make up their own minds or have control over their lives. they are the property of their human masters and owners. It is in the best interests of those owners and masters to treat the animal the best possible for the circumstances, however anything that does happen involving the animal is at worst a property crime of one sort or another. you cannot rape an animal. That would be equivalent to sayign you could rape a toaster as rape involves an emotional, psychological as well as physical component. You can put an animal down but you cant murder it. A lot of the crimes you can do against another human just dont have the same application to an animal.

As for the bestiality thing that start all this. *shrug* thats one of those areas I'm not prepared to discus as I have a decided lack of knowledge and an even greater lack of desire to have knowledge about it. That falls into the dont ask dont tell region of life.

[Boozy]

Hurting animals hurts us, too. Inflicting pain of any sort on something or someone else is injurious. It robs us of our humanity.

[DesignFox]

I love animals.

But I also love eating meat, and I love the feel of real fur.

I think that animals should be treated humanely. Meaning we shouldn't cause them more harm than we have to. From what I've read of modern slaughter practices, they really do aim to cause the animals as little pain and distress as possible.

While I could never do the job myself, I don't see anything wrong with harvesting animals for our needs. It's nature.

I think outright abuse of animals is wrong. There is no reason to beat or otherwise torture an animal. I don't care if it is your "property." There is no excuse for cruelty. I do believe that animals have thoughts and feelings...maybe not the same way humans do...but they are there.

Even when we are ridding our property of pests, I believe a fast and painless death is best- or at least being rid of the animal in a way that causes it the least distress.

Anyone who takes enjoyment from being cruel to an animal is not someone I would trust being around. It says a lot about their state of mind if they walk around kicking puppies.

[Sylvia727]

all animals are property. They are not free willed or sentient creatures able to make up their own minds or have control over their lives. they are the property of their human masters and owners. <snip> anything that does happen involving the animal is at worst a property crime of one sort or another. you cannot rape an animal.

Current law in the USA, AFAIK, does define animals as property. Killing an animal owned by a human is depriving the human of the animal's value, both physical and sentimental. The particular lawsuit pointed out that family heirlooms have sentimental value greater than their objective worth, and the value of a pet should be considered in the same way. Killing a stray animal is considered a crime against the community, as humanity in general collectively owned that animal. However, these crimes are rarely prosecuted due to lack of interest.

While I agree that animals are possessions, either specifically or collectively, I think the law should consider the cruelty angle more closely. If a horse breaks his knee and his owner decides to put him down, does the owner shoot him in the head, or hack him to pieces with a machete while he's still alive? A practical reason to inspect animal cruelty more closely is the correlation between animal cruelty and human violence. A moral reason is humanity's duty to prevent pain and suffering. If anything, I think the moral reason is more valid, as there are more indicators of violence than just animal cruelty.

I'd also like to see some guidelines put out there by definitive sources about animal psychology and what constitutes cruelty in this way. Locking a dog up in a crate 24/7 has lasting impacts on his psychologically. Practically, this damages the dog to the point where he has to be put down for the protection of humans. A chained dog is three times more likely to bite a human than an unchained dog. Rescued dogfighters are almost without exception put down, due to their increased and overwhelming capacity for violence. But any dog that is this crazed must have had a normal state of mind to be departed from, and putting him in this crazed state would then logically be a form of cruelty.

I say "definitive sources" because while the information is out there with more and less reliable sources, it is often contradictory and almost always biased towards the animal rights' faction. There should be a definitive, reliable, expert, and objective answer to the question of animal psychology and psychological cruelty, and I don't believe we have that, at least not in the USA.

[rahmota]

Ok first off I want to make sure peoepl understand I'm not advoacting being cruel or abusive towards animals. just that I dont see the point in giving them the same rights as humans like some folks would want to do or that some of the things that people call abusive or cruel is not as bad as some of what they say.

Killing a stray animal is considered a crime against the community,

Actually in my county it is a crime not to shoot a stray animal sometimes. For example I have horses. If my enighbor's dog comes over and gets into my horses I can shoot and kill their dog and they will ahve to repay me for any damages their dog does to me or my family or my property (ie the horses) and I am not charged or responsible for anythign even if their dog is a blue ribbon winner worth several grand. under my couty law all dogs will be restrained in some manner or the owner is responsible and the dog can be shot with it being no big deal.

A chained dog is three times more likely to bite a human than an unchained dog.

Bullshit! I have dogs on chains on my property we have had them since before I was born (not the same dogs of course) they are taken off and run and I am workign on getting the entire place fenced in well enouch to keep the dogs from getting into traffic or the neighbors (see the above) but I have never had a chained dog be more violent than an unchained one. A dog that is restrained but still treated properly is no more likely to be violent than one that is loose but either not treated properly or not treated at all.

I do believe that animals have thoughts and feelings...maybe not the same way humans do...but they are there.

Well yeah sorta. I mean I can tell animals have "moods" if you wanna call it that. But its like a computer. You can program a computer to pretend to have moods but its just the circuits firing in their programmed order imitating thoughts and feelings. With an animal it is their fight/flight/hunger/mate programs running. All animals have those 4 basic insticts programmed into them. Some more than others. There is no imagination, there is no creative drive there is the four basic instincts driving everythign the animal does.

[Lace Neil Singer]

A practical reason to inspect animal cruelty more closely is the correlation between animal cruelty and human violence.

Agreed. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer tortured animals before he moved on to killing humans. Peter Kurten stabbed calves while having sex with them and cut the heads off swans to drink their blood. If you look in the background of a lot of serial killers, you will find animal cruelty. I believe that seeing an animal as an object to abuse is just one step closer to seeing people in that way. True, some people don't go any further than kicking a puppy around or setting a cat on fire, but there's always a chance that one of these people might think that setting a baby on fire or kicking a homeless person around might be even more fun, which is why animal cruelty should be dealt with severely.

[AFPheonix]

3 dogs does not a trend make. You know that. STATISTICALLY chained dogs are MORE LIKELY to bite. Does that mean that all chained dogs do? No, but it means that there's a definite trend there, and it probably has to do with the types of people who do the chaining, the amount of time and effort they put into the dog, as well as other circumstances too.

I don't think anyone's advocating PETA level equal rights for animals. As far as your rape assertion, yes, animals can be raped, and it can have consequences on an animal. If we take female animals, you can program a fear response into them by repeatedly violating them. That is definitely abuse.
For male animals? I'm sure it also creates some behavioral issues there, as far as pack status for dogs and safe handling issues for horses.
What happens if the animal-lover can't keep his animals and they are sold off or taken away? As far as horses go, if you have a stud that is studdy towards people, most likely isn't trained worth a crap, almost certainly doesn't have a show record or really anything going for it, do you think it's going to find a new home? No, it's probably going to go to the kill pen at the auction and end up on a truck to Canada or Mexico. That's poor herdsmanship on the part of the original owner. Similar story for dogs who have enough of a fear response programmed in by bad handling by someone screwing them repeatedly: they at least can be euthanized more cheaply and the carcass more easily disposed. There's also no market for dog meat.

Look, we raise horses as a product, too. They are livestock, but I recognize that to make a superior product, I have to ensure that I have a sane product to sell that will ultimately grow into one of those horses you can throw just about anyone on. I also have to consider the fact that if something happens to me or my sister or my mom, we probably won't be able to retain full control of our herd and they may need to be sold. In that case, even our breeding animals are broke to ride, are kept in nice condition, and are sane. They're also papered, well bred animals. We have done as much as we can to ensure that, if they left our possession today for whatever reason, they'll be attractive to the right homes, and will be less likely to end up going through auction and going to a kill buyer.

[DesignFox]

Well yeah sorta. I mean I can tell animals have "moods" if you wanna call it that. But its like a computer. You can program a computer to pretend to have moods but its just the circuits firing in their programmed order imitating thoughts and feelings. With an animal it is their fight/flight/hunger/mate programs running. All animals have those 4 basic insticts programmed into them. Some more than others. There is no imagination, there is no creative drive there is the four basic instincts driving everythign the animal does.

I sorta disagree with this.

I mean, it all depends on the animal. I guess a lot of it even depends on your relationship with the animal.

I've seen horses with so much personality...

The cats at the barn are full of personality. They communicate with me, and I can often understand them. My favorite kitty definitely gets jealous if I play with the other cats...the one day she saw me petting the little girl kitten, she gave me the stink eye and proceeded to mark my car...Yes, she marked my car as HERS. She will follow me around until I pet her. And she will be upset with me if she hasn't seen me for a few days.

My favorite kitty has also learned the times of my comings and goings and the sound of my car. She is often waiting right at the spot I will arrive...or comes running soon after. She does not do this for anyone else at the farm.

The horse that I lease sometimes seems to miss me. If I haven't been around for a few days, and he hears my voice, he'll start calling for me from his stall. No other horse does this (to me), nor does he do this for anyone else.

I don't know if it's affection, if I'm part of the "herd" for those animals, or what. But those are the responses I get from them.

I can see how they are feeling from their faces, and read from their body language. I can guess at what they want, and I seem to be right a lot of the time.

I don't think they are exactly like humans, but those animals I've dealt with certainly think and feel.

Again, a big part of it might just be the connection I have with them. Maybe my affection for them brings out things I don't see in my neighbor's dog. But I think humans and animals can understand each other to some degree.

(my instructor calls me the "cat whisperer" because I get on so well with the kitties)

I do think if I were a farmer, raising beef stock, I'd have to distance myself from the animals. If I named it and formed a connection with it, I couldn't bring myself to see it slaughtered. So, I think farmers have a lot of awesome stuff in them. I get too emotionally attached to cute critters, sometimes.

But, I'm practical. I have to eat...the world has to eat. Even as a huge horse lover, I believe that slaughter facilities are necessary. And even though I don't eat horsie meat, well...some people do!

[Sylvia727]

Ok first off I want to make sure peoepl understand I'm not advoacting being cruel or abusive towards animals.

I didn't think you were, but it's good to make that distinction.

Actually in my county it is a crime not to shoot a stray animal sometimes.

You're protecting yourself, your family, and your property in this scenario. If you found this dog on the side of the road and tortured or killed him for no reason, this is a crime in some states. As I said before, though, generally people don't care about strays.

Bullshit! <snip> I have never had a chained dog be more violent than an unchained one.

This is because you are a decent person and treat your dogs humanely. However, chaining can be used as a form of abuse and abandonment. A person who abuses his dog is more likely to chain her up. Tethering can be used as a form of isolation, which can drive dogs neurotic and then insane. Watch the show "Animal Cops" if you ever want to cure your happiness. Many dogs have to have their chains surgically removed. Many more have never been off the chain and thus can't walk or stand. A dog in this condition often turns violent.

All animals have those 4 basic insticts programmed into them. Some more than others. There is no imagination, there is no creative drive there is the four basic instincts driving everythign the animal does.

This argument has been made for humanity, as well. Take us out of our comfortable cities and how many of us would retain our civilization as we struggle for survival? I've seen many, many pets being affectionate and playful. There's no drive for survival in these moods. When my dog rests her head on my lap, she's not angling for anything, or looking to get some sort of tangible reward. She's just asking for affection and reinforcing our bond. That doesn't sound like a primal nature to me.

Yes, some animals are more developed than others. However, I don't think we should draw this line at humans. A basic tenet to consider then is pain. If it can feel pain, we shouldn't hurt it. If a dog feels emotional distress when caged 24/7 and a frog doesn't, then it's okay to cage the frog and not the dog.

[rahmota]

Designfox: True maybe. But then again in the computer world one of the truest tests of artificial intelligence is how close it can come to passing for a human. ie can a blind observer tell the difference between a computer and a human in another room.

Animals are about the same way. While many can come close to approximating or seeming like they have moods and personality and all that there's still that gulf. I grew up on a farm in farm coutry and been around plenty of animals who seemed like they knew and understood what I was talking about or recognized me. With the right software and hardware I could do the same thing with my toaster or pickup truck.

Yeah service animals and some other animals can be trained to do amazing things or will do amazing things on their own. The problem is though you throw them into a situation thats outsde their "programming" or training and they will go back to their original core programs.

And yes this can be said for some humans. The dividing line though i still say is that humans can adapt and rewrite their programming on the fly. That you can take someone trained in computers and writing and drop them in the middle of the jungle and they will either rewrite their programming or die. How much civilization they keep and still use is a matter. But "civilization" or social structure is not the determination of sentience. How that civilization is created and what is done with it is. basically some animals may be smart in their own limited way. But humans are smarter and have a lot fewer limits.

If you found this dog on the side of the road and tortured or killed him for no reason, this is a crime in some states. As I said before, though, generally people don't care about strays.

This is true. For the most part I'll agree.

Watch the show "Animal Cops" if you ever want to cure your happiness.

For some reason due to recent issues I am not as fond of cops shows especially reality based cop shows of any sort. I have seen it and overall find it very irritating to me. Botht the attitude of some of the cops (who I wish get bit sometimes) and the way thigns happen to some of the animals.

Many more have never been off the chain and thus can't walk or stand.

This is the result of using too short a chain or the wrong weight chain for the dog. I mean my boxer is on a might as well say log chain but she is also able to stand on her hind legs and put her front paws on my shoulder and look me in the eyes. My little coon dog is on a standard weight thin cable when hes out during the day (so that he doesnt decide to aptrol the neighborhood, hes a bit of a traveling salesman) as he's a lot smaller. Both chains are a minimum of 15' long straight. That gives a circle of 30' diameter. And covers a large enough area (I'm not in the mood right now to do even basic math, long day.) that the dog can run and move around. Also like I said they are not on there 24/7 and get taken for runs.

I have seen people throw a dog like a german shepherd or lab on a under 10' chain. Which for a short time (an hour or so) is okay I guess but for long term does have some detrimental effects like you mentioned.

Take us out of our comfortable cities and how many of us would retain our civilization as we struggle for survival?

Civilization vs survival the age old question. I'll agree that in a pure survival situation humans would loose a bit of civilization but the thign is that civilization would still be possible and humans would be capable of regaining any civilization lost quickly.

[Seshat]

Bullshit! I have dogs on chains on my property
<snip>
A dog that is restrained but still treated properly is no more likely to be violent than one that is loose but either not treated properly or not treated at all.

This is because you are a decent person and treat your dogs humanely. However, chaining can be used as a form of abuse and abandonment.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between 'restrained in some manner but still with access to food, water, shelter, and a four-legged or two-legged pack' and the kind of chaining/caging that results in a canine maniac.

Well yeah sorta. I mean I can tell animals have "moods" if you wanna call it that. But its like a computer. You can program a computer to pretend to have moods but its just the circuits firing in their programmed order imitating thoughts and feelings.
<snip>
There is no imagination, there is no creative drive there is the four basic instincts driving everythign the animal does.

Animals are about the same way. While many can come close to approximating or seeming like they have moods and personality and all that there's still that gulf. I grew up on a farm in farm coutry and been around plenty of animals who seemed like they knew and understood what I was talking about or recognized me. With the right software and hardware I could do the same thing with my toaster or pickup truck.

Actually - not yet.

Artifical intelligence games tend to lag only a short distance behind AI research. So all those forgotten furbies out there, abandoned as being less interesting than the actual pets, are a sign that AI wasn't there yet (a few years ago).

Roomba vacuum cleaners that can't navigate around a room aren't as smart as dogs and cats that effortlessly get to the front door even when you're trying to keep them away from allergic Aunt Martha.

Yeah service animals and some other animals can be trained to do amazing things or will do amazing things on their own. The problem is though you throw them into a situation thats outsde their "programming" or training and they will go back to their original core programs.

I routinely challenge my little terrier. She gets bored if I don't. Sometimes the challenge is a new obedience trick for her to learn. But sometimes the challenge is 'figure out how to get the treat'. I let her see that I have a tasty treat she's going to love. And then I put it somewhere new to her.

She's figured out how to get the treat out of Kong toys (chew or lick it out) and large-mouthed bottles (tip the bottle or shake it). She's worked out that if I put it inside a cardboard tube and crush the ends, she can rip the tube up to get at it.

She worked out narrow-mouthed bottles recently - that they're like wide-mouthed bottles but harder. Freezing the treat in ice has her stumped at the moment, but I'm confident she'll work it out.

Just hiding the treats didn't challenge her enough at all.

And yes this can be said for some humans. The dividing line though i still say is that humans can adapt and rewrite their programming on the fly.

So if my terrier isn't doing that by figuring out how to get her treats, what is she doing?

basically some animals may be smart in their own limited way. But humans are smarter and have a lot fewer limits.

True.

Civilization vs survival the age old question. I'll agree that in a pure survival situation humans would loose a bit of civilization but the thign is that civilization would still be possible and humans would be capable of regaining any civilization lost quickly.

Provided we were in a situation where we could obtain enough food to support the civilisation.

[Dreamstalker]

But sometimes the challenge is 'figure out how to get the treat'. I let her see that I have a tasty treat she's going to love. And then I put it somewhere new to her.

Just hiding the treats didn't challenge her enough at all.

That's what we do with our cat (hiding devices are always lightweight and not likely to injure him if anything goes south and we're in the room). He's figured out how to knock over toilet paper tubes, then work the treat free from where I secured it halfway up the length. Even not seeing it being prepared, he knows there's a treat in there and wants to get it. He once managed to jump to the top of the fridge, knock the plastic jug of catnip to the floor, jump down again without hurting himself and get the screw lid off (never did figure out how he managed that one).

If all that involves is programming, then when faced with something new they (pets, any other animal being trained) should not be able to work it out; after all, that's what training is, new behaviors.