Part I
The debate over animal rights is an ongoing battle between those who think of animals as equals, those who think of humans as superior in all ways, and those who lie somewhere in between the two. It is a worldwide umbrella issue that covers a multitude of matters relating to both wild and domestic animals.
The sport of animal fighting has been highly publicized lately, particularly in incidents such as Michael Vick’s dog fighting scandal. One recent development worries authorities: the rise of finch fighting. The small birds are cheap, easy to transport and keep, and less likely to attract attention from neighbors and authorities than dogs or cocks. This is concerning to the public, because, as a USA Today article on the subject states, “There may be weapons, there may be drugs, money changes hands, and these are most certainly people who don't think or process or behave like an ordinary person.” In my experience at Avian Rescue Corporation, I’ve had the opportunity to work with three finches, and I can attest that anyone who would want to abuse them for the purpose of entertainment does not view the world normally. The birds are small, flighty, and have beautiful songs; it’s difficult to imagine a community of people centered around two of them fighting to the death.
Another difficult interaction between animals and humans occurs in suburban areas, where wild animal ranges intersect human communities. In this situation, dangers are present for both the humans and animals. Wild predators prey on pets, damage property, and occasionally attack people; suburban development exposes animals to dangers like car accidents and destroys their habitat and food sources. In Wheaton, Illinois, residents were unable to find a peaceful way to coexist with coyotes in the same area and hired trappers to trap and kill the animals. All over the country, similar conflicts are endangering species that have nowhere to live.
Zoos have made efforts to stabilize endangered populations, but the establishment of zoos has been bitterly opposed by organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Kathy Guillermo, PETA’s spokesperson, states that the animals’ "...'natural' behavior is controlled by restricted space, companions they did not choose and who may be removed from them at any time and the constant stream of people who leer at them. Their beauty or strangeness may fascinate the public, but their true nature cannot be appreciated because what's on view is not their true nature." However, many zoos have developed programs to educate the public about wild species, breed and rehabilitate endangered species, and treat injured or sick animals, as well as using enclosures designed to imitate the actual habitat of the animal. The debate over whether zoos help or damage wild animal populations appears to have no resolution in the foreseeable future.
The hunting and trafficking of wild animals is a huge problem, particularly in developing countries, where a culture of dependence on and dominance over native species has long been established, and many governments do not have the resources or will to regulate poachers. For example, in Vietnam, nationwide demand for wild meat is about 4,500 tons per year, and in the last two years, authorities have discovered over 7,600 animals being trafficked into the country. In Brazil, 38 million wild animals are captured annually, and 90 percent die in the process of being caught or transported. Traffickers hide animals in secret compartments, tape beaks shut, or combine legal and illegal shipments in order to confuse authorities, making the industry difficult to track. Every bird I’ve seen at Avian Rescue Corporation comes with a story, but Ron Howard, the CEO and my supervisor, told me to take these stories “with a grain of salt.” He explained that although he isn’t looking to arrest anyone or report them to the authorities, many people are too afraid of being prosecuted to tell him the truth about the origin of the birds. A solid percentage of the tropical birds were probably illegally imported. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, the animal trafficking industry is growing. In Mexico last year, authorities confiscated 110 times as many illegal plants and animals as in 2001. “Trafficking in species is mostly tolerated by society, and that means that the perpetrator is not pursued by the authorities as much as drugs or arms traffickers," says Oscar Moctezuma, director of the Mexican non-governmental group Naturalia.
If supportive public opinion is lacking in countries like Mexico, it seems to be on the upswing in the United States. A series of graphs illustrating responses to a national telephone poll taken in 1995 (see fig. 1) reveals that, in most cases, people side in favor of giving animals certain rights, although it often depends on the “circumstances.” People generally support strict laws protecting animals from inhumane treatment and agree that an animal’s right to live free of suffering is just as important as that of a person. However, many eat meat frequently and think there are circumstances where it’s acceptable to hunt an animal for sport.
Figure 1
One area addressed in the study was animal testing. 62% responded that “the use of animals to test medical treatments is right under some circumstances.” However, there seems to be disagreement as to what constitutes the right circumstances. Animal rights advocates argue that, besides being cruel and unfair to animal subjects, testing for application on humans is often useless. Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles surgeon and leader of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, says, “Half the drugs that test as safe on animals turn out to not work or be safe in people, so you might as well flip a coin.” However, some scientists argue that animal testing has been and continues to be essential to developments in areas such as neuroscience. Many recent Nobel Prize winners have used animal testing in relation to their discoveries (see fig. 2), which makes some people unwilling to sacrifice human health for animal well-being.
Figure 2
Part II
Since the 1950’s, there has been a growing trend in legislation toward giving animals more rights, especially in farm and laboratory settings. In 1958, Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act, which requires that mammals slaughtered for meat must first be stunned into unconsciousness. The Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966, includes protection for some non-farm animals, such as those used in research, exhibits, or fighting. Amendments to the Act passed in 1985 require laboratories using animals for research to improve the animals’ housing, allow them regular exercise, and provide them with mental stimulation.
There is also a growing interest in animal law, with about 130 universities offering courses in the subject. Currently, there is little in the law that treats animals as anything more than human property, or, in the case of wild animals, as parts of an ecosystem. However, Kathy Hessler, clinical director of the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, explains that “some judges are beginning to view a family dog in a divorce case, for example, as a being for whom some form of ‘custody’ is appropriate, as it is for children, rather than as a mere piece of property…but there are also plenty of judges who think this is a bit silly.”
Modern animal rights legislation, which is not a significant priority for the federal government, is mostly being handled by the states, with mixed
results. Last November, 64% of Ohio voters passed Issue 2, which bans voters and the state legislature from passing any standards of treatment for livestock or poultry. By contrast, California passed Proposition 2 in 2008, which requires that farms house calves, hens, and pregnant pigs in enclosures that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely beginning in 2015. Similar measures were enacted in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon. On March 9, Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed a bill into law allowing state inspectors into dog breeding facilities if they receive complaints.
Part III
The only real solution to the animal rights issue is a fundamental shift in public opinion. Once more and more people believe that animals have the right to a healthy, comfortable life, industry will change to reflect that opinion. For example, mink imports to the United States decreased by 30% from 2008 to 2009, a statistic with which some credit PETA’s dramatic anti-fur campaign. Whether PETA or simply cost efficiency is responsible for the shift to faux fur, it is clear that consumer demand lies at the base of the change.
Similarly, animal shelters rely on public support, and have been launching advertising campaigns of their own. Celebrity publicity, such as Carrie Underwood’s recent $10,000 donation to Bideawee Animal Welfare Center, is also directed at raising public awareness of animal shelter conditions. The dedicated people who run shelters and rescue f
acilities can only handle so much pressure. Currently, Avian Rescue Corporation consists of a house stuffed to the brim with what must be hundreds of birds (see fig. 3). Granted, the house is only a temporary setup, but the lack of space is a reminder of what shelters across the country deal with every day. More birds arrive every week for various reasons, and most remain there for a long time before being adopted. Some, because of psychological or physical damage, remain there for life. There are more domestic animals in America than people can take care of, which puts enormous pressure on both the animals and the people who run the shelters. This will only change once people begin to recognize the responsibility that comes with owning or breeding a pet.
Of course, governmental support is a key aspect of this shift. A democratic government, in theory, is expected to reflect the opinion of the people, so a government with strict animal rights legislation is an official statement of the fact that caring for animals is an integral part of society.
In short, the battle for animal rights has a long struggle ahead. Peace has yet to be made between those who acknowledge the critical role that animals play in all of our lives and those who fear that the protection of animals may compromise human welfare. The shift in public opinion will be gradual, because it's unprecedented for an entire society to think of animals as equals. However, the trends that I see in the United States leave me hopeful that, with time, animals will have protection of basic rights, such as the right to live free of suffering, under the law and in the minds of the people.
Figure 3 I sit with Emmy, a Sun Conure parrot
at Avian Rescue Corporation
In the wake of a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona in late April, Democrats are pushing immigration reform on the national agenda. Republicans, however, are holding back. Other issues, such as climate change, may "leave Congress with little time to take on such a controversial matter like immigration." However, I think that, especially after a law like the one in Arizona has been passed, it would behoove Congress to take swift action on immigration reform.
