We cannot protect dogs from being tortured to death when anyone can acquire dogs, and when there exists no serious deterrent to torturing them. Anyone can acquire dogs because dogs are things to acquire, and there is no serious deterrent because serious deterrents are reserved for violations of others' rights. Dogs are not "others"; they have no rights. Vicious circle defined.
Worse, dogs are chattel of the lowest order, manufactured, traded, used, and trashed purely on a human's whim. Like any garden-variety Amazon product. There are no agencies regulating their titles and no safety nets monitoring their care. And if found abused, the victims of cruelty as defined by the law, there are no prosecutorial crusades initiated on their behalf and no sentencing messages from the bench. There is no justice, not even a pretense to justice, because there is no will within society – not at the legislative level, not at the enforcement level, not at the judicial level, and most importantly, not at the people level – to (seriously) punish property owners for committing wrongs against their property.
The animal cruelty reported daily, however, tells but a part of the story. As you read, millions of dogs and cats await death in shelters across America, many, erstwhile "family members" dumped - quite legally - for becoming inconvenient. But equally pernicious is the suffering endured by millions more in homes where the new-pet excitement has long since vanished. There, animals - roughly the intellectual equals of our small children - merely exist, afforded the bare necessities, but denied enrichment, stimulation, love, and affection. Just languishing, for periods measured in years.
Reform - tougher laws, better enforcement - is an untenable position. If I own you, you essentially have no protections. Besides, a closer scrutiny of supposed progress, like "Buster's Law," reveals language extremely difficult to apply: felony "aggravated cruelty" is conduct "intended to cause extreme physical pain or done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner." "Especially depraved" and "sadistic" are intentionally elusive bars; intentionally, because again, despite what we say, we are not inclined to impose hard time for crimes against chattel. Hence, "Buster's Law" is not much more than window dressing: charges are rare, convictions rarer, maximum jail time all but unheard of.
As long as we own them, there is nothing we can do to stop the cruelty. Nothing. And so the question becomes, what price having pets? Are the above and the others we may never know about - dogs who at this very moment are being starved or beaten - to be regarded as collateral damage? In our zeal to preserve a relatively frivolous thing, how many animals are we willing to sacrifice? In the end, it really doesn't matter how many homes are abusive, just that some are; those pets who are loved - whether it's some, many, or most - can't begin to make up for those who are not. With casualties inescapable, how can this decidedly unnecessary "relationship" be justified?
End animal property: Shut the breeders down by refusing to pay for their product, adopt the ones already here, and sterilize - all of them. Imagine a world where sentient beings are no longer bought, sold, dumped, ignored, neglected, abused, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Imagine, progress.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Nature
Ignorant, naive, anthropomorphist, misanthropic, emotional. This, says the critic, is the animal rights activist. The women are simply being women. And the men, well, are also being women. We are, supposedly, weak, unwilling to confront nature's harshness, blind to the laws of predation. There is a Darwinian imperative governing survival, a natural order - a food chain - to life. And man, as the apex predator, peers down from the top.
In truth, we advocates are not unworldly and are very much aware of Charles Darwin. We need not be reminded that suffering (injustice, death) is part of the "condition," human and animal alike. But blood on the savanna does not excuse blood in the slaughterhouse. The obligate carnivore kills because he must, man, because he chooses. This is no denial of our hunter past, but we are more than what we were.
Similarly, a closer scrutiny of animal nature, certainly the ones we exploit, should also indicate a different course. In the past few decades, we have learned more on this subject than in the whole of prior history. And the results are uncomfortable. Like us, they hurt and grieve and suffer and need. They seek comfort and find pleasure. They care; they bond; they love. This is science, not anthropomorphism. Yes, nature can be cruel, but it isn't always. And animals are more than perpetual foragers consumed with not dying.
Like tiger claws and eagle eyes, the human mind, we are told, is but another predatory tool. But that same mind allows for introspection, reflection, volition. And while our nature can sometimes be ignoble, it can also be compassionate and kind. And merciful. At the very least, we humans are not hardwired for cold violence. So why the abattoirs? In the somewhat paraphrased words of Abraham Lincoln: With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us be guided by the better angels of our nature.
In truth, we advocates are not unworldly and are very much aware of Charles Darwin. We need not be reminded that suffering (injustice, death) is part of the "condition," human and animal alike. But blood on the savanna does not excuse blood in the slaughterhouse. The obligate carnivore kills because he must, man, because he chooses. This is no denial of our hunter past, but we are more than what we were.
Similarly, a closer scrutiny of animal nature, certainly the ones we exploit, should also indicate a different course. In the past few decades, we have learned more on this subject than in the whole of prior history. And the results are uncomfortable. Like us, they hurt and grieve and suffer and need. They seek comfort and find pleasure. They care; they bond; they love. This is science, not anthropomorphism. Yes, nature can be cruel, but it isn't always. And animals are more than perpetual foragers consumed with not dying.
Like tiger claws and eagle eyes, the human mind, we are told, is but another predatory tool. But that same mind allows for introspection, reflection, volition. And while our nature can sometimes be ignoble, it can also be compassionate and kind. And merciful. At the very least, we humans are not hardwired for cold violence. So why the abattoirs? In the somewhat paraphrased words of Abraham Lincoln: With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us be guided by the better angels of our nature.
Animal Rights Extremism
According to the Collins English Dictionary, an extremist is someone "who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour." Usually, extremists of any persuasion are marginalized, garnering attention only when deemed dangerous. And so it goes with animal rights activists, or more specifically, those calling for an end to (all) animal exploitation. Here, the history of another great movement is instructive. From Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963):
"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist...Abraham Lincoln...Thomas Jefferson... So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"
The animal rights position holds the following as incontrovertible facts: First, virtually all the ways humans use other species - for entertainment, for fashion, for pets, for food, for research - involve sentient beings, or those capable of suffering. Second, suffering of some kind, be it physical or psychological, is inherent in the exploitation. Third, none of these uses are necessary for human survival. On this, the first three - a day at the circus, a flash of fur, surrogate companionship - need not be argued, and vegans have flourished long enough to disprove the essentiality of animal protein.
Because of the supposed gravity involved, animal experimentation proves a bit more challenging. But is it, as most people believe, an unfortunate Darwinian necessity in the war on human ills? According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, "Animal studies do not reliably predict human outcomes; nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials; reliance on animal experimentation can impede and delay discovery [cigarettes, polio]; and animal studies are flawed by design." Besides, viable options abound. We test on animals because we always have, and because we can, not because we must.
"Medical Doctors and Scientists Against Vivisection"
"Doctors Against Vivisection"
"Doctors Against Animal Testing, Germany"
"The Experiment Is on Us"
"Taking Lab Rats Seriously"
Dr. Richard Ryder, the psychologist who coined "speciesism," once wrote: "Pain [suffering] is the one and only true evil," and "pain is pain regardless of its host." And so, the logic irrepressibly flows: The willful and unnecessary infliction of pain on nonconsenting sentient beings is, if the phrase is to have any meaning, morally indefensible. Or, in deference to Dr. Ryder, evil. If enslaving, raping, torturing, and murdering humans is wrong, then why should doing the same to animals, many of whom are more intelligent and sensitive than some of us, be viewed differently? We are not wading through murky moral waters here.
In light of the above, moderation is untenable. The Ringling elephant and Smithfield pig will not be liberated through compromise. They need extremism. As Dr. King suggested, an extremist for justice is a label that carries no shame; indeed, it should be fully embraced. From the inaugural edition of William Lloyd Garrison'sThe Liberator, a 19th Century anti-slavery newspaper:
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.
I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD."
"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist...Abraham Lincoln...Thomas Jefferson... So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"
The animal rights position holds the following as incontrovertible facts: First, virtually all the ways humans use other species - for entertainment, for fashion, for pets, for food, for research - involve sentient beings, or those capable of suffering. Second, suffering of some kind, be it physical or psychological, is inherent in the exploitation. Third, none of these uses are necessary for human survival. On this, the first three - a day at the circus, a flash of fur, surrogate companionship - need not be argued, and vegans have flourished long enough to disprove the essentiality of animal protein.
Because of the supposed gravity involved, animal experimentation proves a bit more challenging. But is it, as most people believe, an unfortunate Darwinian necessity in the war on human ills? According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, "Animal studies do not reliably predict human outcomes; nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials; reliance on animal experimentation can impede and delay discovery [cigarettes, polio]; and animal studies are flawed by design." Besides, viable options abound. We test on animals because we always have, and because we can, not because we must.
"Medical Doctors and Scientists Against Vivisection"
"Doctors Against Vivisection"
"Doctors Against Animal Testing, Germany"
"The Experiment Is on Us"
"Taking Lab Rats Seriously"
Dr. Richard Ryder, the psychologist who coined "speciesism," once wrote: "Pain [suffering] is the one and only true evil," and "pain is pain regardless of its host." And so, the logic irrepressibly flows: The willful and unnecessary infliction of pain on nonconsenting sentient beings is, if the phrase is to have any meaning, morally indefensible. Or, in deference to Dr. Ryder, evil. If enslaving, raping, torturing, and murdering humans is wrong, then why should doing the same to animals, many of whom are more intelligent and sensitive than some of us, be viewed differently? We are not wading through murky moral waters here.
In light of the above, moderation is untenable. The Ringling elephant and Smithfield pig will not be liberated through compromise. They need extremism. As Dr. King suggested, an extremist for justice is a label that carries no shame; indeed, it should be fully embraced. From the inaugural edition of William Lloyd Garrison'sThe Liberator, a 19th Century anti-slavery newspaper:
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.
I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD."
Plant Liberation Makes Mockery Of Animal Suffering
The vegan cause faces two not insignificant impediments: commerce and convention. The former is represented by large multinational corporations that sell (relatively) cheap meat and market it as clean. As to the latter, from birth, meat is ubiquitous - government pyramids, school cafeterias, social gatherings, and pop culture. Moreover, parents feed as they were fed, unwittingly stunting the child's innate compassion, at least as applied to farm animals.
But as if not enough, there are now those who would accord moral consideration to plants, further clouding the debate on what constitutes ethical eating. Although not necessarily meant to denigrate veganism, "plant liberation," as espoused by philosophy professor Michael Marder in two New York Times articles from 2012, is a potentially regressive development for animal advocates.
In the first article (4/28), Mr. Marder cites a study that finds pea plants relaying biochemical messages to other pea plants. Easily impressed, Marder asks: "Is it morally permissible to submit to total instrumentalization living beings that, though they do not have a central nervous system, are capable of basic learning and communication? Should their swift response to stress leave us coldly indifferent, while animal suffering provokes intense feelings of pity and compassion?"
And then this: "When it comes to a plant, it turns out to be not only a what but also a who — an agent in its milieu, with its own intrinsic value or version of the good. Inquiring into justifications for consuming vegetal beings thus reconceived, we reach one of the final frontiers of dietary ethics."
Although "the subjectivity of plants is not centered in a single organ" (of course not, they have no brain), "this dispersion of vitality holds out a promise of its own": Yes, Marder says, we can eat the "renewable gifts" from perennials, but "it would be harder to justify the cultivation of peas and other annual plants, the entire being of which humans devote to externally imposed ends." Wow.
In the second piece (5/8), Marder expands on this human-plant relationship. While conceding that plants are perhaps not conscious, he, nevertheless, sees them as "intelligent beings." We should not, Marder argues, treat plants as machines because we know what Cartesian evil that can engender - nailing unanesthetized dogs to boards and cutting them open to study their beating hearts. This, apparently, is supposed to give us pause when contemplating combines tearing through wheat fields.
Growing plants from sterile seeds, Marder says, is "especially pernicious," for this"violate[s] the capacity for reproduction at the core of the Aristotelian vegetal soul." And in a particularly offensive allusion to the Kantian precept that mass murderers often start out by abusing animals (which is generally true), Marder claims that "violence against plants backfires, as it leads to violence against humans..."
In fairness, Mr. Marder acknowledges that "plant stress certainly does not reach the same intensity and does not express itself the same way as animal suffering," and he calls attempts to halt using animals as "meat-generating machines" "commendable." But then he says, this "does not justify strategic argumentation in favor of the indiscriminate consumption of plants" (sorry, but that's exactly what it does). And finally: "It follows that the struggles for the emancipation of all instrumentalized living beings should be fought on a common front," and toward that end, "plant liberation" must be added to "our moral menus."
I would call Mr. Marder crazy, but his professorship seems to indicate otherwise. In any event, Professor, perhaps you could descend from your cloistered tower and take a peak in at the real world, a world in which 50 billion animals whom nature has so generously endowed with the requisite hardware for experiencing pain - hardware noticeably lacking in plants - are mercilessly confined and brutally slaughtered each year. Your senses thus bombarded with the same, easily-recognizable signs of suffering - writhing, contorting, moaning, crying, shrieking, squealing, avoiding - we see and hear in ourselves, maybe the proper focus for empathy will begin to emerge.
In Mr. Marder's reconfigured society, the vegan/activist who insists on clinging to an antiquated (early 21st Century) object of compassion risks being tossed from the moral high ground where only those willing to also embrace plant liberation need apply. But worse, Marder's nonsense carries grave consequences for animals: Inspiring plant-eating compunction will confuse and paralyze well-meaning consumers, leading to "why bother" indifference, and the almost unfathomable suffering of livestock will continue unabated.
But as if not enough, there are now those who would accord moral consideration to plants, further clouding the debate on what constitutes ethical eating. Although not necessarily meant to denigrate veganism, "plant liberation," as espoused by philosophy professor Michael Marder in two New York Times articles from 2012, is a potentially regressive development for animal advocates.
In the first article (4/28), Mr. Marder cites a study that finds pea plants relaying biochemical messages to other pea plants. Easily impressed, Marder asks: "Is it morally permissible to submit to total instrumentalization living beings that, though they do not have a central nervous system, are capable of basic learning and communication? Should their swift response to stress leave us coldly indifferent, while animal suffering provokes intense feelings of pity and compassion?"
And then this: "When it comes to a plant, it turns out to be not only a what but also a who — an agent in its milieu, with its own intrinsic value or version of the good. Inquiring into justifications for consuming vegetal beings thus reconceived, we reach one of the final frontiers of dietary ethics."
Although "the subjectivity of plants is not centered in a single organ" (of course not, they have no brain), "this dispersion of vitality holds out a promise of its own": Yes, Marder says, we can eat the "renewable gifts" from perennials, but "it would be harder to justify the cultivation of peas and other annual plants, the entire being of which humans devote to externally imposed ends." Wow.
In the second piece (5/8), Marder expands on this human-plant relationship. While conceding that plants are perhaps not conscious, he, nevertheless, sees them as "intelligent beings." We should not, Marder argues, treat plants as machines because we know what Cartesian evil that can engender - nailing unanesthetized dogs to boards and cutting them open to study their beating hearts. This, apparently, is supposed to give us pause when contemplating combines tearing through wheat fields.
Growing plants from sterile seeds, Marder says, is "especially pernicious," for this"violate[s] the capacity for reproduction at the core of the Aristotelian vegetal soul." And in a particularly offensive allusion to the Kantian precept that mass murderers often start out by abusing animals (which is generally true), Marder claims that "violence against plants backfires, as it leads to violence against humans..."
In fairness, Mr. Marder acknowledges that "plant stress certainly does not reach the same intensity and does not express itself the same way as animal suffering," and he calls attempts to halt using animals as "meat-generating machines" "commendable." But then he says, this "does not justify strategic argumentation in favor of the indiscriminate consumption of plants" (sorry, but that's exactly what it does). And finally: "It follows that the struggles for the emancipation of all instrumentalized living beings should be fought on a common front," and toward that end, "plant liberation" must be added to "our moral menus."
I would call Mr. Marder crazy, but his professorship seems to indicate otherwise. In any event, Professor, perhaps you could descend from your cloistered tower and take a peak in at the real world, a world in which 50 billion animals whom nature has so generously endowed with the requisite hardware for experiencing pain - hardware noticeably lacking in plants - are mercilessly confined and brutally slaughtered each year. Your senses thus bombarded with the same, easily-recognizable signs of suffering - writhing, contorting, moaning, crying, shrieking, squealing, avoiding - we see and hear in ourselves, maybe the proper focus for empathy will begin to emerge.
In Mr. Marder's reconfigured society, the vegan/activist who insists on clinging to an antiquated (early 21st Century) object of compassion risks being tossed from the moral high ground where only those willing to also embrace plant liberation need apply. But worse, Marder's nonsense carries grave consequences for animals: Inspiring plant-eating compunction will confuse and paralyze well-meaning consumers, leading to "why bother" indifference, and the almost unfathomable suffering of livestock will continue unabated.
The Happy Hens Deception
In 1999, the European Union (EU) famously announced a ban on battery cages...effective January 2012. If not for the almost unrivaled cruelty involved in egg production, the 13-year phase-out would be worthy of an SNL skit. But even given this absurd amount of time, 13 nations were not in compliance as the deadline dawned. As an EU "Directive," implementation and enforcement fall exclusively to each of the 27 member nations, not through any EU agency. So what happens when almost half blatantly flout the "law"? Who (besides animal advocates) is watching? But more importantly, is the ban cause for celebration?
While EU Council Directive 1999/74/EC will ostensibly eliminate one of the most poignant symbols of ruthless farming, it still allows for concentrated production in the form of "enriched" cages. The enrichment comes from marginally more space per hen (maybe a piece of paper and a half), a perch, a nest box, and a litter area for scratching (the last three shared by multiple hens). But the privations remain: wire mesh floors resulting in deformities, extreme confinement with no fresh air or warm sunshine, denial of natural instincts (pleasures) like dust-bathing and socializing, etc. Is this progress?
There are, some advocates cheerfully report, several countries already moving away from enriched cages and toward the twin holy grails of the humane movement: cage-free and free-range. But here again, a keen if not cynical eye must be cast. What most of the public does not know, by design I'm sure, is that there are no clear and consistent definitions of these oft-used terms. Thousands of distressed hens crammed into a cacophonous, chaotic barn technically translates to cage-free, while limited (perhaps an hour a day) access to an unstimulating, drab landscape would qualify as free-range.
To the businesses charged with meeting an immense demand, compassion is not part of the equation; the animals are but Cartesian machines. But in a viral world of camera-wielding activists, the unpleasantries are not so easily hidden. That, combined with the uncomfortable knowledge that animals are far more complex, more intelligent than ever thought possible, leads a well-meaning public to petition for relief. Lawmakers oblige with supposed reforms - humane slaughter, enriched cages, cage-free, free-range, gestation/veal crate bans, etc. - to soothe the collective conscience.
With consumers convinced of caring corporations and watchdog agencies, it is at least possible and perhaps, as abolitionists argue, probable that animal-product consumption increases with the initiatives. But as a practical matter, life on the farm - with attendant abuses, pain, and suffering - continues as was.
Just as it was morally unjustifiable for some men to force other men to pick their cotton, so too is the coerced harvesting of a hen's reproductive vessel, all because some archaic recipe calls for three eggs. And when one sifts through the illusory rhetoric - benevolent slaveowner, compassionate farming - a basic truth emerges: Exploitation of a fellow sentient being, which necessarily involves suffering of some sort, is inherently wrong, no matter the being, no matter the means.
While EU Council Directive 1999/74/EC will ostensibly eliminate one of the most poignant symbols of ruthless farming, it still allows for concentrated production in the form of "enriched" cages. The enrichment comes from marginally more space per hen (maybe a piece of paper and a half), a perch, a nest box, and a litter area for scratching (the last three shared by multiple hens). But the privations remain: wire mesh floors resulting in deformities, extreme confinement with no fresh air or warm sunshine, denial of natural instincts (pleasures) like dust-bathing and socializing, etc. Is this progress?
There are, some advocates cheerfully report, several countries already moving away from enriched cages and toward the twin holy grails of the humane movement: cage-free and free-range. But here again, a keen if not cynical eye must be cast. What most of the public does not know, by design I'm sure, is that there are no clear and consistent definitions of these oft-used terms. Thousands of distressed hens crammed into a cacophonous, chaotic barn technically translates to cage-free, while limited (perhaps an hour a day) access to an unstimulating, drab landscape would qualify as free-range.
With consumers convinced of caring corporations and watchdog agencies, it is at least possible and perhaps, as abolitionists argue, probable that animal-product consumption increases with the initiatives. But as a practical matter, life on the farm - with attendant abuses, pain, and suffering - continues as was.
Just as it was morally unjustifiable for some men to force other men to pick their cotton, so too is the coerced harvesting of a hen's reproductive vessel, all because some archaic recipe calls for three eggs. And when one sifts through the illusory rhetoric - benevolent slaveowner, compassionate farming - a basic truth emerges: Exploitation of a fellow sentient being, which necessarily involves suffering of some sort, is inherently wrong, no matter the being, no matter the means.
Most Hunters Kill For Fun
"In hunting, man fulfills the demands of his own nature. It is a restorative act by which he demonstrates his elemental bond with the universe. And, it is prompted by love." (Michael McIntosh, Missouri Conservationist)
"I do not hunt for the joy of killing but for the joy of living, and for the inexpressible pleasure of mingling my life, however briefly, with that of a wild creature that I respect, admire and value." (John Madson, Out Home)
"Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason — the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason — to reduce that beauty to possession." (Aldo Leopold)
"All hunting is a kind of love affair. If you can hear a beautiful piece of music without wanting to learn it by heart; if you can see a beautiful woman without wishing to love her; if you can see a fine specimen of game without wishing to take it, you have no human heart." (Denys Finch Hatton, from Colin McKelvie's A Future for Game?)
"You have lent immortality to a beast you have killed because you loved him and wanted him forever so that you could always capture the day."(Robert Ruark, The Old Man and the Boy)
The hunting experience is steeped in a tradition of lofty rhetoric: respect for the animal, communion with nature, bonding with forebears, rite of passage, spiritual nourishment. And, of course, the guiding principle of "fair chase," which states that ethical hunting demands no "improper" advantage over the prey.
Hunting, the hunter says, maintains ecological balance by humanely culling the superfluous. If not for this noble stewardship, fawns would starve when the snow falls. More than that, hunting, according to Boone and Crockett, "conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population." As if not enough, hunters feed the hungry, preserve crops and landscaping, and help protect careless drivers. Hunters are but "harvesters," like wheat farmers, practicing their craft with reverence and honor.
But the ruse is up. The truth lies in celebratory poses, mounted heads, record books, and opening day gaiety. Hunting springs not from need, but from a desire to control, master, win. And to find base thrills along the way. No higher purpose here, no grand meaning (poets, writers, and hunters?), just playtime for boys (and girls) with guns, some overgrown, some not...
From the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation:
"Q: Can I take my young child with me while I am deer hunting? A: Yes, and we highly recommend it! Just make sure the child is not hunting or assisting in any aspect of the hunt (like driving deer). Bring an extra pair of binoculars and plenty of snacks. Have a good time!"
"Young," by the way, must mean really young, for the Empire State's legal age of slaying is 12, with a bow no less. All boys are not, as writer and hunter Robert Ruark claimed, "bloodthirsty savages." That affliction, if present, is imposed by a bloodthirsty parent or other hunting mentor. Children are innately kind and compassionate, not killers at all.
From the Pennsylvania Game Commission:
"Our deer hunters have every right to be excited about the upcoming season. We’re in the third year of antler restrictions for bucks and some real wall-hangers are being seen in just about every county."
In 2007, former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee said this to an NRA audience: "To watch mallards come in a flock, cut their wings and land but a few feet in front of you on a cold winter day near Stuttgart, Arkansas, is just about as close to heaven as I think one can get on this Earth. And as one who believes, because of my faith, that I'm going to Heaven, I'm pretty sure there will be duck hunting in Heaven, and I can't wait." Duck hunting in heaven.
In NY, waterfowl hunting is highly regulated. No rifles, handguns, traps, snares, or nets. Machine guns and explosives, too, are prohibited. And please, leave bait and poison at home. Curiously, sink boxes - floats that conceal one's body beneath the surface - are banned, but blinds (and ponchos?) are fine. Only paraplegics and amputees can shoot from cars, and "you may not shoot crippled birds when under power." Decoys, yes, but they mustn't be live. Use calls at your leisure, but no electronics, amplifiers, or tapes.
The above rules, of course, have nothing to do with "fair chase," for I'm reasonably sure that guns, blinds, decoys, and calls are unfair to the ducks. In truth, limits exist to equitably maintain a bountiful supply for all (hunters) to enjoy. While many "traditional" hunters decry the canned hunt - where captive exotics (or pedestrian whitetails and pheasants) are offered for sacrifice - as an affront to hunting "integrity," their code of ethics, apparently, is fully reconciled with the hide-lure-fire away (one service boasts it's "as fast as you can load your gun") of waterfowl hunting. The ducks, it should be noted, have no desire to participate in this game; they are simply flying for their lives.
Catholic priest Joseph Classen, author of Hunting for God, Fishing for the Lord, calls hunting and fishing "sacred catalysts" for revelation and guidance: "Having a fishing rod, a walking stick, or a gun/bow in hand is simply a doorway to the true refreshment that comes from being immersed in the beauty of God's creation. While catching a nice fish or harvesting that big ol' buck is the icing on the cake, there are still many lessons one learns while trying to eat that cake."
"Certainly, it is not fun to watch the spark of life dwindle away from a creature’s eye, knowing that one is directly responsible for its death. But at the same time there exists a satisfaction, and yes, a sense of honor in being an active, disciplined, gracious, responsible and respectful participant in the cycle of life." But then, betraying his true motives, he says, "...[God] hooked me up with a monster 6 lb 22″ bass!"And (St. Louis Post-Dispatch book review): "He’s had triumphs too, like the day he used his bow to harvest a 10-point trophy buck." "Gracious, responsible, respectful"? Specious nonsense. It's a rush, and he knows it.
Worse than inanity, beyond delusion, there is a certain obscenity in claiming respect for a being you've just wantonly blown away. Wanton, because hunting for food - most hunters' default defense - is unequivocally unnecessary, making their violence gratuitous and rendering hollow any favorable comparison to factory farming. In the end, hunters hunt because they like it, all of it - the garb, the gear, the guns, the chase, the kill. Against an animal's interest in not having his "spark of life dwindle away," these jollies pale. As one indoctrinated generation gives way to the next, know this: You are neither predators, nor conservationists, nor naturalists, nor sportsmen. Just killers, for fun.
"I do not hunt for the joy of killing but for the joy of living, and for the inexpressible pleasure of mingling my life, however briefly, with that of a wild creature that I respect, admire and value." (John Madson, Out Home)
"Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason — the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason — to reduce that beauty to possession." (Aldo Leopold)
"All hunting is a kind of love affair. If you can hear a beautiful piece of music without wanting to learn it by heart; if you can see a beautiful woman without wishing to love her; if you can see a fine specimen of game without wishing to take it, you have no human heart." (Denys Finch Hatton, from Colin McKelvie's A Future for Game?)
"You have lent immortality to a beast you have killed because you loved him and wanted him forever so that you could always capture the day."(Robert Ruark, The Old Man and the Boy)
The hunting experience is steeped in a tradition of lofty rhetoric: respect for the animal, communion with nature, bonding with forebears, rite of passage, spiritual nourishment. And, of course, the guiding principle of "fair chase," which states that ethical hunting demands no "improper" advantage over the prey.
Hunting, the hunter says, maintains ecological balance by humanely culling the superfluous. If not for this noble stewardship, fawns would starve when the snow falls. More than that, hunting, according to Boone and Crockett, "conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population." As if not enough, hunters feed the hungry, preserve crops and landscaping, and help protect careless drivers. Hunters are but "harvesters," like wheat farmers, practicing their craft with reverence and honor.
But the ruse is up. The truth lies in celebratory poses, mounted heads, record books, and opening day gaiety. Hunting springs not from need, but from a desire to control, master, win. And to find base thrills along the way. No higher purpose here, no grand meaning (poets, writers, and hunters?), just playtime for boys (and girls) with guns, some overgrown, some not...
From the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation:
"Q: Can I take my young child with me while I am deer hunting? A: Yes, and we highly recommend it! Just make sure the child is not hunting or assisting in any aspect of the hunt (like driving deer). Bring an extra pair of binoculars and plenty of snacks. Have a good time!"
"Young," by the way, must mean really young, for the Empire State's legal age of slaying is 12, with a bow no less. All boys are not, as writer and hunter Robert Ruark claimed, "bloodthirsty savages." That affliction, if present, is imposed by a bloodthirsty parent or other hunting mentor. Children are innately kind and compassionate, not killers at all.
From the Pennsylvania Game Commission:
"Our deer hunters have every right to be excited about the upcoming season. We’re in the third year of antler restrictions for bucks and some real wall-hangers are being seen in just about every county."
In 2007, former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee said this to an NRA audience: "To watch mallards come in a flock, cut their wings and land but a few feet in front of you on a cold winter day near Stuttgart, Arkansas, is just about as close to heaven as I think one can get on this Earth. And as one who believes, because of my faith, that I'm going to Heaven, I'm pretty sure there will be duck hunting in Heaven, and I can't wait." Duck hunting in heaven.
In NY, waterfowl hunting is highly regulated. No rifles, handguns, traps, snares, or nets. Machine guns and explosives, too, are prohibited. And please, leave bait and poison at home. Curiously, sink boxes - floats that conceal one's body beneath the surface - are banned, but blinds (and ponchos?) are fine. Only paraplegics and amputees can shoot from cars, and "you may not shoot crippled birds when under power." Decoys, yes, but they mustn't be live. Use calls at your leisure, but no electronics, amplifiers, or tapes.
The above rules, of course, have nothing to do with "fair chase," for I'm reasonably sure that guns, blinds, decoys, and calls are unfair to the ducks. In truth, limits exist to equitably maintain a bountiful supply for all (hunters) to enjoy. While many "traditional" hunters decry the canned hunt - where captive exotics (or pedestrian whitetails and pheasants) are offered for sacrifice - as an affront to hunting "integrity," their code of ethics, apparently, is fully reconciled with the hide-lure-fire away (one service boasts it's "as fast as you can load your gun") of waterfowl hunting. The ducks, it should be noted, have no desire to participate in this game; they are simply flying for their lives.
Catholic priest Joseph Classen, author of Hunting for God, Fishing for the Lord, calls hunting and fishing "sacred catalysts" for revelation and guidance: "Having a fishing rod, a walking stick, or a gun/bow in hand is simply a doorway to the true refreshment that comes from being immersed in the beauty of God's creation. While catching a nice fish or harvesting that big ol' buck is the icing on the cake, there are still many lessons one learns while trying to eat that cake."
"Certainly, it is not fun to watch the spark of life dwindle away from a creature’s eye, knowing that one is directly responsible for its death. But at the same time there exists a satisfaction, and yes, a sense of honor in being an active, disciplined, gracious, responsible and respectful participant in the cycle of life." But then, betraying his true motives, he says, "...[God] hooked me up with a monster 6 lb 22″ bass!"And (St. Louis Post-Dispatch book review): "He’s had triumphs too, like the day he used his bow to harvest a 10-point trophy buck." "Gracious, responsible, respectful"? Specious nonsense. It's a rush, and he knows it.
Worse than inanity, beyond delusion, there is a certain obscenity in claiming respect for a being you've just wantonly blown away. Wanton, because hunting for food - most hunters' default defense - is unequivocally unnecessary, making their violence gratuitous and rendering hollow any favorable comparison to factory farming. In the end, hunters hunt because they like it, all of it - the garb, the gear, the guns, the chase, the kill. Against an animal's interest in not having his "spark of life dwindle away," these jollies pale. As one indoctrinated generation gives way to the next, know this: You are neither predators, nor conservationists, nor naturalists, nor sportsmen. Just killers, for fun.
The Dominion Myth
For many, a divine sanction for animal exploitation is found in the very first book of the Bible:
Genesis (1:26): "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Never mind that three verses later there appears an apparent mandate for vegetarianism, the damage had been done. Mankind has dominion; animals, though to be treated "kindly," are but resources, a status confirmed by the Catholic Church in its 1992 Catechism:
"Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. ...Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives."
But the Bible also says the following:
Deuteronomy (7:2): "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them [the heathens] before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."
Nahum (1:2): "God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
Deuteronomy (21:18-21): "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die."
Exodus (21:2): "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve."Exodus (21:4): "If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." Exodus (21:7): "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus (25:44-46): "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Deuteronomy (21:11-13): "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Corinthians (14:34-35): "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Ephesians (5:22-24): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
These passages and more have provided (still provide) basis for the worst our species can do. "Collective Jewish Guilt" (for Jesus' death) as attested in the Gospels ("good news") gave rise to virulent antisemitism, culminating in the Final Solution. The Southern plantation class - otherwise intelligent and learned men, but indoctrinated in biblical myths from birth - saw human bondage as heavenly ordained:
"The doom of Ham [Genesis 9:20-27] has been branded on the form and features of his African Descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and his destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."(Congressman James Hammond of South Carolina)
"It is enough for me elsewhere to know, that [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God, that it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations." (Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi)
When "biblical infallibility" fails, as it did with slavery, Church-sponsored scholars advise the masses to read with "context," to disregard, if you will, the Bible's more incongruous passages - the ones in which a tyrannical deity instructs his "chosen" on the finer points of genocide, filicide, subjugation, rape, etc. The Word, apparently, is flexible. To the rational, of course, this is folly, a charade meant to sustain the unsustainable.
Sanity thus applied, the Bible's moral authority is repudiated, the Dominion Defense collapses, and animals move from God's gifts to the autonomous beings nature intended. In other words, a new paradigm emerges, one based on reason and compassion rather than superstition. Imagine that.
Genesis (1:26): "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Never mind that three verses later there appears an apparent mandate for vegetarianism, the damage had been done. Mankind has dominion; animals, though to be treated "kindly," are but resources, a status confirmed by the Catholic Church in its 1992 Catechism:
"Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. ...Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives."
But the Bible also says the following:
Deuteronomy (7:2): "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them [the heathens] before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."
Nahum (1:2): "God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
Deuteronomy (21:18-21): "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die."
Exodus (21:2): "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve."Exodus (21:4): "If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." Exodus (21:7): "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus (25:44-46): "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Deuteronomy (21:11-13): "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Corinthians (14:34-35): "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Ephesians (5:22-24): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
These passages and more have provided (still provide) basis for the worst our species can do. "Collective Jewish Guilt" (for Jesus' death) as attested in the Gospels ("good news") gave rise to virulent antisemitism, culminating in the Final Solution. The Southern plantation class - otherwise intelligent and learned men, but indoctrinated in biblical myths from birth - saw human bondage as heavenly ordained:
"The doom of Ham [Genesis 9:20-27] has been branded on the form and features of his African Descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and his destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."(Congressman James Hammond of South Carolina)
"It is enough for me elsewhere to know, that [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God, that it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations." (Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi)
When "biblical infallibility" fails, as it did with slavery, Church-sponsored scholars advise the masses to read with "context," to disregard, if you will, the Bible's more incongruous passages - the ones in which a tyrannical deity instructs his "chosen" on the finer points of genocide, filicide, subjugation, rape, etc. The Word, apparently, is flexible. To the rational, of course, this is folly, a charade meant to sustain the unsustainable.
Sanity thus applied, the Bible's moral authority is repudiated, the Dominion Defense collapses, and animals move from God's gifts to the autonomous beings nature intended. In other words, a new paradigm emerges, one based on reason and compassion rather than superstition. Imagine that.
Rationalizing Animal Experimentation
In April 1995, philosophy professor R.G. Frey published an article (The Washington Times) in defense of animal experimentation. Frey argued that using (and killing) animals in the greater interest of human progress is acceptable chiefly because animal life is less rich, less meaningful, less valuable. In short, animals, though capable of having "experiences," are expendable nonetheless. Frey: "…what matters is not life but quality of life. The value of a life is a function of its quality, its quality of its richness, and its richness of its capacities and scope for enrichment; it matters, then, what a creature’s capacities for a rich life are." While a dog's life may be enriched by playing fetch, that enrichment, Frey said, has a low ceiling.
Human beings can create and appreciate art, break scientific boundaries, and strive for excellence in myriad fields. Animals cannot. Frey: "The fullest chicken life there has ever been, so science suggests, does not approach the full life of a human; the differences in capacities are just too great. Why all this matters should be obvious: If killing is related to the value of a life, then I can explain why we think that killing a man is worse than killing a chicken and in a way that does not rely on species membership to account for the wrongness of killing." Which begs this: If not relying on species membership, why not experiment on certain disadvantaged humans who are permanently functioning on an animal's intellectual level?
No one, of course, is advocating human experimentation. In fact, in 1979, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the Belmont Report to protect human beings from suffering another Tuskegee Syphilis Study: "Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection." Alas, nothing of the sort exists for animal test subjects, who, it should be noted, are either still autonomous or would be but for human tampering.
Instead of searching for differences - with arbitrary words like "richness," "variety," and "depth" - academia should underscore what unites human beings with the rest of the sentient world: the capacity for pain, suffering, and pleasurable experiences. Professor Frey's denial aside, animal experimentation rests on speciesism, and speciesism, like every other discriminatory ism, is an irrationality unbefitting our finest minds.
Human beings can create and appreciate art, break scientific boundaries, and strive for excellence in myriad fields. Animals cannot. Frey: "The fullest chicken life there has ever been, so science suggests, does not approach the full life of a human; the differences in capacities are just too great. Why all this matters should be obvious: If killing is related to the value of a life, then I can explain why we think that killing a man is worse than killing a chicken and in a way that does not rely on species membership to account for the wrongness of killing." Which begs this: If not relying on species membership, why not experiment on certain disadvantaged humans who are permanently functioning on an animal's intellectual level?
No one, of course, is advocating human experimentation. In fact, in 1979, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the Belmont Report to protect human beings from suffering another Tuskegee Syphilis Study: "Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection." Alas, nothing of the sort exists for animal test subjects, who, it should be noted, are either still autonomous or would be but for human tampering.
Instead of searching for differences - with arbitrary words like "richness," "variety," and "depth" - academia should underscore what unites human beings with the rest of the sentient world: the capacity for pain, suffering, and pleasurable experiences. Professor Frey's denial aside, animal experimentation rests on speciesism, and speciesism, like every other discriminatory ism, is an irrationality unbefitting our finest minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)