|
One thing occurring to me over the past couple of days is the misfortune of the controversial carriage horse issue in New York City, pitting animal lover against animal lover; animal rights advocate against animal welfare advocate.
.
The conflict places me in a weird position personally, as I have always considered myself to be more animal "rights" than welfare per se. But, now I am not so sure. The welfare of humans, children and animals is important. But, so are intrinsic rights. Why should there be disparity between the two?
.
I'm not sure I recognize much in the Animal Rights movement anymore. -- Or, what it has seemed to morphed into.
.
A movement not so much based upon protecting and the saving of animal lives, but in some ways, one that is simply opposed to any human "use" of animals.
.
But, as previously touched upon, is all "use" inherently bad? Humans use each other positively in work relationships, friendships and even marital partnerships. Animals use each other in flocks, herds and packs. Animals of different species even use each other cooperatively for mutual benefit and in some cases, survival that is separate from mere predator/prey relationships.
.
Technically, the relationship we have with companion pets can also be described as "use" as both, humans and animals benefit. The human benefits from the companionship, pleasure and unjudgmental affection a pet provides. And the animal benefits from being provided with safety, shelter, food, love and medical care. Such are reciprocal relationships. Or, to say it another way: "One hand washes the other and both hands wash the face."
.
I look at the carriage horses of Central Park and I see what mostly appears as a reciprocal relationship. The horses provide a pleasant service to humans (carriage rides through the park). In exchange for their work and services, the horses are provided with food, shelter, safety from predation, vet care, affection, stimulation and even love. These are not a "paycheck" per se. (What would an animal do with a paycheck?) But, they are some of the things that a paycheck for a human would typically purchase and provide.
.
Why is that "abuse?" (If it is, then are not all human work associations "abuse?") If some answer that carriage horses "don't have a choice" well, neither do companion pets. Their human caregivers control their lives and make most important decisions for them.
.
The use of horses for carriage rides (unlike many other uses of animals) doesn't involve infliction of pain, force (such as whippings), deprivation or an end goal of "product" and killing (such as for meat or animal skins).
.
While the term, "abuse" is derived from "use" and use can certainly descend into abuse, the two words are very different with one being primarily constructive and one being destructive. (I however believe most meat, fish and dairy production to be abusive as animals are not only killed, but most often tortured and deprived before early death. I believe meat and most fish and dairy consumption contributes to and supports animal suffering and abuse as well as it contributes to degradation of the planet.)
.
I obviously have a problem with some Animal Rights philosophy opposing all "use" of animals on its face.
.
Such philosophy dismisses entirely, situations of animal/human bonding and connection and animals actually making free choice to engage with humans.
.
The video below of a wild sea lion chasing a speed boat and jumping in to partake of a fish is just one example out of millions of this "animal/human connection/use" and self chosen engagement:
.
.
But, what about the carriage horses? Would they choose to pull carriages filled with people through a park, if asked?
.
It is doubtful how many humans would "choose" waiting tables over vacationing in the Bahamas if given any desire they wish. But, most people have to work a job to keep a roof over their heads. (And most people derive needed sense of purpose and accomplishment from work.)
.
It seems most domestic horses do, too.
.
Moreover, I am not convinced that most horses (like most humans) would want to spend their days just idling around doing nothing.
.
Purpose and duty are important to virtually all animals, including horses and humans. (Certainly purpose, duty and role are important to the geese and ducks observed over the past few years. -- They live for those.)
.
As far as jobs for horses, pulling a carriage through Central Park might be considered one of the easier and less risky jobs. And there are "fringe benefits" such as lots of attention from humans (which the horses seem to enjoy) and regular treats.
.
But, perhaps the greatest reason for my personal support of the carriage horses in NYC is the general awareness of the safety net that the jobs provide for horses who are otherwise displaced or up for sale. The overbreeding of horses in this country leaves too many, too often without any homes and vulnerable to "killer buyers."
.
Put simply, I do not support anything that ultimately results in more animals dying or being sent to slaughter (and a ban on NYC carriage horses would eventually result in just that). I believe that primary among "rights" for animals dependent upon humans is the right to continue living as all animals jealousy guard and value their lives above all else -- just as humans do. It is human duty and responsibility therefore, to properly care for those animals we have created and made dependent upon us -- even if that means humanely working with them for the benefit of both, human and animal.
.
So, is such Animal Rights or Animal Welfare position?
.
Frankly, I like to think of it as an Animal Justice position.
.
All things considered, I think its what the animals would ultimately choose for themselves -- something that incorporates the best from both, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. -- PCA
.
.
.
********
3 comments:
Nicely said. I am quite disgusted that the term "animal rights" has been taken over and twisted into something quite different than its true meaning. Real animal rights advocates support working horses.
theenglishrider: Thank you.
The creepy thing about the carriage horses is that if they are banned, it opens doors to campaigns against therapy dogs, horseback riding, police and other service animals, as well as pets.
As PETA says, "Animals should be enjoyed only from a distance."
Did the sea lion jumping in the boat get the memo on that? :)
"Reciprocity" is the argument that so many of us have been making about the NYC Carriage Horses. The drivers certainly see themselves as working in a partnership with their horses. But as you point out, many see any use of animals as wrong and evil. For undomesticated animals, I am more understanding of this. But for animals like horses, dogs and cats that have been domesticated for thousands of years, the reciprocity of the human-animal relationship is the key to their survival. It is the only viable way for us to keep these animals in our world.
Post a Comment