When you think animals worthy of rights protection, which groups of animals come to mind? For most of us, the list would include farm and laboratory animals, animals used for one form of entertainment or another, members of threatened or endangered species. Which group of animals do you think earns the least of society’s concern about animal rights? I’ll give you a hint: the answer probably will surprise you until you actually think about it.
Did you answer companion animals? Or did you automatically dismiss this group as a possibility because of the magnitude of the investment so many of us make in our pets?
Unlike the rights typically assigned to other groups of animals, those we assign to companion animals tend to be much more subjective and arbitrary. Just how subjective and arbitrary became clear to me when I heard a news segment about an impending ban on wild animals in the remaining few traveling circuses in the United Kingdom.
Permit me to set the scene. Regardless of my beliefs about animals in circuses and whether I find explanations of the nitty-gritty of legislation incredibly boring, I accept that legislators must define their terms very carefully. Laws with poorly defined terms often wind up making matters worse instead of better. (Some breed-specific legislation is a good example of this.) Consequently I understood why the politician being interviewed in this particular case commenced such an explanation. I also could understand why the ratings-conscious interviewer might want to abort this in favor of something with more zing. What I couldn’t comprehend was why this normally reasonably neutral journalist attempted to force his guest to instead discuss a subject—wild animals trained to perform—that he personally apparently found ethically unacceptable. Naturally this sudden and inexplicable change of subject flustered the politician who sputtered that dogs also are trained to perform. To which the interviewer replied “Yes, but dogs are trained using food (emphasis mine).
Huh? Even though this exchange had nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the interview, I nonetheless wondered wondered how the journalist apparently could feel so confident that no one used food to train wild animals in circuses. Given that food-training of wild animals occurs in research facilities and zoos, among other settings, it struck me as a statement more fueled by emotion than fact. But even more intriguing was the implication that training with food somehow represents a greater sensitivity to animal rights. This prompted me to add the question, “How does offering a food reward signal acknowledgment of an animal’s rights?”, to the list I pondered after the interview ended.
To try to get a handle on this, I first considered several hypothetical situations in which it seemed that food-related training could be considered a violation of my dog’s rights. These included that I use food to train my dog:
- to eliminate what I consider a problematic behavior, such as aggression toward other dogs, without addressing the underlying cause
- to teach commands even though my dog is obese
- to teach commands even though I need to withhold food first because my dog isn’t food-motivated for some reason
- to perform a behavior or in a location that causes the animal physical and/or behavioral discomfort and distress
Next, I considered standards of farm animal treatment developed for livestock owners. In general most reflect the Five Freedoms summed up by the United Kingdom’s Farm Animal Welfare Council:
- Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – by providing ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
- Freedom from Discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
- Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
- Freedom to Express Normal Behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
- Freedom from Fear and Distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
In general, official documents that establish criteria to ensure the physical and mental health of animals in captivity speak of welfare and use terms like “freedoms” to avoid the emotional responses that the term “rights” often generates. The more specific context of the above includes that these conditions apply or should apply to animals on farms, in transit, in markets, or at places of slaughter. Also note that these freedoms overlap. Animals experiencing physical or behavioral pain experience discomfort which may frighten and distress them. And those who experience fear and distress more readily may succumb to injury or disease.
When you consider this list, do the obligations it places on farmers regarding the care of their animals seem reasonable to you?
Now let’s go through that list again and think about human-companion animal interactions, beginning with freedom from hunger and thirst by providing the animal with ready access to fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor.
Most of us readily accept that freedom from thirst and hunger ranks as a basic companion animal right. Show us a picture of a starving dog, cat, horse, or pet bird and we immediately recognize that treating animals who depend on us that way is morally wrong. However we need only recall the number of overweight and obese companion animals to realize that the right to food does not grant companion animals a right to a quality or amount of food that will ensure their optimum health. Given the choice between feeding our pets something we believe communicates love and that which communicates quality nutrition, all those overweight and obese animals suggest that many of us will opt for the former. Meanwhile, ignoring the flip side of this right also has its proponents; recommendations to withhold food from animals to ensure a response to a food reward routinely crop up in the training literature.
Hmmm. So relative to the right to food and water, it looks like farms animals could have the edge.
Moving on to freedom from discomfort, specifically by providing animals with an appropriate environment that includes shelter and a comfortable resting area: How do companion animals fare in this regard? If they spend most or all of their time in our homes, we typically assume that this constitutes an appropriate environment for them because… Well, because it works for us so why wouldn’t it work for them?
Can you imagine what the response of various regulating bodies would be if farmers took this same approach to providing shelter for their animals? No doubt most of us hope said regulating bodies strictly monitor the fulfillment of this requirement and possess the power to ensure farmers fulfill this obligation to their animals. Some of us might even suggest that all those who raise farm animals take at least one course in animal husbandry to learn how to properly care for the different species in their charge. We do this oblivious to the fact that when or where our companion animals eat, sleep, or get exercise, clean bedding or food and water bowls may depend on our schedules and inclinations more than their needs.
Because our society places much emphasis on medical care as evidence of a quality relationship, many people perceive the third freedom—freedom from pain, injury or disease—as a basic companion animal right. Most also will agree that, as with farm animals, this includes prevention when possible and rapid diagnosis and treatment of any injury or disease when it’s not. Where we differ, and sometimes passionately so, is in our tendency to perceive only certain forms of prevention and treatment as a companion animal right. In the broadest sense, these most commonly break down into two categories: conventional and traditional medical care. Those who view the former as the one true medical path believe all animals have a right to the best prevention, diagnosis, and treatment modern science can offer. Those who opt for a more traditional approach take what they consider a more natural and holistic view and avoid conventional approaches.
But whereas farmers may opt for the approach, or combination of approaches, that ultimately maximizes their animals’ productivity and thus the farmers’ profits, once again we companion animal folks may choose our orientation based on the emotional profit it generates for us. When this occurs, some may go so far as to define a specific kind of medical care as a universal right to the point that, if we don’t choose that same approach for our animals, they will insinuate or flat out state that we violate our animals’ rights.
The fourth freedom—freedom to express normal behavior—relies on a prerequisite we companion animal-lovers may take for granted: knowledge of our animal’s normal behavior. We often take this knowledge for granted, not because we’ve studied their normal species behaviors, but because we assume we know all we need to know about the subject. After all, how could we love them as much as we do if we didn’t intuitively know everything about them? As a result, we feel stunned when our more solitary cat considers the new feline addition a territorial violation instead of a best friend. We feel betrayed when that rescue dog we adopted remains aloof toward us and/or tolerates the presence of other dogs at best, thanks to a legacy passed on to him by previous generations of self-supporting free-roaming scavengers or hunters of small game. We become angry and frustrated when intelligent animal companions of multiple species attack themselves or our belongings when our environments offer too much of the wrong kind of stimulation and too little of that which meets their specific needs…
This brings us to the final freedom: freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering. Would that our society cared as much about this in companion animals living suburbia as it does those living in barns, zoos, and research facilities! Visits to dog-parks, doggy daycare centers, canine and equine sports gatherings and purebred shows for all companion animal species will reveal animals obviously distressed in those settings. Instead of asking ourselves why these animals feel that way, we often allow our own level of comfort to dictate our responses to their distress. If we want to be there, we expect them to want to be there too. Now that scientific evidence has added “social facilitator” and “therapist” to the companion animal’s job description, increasing numbers of us may expect our animals to be comfortable in environments in which we ourselves are not.
Or recall those countless videos of animals in obvious distress that many, including the person who owns the animal, consider entertaining. Among these we find animals exhibiting a wide range of stress-relieving behaviors, sometimes obsessively so, in their attempts to achieve mental stability. Some amateur videographers even set the animals’ attempts to relieve their discomfort to music. Were such displays involving farm, zoo, or research animals so presented, it would trigger an immediate and vigorous response from various regulatory bodies as well as the general public.
Bottom line relative to this freedom: If our need for our animals’ performance in a certain setting takes precedence over our concern for their welfare, then only injury, illness or a behavioral problem that afflicts them to the point that it makes us uncomfortable will cause us to reevaluate the situation.
Sadly for them and sadly for us, often when it comes to our pets a different standard of rights may come into play. The “I love my animals! I treat them like one of the kids!” standard. Would that this were enough.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
When you think animals worthy of rights protection, which groups of animals come to mind? For most of us, the list would include farm and laboratory animals, animals used for one form of entertainment or another, members of threatened or endangered species. Which group of animals do you think earns the least of society’s concern about animal rights? I’ll give you a hint: the answer probably will surprise you until you actually think about it.
Did you answer companion animals? Or did you automatically dismiss this group as a possibility because of the magnitude of the investment so many of us make in our pets?
Unlike the rights typically assigned to other groups of animals, those we assign to companion animals tend to be much more subjective and arbitrary. Just how subjective and arbitrary became clear to me when I heard a news segment about an impending ban on wild animals in the remaining few traveling circuses in the United Kingdom.
Permit me to set the scene. Regardless of my beliefs about animals in circuses and whether I find explanations of the nitty-gritty of legislation incredibly boring, I accept that legislators must define their terms very carefully. Laws with poorly defined terms often wind up making matters worse instead of better. (Some breed-specific legislation is a good example of this.) Consequently I understood why the politician being interviewed in this particular case commenced such an explanation. I also could understand why the ratings-conscious interviewer might want to abort this in favor of something with more zing. What I couldn’t comprehend was why this normally reasonably neutral journalist attempted to force his guest to instead discuss a subject—wild animals trained to perform—that he personally apparently found ethically unacceptable. Naturally this sudden and inexplicable change of subject flustered the politician who sputtered that dogs also are trained to perform. To which the interviewer replied “Yes, but dogs are trained using food (emphasis mine).
Huh? Even though this exchange had nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the interview, I nonetheless wondered wondered how the journalist apparently could feel so confident that no one used food to train wild animals in circuses. Given that food-training of wild animals occurs in research facilities and zoos, among other settings, it struck me as a statement more fueled by emotion than fact. But even more intriguing was the implication that training with food somehow represents a greater sensitivity to animal rights. This prompted me to add the question, “How does offering a food reward signal acknowledgment of an animal’s rights?”, to the list I pondered after the interview ended.
To try to get a handle on this, I first considered several hypothetical situations in which it seemed that food-related training could be considered a violation of my dog’s rights. These included that I use food to train my dog:
Next, I considered standards of farm animal treatment developed for livestock owners. In general most reflect the Five Freedoms summed up by the United Kingdom’s Farm Animal Welfare Council:
In general, official documents that establish criteria to ensure the physical and mental health of animals in captivity speak of welfare and use terms like “freedoms” to avoid the emotional responses that the term “rights” often generates. The more specific context of the above includes that these conditions apply or should apply to animals on farms, in transit, in markets, or at places of slaughter. Also note that these freedoms overlap. Animals experiencing physical or behavioral pain experience discomfort which may frighten and distress them. And those who experience fear and distress more readily may succumb to injury or disease.
When you consider this list, do the obligations it places on farmers regarding the care of their animals seem reasonable to you?
Now let’s go through that list again and think about human-companion animal interactions, beginning with freedom from hunger and thirst by providing the animal with ready access to fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor.
Most of us readily accept that freedom from thirst and hunger ranks as a basic companion animal right. Show us a picture of a starving dog, cat, horse, or pet bird and we immediately recognize that treating animals who depend on us that way is morally wrong. However we need only recall the number of overweight and obese companion animals to realize that the right to food does not grant companion animals a right to a quality or amount of food that will ensure their optimum health. Given the choice between feeding our pets something we believe communicates love and that which communicates quality nutrition, all those overweight and obese animals suggest that many of us will opt for the former. Meanwhile, ignoring the flip side of this right also has its proponents; recommendations to withhold food from animals to ensure a response to a food reward routinely crop up in the training literature.
Hmmm. So relative to the right to food and water, it looks like farms animals could have the edge.
Moving on to freedom from discomfort, specifically by providing animals with an appropriate environment that includes shelter and a comfortable resting area: How do companion animals fare in this regard? If they spend most or all of their time in our homes, we typically assume that this constitutes an appropriate environment for them because… Well, because it works for us so why wouldn’t it work for them?
Can you imagine what the response of various regulating bodies would be if farmers took this same approach to providing shelter for their animals? No doubt most of us hope said regulating bodies strictly monitor the fulfillment of this requirement and possess the power to ensure farmers fulfill this obligation to their animals. Some of us might even suggest that all those who raise farm animals take at least one course in animal husbandry to learn how to properly care for the different species in their charge. We do this oblivious to the fact that when or where our companion animals eat, sleep, or get exercise, clean bedding or food and water bowls may depend on our schedules and inclinations more than their needs.
Because our society places much emphasis on medical care as evidence of a quality relationship, many people perceive the third freedom—freedom from pain, injury or disease—as a basic companion animal right. Most also will agree that, as with farm animals, this includes prevention when possible and rapid diagnosis and treatment of any injury or disease when it’s not. Where we differ, and sometimes passionately so, is in our tendency to perceive only certain forms of prevention and treatment as a companion animal right. In the broadest sense, these most commonly break down into two categories: conventional and traditional medical care. Those who view the former as the one true medical path believe all animals have a right to the best prevention, diagnosis, and treatment modern science can offer. Those who opt for a more traditional approach take what they consider a more natural and holistic view and avoid conventional approaches.
But whereas farmers may opt for the approach, or combination of approaches, that ultimately maximizes their animals’ productivity and thus the farmers’ profits, once again we companion animal folks may choose our orientation based on the emotional profit it generates for us. When this occurs, some may go so far as to define a specific kind of medical care as a universal right to the point that, if we don’t choose that same approach for our animals, they will insinuate or flat out state that we violate our animals’ rights.
The fourth freedom—freedom to express normal behavior—relies on a prerequisite we companion animal-lovers may take for granted: knowledge of our animal’s normal behavior. We often take this knowledge for granted, not because we’ve studied their normal species behaviors, but because we assume we know all we need to know about the subject. After all, how could we love them as much as we do if we didn’t intuitively know everything about them? As a result, we feel stunned when our more solitary cat considers the new feline addition a territorial violation instead of a best friend. We feel betrayed when that rescue dog we adopted remains aloof toward us and/or tolerates the presence of other dogs at best, thanks to a legacy passed on to him by previous generations of self-supporting free-roaming scavengers or hunters of small game. We become angry and frustrated when intelligent animal companions of multiple species attack themselves or our belongings when our environments offer too much of the wrong kind of stimulation and too little of that which meets their specific needs…
This brings us to the final freedom: freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering. Would that our society cared as much about this in companion animals living suburbia as it does those living in barns, zoos, and research facilities! Visits to dog-parks, doggy daycare centers, canine and equine sports gatherings and purebred shows for all companion animal species will reveal animals obviously distressed in those settings. Instead of asking ourselves why these animals feel that way, we often allow our own level of comfort to dictate our responses to their distress. If we want to be there, we expect them to want to be there too. Now that scientific evidence has added “social facilitator” and “therapist” to the companion animal’s job description, increasing numbers of us may expect our animals to be comfortable in environments in which we ourselves are not.
Or recall those countless videos of animals in obvious distress that many, including the person who owns the animal, consider entertaining. Among these we find animals exhibiting a wide range of stress-relieving behaviors, sometimes obsessively so, in their attempts to achieve mental stability. Some amateur videographers even set the animals’ attempts to relieve their discomfort to music. Were such displays involving farm, zoo, or research animals so presented, it would trigger an immediate and vigorous response from various regulatory bodies as well as the general public.
Bottom line relative to this freedom: If our need for our animals’ performance in a certain setting takes precedence over our concern for their welfare, then only injury, illness or a behavioral problem that afflicts them to the point that it makes us uncomfortable will cause us to reevaluate the situation.
Sadly for them and sadly for us, often when it comes to our pets a different standard of rights may come into play. The “I love my animals! I treat them like one of the kids!” standard. Would that this were enough.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.