Does An Animal Have Rights?

whiteclouder · February 2002

There is a thread informing us that coursing hares and running foxes with hounds is being outlawed in Scotland. I have witnessed the end result of both these "sports" and find them abominable. Where does our right to use animals end and the animal's rights begin? Or does an animal have rights? I have conflicting feelings on this as I'm an avid chuck shooter. I try to be humane but occasionally I make an errant shot. And I love to shoot pheasants and grouse, some, wingshot, have to be run down and killed. That has to be painful for the bird. I'm glad hare coursing and fox chasing is done in Scotland. What do you guys think?Clouder.

aglore · February 2002

An animal has the minnimum right to at least die a humane death when it is done by, for or with the help of humans. Now in the natural life cycle of mother nature, all animals are on their own.

AlleninAlaska

will270win · February 2002

I always think that if I were a food source I would not want to die a painful death so I feel I owe it to any creature of the earth to make the most humane shot I can. I feel awful if I wound game and have to run it down. I guess that happens sometimes but, I like to think I keep it to a minimum. So far I haven't had any deer lost due to a bad shot but, Surely my day will come. Squirrels seem to get me on that errant shot thing and I feel pretty bad about that when it happens. I do not, however feel sorry for the worm I put on a hook to catch a fish. Am I all mixed up or pretty normal?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, take it to a mechanic. will270win@aol.com ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~

whiteclouder · February 2002

Will:At least you think about it. Ya got my respect right there.Clouder..

218Beekeep · February 2002

I hate it anytime I ever hit somethin with my vehicle,like the cottontail I hit a while back..all road kill for that matter.This may sound nutty,but deep down,I dont feel,or believe people were meant to travel by anything faster than a horse,and I`am just conforming to society by driving a 'machine' of any kind..REALLY!!.218

timberbeast · February 2002

I don't think animals have "rights" by definition, and I believe that mankind is part of the natural chain, HOWEVER.....I think that mankind, the top of the natural chain, is thereby given a moral obligation to be humane in its treatment of lesser species. That doesn't mean don't hunt, most hunting is more humane than a slaughterhouse, but at the other side is bullfighting, which is a ritualistic torture of an animal. Do I think it should be banned? I don't know enough about the culture which it is performed in to understand it, but I wouldn't do it. I don't bowhunt, because I've spent so many hours helping track wounded deer shot by friends, and these guys are fantastic shots. I choose not to do it. I've never killed a deer that did not die with my first shot, because I've never taken a shot that I wasn't completely confident in, but I sure have wounded my share of ducks. It's a sick feeling. But I still shoot them. I also eat pork, and anyone who has been at a slaughtering pen knows that after the first hog is killed, the others know what is going on and go crazy with fear. I guess it's something we don't like to think about when we sit down to a big juicy roast. Rights? No. But I think that we have a duty to make the killing we do as humane as possible. Anyone who enjoys suffering of an animal has some deep problems. IMO.

barto · February 2002

just echoing timberbeast & i did lose one wounded deer once.its a really lousy feeling.

the hard stuff we do right away - the impossible takes a little longer

guns-n-painthorses · February 2002

Any animal has the right to feel safe here on this farm. (preditors not included)

robsguns · February 2002

I can see why some people have the idea animals have rights, and as a sensitive guy, at least as far as animals go, I'd never hurt one intentionally, except to eat it. I dont think they have rights though, none. I have a RESPONSIBILITY to do everything I can to ensure they are killed as humanely as possible, but thats just a self imposed responsibility. I go by the law of natural order. I am bigger, in most cases smarter, and therefore I kill animals for food, and that is how nature works. If Mr. bear comes after me, hes not going to be humane, nor is Mr. wolf, or Mr. nature's bad *. So you see, to me anyway, if I kill an animal out of spite, or any reason that is for another reason than to eat it, and do it inhumanely, it still doesnt make a diff. cause natures animals wont do it for me. People as a whole are just compassionate enough to do so, but to say its inhumane, means just that, not normally in human nature, but that doesnt mean its wrong. So that being said, an animal has no rights. No one feels sorry for the cows they're eating, the pigs they're eating, etc., nor the ants they kill with pesticides, etc. etc., so I wont even entertain a double standard for an animal that just happens to be cute and furry. I HATE DOUBLE STANDARDS. But, dont think for a minute I think its right to prolong an animals death, but thats my opinion, not to be confused with thinking an animal has the right to diddly. We as humans should control ourselves, and we make laws to control ourselves, as such, we must go by laws imposed on us to be humane to animals, but that still doesnt make me believe animals have rights, some of us dont have rights, some of us shouldnt, some of us should be tortured to death, but the same public outcrys against little deer being shot prevent us from torturing people. Man I'm getting ticked about this, leading into a whole diff. thread, gotta end this reply, see ya.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

schutzenuts · February 2002

By definition, "Rights" are given to MAN by GOD, and animals in and of themselves have no rights. However, it is up to MAN to make sure that the animals are given as humane treatment as possible. I too feel bad for wounded animals, tortured animals and roadkill. There is a great paradox for our Animal rights crusaders, who want the killing of all animals to cease. Once that begins, you see thousands of animals die excrutiating deaths as disease and starvation set in. It is up to us to make sure that the animal we kill is for meat or (as in the case of predators) justifiable reasons, not just for "sport".

Rembrandt · February 2002

The term "Right's" implies an inherient status from God or nature that draws a line in the sand concerning morality.....man has inalienable God given rights as pointed out in the constitution.Christianity points to Genesis where God gave man dominion over all the animals, fish, plants, and birds of the earth. Not trying to start a debate over religion here...just pointing to the fact that the same source (Bible) that was used to found our country and the rights for it's citizens....is also the same source that clearly states mans role with nature.When the topic of "humane kill's" comes up, I would agree with most that we have a responsibility as hunters to do it as efficiently as possible....it's too bad nature doesn't work that way. Death in the animal kingdom is not pleasant, efficient, or humane...rather it's a cruel (by our standards) method of keeping the species strong and viable for future generations. Critters dying from starvation, cold, eaten alive by predators is not that much different than the death of a bull in the ring at the hands of a Matador or a fox being chased by hounds. The hounds are simply following their natural basic instincts whether the hunter is tagging along or not. Does an animal have rights?...no. Animals exist for man's use as food and clothing. The arguement has been made that the more civilized society becomes...the less dependence upon animals becomes. Man is a carnivore or meat eater...the human digestive system is similar to that of other carnivores. Contrary to what some would have you believe, man is not a herbivore. Our bodies need protien and nutrients not found in plants alone.In nature man is on top of the food chain by simple virtue of being more intelligent than the animal members. Does that give him the right to torture and misuse animals...no. That is where morality and man's intelligence draws the line.... [This message has been edited by Rembrandt (edited 02-17-2002).]

Josey1 · February 2002

I think the fox hounding in Scotland is more a heritage and culture thing there.It is something they have done for thousands of years and banning it just proves how government(the crown) is only concerned in how they feel you should live your life.Here in the US we have a culture of fast cars with big assed engines,our government wants to take them away and make us pay a sin tax for fuel consumption.People in our government want to take away our guns and our right to own them,yet the fabric of our constitution guarrentees us the right.Yes,there are also those in our government who would ban deer hunting when deer meat has been a staple for many since the pioneers.Now while you may see fox hounding as barbaric,who are we or their crown,to tell them they can't do what generations before them did.It is all about government control

Bullzeye · February 2002

I do not think that any animal has "rights", in the Constitutional sense.However, I feel that because it is we who hold the instrument of death and the power to use it, we are obligated to ensure as humane a death as possible as well as the proper use of the meat and skin.The American Indians definitely had the right idea on this subject, and all they had was bows and arrows.I believe they even went to the effort of saying a prayer over a downed animal before seperating the meat.

BlueTic · February 2002

Rights - a term made up by man, because we think about the stupidist stuff. Mans rights were made up by man, or given to man by God (which ever way you want it) As stated - Animals do not care one iota about what rights we so generously award. If a person is in the "wild" they must revert to being wild in order to survive - Rights don't count. Of course we have the right to choose not to go into the wild (where most animal rightist should stay since they do not think about what actualy goes on in the wild). Ever see a wolf pack go after a moose - a long drawn out proccess - or what about the cat that plays with it's food. How about the bear stashing a live imobile animal, and feeding at leasure. Rights cease as soon as you step out of your SUV, wether it be in Central Park at night our in the national forest. I try to kill in a "Humane" way, but it is all a figment of the "Human" brain.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)

idsman75 · February 2002

Animals don't have rights. Humans have responsibilities. When you act in a manner that is not humane towards your prey, you sacrifice a bit of your humanity. You are no better than the beasts of the field. Know your guns. Know your ammo. Know your traps and utilize each one to provide your prey with the quickest and least painful death that can be accomplished.Just because it's called "hunting" and a bunch of distinguished rich folk are riding around on horses while dogs do all the work, it's not necessarily "hunting". Just because the government passes a law with regards to hunting, that doesn't mean that someone's "rights" are curtailed. Do I have the right to drive out to Nebraska and shoot that trophy buck I found AFTER the season was over? No. Do I have the right to inflict maximum pain on an animal and watch it be shred into a million little pieces by dogs just because it is "tradition"? No. There are plenty of traditions that have been practiced for centuries. Hopefully humanity has come a long way in the last couple of thousand years. The time that a tradition spans doesn't make it legitimate.

offeror · February 2002

Sure they do. It's easy to miss that point until you get a pet in the house and all of a sudden you're looking in those eyes and thinking protective thoughts. Game animals for the table deserve the best, most humane shot. I'm not one of those who believe that "hunting is outmoded" given that I eat cows and chickens at the fast food joints every week, and pig fat for breakfast. I don't hunt much anymore, but I will fish in the summertime given the opportunity. My cousin, on the other hand, doesn't miss a gun season. To each his own, but even the court system thinks animals have rights, or they wouldn't award penalties to people whose dogs hurt other animals off the leash. We can mince words, but in the absence of a responsible human, I'll still jump in on the side of the animal's basic rights not to be abused, tortured, neglected, etc.

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

.280 freak · February 2002

Saxon Pig -You are not being a hypocrite. Not everybody is comfortable killing their own food. Nothing wrong with that, whatsoever, as long as you don't tell people they shouldn't do it while at the same time paying others to kill for you. To each his own.And, hey, I am a deer hunter, and even I cheer for the deer at times. If it can outfox me, more power to it! If success were guaranteed, wouldn't be the same!

Iconoclast · February 2002

Bullzeye & idsman said it all - and very eloquently - for me.

robsguns · February 2002

Hey Saxon, I dont know what your problem is, but next time you correct Bullzeye, and not me, I'm going to get peeved. I've been trying to figure out how to do the punctuation thing for a while now, and you had the answer all along! I've probably been using both ways and screwing it up since I started here. I guess my writing sucks and I'm not worthy of correction, huh? Some teacher you are, I may be older than Bullzeye, but I can still learn new tricks.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

Patrick Odle · February 2002

Rights None.we as consciense bearing humansshould out of self respect,harm no animal needlessly. The Bible has the words ArisePeter slay and eat. now I oppose giving them the right to vote, run for public office,keep and bear arms.be issued drivers lisense,or the right to assemble and demonstrate. I know I will get some opposing views on this but that in my opinion comes from ill-bredmis-taught individuals that as far as im concerned are a notch or two short of the animals anyway.

RugerNiner · February 2002

Yes an animal has rights. I just gave a Hamburger it's last (Burp!) Rites.

Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!

offeror · February 2002

Sorry -- I thought it was plain that Constitutional rights were not the issue. If there is such a thing as "basic rights," as in "basic human rights" in the Third World where people may be subjected to inhuman treatment by other so-called humans, then I think there are "basic animal rights" in terms of their treatment by humans. I don't know if animals have any kind of soul, but they sure as heck must be more innocent in God's eyes than we are. Despite the fact that some of them are in our food chain, I think they are deserving of humane treatment within reason. They are our companions in this world and provide a lot of the beauty and awe of Nature. If this sounds like Bambi-ism, you're not understanding what I'm saying here. Nothing against hunting or the food chain. But animals have a nobility about them that calls, I think, for their being given their dignity wherever and whenever possible. Certainly I despise the abuse of animals, whether as pets or in the wild. Kids have been known to torture animals and turn out to be a Dahmer when they grow up. So I don't think mistreatment of animals is a "victimless" crime, even if they DON'T turn out to have souls -- which of course we won't know for sure til we get to the Pearly Gates and see who's running up to greet us.... Please excuse the sentimentality....

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

Lowrider · February 2002

Of all the animals on this earth, man has the least right to be here. Man is the scourge of this planet. Waging war, ruining the environment, killing other creatures for fun...When was the last time a dear broke into your house and stole your TV set?Has a bear ever cheated you in a business deal?Has any animal ever tried to put the make on your ol' lady?Animals just want to be left alone to do their animal things. Man, on the other hand, has to try to impose his sorry-assed will on every other living creature. The world would be a much better place without mankind.

Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.

RugerNiner · February 2002

There is a big difference between Rights and Inhumane treatment. I don't believe in cruelity to any animal. If an animal, whether it be man or beast,needs to die it should be executed as quickly as possiable.Although when it comes to man and the hidious acts they are capable of performing; well I just don't know if I can practice what I preach.

Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!

.250Savage · February 2002

The foxhunting does seem rather barbaric to me, but as with bullfighting, it is a part of their culture. Where is all the liberal hand-wringing over "culture" now? Is white culture not as important as minority culture?My real objection to the illegalization is more over the fact that the animal rights dimwits won one, and I don't ever want to see them win. We all know they will never stop until ALL use of animals is illegal. And their existance to "protect" animals from abuse is unneccessary; the SPCA existed decades before they did, and prevents out-and-out cruelty. Like many others here, I have made bad shots, and will again, and I always feel very bad. But I will continue to hunt and I try to minimize that.Do animals have rights? No. If we really want to get into philosophical tail-chasing, we could say humans don't, either, but let's not go there. I think that any creature which lacks self-awareness, including the foreknowledge of its own death, CANNOT have rights. When a dog attacks and kills a child, we do not hold the dog responsible; we blame the owner. An animal is basically a sophisticated biological machine, which will respond predictably to stimuli. Period.

Lowrider · February 2002

"...we don't hold the dog responsible...?"The hell we don't, we usually kill the dog.Somebody said earlier that when it all boils down, we're all part of the food chain. If a bear attacks a man in the wilderness then the man was merely a loser in the survival of the fittest. If only that were true. Man can kill most any creature he takes a mind to and he justifies the killing by calling it "hunting." If the grizzly bear happens to win and the man dies, a posse is formed up and the "killer bear" is hunted down and executed for having the audacity to win his battle in the survival of the fittest.

Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.[This message has been edited by Lowrider (edited 02-17-2002).]

whiteclouder · February 2002

Some interesting positions, and diverse, as would be expected. Two themes developed from the original question, the actual definition of "rights", and the issue of justification for inhumane treatment of animals. (And yes, robs, the comma comes after the enclosed quotes, so bullzeye is right. To make you feel better, I might point out he took liberty with "seperating", however.) Anyway, to the points:We are above the animals, a given in most cases, therefore it is incumbent on us to exercise that which sets us above them, a conscience and the brain-power to enforce our will. And, to control those who have less conscience than is sociable acceptable or lack the brains to understand, we make laws, which our conscience encourages us to obey and which punishes those who infringe. And, our legal system, based on the English (Scottish) one, seems to work quite well. So no, animals have no rights, they are subject to our benevolence and our laws.The argument that tradition should indemnify or hold blameless someone practicing a crime against nature is specious. It was a tradition to pit humans against large animals in the Roman Empire. It was traditional to burn alive, alleged witches in Salem. It was a spectator sport to lynch blacks in the not so old south. And the Indians being the salt of the earth, bull-pucky. Go visit the cliffs at Chugwater in Wyoming. There they would stampede thousands of buffalo over the cliff, killing hundreds. That's tens of thousands of pounds of meat to feed a four or five hundred person village for the winter. I'm not condemning them, they had no other way, but to not call it for what it is has to be dishonest. Clouder..

Bullzeye · February 2002

I cant speak with authority on every American Indian tribe ever to exist. There are far too many permutations, each with different variations and religions.However, I would say on the whole, Indian tribes of old had very respectful, even reverent attitudes towards animals, especially prey animals.Even animals we consider loathesome scavengers, like the crow and vulture, and dangerous animals like the rattlesnake, all held religious significance to Indians.Eskimos would sever the head from a killed caribou or seal and place something that the animal liked to eat in its mouth after saying a prayer. The meat-gatherers usually brought along dried fish or greens for this purpose, even if food was scarce at home. They had to. It was utterly disrespectful not to afford the animal sacrificing itself for the survival of man a proper and honorable trip to the Sky World.

whiteclouder · February 2002

Bullzeye:Sky World? You are an insult.Inuit and Aleut religion believe all things spring from either the water or a dark cave. Your impertinence grates on my nerves like you won't believe. Is there nothing I can do to encourage you to grow up? We would not think less of you if there was a subject on which, at the tender age of 18, you were not expert. I'd appreciate it if you'd stay off my threads and I'll do the same for you.Clouder..Clouder..The Aleuts do not look to the sky for anything.

Rembrandt · February 2002

Clouder is absolutely correct concerning mass slaughters over cliffs and waste by native American's.....history revisionists have remade the Indians to become enviromentalists before it was fashionable.

gap1916 · February 2002

Man or Beast. Plant Or Animal. They all have the right to exist on the planet earth. As the dominate species todate we do not have the right to make any plant or animal extinct. To do so would sign the death warrent for all so called humans.

treedawg · February 2002

we as humans have a responsibility to make a 1 shot kill or pass on the shot, but have you ever watched a house cat with a chipmunk.......

aglore · February 2002

Bullzeye, I have been married to an Eskimo princess for 22.5 years. Would you please tell me where you heard such rubbish. Must have been a white man writing for the purposes of creating some dramatics.

AlleninAlaska[This message has been edited by aglore (edited 02-17-2002).]

aglore · February 2002

I'm really amazed at all the theories of what Inuit or Aleut persons believe. Have any of you actually lived with these people besides myself. Most of what I read hear about Eskimo cultures is more bunk than fact.

AlleninAlaska

mbrook · February 2002

Our substitution of synthetic materials for animal by-products is causing environmental damage that is not currently being discussed in the animal rights debate. Everytime we substitute polyester for wool, use vinyl rather than leather, fake fur rather than real we are substituting a renewable resourse, animals, for an oil based product that is neither renewable nor biodegradable. Think of all the misguided people who believe they are helping the planet and saving a tree when they select "plastic" when they get the question "paper or plastic?"

varmit hunter · February 2002

Rights no.Respect yes.

A unarmed man is a subject.A armed man is a citizen.

.280 freak · February 2002

Varmit Hunter -You always seem to have a way of getting right to the meat of the matter, ya know that?

Bullzeye · February 2002

It was my 11th grade final project in History on the Inuits culture and history, actually. I dedicated a large portion of it to their specific religions.Just to set your minds at ease about my information on the subject, I'll give you some listings from my bibiliography, all of which I got from the Guilderland Public Libary:"Seasons of the Eskimo", May 1979, McClelland & Stewart"Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies: Evolutionary Ecology of an Arctic Hunting Economy (Foundations of Human Behavior)", by Eric Alden Smith, April 1989, Aldine De Gruyter Pub. Co."Powers Which We Do Not Know: The Gods and Spirits of the Inuit", by Daniel Merkur, Nov. 1991, Univ. of Idaho Pr."Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo: With a Sketch of Their Habits, Religion, Language and Other Peculiarities", by Hinrich Rink, Jan. 1997, Dover Pub. Inc.I read one just recently, too. Fascinating stuff, and it affirms my earlier research. I borrowed it from my teacher. Called: "Sacred Hunt: A Portrait of the Relationship Between Seals and Intuit", by David F. Pelley and Peter Inriq

trapr · February 2002

animals have rights?not in the context of a right as we see them,but man definiatly has an obligation to the animals that they use!

Judge Dread · February 2002

I have the right to eat them ,they have the right to run for their miserable lifes ! HEHEHEHEHE!

Bullzeye · February 2002

Any comment clouder, aglore?Or has my proof that I do know what I'm talking about caused you to clam up for good?It was put up or shut up, gentlemen. And guess what I just did.

Does An Animal Have Rights?

Comments