Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
By: Patti Strand Date: 06/10/2014 Category: | Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare | Animal Welfare |
Some people use the terms animal welfare and animal rights interchangeably, suggesting that they represent the
same concerns, principles and practices. But the differences between the two are significant and irreconcilable.
In its simplest form, animal welfare refers to the relationships people have with animals and the duty they have to
assure that the animals under their care are treated humanely and responsibly.
technological. In modern American society only 2% of an ever-increasing population lives on farms and only 1%
practices farming as an occupation. This contrasts sharply with the mid 1800s when 90% of Americans were farmers.
If these trends continue, farming will become more concentrated in the future, a situation that makes animal welfare
an even more important subject.
Animal Welfare Principles & Policies
Farmers, ranchers, animal trainers, animal scientists, dog and cat breeders, veterinarians, zoo keepers, and others
who live and work with animals recognize these challenges and work within their professions, hobbies and
businesses to address them. Businesses that work with animals adopt animal welfare policies, practices and
programs to assure the availability of wholesome food and fresh water, veterinary care, proper handling, socialization
and in recent years many have added environmental enhancements for the animals they keep. They evaluate
individual animals for health and welfare indicators such as energy level, appetite, hair coat, brightness of eye and
other signs. Some businesses use scientific methods such as measuring cortisol levels in blood to evaluate stress
levels. When best practices are in place and the animals appear comfortable and healthy, the level of animal welfare
provided is generally deemed acceptable. Here are some examples of animal care policies and guidelines:
The American Kennel Club Care and Conditions Policy
The role of animal welfare in dealing with animal abuse, cruelty and
neglect
In
addition to the many programs and policies developed to improve standards of care and wellbeing for animals,
animal welfare proponents also work to end animal abuse.
Animal abuse comes in many forms, but for purposes of simplification, can be separated into two major categories:
abuse that occurs as a result of negligence (failure to act properly) or harm that results from deliberate acts. The
lines are sometimes blurred between what is intentional and what is not, and cases are decided on the basis of casespecific facts. Every state now has felony laws against animal cruelty, but they vary tremendously from state to state
in the acts they designate as felonies, and in the punishment they impose for those crimes.
In the case of neglect, abuse can be the result of ignorance, such as when a pet owner didnt recognize that a pet
needed veterinary treatment; or when it is the result of behavior that a person should have known would cause harm
to animals but allowed to continue.
Abuse can also be the result of overt cruelty to animals. Deliberate acts of cruelty include torture, beating or maiming
animals as well as activities such as dog fighting, which result in severe pain, injury and death to the animals
involved. Deliberate acts of abuse warrant the most severe penalties, not only because of their shocking nature and
the immediate harm they inflict, but also because there are well known connections between abuse to animals and
violence against people.
It is also important to recognize that the animal rights movement is the only social movement in the US with a
history of working with underground criminals, which the FBI has named single issue terrorists. Notably, many
in the animal rights leadership do not condemn violence when it is committed in the name of their cause, a hallmark
of unethical and radical movements. Many animal rights groups do little more than exploit animal welfare problems for
their own fundraising purposes. Sometimes the fundraising campaign amounts to no more than raising concerns
about an industry or pastime that utilizes animals, labeling them as cruel in order to position themselves on the high
moral ground and raise money. The ASPCA and HSUS recently paid $9.3 million and $15.75 million respectively to
the company that owns Ringling Bros circus to settle, among other things, a Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO) lawsuit in which they were defendants because they (or their affiliates) improperly paid someone to be a
witness against the company with testimony that was not found to be credible.
Another area of disagreement between animal welfare and animal rights proponents is over the legal status of
animals. Animal welfare advocates call for animal protection laws. Animal rights supporters push for legal rights for
animals, something that requires a change in the legal status of animals and mandates a new class of government
administrators to make decisions on behalf of animals. Fundamentally, the animal rights approach to animals is less
about improving their care than it is about politics. Its about power. Specifically its about who decides how animals
will be treated including whether they should remain in private ownership at all, or be placed in sanctuaries created to
provide animals refuge from human ownership and use. Animal rights ideology works to separate people from
animals and if achieved would sever the human-animal bond.
The ethical framework that supports animal welfare principles springs from the Western ethical tradition, one that
embraces tolerance for diversity and minority views and uses knowledge and education rather than coercion to
advance its objectives. The willingness of the animal rights leadership to misrepresent their beliefs and motives and
to work with illegal factions indicates that their views arise from different roots.