opinions

[bbeventer]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Animals are entitled to food, water, shelter, and a decent living environment, thats about the extent of their "rights".

Just my 2 cents.

 

[squirrelsrule]

Here's my feeling on terminal surgeries in vet school... that part of vet school scares me the most 😱. I know I need to learn and there is no better way to learn than with a live animal. The part that bothers me is that the animals are bred for the purpose of being terminal animals and that really breaks my heart. I don't see why wildlife that needs to be euthanized anyways or dogs in shelters that are facing euthanasia can't be used. This would still be sad, but I could come to terms with it much easier than having an animal that was bred just to be used in surgeries and then killed during a terminal surgery. That is really hard for me to even think about. I know I'll get through whatever I need to get through to make it through vet school though.

 

[JollyBlueJay4]

If it helps any, from what I understand, they use whatever animals they can get to do terminal surgeries ("death row" shelter animals and research animals when the research is done included). Still incredibly sad, but I don't think they raised just for terminal surgeries (again, every school is different).

 

[Cautionary Tail]

All I can say is that if you are for animal welfare then maybe you should research a little on animal rights. I don't think you can really take a side of argument if you do not even know what the other side is. I feel like many people are for animal welfare just because vet school told you to think that way. I really do not have time to go into over the points of an entire argument especially when all you have to do it type in animal rights into google.

I'm curious as to why you think that those who disagree with your position do so because they've essentially been brainwashed by veterinary school... especially when the majority of people here are not yet veterinary students. I've been vehemently pro-welfare and anti-rights since long before I even considered the possibility of applying to vet school. I know what my views are from an ethical standpoint. I don't need somebody else to tell me how I ought to think.

Simply typing "animal rights" into google nets a wide array of responses, many of which are extreme and may or may not rightfully characterize your personal stance. Some of them probably would cause one some pretty serious trouble in vet school (i.e. the ideas that all domestic animals should be eradicated, or that pet ownership is inherently immoral)... others probably won't (i.e. the decision not to consume meat and other animal products, provided you can deal with exposure to some of the more livestock-y stuff to the extent you'll encounter it at the school of your choice). I'm not trying to be snarky (lest this read otherwise), but if you're inquiring as to whether or not your views are going to cause problems for you in veterinary school, the onus is on you to define what those views are. Otherwise, there's no way any of us can possibly know.

That said, there actually is an association of veterinarians for AR (AVAR)- or at least there was, their website appears to be defunct at the moment- so I think it's safe to say you are not alone.

 

[that redhead]

I've struggled to form my own opinions regarding animal welfare vs. animal rights, and was especially challenged to do so during an animal welfare/bioethics class. What I realized is that no two people are going to have the exact same morals, even if they are within the same general camp "welfare" or "rights". What I took away from the large amount of self-reflection was:

* I believe animals do deserve more protection from the general idiots out there. For example, I don't think anyone should just be able to go buy a dog from the pet store and starve it and beat it, etc. I read somewhere that parts of the UK are implementing ownership testing before allowing someone to purchase a pet. I think this is a great idea. I also include legal protection in the form of harsher punishment for animal abusers/etc in this thought process.

* I believe animals have a RIGHT to be free from unnecessary pain/distress/awfulness because I believe that they are sentient beings and I do not believe sentient beings should be allowed to suffer. The line fuzzes when it comes to research (which I currently work in) because for the sake of certain studies, the animals must endure some unrelieved pain or distress. It's tough, and I don't like it, but it's just motivation for me to find a more efficient way around it! 🙂

My professor brought up an excellent point (especially regarding food animals): these species would likely not still exist if it weren't for humans targeting them as production species and continuing to use them. While some animals are killed and eaten, the "point" of an animal's life is biologically to reproduce and keep their species going. So while we do eat these animals, we are also helping them to achieve their biological goals.

Just an interesting two cents. To answer your original question, you will likely get a lot of negativity along with polite questioning. I STRONGLY encourage you to thoroughly research your position and be ready to defend yourself well. Becoming defensive and not answering questions will just make those who don't agree with you more sure in themselves and less sure in you.

 

[PendantWorld]

I don't usually get involved in debate craziness, but I want to address the argument against zoos...

I did a study abroad in Belize, a good portion of which was spent discussing conservation, education, and the importance of zoos. Here are some take-away points:

1. In third world countries like Belize, zoos are *vital* for educating the population about the treasures of wildlife. The zoo in Belize helps children and adults learn that the rainforest is not only a source of lumber; it provides natural riches such as its diversity of life. Through this education, there has been a shift in the economy and mindset of Belize, shifting away from deforestation and moving towards tourism and restoration of their natural resources.

2. Zoos are used as education in the US and other first world countries; they are valuable when exposing city residents to animals they may never imagine existed otherwise. Again, this helps to raise awareness of endangered species and promote support of species restoration. Example: according to scientists, the White rhino was supposed to go extinct by 2010. The rhino still lives in the wild; though still endangered, raised awareness (produced in part by educational sources like zoos) allowed for increased support of the species.

3. The economic benefit of zoos allows for research and breeding of endangered species (which others mentioned previously but I am repeating).

If the role of a zoo was solely as a source of entertainment, I would be against it completely. However, it is important to consider its educational and (in the case of countries like Belize) cultural values.

 

[nohika]

I don't usually get involved in debate craziness, but I want to address the argument against zoos...

I think one of the big things about zoos as education...it's easier to feel upset (about bad conditions in the wild) or passionate about something if you've actually SEEN the thing in person. A nameless or faceless animal is harder to get passionate about than something you've seen living and breathing and moving around.

 

[l2vet]

Here's my feeling on terminal surgeries in vet school... that part of vet school scares me the most 😱. I know I need to learn and there is no better way to learn than with a live animal. The part that bothers me is that the animals are bred for the purpose of being terminal animals and that really breaks my heart. I don't see why wildlife that needs to be euthanized anyways or dogs in shelters that are facing euthanasia can't be used. This would still be sad, but I could come to terms with it much easier than having an animal that was bred just to be used in surgeries and then killed during a terminal surgery. That is really hard for me to even think about. I know I'll get through whatever I need to get through to make it through vet school though.

Why?

Dogs have 0, I repeat 0, sense of tomorrow. They can't anticipate their own life the way humans do. I have wonders sometimes if they can anticipate anything much past knowing when the food bowl is picked up, that they anticipate it being set down with food inside it.

Therefore, why is it sad to have dogs reared for terminal surgeries (or animals raised for meat, etc)? They can't anticipate (they don't even know) that they're destined for consumption or death. As long as they're cared for and provided food, water, shelter, and freedom from unnecessary pain as much as is possible, their life is no different walking into that prep room for a terminal surgery than it would be if they walked into a vet office for a euthanasia.

Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and are entitled to freedom from excessive hunger, thirst, exposure, and pain. Humans > animals, every time. My $0.02.

I figured that since I haven't posted in this type of debate on this forum, I might as well do it once. I hereby abstain from further posts in this thread or in any of its ilk. =p

EDIT: Yeah, I couldn't stay away. But it was a nice sentiment while it lasted.

 

[su_grad2007]

I'm very curious what area of vet med the OP plans to go into. I'm not trying to offend you at all, I am really interested. It just seems to me that if you believe that pets shouldn't be owned then it would be in-congruent to your beliefs to work with animals that are owned. And even if you do find away to work only with wild animals in the wild during your professional career you would still have to work with owned animals during vet school.

And any medications or procedures that you use as a veterinarian would have been tested on animals first, either research animals or owned animals whose owners put them in the study.

So, I really am curious at how you are going to reconcile your beliefs with the requirements of becoming and being a veterinarian.

Again, not trying to offend. I really am interested in your point of view.

 

[LookingAhead]

wow I did not expect there to be this many responses so fast. I just had a 4 hour chem lab and in that time it looks like the wall has exploded.

Ok to clear things up. For you Lissarae06, your original statement was was something like "well if your for animal rights does that mean that animals should be given the right to vote etc." Then to be followed up as do you count dog or cat years when determining voting age.

I have never heard of any person who is for animal rights say any of these things. So no, that is a ridiculous statement and I'm not arguing with anyone about discussing the difference between natural rights and legal rights. I am sure that you really probably know what animal rights is and what the definition of natural rights are. But if you are going to be mocking by saying the first statement that you said, then thats fine. I'm not going to argue with someone who is not going to take it seriously. And clearly several people think that I was making that announcement to everyone- no. Just people who are mocking. I mean obviously in your next few statements you made it clear you did know a lot about the subject. Then why make the very first statement you did? It's whatever.

But if everyone else wants to know my views in a serious way then I will tell you.

- Animals should be treated as individuals and not someones property.
-I believe that there should be a difference between the way we should treat domestic animals and wild animals. Domestic animals are only here because of humans and yes they cannot survive without us. So every domestic animal has a purpose directly related to humans. For instance, dogs were domesticated not to be your best friend, but to help hunt and protect. Now they are bred for companionship. Food animal obviously is for eating purposes. Cats get ride of mice which causes disease (other then that I can't think of a purpose for them) horses were used for travel. We really do not need any of these animals in the present day. Wild animals are just that wild- but I see too many people taking them and exploiting them and using them for entertainment and profit and its wrong.
-One strong thing that I believe is that we should not use animals for entertainment/ food / or profit.
-I personally do not own any animals-but since other people do I feel the need to help those animals and at least make there lives better.
-Zoos, circus, aquariums- nope I don't think they should be here. I went to a circus once when I was 8. I saw elephants tied up in tiny little pens with chains around there feet. They were healthy- but even as an 8 year old I knew this is not right. Animal welfare people would say- well its healthy so I do not see anything wrong here. I just can't ever say that.
-for the animal research issue. I can honestly say I just don't know. I have gone over and over it in my head. Theres the utilitarian argument and I just don't know. This one is really hard for me.


For the wildlife question. I did an internship with wild animal rehab and I did notice that the majority of animals that entered the hospital were hurt because of humans. I have no problem helping these animals.

I got my answer form this forum a while ago. I hold to my own views and I hope that one day as a DVM I can practice the kind of medicine that I want. The kind that won't make me feel guilty when I go home at night.

So to sum it up. I guess I am not a complete animal rights activist. But I do hold many animal right views. And seeing the reaction of people who are students/ vet bound really open my eyes to what its going to be like. I am not sure what vet I want to be. I guess I can decide that when I start classes and I can see what I enjoy.

 

[dyachei]

-Zoos, circus, aquariums- nope I don't think they should be here. I went to a circus once when I was 8. I saw elephants tied up in tiny little pens with chains around there feet. They were healthy- but even as an 8 year old I knew this is not right. Animal welfare people would say- well its healthy so I do not see anything wrong here. I just can't ever say that.

If you truly believe that those in favor of animal welfare think that not having an appropriate environment for animals in captivity is okay, you probably need to reassess your definition of animal welfare.

 

[Coquette22]

If you truly believe that those in favor of animal welfare think that not having an appropriate environment for animals in captivity is okay, you probably need to reassess your definition of animal welfare.

👍 Those of us who consider ourselves animal welfare people would rather that you not speak for us, LookingAhead. I know of no one in the animal welfare field who would consider an elephant chained up to be okay.

Just throwing this out there... If you think that animal welfare would categorize that as okay (which they don't), is it possible you're more on the side of welfare than rights than you think? You know yourself better than we do, but it just seems like you've got a misunderstanding of the animal welfare position, which may lead you to categorize yourself as animal rights instead.

 

[Vet Med]

.

 

[squirrelsrule]

Why?

Dogs have 0, I repeat 0, sense of tomorrow. They can't anticipate their own life the way humans do. I have wonders sometimes if they can anticipate anything much past knowing when the food bowl is picked up, that they anticipate it being set down with food inside it.

Therefore, why is it sad to have dogs reared for terminal surgeries (or animals raised for meat, etc)? They can't anticipate (they don't even know) that they're destined for consumption or death. As long as they're cared for and provided food, water, shelter, and freedom from unnecessary pain as much as is possible, their life is no different walking into that prep room for a terminal surgery than it would be if they walked into a vet office for a euthanasia.

Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and are entitled to freedom from excessive hunger, thirst, exposure, and pain. Humans > animals, every time. My $0.02.

I figured that since I haven't posted in this type of debate on this forum, I might as well do it once. I hereby abstain from further posts in this thread or in any of its ilk. =p

It is sad to me because I think pets should have an owner, they should have that love and companionship they are meant to have. I know it doesn't always happen and the dogs in the shelters often come from bad situations and that is sad, but to breed them for the purpose of terminal surgery means they never had a chance at having a family. That's what's sad to me. They don't know any different so it's more in my mind, but that doesn't make it any easier for me.

For me it isn't an issue of their treatment. I know that they will be treated with great respect and will feel no pain during the terminal surgery, they won't know what's going on, but I do. I know that they are treated fairly for their whole life, but what kind of life is it to be bred for a terminal surgery. Kept in a lab probably and cared for by many people. And the people will care for them, but will not want to get attached knowing what the animals are for, so in the end the dog wouldn't have ever been loved and cared for like they deserve. In the end, their life was better than most or possibly even all of the animals coming from the shelters who might also never have had someone who loved and cared for them. The difference is that the dog from the shelter wasn't bred for a purpose that gave it no chance for having love and companionship, it was just one of the unlucky animals that things didn't go right for. It's sad, but somehow in my mind more tolerable. Not sure if that makes sense. I tend to have different views than most 😳

I guess for me, I feel that animals have all the emotions and feelings as we do. They don't plan out their life, but I think they are much more complex than most people give them credit for. I don't view animals as just preprogrammed creatures that only care about eating, surviving, and reproducing. I think they bond and love and when they don't have that opportunity I think they are missing out and deep down, they feel it.

 

[dyachei]

But people for animal welfare would say that is ok living conditions. The elephant had food, water, and shelter. So its fine. If that was not the case then there would be no circuses. But obviously that is not the case. I kinda agree with the circus thing. But beyond that nope.

I personally am for animal welfare and do not think the conditions as described were ok. In her description, the area that the elephants were housed in was too small and the elephants were chained. I do not think any animal should have a living situation like that (but that doesn't mean I believe that animals should have rights as people do).

 

[Tator17]

For you Lissarae06, your original statement was was something like "well if your for animal rights does that mean that animals should be given the right to vote etc." Then to be followed up as do you count dog or cat years when determining voting age.

Actually, I was the one mocking you. Lissarae has asked several intelligent questions that I don't think we ever got an answer to.

And specifically, I was mocking this:

All animals should have the same rights as people do. I personally do not see what separates people and animals. I want to be a vet that does not consider animals as property but as equals.

I apologize for being rude. Other posters have pointed out that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I agree. But then it seems as though you recanted on this opinion in the end? I'm confused. It just seems as though every time someone asked you a specific question about what you believed your answer was something akin to, "I believe...stuff. You know...stuff."

I appreciate your final post with more details, and I think the reactions you see here are more because of a lack of clarity in your opinions than anything else. I think that when you're in vet school, if you're able to articulate your opinion clearly and rationally, you won't face any negative feedback.

But you should know both sides of the argument in order to make an informed decision on what you really believe. Because this:

Animal welfare people would say- well its healthy so I do not see anything wrong here. I just can't ever say that.

Doesn't fit with anything that animal welfare people I know would say.

 

[Lissarae06]

This is the last time I am replying to you Looking Ahead, and I am only doing it to defend myself because I think you are wrong about what I wrote. I was not intending to mock you. In your first definition of animal rights, you did not specify legal or natural. By just saying "rights", it leaves a lot for interpretation. I was trying to point that out. Go back and read that part of the conversation. I was not the one that asked how we would count age using dog years or people years. That was someone else. I was serious about the topic. I even asked a question pertaining to how you felt about food animal medicine. You chose not to answer that question. Instead, you insulted my intelligence by telling me to do some research before forming an opinion. You know nothing about me or what I have been taught in vet school. You further insulted my intelligence by saying that I just believe whatever the vet school tells me is right. We had numerous discussions about animal rights vs. animal welfare in our ethics class and there were students for and against each side. I formed my opinion on the matter well before I started vet school. I believe one thing and you believe another. End of story.

 

[Whyevernot55]

If you truly believe that those in favor of animal welfare think that not having an appropriate environment for animals in captivity is okay, you probably need to reassess your definition of animal welfare.

👍

To the OP: if you wish to be taken seriously in a professional setting (ie vet school), do not make assumptions about what other people believe.

 

[su_grad2007]

I personally am for animal welfare and do not think the conditions as described were ok. In her description, the area that the elephants were housed in was too small and the elephants were chained. I do not think any animal should have a living situation like that (but that doesn't mean I believe that animals should have rights as people do).

Agreed. I am also for animal wellfare and I do not agree with those living conditions.

Oh, and a book on animal welfare vs. animal rights just came out recently on amazon. Given that this is a topic that we will be addressing in our profession from both sides, i'm interested in reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Culture...TF8&coliid=I37MNN47HR3T5T&colid=391AGMHR3NCS0

 

[LookingAhead]

If you truly believe that those in favor of animal welfare think that not having an appropriate environment for animals in captivity is okay, you probably need to reassess your definition of animal welfare.

Well to makes this really clear. The elephants were not exactly in cages. They were on display in these tiny little blocked off area. I'm sure they had somewhat of a bigger cage in the back. But thats not the point. Look at a circus. Can you honestly tell me that trucking an animals around, such as an elephant, for hours on end and keeping it in small cages on the road is ideal. The animals health is good physically but mentally? Absolutely not. I didn't say that a specific person would say thats ok. But animal welfare people do. If they did not think this treatment was ok then circuses would be banned. But they are not. Proving a point that animal welfare people say that if an animal has the basics then its fine.

 

[Coquette22]

If they did not think this treatment was ok then circuses would be banned. But they are not. Proving a point that animal welfare people say that if an animal has the basics then its fine.

I'm not sure who you're arguing against. We've all said that wasn't okay. And who are these animal welfare people who say it's okay? We've all said it's not. Please, don't confuse current animal welfare legislation with the goals of animal welfare people. Most people for animal welfare feel that current animal welfare legislation doesn't go far enough.

 

[LookingAhead]

This is the last time I am replying to you Looking Ahead, and I am only doing it to defend myself because I think you are wrong about what I wrote. I was not intending to mock you. In your first definition of animal rights, you did not specify legal or natural. By just saying "rights", it leaves a lot for interpretation. I was trying to point that out. Go back and read that part of the conversation. I was not the one that asked how we would count age using dog years or people years. That was someone else. I was serious about the topic. I even asked a question pertaining to how you felt about food animal medicine. You chose not to answer that question. Instead, you insulted my intelligence by telling me to do some research before forming an opinion. You know nothing about me or what I have been taught in vet school. You further insulted my intelligence by saying that I just believe whatever the vet school tells me is right. We had numerous discussions about animal rights vs. animal welfare in our ethics class and there were students for and against each side. I formed my opinion on the matter well before I started vet school. I believe one thing and you believe another. End of story.

No need to defend yourself. I'm not attacking you. I am sure you are a very smart person because you are obviously in vet school. And I honestly can't believe you were being serious about your first statement if you have discussed the issue in your class. Show me one example of an animal rights believer that has said animals should have the right to vote. If you know what it is then why ask something like that? I am so glad you have your own opinion. But I just still do not believe you were being serious. So therefore I did not taking your post seriously.

 

[flyhi]

But animal welfare people do. If they did not think this treatment was ok then circuses would be banned. But they are not. Proving a point that animal welfare people say that if an animal has the basics then its fine.

I have respected your opinions up to this point, but you are simply incorrect here. Even if 99% of animal welfare people do not agree with elephants in chains at a circus, it does not remotely equate to laws or policies being changed. It's called politics.

Fail.

 

[LookingAhead]

I have respected your opinions up to this point, but you are simply incorrect here. Even if 99% of animal welfare people do not agree with elephants in chains at a circus, it does not remotely equate to laws or policies being changed. It's called politics.

Fail.

If the majority of people thought that it was wrong the politics would change. But that is not the case. I am not saying everyone on this forum thinks its ok. I am just saying that if enough people wanted change, it would happen.

 

[dyachei]

Well to makes this really clear. The elephants were not exactly in cages. They were on display in these tiny little blocked off area. I'm sure they had somewhat of a bigger cage in the back. But thats not the point. Look at a circus. Can you honestly tell me that trucking an animals around, such as an elephant, for hours on end and keeping it in small cages on the road is ideal. The animals health is good physically but mentally? Absolutely not. I didn't say that a specific person would say thats ok. But animal welfare people do. If they did not think this treatment was ok then circuses would be banned. But they are not. Proving a point that animal welfare people say that if an animal has the basics then its fine.

Actually, animal welfare proponents, such as IACUC, do care about mental stimulation in animals and enforce it through research protocols. While I do not think that circuses are ideal, I also think it depends on the individual circus (I refuse to lump everyone together) and I would have to know about the exact conditions before making any judgments.

And it was the point you were making. You were attempting to say that those that believe animal welfare are wrong because they chain animals to walls and keep elephants in ridiculously small areas.

There is a lot of variety on the spectrum of animal welfare (just as there is with animal rights). And to say that because circuses are in existence means that those the believe in animal welfare don't care is simply fallacious.

 

[quantized]

wow I did not expect there to be this many responses so fast. I just had a 4 hour chem lab and in that time it looks like the wall has exploded.

Ok to clear things up. For you Lissarae06, your original statement was was something like "well if your for animal rights does that mean that animals should be given the right to vote etc." Then to be followed up as do you count dog or cat years when determining voting age.

I have never heard of any person who is for animal rights say any of these things. So no, that is a ridiculous statement and I'm not arguing with anyone about discussing the difference between natural rights and legal rights.

It's not really a ridiculous statement. The guardian movement by the animal rights movement seeks to emancipate pets and give them rights equivalent to humans. This would give them the legal right to have a guardian ad litum, which would then give the guardian ad litum the right to sue the guardian. Why would a veterinarian care about this? For one thing, liability insurance for veterinarians is currently pretty affordable, in a large part because pets are considered property. If they were reclassified as equivalent to humans, a veterinarian would need malpractice insurance equivalent to a human doctor. In Florida, malpractice on humans has no cap and doctors are subject to fees of from 50k to well over six figures a year. California is around 30k/year starting. Do you think that with fees like that because we would be able to be sued in an equivalent manner to human doctors, vets would be able to practice? This is the kind of thing people will assume you support if you say you believe in animal rights.

I think it would probably be wise to look more into the animal rights and animal welfare agendas before you go to vet school calling yourself a proponent of animal rights. Or not - it's whatever to me...but you'll have an easier time of things if you understand better the implications arising from what you claim are your beliefs and recognize how your classmates and professors will react when you call yourself an animal rights supporter.

 

[breenie]

:troll:

This argument is pointless, dudes.

ETA: Now I'm not so puzzled about why Purdue asked me what the difference between animal rights and welfare was, and how I felt about their terminal surgeries.

 

[Coquette22]

If the majority of people thought that it was wrong the politics would change.

The majority of the voting populace aren't necessarily educated about or care about animal welfare. You can't equate "majority of people" with "animal welfare proponents".

 

[luplodw]

I'm just curious... if people and animals are to be considered equals, then why shouldn't we eat animals? Don't wild animals eat each other? Or are you just against raising animals for the purpose of eating them? Would it be ok if we hunted them all?

 

[LookingAhead]

I'm just curious... if people and animals are to be considered equals, then why shouldn't we eat animals? Don't wild animals eat each other? Or are you just against raising animals for the purpose of eating them? Would it be ok if we hunted them all?

Wild animals eat each other because they have to. Some animals strictly only eat meat. Humans do not have to eat meat, therefore why should we.

Anyway, I have a test to study for. I'm not going to post on here anymore.

 

[vetme]

Ooh yea, I'm already hooked

As am I

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Just out of (genuine) curiosity, in working with domestic animals, do you feel that not having pets will place you at any sort of disadvantage in terms of being able to provide your clients with practical advice? If pet ownership is wrong, does catering to the needs of pet owners (and effectively helping enable them to continue to own pets) not leave you somewhat complicit in the practice? What will you tell clients when they inquire as to why you don't have any pets? In the interest of complete and total honesty, as a pet owner, I would not be interested in using a veterinarian with a moral opposition to pet ownership.

I'll be honest, I don't understand the arguments against domestication. Provided these animals are being properly cared for, life on the inside really isn't so bad. Nature is brutal. What becomes of the remaining three quarters of the rabbit that manages to escape the fox? The feral cat that develops diabetes? The bird with the broken wing? The fawn when there isn't enough food to go around? It seems to me that the relationship between pet and (responsible) owner is one of mutual benefit, not exploitation.

 

[twelvetigers]

On animals as individuals rather than property (a can of worms, so to speak):

Nothing about the legal status of animals as property specifically precludes them from having these 'rights' we speak of. The concept of having animals as property is designed to protect the animals from harm, and certainly doesn't imply that an owner is some sort of despot - and I think that people will treat their pets the same either way, whether we call them property or not.

It's important to consider the legal ramifications of determining that an animal is no longer property but, instead, is a member of the family. Suppose your dog kills the neighbor's cat. Is it murder? What if your dog is stolen... can you re-claim your dog since he's not your property? Would changing this change how euthanasia is handled? Could you buy animals (horses, dogs) if they are no longer considered property?

Now, what if something goes wrong for a veterinarian (a future you, me, or any of us) and the animal dies. Maybe it was a mistake made by a tech or veterinarian, or maybe it was just bad luck, or maybe the animal aspirated during surgery because it had eaten more recently than it should have. Whatever the circumstances, if the animal is not legally property but is instead a 'family member' or 'individual,' the owner could sue for emotional distress etc. as with human medicine. Therefore, you would need to add malpractice insurance to your loans and bills as a new graduate. Are you okay with that?

IMO, the idea of rights and responsibilities is completely a human invention, and it makes no sense to spread this idea beyond our own species. Animals deserve respect and they deserve to be protected from cruelty. We can do that with the system we have now, and that's what we should focus on.

 

[Lissarae06]

On animals as individuals rather than property (a can of worms, so to speak):

Nothing about the legal status of animals as property specifically precludes them from having these 'rights' we speak of. The concept of having animals as property is designed to protect the animals from harm, and certainly doesn't imply that an owner is some sort of despot - and I think that people will treat their pets the same either way, whether we call them property or not.

It's important to consider the legal ramifications of determining that an animal is no longer property but, instead, is a member of the family. Suppose your dog kills the neighbor's cat. Is it murder? What if your dog is stolen... can you re-claim your dog since he's not your property? Would changing this change how euthanasia is handled? Could you buy animals (horses, dogs) if they are no longer considered property?

Now, what if something goes wrong for a veterinarian (a future you, me, or any of us) and the animal dies. Maybe it was a mistake made by a tech or veterinarian, or maybe it was just bad luck, or maybe the animal aspirated during surgery because it had eaten more recently than it should have. Whatever the circumstances, if the animal is not legally property but is instead a 'family member' or 'individual,' the owner could sue for emotional distress etc. as with human medicine. Therefore, you would need to add malpractice insurance to your loans and bills as a new graduate. Are you okay with that?

IMO, the idea of rights and responsibilities is completely a human invention, and it makes no sense to spread this idea beyond our own species. Animals deserve respect and they deserve to be protected from cruelty. We can do that with the system we have now, and that's what we should focus on.

👍 Well said.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

👍 Well said.

Agreed, 100%. 👍

 

[StartingoverVet]

It's not really a ridiculous statement. The guardian movement by the animal rights movement seeks to emancipate pets and give them rights equivalent to humans. This would give them the legal right to have a guardian ad litum, which would then give the guardian ad litum the right to sue the guardian. Why would a veterinarian care about this? For one thing, liability insurance for veterinarians is currently pretty affordable, in a large part because pets are considered property. If they were reclassified as equivalent to humans, a veterinarian would need malpractice insurance equivalent to a human doctor. In Florida, malpractice on humans has no cap and doctors are subject to fees of from 50k to well over six figures a year. California is around 30k/year starting. Do you think that with fees like that because we would be able to be sued in an equivalent manner to human doctors, vets would be able to practice? This is the kind of thing people will assume you support if you say you believe in animal rights.

Wow, this statement really bothers me.

If you are so concerned about how much money you are going to make as a vet maybe you should become a commodity trader. I can give you a few names of firms to contact where this viewpoint will be well received.

Sorry, but when discussing ethics, it is ridiculous to base a whole argument on partial loss of income.

I seem to recall the south making a similar argument in favor of slavery before the civil war. It is almost always un-economical to act in an ethical way.

And the problem with malpractice is an uniquely American one. The problem is with the U.S. tort system and not with the concept of holding vets to a higher standard than the post office (oh, I lost your cat in the mail.. here's $50 to go buy a new one).

I think organizations like PETA are mostly insane, and what is called the animal rights movement is also mostly filled with crazy radicals but I want the legal system to treat pets as something other than property for many reasons. To do that means to recognize some level of rights, and if the result of that is higher malpractice insurance, then so be it.

😛

 

[Nechochwen]

I don't usually get involved in debate craziness, but I want to address the argument against zoos...

I did a study abroad in Belize, a good portion of which was spent discussing conservation, education, and the importance of zoos. Here are some take-away points:

1. In third world countries like Belize, zoos are *vital* for educating the population about the treasures of wildlife. The zoo in Belize helps children and adults learn that the rainforest is not only a source of lumber; it provides natural riches such as its diversity of life. Through this education, there has been a shift in the economy and mindset of Belize, shifting away from deforestation and moving towards tourism and restoration of their natural resources.

2. Zoos are used as education in the US and other first world countries; they are valuable when exposing city residents to animals they may never imagine existed otherwise. Again, this helps to raise awareness of endangered species and promote support of species restoration. Example: according to scientists, the White rhino was supposed to go extinct by 2010. The rhino still lives in the wild; though still endangered, raised awareness (produced in part by educational sources like zoos) allowed for increased support of the species.

3. The economic benefit of zoos allows for research and breeding of endangered species (which others mentioned previously but I am repeating).

If the role of a zoo was solely as a source of entertainment, I would be against it completely. However, it is important to consider its educational and (in the case of countries like Belize) cultural values.

👍

"In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; we will understand only what we have been taught."
-Baba Dioum, Senegalese ecologist

I personally could never keep an adult songbird or raptor that came in that stopped it from flying. For me, once a bird has soared, that is something that shouldn't be taken from them and if it is, I would opt to euthanize.

I definitely agree with assesing the quality of life of wildlife rehab animals that may not be able to be released, but I think it is important not to anthropomorphize what an animal may feel. Not to say that an animal doesn't have any emotional preference, but we shouldn't imprint our preferences on them. I know that if I were a raptor that suddenly couldn't fly and was destined to live in a flight cage, I would be depressed. I hesitate to make that leap for another organism that I share no commonality with.

Believe me, I know that some birds (e.g. Cooper's Hawks) cannot cope with being caged. Other birds adapt quite well, and from what I can observe (which admittedly may be totally incorrect) are living with out stress, which I seem to see as an expression of inward "turmoil".

I'm stalling and should be studying, but it's nice to get to do some philosophical thought for a change.

 

[NittanyKitty]

If the majority of people thought that it was wrong the politics would change. But that is not the case. I am not saying everyone on this forum thinks its ok. I am just saying that if enough people wanted change, it would happen.

This is an incredibly, incredibly naive statement. As much as we would like to believe this is how politics works in this country, it's not.

For instance, an early January poll (conducted through CNN Research Corporation) from this year stated that 63% of Americans oppose the Afghan War. This is a clear majority of people. Aren't we still in Afghanistan, more than a month after this majority was "revealed"?

And on the topic of this thread, I'm sure the majority of people in this country oppose animal abuse, neglect, and suffering. That doesn't mean that the current legislation and events are going to reflect that. There is a lot more that goes into the country's status than, "Oh, more than 50% of citizens feel that way? Let's change it!"

There's a huge difference between feeling one way about an issue and having the resources, time, passion, and impetus to do something about it. And even with mobilization of those things on a wide scale, you have a little something called interest groups, lobbyists, and POLITICS in the way of the changes you seem to imply will immediately happen. I'm not saying that change, good change, can't occur. It does and it's happened throughout American history (sorry to exclude any foreigners!) to make this country a great one. But there are a lot of setbacks along the way and a lot of time to get to change. It's not instant and it's not simply due to the collective mind of the people feeling a certain way at a certain time. Again, that is inherently naive.

And to echo everyone else, I also take offense to the statement that people who take an animal welfare stand find "nothing wrong" with the situation you described. Just because I have no problem in working in animal agriculture, consuming meat products, and performing euthanasias doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to obvious abuse or neglect. Please do your research and understand what you're implying first. FYI, getting a firm grip on your OWN beliefs before quickly discounting everyone else's would also be a good start.

 

[sumstorm]

- Animals should be treated as individuals and not someones property.

So, your paycheck will be paid for my the animal? Or will you be working for free? Should we allow dogs and cats to continue in a process of overpopulation that will result in massive die offs because an animal that isn't property should have reproductive rights? This is a case in human med going on right now.

- We really do not need any of these animals in the present day.

So I have two dogs trained for SAR. Both are wilderness level II cerified for air scent search and cadaver search. One is also certified for urban search (for thinks like 9-11.) You are saying we really don't need these animals to provide these services? Can you detect people and follow their scent trail? I can't, but I'd love to see you show off that skill when I'm on call next month. That doesn't even get into service animals, who tend to have excellent care, and provide services that most folks aren't willing to. I mean, really, would you be willing to guide someone around all day, at their directive, sit patiently while they worked, hang out while they are on a date, etc? In some places, animals are the only way to survive and generate enough food to live (water buffalo), so you are willing to deny those individuals that ability on the basis that you have already thrived from your ancestors using animals that way, but your above that now and should impose your view on others?

-One strong thing that I believe is that we should not use animals for entertainment/ food / or profit.

we use humans for entertainment and profit, why not animals? We just had a really, really big day where lots of people were entertained by people playing with a ball. I just bought a Groupon for a comedy club. We as vets certainly use people to generate a profit so we can feed ourselves. If no one pays for our services (if we don't use them for profit) we don't eat...well, unless you are independently wealthy.

-I personally do not own any animals-but since other people do I feel the need to help those animals and at least make there lives better.

So....I own an animal. In your mind it has rights. Do you do a spay? I mean, 90% of the time it is an elective surgery and takes away the reproductive rights of an animal. At the same time, pregnancy is risky, places a lot of demands on the body. Oh, and since you are here for the animals and opposed to the ownership, does that mean you will take as pay what my pet produces?

-for the animal research issue. I can honestly say I just don't know. I have gone over and over it in my head. Theres the utilitarian argument and I just don't know. This one is really hard for me.....

I hold to my own views and I hope that one day as a DVM I can practice the kind of medicine that I want. The kind that won't make me feel guilty when I go home at night.

So for you to be educated to be a vet, lots of animals have been sacrificed. That is acceptable as a benefit to you, but I shouldn't have the benefit of cuddling with my well cared for pets? What makes your benefit supeior to mine? Why wouldn't you feel guilty for using animals to gain this knowledge if they have rights to not be used for entertainment and profit? Aren't you going to profit in a variety of ways for their sacrifices?

I do believe in animal welfare. I do believe there should be a position between people and property. However, I believe my animals use me as much as I use them. I know a fair number of humans that seem to like being kept like pets (all expenses paid to hand around the house.) I also believe that if you really believe these animals all have equivalent or equal rights to you and I and other humans, you would give up your home and your car and your education and all these other luxuries that we have. Just by using an automobile and residing in a house you are taking away the basics for animals; shelter, food, water. Why is it ok for you to take that away because it is convenient? Why wouldn't you subsist on as little as possible while converting every place you could back to a natural environment to give animals these basics? This is where I see most folks who believe in animal rights fail; they talk a lot, but their actions only go to a point where they feel inconvenienced.

But, of course, that is just my opinion. You are entitled to your own, but I feel sorry that you will have to dirty your hands by using animals and the knowledge developed by using animals for your own gains in this profession, since you believe strongly that animals shouldn't be used for profit.

 

[HopefulAg]

Crap! This is so not the thread I need before a Microbiology test!

Can't...look...away!

 

[Nechochwen]

Animals deserve respect and they deserve to be protected from cruelty. We can do that with the system we have now, and that's what we should focus on.

Agreed.

Also, pets are regarded as more than property.

I could take my blender and melt it with a blow torch. No one would think me a cruel person (maybe wasteful, but not cruel)

If I did the same to my dog, I would be a monster.

There is a distinction.

 

[Nechochwen]

Crap! This is so not the thread I need before a Microbiology test!

Can't...look...away!

Me too!

Neuro yes, SDN no!

 

[l2vet]

Me too!

Neuro yes, SDN no!

opens thread in new tab and refreshes every once in a while.

👍👍

 

[Savethewhales]

I don't think I am going to dip my feet into this discussion but great thread.

When reading through this I have only a couple comments that apply to both sides:

Let's all play nice as we will be colleagues someday. Conversation is a great thing and sparks awareness for all involved. I might not agree with animal rights but somewhere we can find a common respect and understanding. Again.....NOT directed in particular to either side. I feel that I can learn from both. Thanks to those of you that have contributed.

 

[quantized]

Wow, this statement really bothers me.

If you are so concerned about how much money you are going to make as a vet maybe you should become a commodity trader. I can give you a few names of firms to contact where this viewpoint will be well received.

Sorry, but when discussing ethics, it is ridiculous to base a whole argument on partial loss of income.

I seem to recall the south making a similar argument in favor of slavery before the civil war. It is almost always un-economical to act in an ethical way.

And the problem with malpractice is an uniquely American one. The problem is with the U.S. tort system and not with the concept of holding vets to a higher standard than the post office (oh, I lost your cat in the mail.. here's $50 to go buy a new one).

I think organizations like PETA are mostly insane, and what is called the animal rights movement is also mostly filled with crazy radicals but I want the legal system to treat pets as something other than property for many reasons. To do that means to recognize some level of rights, and if the result of that is higher malpractice insurance, then so be it.

😛

If I were so concerned about money I would have stayed in my previous employment, but thanks for the fabulous offer of assistance. Why wouldn't I be concerned about not having negative income though? How many pets could I help by spending more in a year on malpractice insurance than I would make in a normal practice? People already claim that vets charge too much when the vets are barely meeting overhead. How would I integrate an additional huge increase in overhead without raising costs to the client - costs that would prevent many clients from seeking care for the animal when it was most needed.

There are many other reasons a guardian ad litum relationship and other animal rights ideas would be misguided at the least, and I just gave one example that directly effects veterinarians and their practices - apparently that makes me a money grubbing slavery supporter 👍 Exaggerate much?

Anyways, I'm off to study. Gotta get good grades so I can make millions and all to pay for my LFA mobile clinic and my collection of Chanel doctor's coats.

 

[l2vet]

Gotta get good grades so I can make millions and all to pay for my LFA mobile clinic and my collection of Chanel doctor's coats.

Chanel makes doctor's coats? Link pls.

 

[Vet Med]

.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

We were on a farm call and this lady went on and on about how great it is that horse slaughter is banned. Well thats not what the vet believed but he nodded his head and listened to her. I think thats exactly what needed to happen. It's rational to assume that two intelligent people can completely disagree on an issue.

I agree, to a certain extent... but, at the same time, I think that (respectful) debate is critical. There's a lot of bad legislation out there being pressed by various animal interest groups that could potentially have dire consequences for pet owners, veterinarians, and animals alike. At some point, I think that you have to speak up and make yourself heard.

 

[Savethewhales]

Yes. Yes. Thats what I was trying to say....let's all keep up the conversation but keep it respectful and friendly. I think ESPECIALLY in the veterinary field we are presented with clients with all sorts of opinions and in the end we are there to treat the animal and sometimes we might not agree with the owners perspective. Obviously this is not the topic if this thread but TRUST ME you will have clients that feel very very very strongly about animal rights and its very important to understand and respect both sides even if you dont agree. I say this because in my profession this sort of thing comes up a lot. Just not fun to read a thread with people getting angry and mocking each other.

Edit: response to Cautionary Tail. Absolutely stand up and be heard. But it can be done with respect...as you said "respectful debate" as in using the debate to further each others understanding of the complexity of the subject.

In addition. Nothing is black and white. There are so many shades of gray within this particular debate

 

[Vet Med]

.