Apr 27 2010
HSUS and Animal Rights: A 30-Year Marriage
.jpg)
Google may eventually take over the universe, but for now we're okay with that because the Google Books service is an exceptionally cool research tool. We're constantly finding old material we didn't know existed, just because it's suddenly text-searchable.
Here’s one gem: a 1981 statement from HSUS detailing why it officially supports pursuing rights for animals.
The excerpt on the right gets to the meat of matter. It’s from the May 1982 issue of Vegetarian Times and it details HSUS’s explicit endorsement in 1980 of the animal rights position:
... there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and the treatment of other animals.
We don't think HSUS has ever repealed this policy statement; if we're wrong, we feel confident the group's lawyers will let us know.
What rights does HSUS think animals have? Here’s how HSUS lawyer Peter Lovenheim defined it. This is from 1981, mind you, so it may have since “evolved” into an even more specific policy that HSUS isn't sharing with its members:
In general, all animals have the right to adequate nutrition, to an environment suited to their natural and essential behaviors, and the right not to be subjected to unnecessary physical pain. More specific rights will vary according to species.
So essentially, HSUS believes that every human interaction with animals should be subject to a balancing test in which both parties’ interests are given (in HSUS’s words) “equal consideration.” In one example, HSUS states that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a monkey because its “right to a suitable environment should outweigh the human being’s interest in keeping an exotic pet.”
By that logic, it’s hard to see how zoos would continue to exist in an HSUS-approved world. And certainly, killing an animal to eat its meat—whether on a farm or in the woods—would have to involve "unnecessary physical pain” by the vegan measuring stick. The fact that we could all subsist on a diet of green beans and tofu apparently means that we must.
And if animals have the right to an “environment suited to their natural and essential behaviors,” does that mean HSUS would curb suburban development too? It sure sounds like it.
Once animals have a seat at the table with people, as equals, we've opened Pandora’s Menagerie. And since HSUS president Wayne Pacelle likes to note that “animals can’t speak for themselves,” it’s apparently up to him to step in and articulate what animals really want.
Here’s where all this is headed: in HSUS's view, the idea of animal rights is more far-reaching than merely “loving animals or being kind to them”:
Animals’ requirements are varied, and some are of greater importance than others, but when we recognize them as rights, we have a moral obligation to give them fair consideration, and to deny them only if other rights are overriding. In this way, ’animal rights’ helps us move beyond kindness, towards justice. (Emphasis added.)
So while Pacelle and other HSUS mouthpieces make appeals to “compassion” and “kindness,” they’re really looking farther down the road. And they've been doing it for decades.
Remember what "justice" looks like in HSUS's world. It's 100 percent vegan. There's no hunting and fishing. Lab animals (or their lawyers) have to sign consent forms before we can cure cancer. And so on. It also means giving them the right to sue. This is already happening in Switzerland, where even fish can have lawyers.
Whenever you hear that "animals can’t speak for themselves" canard, play the proverbial tape forward a bit. See where it leads. In my book, it leads right to where White House regulatory “czar” Cass Sunstein wants to take us. (And inside the beltway, Sunstein is “on everyone’s short lists” to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.)
If you think we're tilting at windmills here, read the whole Vegetarian Times essay for yourself. Think about what we've all learned together about the Humane Society of the United States during the last 10 weeks. And understand that we've really just scratched the surface.
Related Documents
Related People
Related Organizations
Posted on 04/27/2010 at 10:47 AM by the HumaneWatch Team
The Best of HumaneWatch • Document Analysis • History • Medical Research • Zoos & Aquariums • (9) CommentsComments
Will we prosecute the lion for killing a zebra, the wolf for killing an elk, the bear for killing a salmon? Certainly the prey have equal “rights” to life under this umbrella. Or would humans be asked to segregate predator from prey.
As a being with full rights, would the dogs of the world be set free to do as they please, no longer under the thumb of their human caretakers? If a dog bit someone, would it be charged with battery? Jailed? Since the dog has equal rights would that leave an injured party to sue the dog for damages? How many dogs could independently pay for the damage they do?
Will animals reach an age of majority when you no longer have to care for them and they can be set free to find their own way in the world?
Would humans then become merely slaves of the animals, compelled to run around and make sure that all the animals do not have their various rights abridged by other animals?
When will the absurdity of equal rights for animals (aka animal rights) end?
So how does “animal rights” affect mandatory spay/neuter? Should animals not also have the right to retain all of their reproductive organs?
It’s natural for canines to travel in packs. Do not leash laws curb this right to act in a natural way?
It’s natural behavior for some dogs to attack cats, should this also be allowed?
Or does HSUS expect all animals to agree with their version of whats right?
While I agree with some of this, I wonder if we stop eating meat, will not farmers slaughter the animals because they no longer provide income to the farm, or is the farmer to pay for feed and care without repayment. I am totally against hunting.
Why, because we no longer need wildlife to feed us. I love seafood, but realize the impact on the species that get targeted for other than food purposes, I am against nets that pull in other species that wind up in the nets. I am against whaling this is not necessary to life. I believe fish farms are the best alternative, like diary cattle and other farm animals grown for food this makes sense, I don’t like adding chemicals to the food of farm animals or keeping them in such a way as to do harm to them. free range is better than over crowed pens. Farmers and fishermen need to understand that just because you are doing this for an income, the animals are still in your care and deserve excellent treatment. I find the act of slaughtering animals to be appalling. This makes me lean more to a vegan diet, although I can’t stop eating all meat, I tend to edge toward seafood. I don’t think domesticated dogs and cats should be allowed to run free, they starve and suffer a terrible death. I also feel we should treat animals with respect, my vet has said when he dies he wishes to come back as a pet in my home. I take that as a wonderful compliment. My pets are treated with respect and are fed well and housed well. When we go shopping the animal food is purchased first then the food for us. I wish animal shelters were all no kill, and any animal in their care is allowed to live out their lives in comfort, but I believe spaying and neutering are a benefit to animals, unwanted puppies and kittens are everywhere, right now I have 3 adult cats and 6 kittens all feral and all fixed, we also capture strays and have them fixed and released back to where they came from, they can live full lives without having litter after litter they can’t provide for or protect. This is humane, we need to stop puppy mills. I could go on an on, I am against using animals for test subjects in labs. This is a practice that needs to end.
I think Sunstein’s shot at a Supreme Court seat is pretty much gone with the new legislature..thank goodness. Though he can still do some major harm to animal industries from his current position, and those can be done behind closed doors and hit everyone before we even know they are coming, which is in some ways even scarier than thinking about him on the bench.
I didn’t arrive at the same conclusion that the writer of this did of the shown policy statement. I don’t like to be “told” what meaning I should arrive at. I believe it is just another form of propaganda. I believe all animals, (including humans), have the right to have adequate care when under the trust of another. In other words, to me, if it’s under your authority, (child, elderly relative, or pet,) it has the right to be taken care of up to a certain standard. I didn’t see anywhere in the statements shown above that HSUS doesn’t believe people should keep pets or that humans can’t eat meat.I don’t like to be told by someone else what something means. Please don’t allow HumaneWatch.org to become a radical organization. It will not do any good that way. CLEAR facts are needed. When you get all radical you turn a lot of people “off” and you will lose support. If this organization becomes another HSUS or PETA, just on the other side of the coin, you will lose me.
Joyce.. if you do not believe in slaughter.. nor hunting what do or will you pets eat? Especially cats..
@susanmeanslily…good thing that humanewatch did tell you the meaning…because you overlooked it…it says that they should be suited to their “natural enviroment” that is not in a family home… so if you like to cuddle up to you pooch or kitten and watch t.v. you need to pay a little bit more attention to this movement…Humanewatch knows exactly what HSUS and PETA are up to…and now the rest of the world is being informed thanks to the hard work and effort of Humanewatch
...and yes by all means do your own research on HSUS…hope your not blind like you were on this statement!
@Joyce
I assume that If you believe in mandatory spay/neuter of cats and dogs it is to help control the HUGE animal overpopulation issue we have. What you also need to realize is that a majority of hunters, while in it for the sport, also help control animal overpopulation in the wild. Don’t get me wrong there are some horrible people out there that would kill an animal with any means just to satisfy a need but the true, good hunters limit what they take and know what the population looks like year to year. Think about it, if they hunted in only one spot every year regardless of population they wouldn’t always get what they wanted. However, if they go to where the population is greatest they are almost guaranteed the animal and are helping depopulate the overpopulated area.
If we got rid of all lab rats as test species what would we be able to test on. FDA regulates that testing on humans is not allowed until it’s been proven safe in animals. Would you be willing to potentially give up your life to test what could be the next miracle cure because you don’t believe in animal testing?
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
This is such a propaganda… It is justice that if a human kills an animal, for the joy of it, (s)he should be sent to jail.
Right now, I’m researching about HSUS myself.