It is legal and socially permissible to treat animals as property. A cute, fluffy West Highland Terrier can be bought, just as the keyboard I am typing this on. Animals can be neutered; they can be locked in small cages so people pay money to gawk at them. A large subset can be legally eaten. Some can be hunted for valuable body parts or entertainment. I fail to see the disconnect between the above and training fighting dogs or roosters, experimenting on monkeys, or keeping/slaughtering livestock under awful but profitable conditions. The animals are treated mere objects, either way.

Discuss.

Because those animals are cute. When we get a chicken breast in the grocery store, it is pink and kinda slimy. Thats a huge difference.

The differentiating issue you that divides human opinion in most of the cases you cite is one of *suffering*. When we raise animals as livestock, hunt them for food (in most cases), use them for medical research, or treat them as pets, most human societies recognize that animals, while (to varying degrees, depending on the culture) not entitled to the same legal rights as humans (which are themselves rather callously treated in much of the world, depending on race/sex/religion/social standing), do have the same basic capacity for pleasure and pain as we do (vertebrates, anyway), and are entitled to protection from forms of exploitation that we might consider 'torture', and laws in all of those industries reflect that. Many of us are willing to accept the (not so pleasant to the chickens) factory farmed life of billions of chickens for the dinner table every year because 1) it serves a legitimate nutritional need for affordable protein, and we at least attempt to keep their suffering to a minimum, but much less likely to accept dog-fighting where the well-being of the animals is flagrantly disregarded and the activity serves no 'necessary' purpose.

There is an increasing body of evidence that many nonhuman animals have the capacity for what we might consider 'culture', including the capacity for religious awe, complex politics, and complicated communication and social structures. However, because that they cannot interact directly with human legal systems, and human beings are notoriously bad sharers of resources, deciding what sort of rights nonhumans have, obviously falls to us - and human beings are more willing to empathize with animals that are more 'like us' (elephants, primates) in terms of obviously demonstrable intelligence, and less so those that are more distantly related to us. On that score, I don't think you can lump all 'animals' into one category; they're simply too diverse, and there is the additional issue of the intrinsic value of protecting animals and their habitat because of their contribution to the environment and to valuable genetic diversity.

I think that the mere fact that animals can't argue for rights on their own behalf means that we de facto 'own' them; their fates are in our hands whether we like it or not. I personally hope that we as humans stop breeding ourselves out of the choice of whether or not to preserve any habitat solely for the use of animals as they see fit, and making wiser decisions about resource utilization now, as those two things will impact the future of nonhuman animals (whose usage is almost always an economic decision) more than our 'feelings' about them.

More to say on this topic, but I'm late for the raidbus ;).

Regards,
Nydia

Many of us are willing to accept the (not so pleasant to the chickens) factory farmed life of billions of chickens for the dinner table every year because 1) it serves a legitimate nutritional need for affordable protein, and we at least attempt to keep their suffering to a minimum, but much less likely to accept dog-fighting where the well-being of the animals is flagrantly disregarded and the activity serves no 'necessary' purpose.

Neutering pets is just a matter of convenience for the owner. The continuation of breeds with known debilitating health problems falls in the same category. The suffering may be less immediate, but it is still not necessary. Nor is the mass production of chickens - we can live off legumes if we so choose. The distinction is arbitrary.

Neutering pets is an owners responsibility period...not a convenience.

Start lobbying for the chickens then my friend. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see the difference between an animal that is capable of helping people whether its...search and rescue, working in our military, working for the blind, working for our police department, simply put and at least in America...dogs are seen as mans best friend. Dog fighting is for the scum of the earth...jesus christ we just had a post about this a while ago.

I don't agree with people using Monkeys or any other animals for testing of any purposes. Eating live stock and chickens is alright with me..and frankly a TON of people. Dog fighting and abusing dogs..will never be. I'll even to as far as to say that if someone really liked eating dogs, have at it..but put them to death as quickly as possible. Vicks recent case just showed the outcry and how much people really care about dog fighting and its many problems associated with it.

Something else on par with dog fighting is all the damn puppy mills in this country. Breeding should be licensed and monitored closely. Owners who are licenesed need to have their animal fixed, or fined. Way to many retards get dogs who think they are cute..movies have huge impacts on this....then turn it in to the humane society once the novelty wears off. Most of those dogs are generated from puppy mills because there is a demand. Most of those places are really bad.

Neutering pets is an owners responsibility period...not a convenience.

No, it is a convenient method of addressing a responsibility. Something along the line of pet chastity belts would be more humane. Would you want your nuts lopped off without having any say in the matter?

Start lobbying for the chickens then my friend. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see the difference between an animal that is capable of helping people whether its...search and rescue, working in our military, working for the blind, working for our police department, simply put and at least in America...dogs are seen as mans best friend. Dog fighting is for the scum of the earth...jesus christ we just had a post about this a while ago.

What about rooster fighting? Rodents? Is it only the utility of the dogs that sets them apart?

All a product of culture. Animals are animals. You argue for the utility of canines:

Start lobbying for the chickens then my friend. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see the difference between an animal that is capable of helping people whether its...search and rescue, working in our military, working for the blind, working for our police department, simply put and at least in America...dogs are seen as mans best friend. Dog fighting is for the scum of the earth...jesus christ we just had a post about this a while ago.

And then you readily admit that chickens are used for their utility as well, and this is okay with you:

Eating live stock and chickens is alright with me..and frankly a TON of people.

I understand why people are partial to their dogs - I love my dogs and would not ever eat one of them, yet consume chicken on an almost daily basis.

The fact that Americans see them as mans best friend, however, is irrelevant. Half of our country votes while the other half snoozes away the day absorbed by the newest celebrity scandal. Them being embraced is a product of evolution and the ways that we adapted them for our use, much like we adapted chickens for our use as well. Why this makes them intrinsically superior to other animals is beyond me.

'Because those animals are cute. When we get a chicken breast in the grocery store, it is pink and kinda slimy. Thats a huge difference.'

- Rofl!

No, it is a convenient method of addressing a responsibility. Something along the line of pet chastity belts would be more humane. Would you want your nuts lopped off without having any say in the matter?



What about rooster fighting? Rodents? Is it only the utility of the dogs that sets them apart?

Spaying/Neutering your pets has as much to do with the pets health...cancers and other problems associated with an intact animal ..as it does with stopping needless breedings to happen. Would I want my nuts lopped off with out having a say??...I don't know why I am even responding to you. You obviously know nothing about dogs or animals for that matter if you are putting them on the same level as humans.

Rodents feed my snakes, and roosters taste great.

On the dog spay/neutering issue:

Before they were domesticated by us, wild dogs, like all wild canines, roamed in packs, and a very interesting population control device existed for said dog packs that doesn't exist today: just like in wolves, the entire pack would devote itself to raising *one* litter of pups at a time, that of the alpha male and alpha female. Much of the social behavior (sniffing, urinating in specific places, and dominance behavior) between pack members didn't just exist for the purpose of social cohesion; it also performed the specific function of preventing subordinate males and females from going into estrus/breeding. Combined with their slow rates of maturation compared to modern domestic dogs, and a hunting based diet and lengthy weaning periods depressing reproduction to a once-annually *per pack* event, both modern wild dog and wolf populations tend to grow slowly (interestingly, some modern wild canines, such as dingoes and coyotes, respond to hunting pressure by increasing their rate of reproduction, however).

When humans first domesticated dogs, we selected aggressively for increased fertility and libido, in addition to docility; domestic dogs reach sexual maturity much earlier, and go into estrus much more frequently, than African wild dogs or other wild canines, such as wolves. As a result, our own modification of the species has created a problem that now requires our intervention - domestic dogs simply are capable of producing enormous numbers of offspring compared to their wild cousins. Spaying or neutering not only corrects this problem (and is it more humane to have millions of unwanted dogs (and cats) starving in the streets?), it greatly reduces the incidence of a variety of cancers that our pampered pets, consuming a high fat and toxin-laden diet, succumb to much as we do.

Unless you have a purebred pet that you plan on showing or breeding, it's far more humane to spay/neuter your pet; if done when they are young it causes them minimal discomfort, and as we've already significantly regressed them to juveniles throughout life as it is (physiologically as well as behaviorally), it also makes it easier for them to integrate into human families - sexually frustrated, aggressive intact animals confined in such a situation can't really be said to be 'happier' than they would be if they never knew what they were missing, so to speak.

Sorry for the run-on, but thought I'd throw my 2 cents in there.

Regards,
Nydia

Hmm... rodents? Rat fights? Dueling gerbils? Pugilistic hamsters?

Would anyone mourn over rat fights?

It's an animal after all.. but, you know... it's one of those icky ones.

How much less offensive would rat fights be, and why? Because they are nasty and we don't like them? After all... a rat doesn't normally curl up in your lap or fetch the morning paper for you...

Just some thoughts...

I think the biggest differance is in the treatment of 'domesticated' animals more than what people would consider 'vermin.'

People want domesticated livestock slaughtered in a more humane way than torture. Using said product for food, clothing, etc., justifies it more in the human mind because the animal is being used for our continuence as a species.

Fighting rats wouldn't raise people's ire generally because they are more often than not considered vermin than pets. Even the rats that are peoples' pets would be hard pressed to be called domesticated.

Torturing domesticated pets for no use other than cruelty is what Vick did. I am not even talking specifically about the dog fighting, but more so with the electrocution and slamming of the dogs into the ground to kill them for no other reason than he didn't like their performance in the dog fighting ring .

Chickens/Roosters are domesticated animals generally used for food purposes and not as pets. As far as I know, cockfighting is illegal in most places as well. There is a huge differance in slaughtering an animal for food, clothing, and the like and slaughtering them cruely for entertainment. Personally, I'm all for someone hunting deer for food, but I think hunting for sport if you don't use the slaughtered animal for more than a trophy is cruel as well. I DO see the hypocracy in hunting for sport and dog fighting being illegal.

Hmm... rodents? Rat fights? Dueling gerbils? Pugilistic hamsters?

http://alexpiel.free.fr/avatar/detectivehamster.gif
Don't mess with gerbils... They know!

On the topic itself, animals rights are all about cruelty and violence. Why, if there are just mere objects?
Because they can feel. And because, most of the time, we have the upper hand on them. A bit like kids.

Being food, pets or vermine, making them "suffer" unecessary, or for entertainement, is wrong. The most intelligent being has to be the example, right? ;)

So, can we expect rats, cats and dogs to have lawyers appointed for them, since they have rights?

I agree. Animal rights are absurd. Animals have no rights other than what we give them, so it is really a matter of human responsibility and self-control.

With that in mind, breeding dogs to fight seems to cater to the base instincts of humans. We're supposed to be better than that- or at the very least, try to act better than our base natures would otherwise dictate.

Also, while I'm slinging caffeine induced slobber all over everything, I still say vegans should be on the menu, if only because of the irony factor.

Don't plants have feelings too?
Shouldn't vegetarians be held accountable for the decimation of heads of lettuce?
Think of all the potatos in the world that suffer because of thier use in mashed potatos.
Next thing you know, fruits and vegetables will only allowed to be eaten, raw, after thay have fallen off the tree/bush/vine.
You will only be allowed to shew them 10 times, as to not cause them any further pain by being consumed....*





*Sarcasm

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp the basic concepts of this response?

Hunting / Killing to eat is part of life. There is a food chain, and we are on the top of it.

Some people are Herbivores, and some are Omnivores. (if you put it in dinosaur terms) There is nothing wrong with killing to eat. Our survival is our main concern as a race. Torturing a lesser species however, is not necessary.

There is nothing wrong with killing and eating any animal. It is our right as a species. What other animal in this world will set up fights between lesser species, watch them destroy each other, and then kill the one that loses?

If you cannot comprehend the differences...

The only question this raises, is whether a canibal should be imprisoned for eating another person.

Some species eat their own, whether it be their children or just each other in general. As the highly evolved species we do not allow this, therefore there is another reason as to why we have the right to "police" other species.

I just wanted to throw bullfighting out there as an interesting comparision point. Does the bull having a chance (however limited) to kill its tormentor commute the inhumanity?

I just wanted to throw bullfighting out there as an interesting comparision point. Does the bull having a chance (however limited) to kill its tormentor commute the inhumanity?

I see where your going with that. I guess i have mixed feelings about that one.

The bull does technically have more weapons at its disposal in the fight against a Bull fighter, yet it is limited by its own intelligence. Staying true to the belief that killing for entertainment is cruel, I would say that if a Bull is harmed for entertainment that is a violation of its rights as an animal.

Unfortunately for our species, Money usually trumps what is right, And entertainment = Money

There is a huge differance in slaughtering an animal for food, clothing, and the like and slaughtering them cruely for entertainment. I DO see the hypocracy in hunting for sport and dog fighting being illegal.

Well said!! And totally agree.

I just wanted to throw bullfighting out there as an interesting comparision point. Does the bull having a chance (however limited) to kill its tormentor commute the inhumanity?

There is a good possibility that the sport will be criminalized, or at the least, lose it's legitimacy, in the next year or two. There has been a strong movement in both Spain and Mexico to stop this sanctioned "animal cruelty". Everyone knows that the bulls raised to fight in the arena are being bred to die, for there is no other outcome for the bull.

You guys realize the chicken you eat generally has never seen daylight, right? They spend their lives in a cage barely big enough for them to fit in, and are pumped full of antibiotics that keep them alive just long enough to make it to the slaughter.

Saying it's okay to kill them because we eat them is all fine and good, but eating that chicken is monetarily supporting much more widespread and pervasively inhumane animal treatment than dog fighting could ever aspire to be.

Now, excuse me while I go buy a chicken sandwich!

I think the fact that the animal is still killed for sport with no real chance of affecting its outcome (and to give you an idea how stressed the bulls are during a bullfight, the reason the picadors lance the bull in that hump of muscle on their backs is to cause it to bleed enough to lower its blood pressure so that it doesn't die of a heart attack outright) would still fit the definition of 'torture' to most folks, although avid fans of bullfighting are very critical of matadors who don't kill the bull cleanly (with a single sword thrust to the aorta).

Considering that bullfighting has its roots in religious sacrifice, and considering the large numbers of cattle we routinely slaughter for what can only be described as excessive consumption in the West (cattle are very *inefficient* converters of feed to protein, to boot), this falls in a grey area for me; it's certainly easy to see how cultures that rely heavily on ranching might see such an event as a way to glorify, rather than degrade and torture, an animal which has given them so much.

And to the person who posted about rats, in much of the world (esp. sub saharan Africa, southeast asia), rats are routinely eaten, and often considered a delicacy. Rats not being 'glorious' or 'showy' animals, however, few people are interested in fighting them (although it is done, and with guinea pigs as well). Having taken several retired laboratory rats home as pets over the years, however, I can say that I find their very human-like behavior rather endearing and if they (rats) are considered 'vermin' for the diseases they pick up/pass on to us via their incredibly successful adaptation to/capitalization on the niches we have created via our civilization, is it really their 'fault'?

And to Sixee, dogs, cats, livestock, and laboratory animals *already* have lawyers working for them; they go to work every time the ASPCA presses an animal cruelty case, for example, or for when various groups lobby for the protection of animals used in medical research.

Finally, for the record, I have been involved directly in research involving animals, sometimes with fatal consequences for the animal in question. I can say that IACUC (the body that oversees certification of laboratories for the use of animals in research) has become very specific and stringent with regard to what can and cannot be done to animals, requiring specific and humane methods of execution, and any research involving animals has to include a detailed animal handling protocol. Having worked at a major veterinary school I can say that the vast majority of researchers take these regulations *very* seriously (failure to do so can cause you to lose your certification, grant funding, etc, among other things), and additionally, those of us who work or have worked with animals very frequently have *greater* sensitivity towards the well-being of animals under our care as we understand directly the sacrifice they are making for us - how many people can say they are truly mindful of the same when they go through the drive-thru?

Regards,
Nydia

Hey Sanchek :)

I've not only seen, but briefly worked at, a chicken processing plant during my stint as a food bacteriologist; the vet school at UGA, where I did my post-MS work, devoted a large portion of its resources, in association with the USDA there in Athens, to management of poultry and poultry diseases, and I've spent a few, erm, happy days scraping out chicken intestines to evaluate the prevalence and severity of coccidiosis ;).

-Warning - material not for the squeamish follows :) -

For those not in the know, factory farmed chickens live an average of forty days. They are hatched in huge incubators, sorted by sex (male chicks are usually just disposed of, and in chicken raising areas, one occasionally finds large flocks of them in dumpsters as well as given away at all sorts of little roaming fairs), the tips of their beaks are seared/sanded off so that they can't fatally injure each other, and then they are raised in large low enclosed barns that, if one is lucky, have been hosed out from the last batch that was in there, with a square foot of room per bird or so. There they are given feed that is, in most cases, laced with antibiotics and antiprotozooals, as well as growth hormones, and when they are harvested (at 36-42 days), they are still large, mostly unfledged yellow fuzzy... chicks.

Watching a chicken processing plant in action is... breathtaking. Birds are taken from cages where they have been stuffed in like cotton balls in a package, expertly grabbed and taken out by skilled (frequently illegal ;) ) handlers, and hung by their feet on hanging conveyor belts (with chicken foot loops) which move the (very much alive and flapping) birds through an electrical stunner, neck cutter, bleedout zone, scalder, plucker, eviscerator, USDA inspection station, and eventually into a chilling tank, all in the space of four minutes, and at the rate of four birds per second. The plant I worked at, in northeast Georgia, processed 260,000 birds per day or 1.2 million per week, and served only the tristate area for one company.

I would submit, by the way, that the way in which the birds are sacrificed is probably the *most* humane thing about their lives; but we live in an affluent society which demands cheap protein, and as such, agricultural intensification has become a fact of life (and is necessary in much of the world due to population density or habitat degradation). This has strayed a bit from the topic but I did want to make clear that I'm well aware that modern chicken farming is, in most cases, hardly humane; but that a higher proportion of humans find it 'acceptable' because it serves a material human need, and because they are unaware of the hidden 'cost' to the chickens and to us, preferring to imagine the (for the most part) long gone bucolic family farm with its free-ranging birds.

Regards,
Nydia

Nydia already said it!

I just learned of the 28 day old from chick to fryer the other day when a new employee started at my work who used to work for such an operation.

electrical stunner, neck cutter, bleedout zone, scalder, plucker, eviscerator,

And in a fun note of trivia, my good friend's great grandfather invented the first one of such mass-processing machines for chickens before being killed in a drunken barfight in New Orleans (or abandoning his family to avoid his second wife, depending on which side of the family's version of the story you believe).

Thing sounds like something out of SAW.

To borrow a page out of Ted Nugent's book, anyone who wants to eat animals should be required to have killed and aided in the processing/butchering of each animal type they plan on eating.

And that's why I've flirted with vegetarianism several times. It'd sure make my wife happier, but I'm a weak willed meat eater.

As a point of curiosity - is there any way that western culture could continue to exist without animal factories like the one mentioned above and still eat meat at a level even close to what we do now? I don't mean that as a pro-meat argument, but more another question about the point in which we've progressed beyond the means to support ourselves any other way. Tag it in there with the infrastructure debate.

Growing meat directly could be an option:
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098

Thats a really amazing find and if people could get over the strangeness of it ... well it would do wonders for the world at large and animals could simply take on a non-food role entirely :)