Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2015
- Jessi examines what the term "Animal Lover" means and discusses the difference between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.
Includes questions about elephants and the bullhook, PAWS and the Butte fire, and a ban on exotic animal performances.
Our Video Sponsors:
Michelle Kim
Wes Brown
Moshe Schwartz
Hammond
Kerstin Soderquist
Kirsty Avidano
Rhiannon Cleobury
Thank you so much for helping make these videos possible!
If you'd like your name here or featured at the end of an episode, you can become a sponsor at www.patreon.com/animalwonders
--
Looking for more awesome animal stuff?
Subscribe to Animal Wonders Montana to see all of our videos!
RUclips: / anmlwndrs
Other places to find us:
Website: www.animalwonders.org
Patreon: / animalwonders
Instagram: / animalwondersmontana
Facebook: / animalwonders
Twitter: / animal_wonders
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wi...
for a second i thought i read "Animal Warfare" and was like "well that escalated quickly"
Most of the elephants are former performing animals. They remember bullhooks. They know how to walk in a line. Temporary discomfort versus, frightened, possibly burnt elephants. CA is in a serious drought condition if they don't have enough water onsite to control the wildfire ,well, I'll leave that to your imagination. They had enough trauma during their performing lives, a little more may save their lives.
+ahabtheplant Yes, but the bullhooks might trigger flashbacks for some of them. An elephant in the middle of a PTSD episode during a natural disaster is a recipe for someone to get hurt. If there was some way to persuade the herd matriarch to lead the herd away from the fire, that would be much better than bringing in an object that could make an already stressful situation worse.
I just don't know how feasible that is.
+Pig_catapult True, the matriarch plan would be best, but they're going to be loaded on trucks so they would have to be handled individually. The agency offering to move them is also a care organization so they would be careful not to harm them. And like they say elephants have long memories they'll remember how to move safely onto a truck /carrier. Option two, cover the points with a lot(!) of cotton batting and foam.
I volunteer @ a wildlife rehab & have raised several squirrels & a mouse & all were released except for the mouse because he was too tame.the facility is public & animals are used for education but ONLY the ones who couldn't be released.keeping wild animals as pets or for "educational purposes" is slavery & the exotic pet trade is an absolute abomination.
Trying to not intervene with animals at all is stupid. It's basically impossible now for animals to live lives unaffected by humans, and so by ignoring them you don't give them the vital protection they need so they don't become endangered, while still having their lives affected by human activity. For instance if you don't keep species like Pandas in captivity, then they'll be hopeless in the wild when faced with deforestation. As long as there is human civilisation, animals will be affected by us, and as a result they need to be cared for by us as well.
I never realized there was a difference between the two! It was only until recently that I was even aware there were people against us having domesticated animals as pets. This was a fantastic video, and I certainly side with Animal Welfare above Animal Rights.
This was a fantastic video! So informative! I can't say I've ever actually thought of the difference between these two terms, despite my love for animals. I love learning new things! :)
Thank you Jessi for making a clear distinction between these two concepts. Intuitively I've known it was there, but this really clears it up in my own mind
This is a harder topic to talk about, but I'm glad you did. I appreciate you putting education first, and showing us the differences between the two. Thank you!
Hi Jessi, Thank you for putting yourself out there and talking about these issues. I've been vegan for 6 years, and after reading both animal welfare and animal rights sides, I have realized that if one is to do what is best for humanity and nonhuman animals, animal rights is the path to take, for the following:
1: By working to create 'better' conditions (welfare) for animals killed for food, you are a) influencing people to feel good about eating animals, and the consumption of animals therefore rises, thereby increasing net suffering of animals, aka we eat more animals and thus more die b) How many resources should we allot to animal's welfare? Doesn't it seem immoral to divert resources to take care and feed non-human animals, when we have humans that don't have housing, food and water? Our farm animals are 'middle men'. Instead of growing food to feed animals we should consider cutting out the middleman.
80% of farmland in the USA is used to grow animal feed. Think about that for a moment. Do you love wolves, mountain lions, foxes, bison and wild horses? Those animals are culled either because they are a threat to livestock or because they compete for grazing with livestock.
It takes 2,700 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. It takes 7-10 pounds of Soybeans and corn to produce 1 pound of meat.
2: Welfarists reinforce the paradigm that animals exist for our pleasure and enjoyment. If we as a species shift away from this paradigm, then clearly we humans, the biggest threat to wildlife, would become less of a threat to wildlife, and wildlife would therefore not go extinct or be needed to be imported to zoos!
3: Ultimately we have to give up pets if we 'love' pets...sorry to say, I have a dog, and will continue to adopt dogs, however, we as a species have proven completely irresponsible in that arena, and thus if we care about our pets, should slowly as a society phase them out.
In California alone, out of all of the cats and dogs born each year only 15% find a home...15%! How heartbreaking is that! Also, they are our chattel, we separate them from their families by force and they are lucky, if they do find a home, to be with owners that give them enough attention! They need stimulation, and it seems like at least a quarter of us can't give them what they need.
Great video Jessi, way to start a conversation.
First off, animals rights folk generally don't suggest animals have exactly the same rights as Humans, no one I'm aware of is suggesting we give animals rights they can't use, like freedom of speech (let me know if I'm wrong here). But we do want to give them the rights that are in their interests, like freedom from being forced to make and be food for humans.
I've got to think the right path is in the middle here, not because the middle is always correct, but because I want to give animals rights, but also want to help animals in situations like that orphaned Polar bear, leaving it to die would have been cruel and we wouldn't treat a human that way.
I'll weigh in on the elephant situation for the hell of it: I'm OK with discomforting an animal to help it in a way it isn't intelligent enough to do itself, an animal may be temporarily distressed by a vaccination, but it could save its life or protect it from a period of protracted disease, it just happens that the animal doesn't understand the benefit it's receiving. I think it's our job to get situations like these done as quickly as possible with the minimum possible discomfort, but to accept that minimum discomfort as not outweighing the benefit the animal will receive.
So not having elephants burn or asphyxiate to death may be worth moving them and prodding them with a bullhook in the process. But if it's possible to do it without a bullhook, we should do it that way, we should have to do our best to minimise the suffering.
The situation changes if a one time move becomes a chronic behaviour pattern, what was once a tool to help save elephant lives then becomes a tool of convenience that repeatedly annoys the elephants just so the keepers are not be separated from them.
Animal rights is about freeing animals from positions of pain, discomfort, and harm. Sadly welfare allows various cruelties, only opposing some.
You dont understand the rights thing. As you correctly stated, nobody is advocating for elephants to vote or drive cars. Just like mentally disabled people cant do those things, yet they still have human rights. How can this be? Well its rights that cover and protect the individuals needs. For animals, that mainly means bodily autonomy and the right to not be exploited, thats it. Thats what animal rights activists are fighting for, which means you have to go vegan and cant go to the zoo or wear their skins or breed pets anymore
I say we create a new subcategory: Animal Well-Being
In this category we strive to do with is best for the animal, Taking on arguments for the side of Animal rights And animal Welfare, where if the polar bear cub is orphaned we do our best to take care of it, but with the elephants, if the best strategy to get them to safety is to use bullhooks, then bullhooks will be used, within moderation taking care not to hurt the animal. To use an animal for entertainment purely is not acceptable where as for educational purposes is accepted. these things together create the best environment for humans and animals alike.
Tobias Whittaker I agree ☝️ with you
Where would using animals for food fit into this picture? I think that since we can live without eating them, the act of eating them would be solely for entertainment. Do you think we shouldn't eat them, if we don't want to exploit animals for entertainment?
@la ba How so?
Right, and everyone eat a vegan diet.
You guys should sign that online petition to ban hunting videos from youtube.
Hello i just got a B&G Macaw and she wont go out of her carrier cage into the big one the door is open on both cages but she does not care she is really nice and takes treats but wont go anywere something i can do or just leave her be for now?
So, I will probably get hung on a stake or something now, but anyway. I really love animals, and I strongly belive we should try and cause as little suffering as we can. But I do not think we shuld try to avoid interacting with animals, and if poking elefants might save their lives, well the elefants will be poked.
I also work with animals, and then I mean really work with them. I work in a park where we have deer. These things are pretty big, and I feed them with a bucket daily, and to make this work I have to show dominance towards the animals or they will just trample me and take the food. And I have on more than one occation given these animals fairly hard slaps, but never to the extent of causing any real harm, the point is to make them uncomftable when they do something bad, like when they bite me or try and steal the foodbucket. Or when the big males try and kill me with their anthlers.
I am also a natureguide and a hunter, so tracking and interacting with wild animals is something I do quite often. And while on guidings I take care not to pursue a single animal for to long, if we find one and scare it off we will not follow that one any more. And when hunting I take greate care not to stres the animal, and when I decide to shoot I need to be certain that it will be a killshot. And yes i do eat the animals i kill.
And another part of this is that unlike a lot of people, I will take an active part if I see a wild animal suffering. And I will not bring it to a shelter, I will kill it. It is not something I enjoy, but I consider it my responsibility to bring mercy to an animal that will otherwise suffer a slow and agonizing death.
And also, unlike a lot of people, I have no illusions of what nature is like. Nature is not this cozy dreamworld. Nature is hard and unforgiving. Nature has no morals and answers to noone. And I do not consider myself to be above nature, I just happen to be a lot smarter than the rest of the animals.
+Jakob Rosenqvist I doubt that will happen to you because you are doing what is right to help animals. I recently became a zoo docent and I learned about nature and what we can do to help it.
No, exactly. You have to think and act like them for the two of you to be able to communicate. You giving them a little smack is no different from them giving each other a little smack to let the other know that he or she is being too rough. My grandma's dog, Shadow, was extreamly aggressive and should not have been allowed near anyone. I was no more than 6 at the time and the bastard lunged for my arm. I wasn't doing anything to him. I was sitting on my mom's lap and he just came up and went for my arm. I don't remember exactly what happened, but what I do remember pretty clearly was my dad grabbing Shadow by the back of the neck, holding him to the floor and letting out a low growl like an alpha male would to keep a lower ranking wolf in line. After that the only time Shadow tried to attack me was if my dad left the room. Dog was sick in the head or something.... I hated that dog.
My great aunt (my dad's aunt) always has a collie. The one she has now is named Ava and she's one of the kindest dogs I've ever met. We only see my aunt 1-3 times a year, but Ava has seen me and my family as part of her family from the start. I don't know what it is about my old man, but even Ava sees him as alpha. Before she'll run around and play with us she always trots up to my dad and huffs. We found out that that's her asking permission to play rough with us. Apparnetly she veiws us as his puppies (deapite my sister and I being in our 20s and my brother is in his late teens) and wants to make sure with the alpha male that it's ok for her to play with us. Same goes for my mom. Ava will ask permission to play with the alpha male's mate so to speak. We think it's because she had puppies before my aunt adopted her, and asking permission to interact with others young is just something that comes natural to her. On the farm she was born on she wasn't the only dog, so it's probably safe to assume that Ava actually grew up in a pack like setting. Pretty cool I think.
Anyway, there are plenty of ways to interact with animals directly and non directly. It just depends on the animal. There needs to be a balance, as well as proper communication and respect between species. As a shaman I strongly believe that we need to learn how to live with animals, not just live along side them. Too much contact is bad, but so is too little contact.
The only real difficulty I have with animal welfare positions is it doesn't seem possible to produce meat, milk, eggs, etc. at the volume and price Americans are used to while still treating the animals well. I don't think most people would be willing to pay more money and eat dramatically less meat to actually give animals proper care. That being said I support any effort to help animals live better lives, even if the effort isn't as radical as I might hope.
Wow! I had no idea that there was any difference between the two. I like your comparison between the bullhook and bit. I do horseback riding so the analogy really helped me understand how they move the elephants. Thank you for this wonderful video, I love how informative and seemingly unbiased it was
This is only somewhat related and I'm not expressing any opinion on animal rights myself, but it always makes me laugh and it seemed appropriate. I'm a scientist and I work in a biochemistry building entirely occupied with microbiologists and plant scientists. There *are* other departments on our site which do work with animals (e.g. physiology, zoology...) but we are surrounded by plant sciences, genetics, geology and archaeology. Every couple of months someone in the city will organize an animal rights protest, and, *every single time*, they come and stand between our building and archaeology for *hours* and shout into megaphones about how we have blood on our hands and whatnot. I'm always a little bit tempted to throw some of my algae out the window onto them. I don't have any problem with them protesting, but they could put a little bit more effort into it! There are site maps at every entrance! If they just looked at one then maybe they could find a more appropriate building to stand outside than archaeology, of all things.
ruclips.net/video/tlxM6mFxZTA/видео.html
Check this too
This is amazingly informative. Thank you!!
I'm so glad you made this video!
Well, if people don't want animals to suffer from certain kinds of handling, while at the same time wanting the animals to have the same "rights" as people, they appear to forget that a lot of us undergo a lot of forms of "uncomfortable" treatment when we are ill.
In addition, if I were trapped in my burning house with my family, our rescue might include some arduous, uncomfortable, and possibly painful procedures to extricate us.
In fact, we endure all sorts of discomfort just in the name of pleasure (hiking, sky diving, etc.).
It strikes me as a benefit vs. harm argument. Is the action meant to benefit the life of the animal, or harm it?
Careful now. Some people don't understand that kinda logic ;)
+Julia Marks the difficulty is that you can ask a human if they want the discomfort and if it's worth the benefit to them. An animal can't be asked, or even understand the concept. It does put us in a difficult position of having to make the decision for them. Inaction isn't necessarily better than action, so either way we have to decide what's best for them in some situations.
+Julia Marks I totally agree with you, but I think there's an element of consent which is what (often) bothers the people against that kind of thing. We can't explain to the animals that we're doing it for their own good, and it's impossible for us to get their permission. I personally feel like if we've taken the step of keeping an animal in captivity in the first place, it's up to us to (responsibly) decide what is necessary for the good of that animal.
+Radish Raccoon I don't know if it's a viable argument at all, but it strikes me that many animals have proven willing to endure discomfort or even injury (of their own free will) for specific purposes. Foxes will chew off their legs to get out of traps. There was a mother cat who got third-degree burns saving her kittens from a fire. People will probably say that choices are individual and can't be generalised though, which is true in a sense.
@@alisontee4609 You act like they have a concept of life and death and therefore could possibly decide to not keep on going if the pain it too big, nor do they have a concept of how long or difficult the healing process will be. The fox might think his leg will grow back or whatever
Although same goes for kids. Its in your responsibility to make the best decisions for them, if you take guardianship of them
I am firmly on the animal welfare side. that's not to say I think animals have no rights, but I think that humans and animals can coexist in a way that benefits both and makes everyone happy. I think companion animals are wonderful and that both human and pet can thoroughly enjoy such relationships. I think that using animals for food is absolutely okay, so long as it is done in as humane a manner as possible. I firmly support reputable zoos, which allow for the spread of awareness and the preservation of species (the San Francisco Zoo was instrumental in the recovery of the bald eagle for instance), I think many animal welfare supporters get that first spark of compassion when visiting a zoo. I dislike circuses that use animals because the use of animals in circuses began due to the novelty of elephants and big cats. there is no novelty anymore, we all know what a lion is, and circuses that use only human performers can be even more entertaining. Zoos house animals as a means to promote the welfare of species and do their very best to care for those animals. Circuses use animals purely for entertainment.
and PETA is evil. misogynistic, theiving, murdering evil.
I didn't realize there were such strict definitions for those terms. Judging by this video, I'd say I fall on the animal welfare side.
Another GREAT video!! keep it up :)
I have never heard anyone explain this concept so well. I absolutely agree with everything you explained. Great Video!
well, I'm more for animal welfare, domesticated animals are under our protection.
but I'd rather cause an animal discomfort and annoyance than let them die.
that said I would not trust a human to use a bullhook safely, no matter how much training a person has with it, if the tool can cause injury, it will eventually, I'm sure if they wanted to, they could invent an alternative tool.
+Ebon Hawk I don't know why they don't just clicker train the elephants. Maybe because of the "human contact"?
+Ebon Hawk Are you also against dog leashes?
genetsandjazz
like I said, an injury is preferable to death (so long as the injury isn't permanent)
I can't imagine it difficult to invent a less dangerous tool for the elephants
but I don't feel the same about dog leashes, as inventing a less harmful replacement is a lot more tricky, I imagine.
that said, some dog leashes are better for the dog than others.
Ebon Hawk I can imagine it would be difficult. I'm sure these experts would have come up with a different tool over the ancient ankus (or bullhook) if there was something better.
genetsandjazz
that would imply they held the animals in high regard, which is highly doubtful, dog leashes are more humane because dogs are our ''friends''
I have several issues with animal rights groups, especially the ones who have become more militant and confrontational. Those groups are not willing to even think of compromise, an example being PETA killing pets rather then finding them homes, or groups breaking into research facilities to free captive animals being used for research(28 days later anyone?). Those are the extreme of that group, but I know of more moderate people who draw a line between an animal that is from the wild or endangered and is kept as a pet or as a performance prop when they'd rather see them being used for breeding in a facility.
I have few problems with people who are for animal welfare, but yet again there are some that take it too far. I've seen some ordnance's being passed about dogs being kept on a chain, well for some dogs that's the only option. I've seen too many escape artist dogs that don't care about fences then I can recall, like everything in life there is a time and a place for it. Unfortunately common sense is being taken out of the equation and the lowest common denominator is being applied which is bad for everyone.
Great video Jessi, I hope to see more of your foxes playing in the snow
I can relate to parts of this; I live close to a mink farm and there are often activists breaking in to ''rescue'' them. Now, I find the fur trade to be awful and underregulated (not to mention I hate the thought of killing something just for its fur) but this is just as stupid because they just let the minks out...and then they starve to death in the forest if it hadn't been for well meaning people in my town taking their free time after these sort of accidents to go out ''mink hunting'' to try to capture as many as possible before they hurt themselves.
Thank you so much for that concise clarification.
More than 200 million animals are killed for food around the world every day - just on land. Including wild-caught and farmed fishes, we get a total closer to 3 billion animals killed daily. That comes out to 72 billion land animals and over 1.2 trillion aquatic animals killed for food around the world every year. It’s truly heartbreaking
Thank you for doing this video! The difference between animal welfare and animal rights is such an important issue, and too many are confused about it. I wanted to share my story - so similar to that of many of my friends - for those who may be on the fence about which side to support. If animal rights activists had their way, I'd be dead several times over. Animal rights organizations like PETA don't approve of the use of service dogs, believing them to be abused animals who are somehow forced to do their jobs. In reality, service dogs *love* their jobs (one of my dog's favorite phrases is "do you want to go to work?"). They get incredibly excited to see their working gear come out. While my dog knows many trained tasks (as all service dogs must, per the ADA), she also began doing medical alerts on her own, of her own free will. As for her tasks, she actually gets disappointed when I run out of things for her to do, so I often find myself coming up with more simply because she's so clearly thrilled and excited to do things for and with me. As for her physical care, like most service dogs, my girl gets top of the line vet care and the best, most well researched diet possible. Her needs *always* come before my own. Always. As mentioned, she has quite literally saved my life more than once - I literally would not be here without her. Animal rights activists would take all of that away, not only from me, but from my very happy, well cared for, physically and mentally satisfied dog as well.
Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to work alongside humans. A dog who is given a job to do - one that suits the animal's abilities and temperament - is always happier than one who has nothing to do but lay around all day. Animal rights activists ignore this, and seem to think dogs should be treated like their ancestors, the wolf, despite the fact that through selected breeding, they no longer think like wolves, preferring instead to work alongside humans.
Many people do not fully realize what they support when they call themselves animal rights activists. Please, consider the cost these activists would incur - both to animals and to humans - if they had their way before you decide to support them. I am huge on animal welfare, but hugely against animal rights activism. How could I look at my dog doing her happy dance when asked to work with me, or reflect on the times when - of her own free will and without any input from me - she has saved my life, and believe otherwise?
Thanks for sharing this!
Love your definition of animal welfare and rights. I always got them confused so thanks :)
This is such an amazing video, and I really appreciated you making it. Until recently I also struggled with how to define my self as an animal lover. As of now I definitely identify more as someone who is for animal welfare over animal rights, although some people I know still don’t recognize the difference. I am definitely sharing this with my friends.
I feed the dog in the scy compound and the Scty n members restricted me doing so what animal rights applicable here?
Hey Jessi, thanks for making a video about this. I'm glad this topic is getting some much needed exposure through your channel (and AnimalWonders!), but I'm a little unhappy with some parts of it.
I think your description of animal welfare vs. animal rights is a little simplistic and lacks nuance. The two camps are not as clearly separated as you've made them out to be in the video. For example, while animal rights advocates do support the notion that animals should be free of human exploitation, they do not necessarily think that animals should live completely free of human interference. Much rather, the concept of animal rights is based in the idea that all species deserve the same moral consideration as humans. In a very short explanation, that means that they should be able to fulfill all their needs freely and on their own as far as possible, and where they can't, humans should help them fulfill those needs - but without exploiting them!
For your polar bear example, that would mean that it should be raised to the point where it can be set free and care for itself. If it can't, try to recreate its environment to fulfill all its needs (roaming, playing, food, etc.). For the elephant examples, that means we need to find another way to provide safety for the elephants - until then, if there's really no other way, in case of a fire, use the bullhooks. Both would be better than death, and still be in line with animal rights ethics.
Now I'm gonna get a little speculative, so I apologize if I say something wrong. To me, it sounded as if you chose to consider yourself a supporter of animal welfare rather than animal rights, based on the opinions of people who've labelled themselves as supporters of either, rather than considering the underlying arguments yourself. Again, I could be wrong of course, but since this video is all I have to go on, that's what it feels like. And I think that's doing a disservice to what the larger movements represent.
Obviously this is a very complicated issue and I don't think it's really possible to go into much more detail than I have in a RUclips comments section, so instead I'll just suggest a book to you: if you haven't already read it, Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" is an eye-opening read. This goes for anyone in this comment section.
Cheers, and looking forward to your next video!
Hey Jessie, what are your views on eating food made by/from animals?What about other products like leather?
I'm using this for a project on animal welfare
Love your videos! interesting info.
I'm definitely on the animal welfare side.
Cute top by the way :)
There's a lot of blind passion out there, so I wouldn't be surprised if this video received a lot of dislikes. I can only hope that people think carefully before they respond.
Would you please tell me whats better? Animal welfare or Animal Rights?
This really helped me thank you 🙏🏼
thanks for making this video- i didnt know the difference either.
How did the elephants go? i'm in new zealand and that story never made it here. Did they come out the other end ok?
Animal rights activists won't say " people shouldn't interfere with the cub in the zoo"
Animal rights activists would boycott zoos and want to rehabilitate existing animals in zoos and get them back to wild via sanctuaries..
have you seen the condition of zoos in India?? they are left to die, no proper environment and diet.
This video kinda showed animal rights activists in a strict definition that does not widely apply. It'd be like saying all republicans are like Donald Trump.
I'm a vegan and animal rights activist hoping to increase the welfare/quality of life of animals. I chose this because the animal welfare for animals in food, clothing, and entertainment is disgusting. They deserve better. Practically this means I think that wild animals and their habitat should be protected (why I appreciate AWM's work) but for domesticated animals I agree with Jessi that it is hard to know what to do. Basically I (and other animal rights activists I know) do what I can: I support adoption, no kill shelters, rehabilitation centers, education centers, and sanctuaries that give these animals a chance to be animals, not products.
I am not going to say I stand with everything this particular sanctuary did. Yet seeing as bull hooks are a often misused tool that forces unnatural performances, I would worry if care takers didn't thoroughly consider any other options besides using the abusive object on the abused animals. I will be keeping an eye on this story. Thank you Animal Wonders for creating a dialogue.
+Brianna Aspelund Well most Republicans are like Donald Trump, that's why he's leading the polls among Republicans. Sad but true.
This is exactly my perspective. I am against cruelty, not for animal welfare or for animal rights. Unnecessary cruelty is what I feel should be avoided
Right on.
Hi. I'm vegan also and agree with most of your post. However, I wonder why you only support "no kill" shelters? Are you aware that "kill" shelters are open admission and have to take every animal that comes in, therefore euthanizing for space when necessary? Most open admission shelters do their best not to have this happen. "No kill" shelters are limited admission shelters and therefore turn away animals when they are at capacity. "No kill" shelters do not euthanize for space but they do for behavior and health issues. I have heard many stories of people getting turned away from "no kill" shelters and taking them to the vet to be euthanized. Bottom line is the shelters are not the problem, people who discard their animals are. They both do their best, but neither can help them all.
Ardyn Leslie Ⓥ I hear what you are saying with the No-kill shelters and agree that it is the owner's responsibility to follow through on their promise to care for an animal especially if it means finding a new forever home or foster system if necessary.
For the viability of no-kill vs other shelters, or even animal "cafes" where adopting is the focus, I suppose the ability of the facility depends on the area and the ordinances which might affect their acceptance rate. For example, a local no kill cat shelter is currently required by the city to not accept any more animals although they are at half capacity right now. The good news is, that in the US at least, it's something each of us can advocate and create real change in our areas.
Anyway, good point.
Jessi, you're speaking very generally on very specific situations / cases. But thank you for starting a conversation.
I enjoy this channel and I like what you do, but allow me to respectfully disagree. It seems to me that you're presenting a false dichotomy and an unnecessary division between people who mostly agree with one another. If someone is in favor of animal rights, it is almost always *because* they are in favor of animal welfare, just with a slightly different view of what that entails, and it seems silly to pit the two sides against each other when they're the same side 99% of the time. The polar bear and elephant examples you cite seem to be more about idealism vs. pragmatism than rights vs. welfare. The issues in these two cases (as far as I understand them) are "is it ever okay to interfere with an animal's natural life cycle", and "is it ever okay to potentially harm an animal", even if doing these things produces the best result -- i.e. do the ends justify the means? I think you could find both animal welfare advocates and animal rights advocates on each side of that debate. Even PETA recognizes that nobody can live in such a way that they never do any harm to any living thing, since our mere existence inevitably pollutes and destroys habitats. Animals rights or animal welfare seem like asking if we should be good neighbors or good caretakers, and I bet that most people who call themselves animal lovers, environmentalists, etc., would say that we need to be both.
Animal Welfare all the way!
Another awesome video, Jessi :-)
i'm vegan and i don't support using animals for food, entertainment or clothing, etc i also thinks bullhooks shouldn't be used and we should come up with a better solution however in the case discussed with the polar bear i wouldn't let him die and i also am conflicted with the idea of not interfering animal lives for one side we shouldn't abuse animals or make them feel bad but i don't oppose having pets (if they are treated well and not abused or neglected) i personally own a dog, chickens and a aquarium, the aquarium was mine since i was a child and now i'm not repopulating because even though it's clean and not overpopulated i don't think that buying fish for entertainment is right however in the case of my dog and chickens we love each other my dog is happy and my chickens love living in a backyard (they were rescued from a flea market shop) i don't take their eggs away and i give them food.
Antonio Garnham This vídeo is full of crap. She completely lies about animal welfare. Welfare is exclusive to the industry meaning that they give an animal a little more space whilst still not getting in the way of commodifying them for food etc. So their needs are NOT being met, it’s just a way to not receive opposition. As for her absolutely stupid anecdote of the Polar bear... she lies again... animal rights would take that bear and give it all the care it needs and place it in a Sanctuary. Animal welfare will keep feeding it so it can be continued to be used for entertainment in a zoo and exploited for fun! Of course she hates Peta, they expose her hypocrisy. She is the typical person who thinks that it’s OK to take a life as long as you treat them well beforehand. This video is disturbing and so is she. Completely misinformed and a blatant liar!
@@conchitavegan6948 & @Antonio Garnham I disagree with both of you I don't think you have to be vegan or an animal rights person to love animals. (though I have nothing against those things) Jessie takes amazing care of her animals and is right she dose not lie about anything I am an animal welfare person I like animals and like @Aro I do think its okay to have meat once in a while.
I think it is a good topic to bring up, and to remind people that there is a range of positions that people take. That alone was valuable.
Okay, I work for a zoo, and my first day of training I was inundated with this supposed dichotomy. I think this is a complete misrepresentation of animal rights, and because of that I don't think the two fields are as separate as this leads one to believe. The vast majority of animal rights advocates don't protest pet ownership, animal husbandry, or claim that animals and humans should have the exact same rights. And plenty of animal rights activists work with an understanding of the needs of particular species and work to ensure those needs are met by caretakers.
The only people I ever see making this distinction are people who claim to support animal welfare. But they do so in a way that portrays "animal rights" as prone to having over-generalized, idealized ideas that aren't realistic or rational. I think it's much more fair to say that *people* or *organizations* can be that way, but not "animal rights" as a whole.
We can advocate for appropriate care and treatment of animals while also asserting that they have rights. This doesn't necessarily mean we think they have the same rights as humans.
Why didint we just give black slaves welfare instead of granting them equal rights? Those things arent all to separate after all (/s)
Animal rights activists are not against pet ownership if you rescue/adopt the animal, obviously. They are against it if you buy from a breeder.
They are also advocating for equal rights, its in their name after all, what are you thinking? You just lack understanding around this topic. Equal doesnt mean that an elephant should have the right to vote, its equal rights in the sense of their needs, just like you said. Usually this focuses on bodily autonomy and not being exploited. Everyone needs those things! If you want to make elephants dance then you are definitely not for animal rights
Thanks for the thought provoking video Jessi. I intend to bring up this issue with a fellow vegetarian when we meet later today. Should prove for an interesting discussion.
This is seems to be a pretty heady topic for what I perceive as your main target audience. Hats off to your willingness to tackle the subject. As for me, I can see both sides, and think they each give some value as to how humans and animals should interact. For instance I side mostly with animal welfare with domesticated animals and conversely can lean to animal rights when discussing wild animals that are actually in the wild. As you noted often times a clear path is often messy with situations creating a no-win for the animals in question. What "animal lovers".. as an overall group can hope for is that learn from the situation and strive to reduce the occurance of that situation in the future.
Thanks for all you and your husband do.
What a wonderfully clear and thorough video! The idea that all animals should live free of human interference is simply impossible. The rapid encroachment of human presence on the wilderness is not likely to end anytime soon. The implementation proposed by animal rights groups are horrific. It would eventually result in massive extinctions, not to mention the suffering the animals will experience from the lack of resources before their death. If all life does have the same value, it would be like asking people to not live together and help each other in a time of need. We should do our best to integrate animals into our society and manage their welfare to the best of our abilities.
Your comment is laughably nonsensical, suggesting that leaving animals alone is somehow going to "kill" them. You're quite desperate to find an excuse to continue exploiting them. Animals don't "help" us when we use them, we are the ones who confine and kill them.
@@sachinraghavan4556 It would be nice if they can be left alone but rapid climate change makes it so they will all be affected eventually even in the deep wild. The rate of extinction is really high now. If you have a method of getting humans to stop affecting the environment on a global scale please implement your plan immediately! Otherwise those of us who love animals can try to save some through domestication. Sure there are people who will abuse animals but there are people who are abusing people on a massive scale as well. To me it's a choice between eventually having no animals or having some at the end. But seriously if you have a plan to stop humanity's destruction of the natural environment please for the love of everything good get it going!
@@elddonnemar Become vegan and stop modifying animals for your personal benefit. That simple.
@@sachinraghavan4556 Also domestication doesn't have to be as monstrous as factory farming. We humans have in fact domesticated ourselves. We have changed our way of life from wild humans so much that we live much longer and fulfilling lives on average. In certain places where the policies are good at at least. I just feel that we can give that to other creatures on earth to the best of our abilities as well. It's definitely our responsibility to advocate for their rights during the entire process, but it can be done. We just have to fight the against the people that want to exploit resources of all kinds in callous ways. We would have to do that regardless of whether or not we domesticated any animals, just for our own survival as a species. Anyway sorry for the wall of text I'm just really frustrated by the insane scale of destruction of the natural environment.
@@sachinraghavan4556 Sure, I can become Vegan, but the environment is still going to get destroyed and the animals will still die whether they are domesticated or not in the next 100 years or so at the rate we're going. You really don't think it's worthwhile to try to save any of them...? Anyway, if your plan is to get everyone to become Vegan, then good luck.
I love this video. I have often used both terms interchangeably and then end up having to do a disclosure like "I believe in animal rights but I disagree with x, y and z" or "I'm for animal welfare but I also believe in ____" I'm glad you used examples. I think now I'm in the middle leaning towards animal welfare. Another thing that makes matters complicated is how racism/classism/colonialism/etc affect the lives of animals and our interactions with them, such as food deserts and socioeconomic disparities making a vegan lifestyle difficult almost impossible for some people, poaching vs hunting, pet culture etc.
Yeah. I've had too many conversations with PETA members in the past. I've long been for animal welfare. PETA is, uh, to put this nicely: "Over-the-top"
Also, the bull hook issue is pretty easy. If a little bit of discomfort now saves a lot of pain (or even death) later, the the slight discomfort is morally acceptable. In fact, I'd argue its morally imperative if the elephants were going to be seriously harmed by NOT using the bull hooks. Note that this is MY moral opinion. Yours may vary.
Today people are too idealistic for their own good. Those morons would probably not take their children to the doctor because the shot would hurt them too, based on their idiotic logic. Peoples self righteous attitude towards everything controversial now a days exhausting. All I can say is when someone's a little too passionate about something, chances are they don't know what they're talking about and only spew off what they heard rather then know.
Pelle McKruth You're right. It's very unsettling how people can put their own kids life in danger because of their paranoia.
Another paradox is the proceeds of legal hunting as a means to support those animals.
Animal welfare is a multidisciplinary science, involving other sciences such as veterinary medicine, ethology, stress physiology, ethics etc. Animal rights is a bioethical approach within ethical philosophy. The broadest definition of animal welfare involves 3 concepts: 1-basic health andbiological functioning, 2-affective states and 3-natural adaptations of animals. The term "well-being" don't contribute to the definition of animal welfare as these two terms, "welfare" and "wellbeing" are commonly used as synonyms.
In Prince William Sound, we protect things like sea lions, seals and otters. They have devastated the shellfish beds. We protect the bald eagles, they eat our chickens, cats and even small dogs. But that carrion eating bird is thick in the skies here, and I think it's offensive that a child's puppy is less important than the birds who crap all over your house and car everyday. If the eagles are so important, why can't they box them up and ship them to where there are not so many?
My thoughts on this? I am disappointed that you, whose videos I have always found very informative, uplifting, and all around great, would spread such one-sided misinformation. It's neither the case that people in support of animal rights generally disapprove of human interference to aid and protect sick or helpless animals, nor do people who believe in animal welfare, rather than rights, automatically agree with using animals for reasearch and human food. And yes, you did mention that there are grey areas, but you merely scratched that, with a single sentence, and in the end you left people with the impression that there are two sides with specific opinions and that is it. It's a huge subject, I know, but if you feel the need to address it, go deep, or if you don't want to really get into it, just don't touch the subject at all. Starting on a subect like this one, and then giving it 5 or 6 minutes, after which you leave people with the wrong impression that they now know all there is to know, is definitely the worst thing one can do.
It was asked in my College exam today. Wish I'd seen it earlier.
I definitely think wild animals should be left to live without human intervention whenever possible, but its not ALWAYS possible. I'd rather save the animals life and see it happy with a little help from humans. I get extremely frustrated though when people say that keeping domesticated pets is animal cruelty because they should be able to run free. Domestic dogs and cats and other companion animals exist because of a process that started thousands of years ago. We can argue that it was unethical for the humans waaaay back to use animals for their purposes but the fact is, they are here now, millions of them. Domestic animals do not live some kind of happy free ideal existence on their own; they go hungry, they get hurt and sick and they die young. They are no longer adapted to life in the wild.
+eustacia03 I agree. There is a difference in rights and treatment for wild vs domestic animals in my mind animal rights mind.
+eustacia03 Are you saying feral dogs and cats don't exist? You're wrong. Your cat can probably survive in the wild. You are not better than exotic pet owners.
+eustacia03 Oh brother, I just saw that you are a supporter of Big Cat Rescue. No wonder your beliefs are so screwed up.
*****
See what you did there? That made ABSOLUTELY no sense. Are all dogs chihuahuas? Did it occur to you that there are dog breeds that aren't so tiny? Not all dogs can survive, but MANY can, and even more cats do. Did I say it was a good thing to release cats into the environment? Heck no. I'm arguing that they can survive out there just fine when you said they couldn't. They are just like so-called wild animals, only they don't belong there. You just admitted that not only do cats survive, they THRIVE. You need to re-examine your logic and ethics. Big Cat Rescue will be of no help.
*****
Sorry, you can't escape your verbatim quote.
"They are no longer adapted to life in the wild."
WRONG. You were making an excuse to keep domesticated animals as pets, as opposed to the 'unethical' practice of keeping non-domesticated animals as pets. I contend that a cat keeper is not different from a serval keeper, or spotted genet keeper, as I happen to be. That's all.
Very smartly said. Thanks
Nobody should be dependent on anybody . That's why I support animal rights
After hearing your descriptions of the two, I agree with animal welfare. Using animals for our needs is acceptable and even necessary, but the animals need to be well cared for. It's one of the main reasons I don't visit my local state fair: the animals on display there are just kept in small cages. It's not fun to go there and see them because there are literally hundreds of birds in a large metal building in cages just big enough for them to turn around. The pigs, sheep, cows, etc, are kept in better areas but not by much.
In regards to the elephants, I think that causing them some temporary discomfort is an acceptable trade off for ensuring the continued survival of the elephant. Given the choice between death and temp. discomfort, the discomfort is a much better option. As far as using animals solely for entertainment, I'm not really sure where I stand. It's fun to go on elephant rides and and other "exotic" animals, but lately I've been hearing a lot about these animals being mistreated and if they are then I am not okay with that. I would definitely prefer if animals being used to entertain were also used to educate.
I despise kill shelters. Killing an animal is only acceptable if there is no other recourse. Even if that animal has harmed a human, animals do not have the same concept of morality that a human does and they don't know that it is wrong. The animal was likely either thinking the human was/had food or was defending itself. Bull hooks are often misused, but the problem there lies not with the tool but with the user of the tool.
I might be feeling a little too strongly about proper treatment of animals right now to comment too well, as I just had a personal tragedy involving my first pet snake. It escaped from its sealed cage into a neighboring apartment unit, and when the resident of that unit found it they promptly killed it. I do not agree with that behavior. It was a baby snake, only about a foot long. The finder should have either released it outside or put up a poster in a common area saying "Hey I found a snake is this someone's pet?" I understand that some people have a fear of snakes and that can cause an instinctual reaction but seriously have enough control to stop yourself and think before doing something hasty. I would be much more okay with not having my pet anymore if I knew that it was released outside and allowed to continue living. Or even if my cats had killed it, because they would literally not have known any better.
I digress. This is a complicated topic and thank you Jesse for making a fantastic video!
Very well said. I guess I am an Animal Welfare supporter. This video helped alot! Thanks. I've always felt REALLY uncomfortable with animal rights views and actions that often seemed to ignore both animal and human welfare.
Hey,Do u think it's letting a 4 year old african grey parrot meet a month old kitten?
+BagheriTV Is it ok? It depends on the temperament of both animals. It might be fine and it might end terribly. Without knowing way way more info its impossible for anyone to tell you how it will go. Given that, I'd recommend against it.
Knut the polar bear was where I first learned about animal rights too!
"The world is not a piece of machinery and animals are not manufactured for our use. Such views should be left to synagogues and philosophical lecture-rooms, which in essence are not so very different." - Arthur Schopenhauer
This video maps out this issue pretty well. The only correction I would make is that animal rights does not specifically mean that animals should have the same rights as humans. The term refers to the overarching issue that ranges from animals have no rights to animals have all rights. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
Great video on a complex and nuanced topic! I'm a vegetarian and animal lover, but have always been put off by extremism present in groups like PETA. I'd say I fall more on the animal welfare side than animal rights, but not neatly into either category, as I'm sure few people do.
"Welfare" just means that you're permitted to hurt animals as long as you do it nicely, it's only for people who don't want to stop funding oppressive practices that hurt them.
Which aspects of animal rights do you not agree with?
I'm a little confused by this version of animal rights. Like...I'm pretty sure what the animal wants is to survive and have food and comfort, and they likely would rather have it from a human than to die. This version of 'animal rights' has
nothing to do with what an animal would want, nor what we'd consider 'rights' if we were talking about human rights. If a human is trapped in a burning building, for example, we'd consider it a denial of their rights to let them burn because the only way to remove them would cause them pain. Even if they were too badly hurt to communicate their desires, we'd assume it was their right to live. Why, then, do they throw all this out when it comes to animals? In order to assume that an animal should get similar rights to humans, you'd have to assume they have similar wants. A child would not
sooner die than be rescued by an animal, and a polar bear would not rather die than be rescued by a human.
As for being opposed to people owning pets, many animals are given plenty of opportunities to no longer be pets, and they generally choose to continue being pets. For example, I have rats, and sometimes I let them roam free in my apartment. Hypothetically they could hide under furniture, tunnel into the walls and live as a wild rat. They don't do this, however, and instead go out, play for a bit, then go back to their cage of their own volition. The basic human rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I keep them alive, they freely choose to return to the cage, and they are given toys and delicious food and comfortable beds in order to pursue their happiness. People let dogs off of leashes in parks sometimes, or cats roam the neighborhood, and yet neither make a break for their 'freedom'. It seems like many of these animal rights people are focusing on the 'liberty' part, but ignoring the other two, and ignoring what animals would actually want.
cats,dogs & yes even rat's are domesticated animals.they way they behave is different than a wild animal.if you really think a wild animal would rather live w/human care than die you should spend some time @ a wildlife rehab.
Serious question here. In another video you talked about people raising animals to harvest their pelt (Where you got Seraphina if memory serves). You definitely don't agree with that practice but in another video you easily talked about feeding another animal live prey without disagreeing with it. I'm just curious where you differentiate between the two practices. Do you think the pelt farming is wasteful? Would it matter if the pelt farm was also there to make meat for consumption? (I have to assume they dont just take the skin and throw the rest away, but I could be wrong). Is it right to raise rodents with the soul purpose of feeding them to a snake? To me both seem similar enough that I don't hold any issue with either so long as the animals are treated reasonably while they are alive. I'm just curious about your thoughts on the matter. Also I just discovered this channel a few hours ago and I'm loving the content. Keep it up!
nexttoradio Tough question to answer in a short comment. I'm comfortable with the natural cycle of life and death. When an animal is in captivity we can improve an animal's life and death, by giving them a happy and healthy life with excellent care and humanely euthanizing them as quickly and painlessly as possible when it's their time to go. I'm comfortable with raising a rodent with the intention of feeding them to a snake as long as the rodent lives a good life without suffering. Where I'm not on board with fur farms is the abysmal care they give to their charges. And they are not feeding them to allow another animal to live, it's purely for the fashion industry. I hope that helps clarify where I stand on this issue. It's a heavy topic, and one I think about often. Thanks for asking and welcome to the channel!!
I think i understand your point, I'll need to look into how the fur farms treat their animals a bit more I think. Thanks.
I definitely am on the Animal Welfare side. To me, the most important thing is that the animal is healthy, comfortable, and happy, and if the best way they can have all those things is to be in the care of wonderful humans like Jessi, then that's the way it should be. It's more important that they stay alive than that they don't have contact with humans. And to be honest, if they were in the wild they might still have contact with humans, and it might be more negative, like poachers. We just need to make sure that animals in captivity are in captivity for the right reasons. If they are able to be healthy, comfortable, and happy in the wild, then they should be in the wild. But many animals have been abused in the past or they were raised in captivity and they can't take care of themselves in the wild so I think it would actually be cruel to let them die when we could save them.
I work in a zoo/aquarium caring for animals and these exact same issues often come up. This is a really great, thought-provoking video that I shared with some colleagues. I like some of the language you came up with. One thing that I always keep in mind, and it's clear you guys do too, is the great deal of responsibility we have to the animals we look after. To look after them following the highest standards of care, and also to make their lives matter. Thanks, Jessi!
You are trapped in a burning building. The lower floors have caught fire, blocking your exit. Against better judgement, you make your way up several floors - at least you're not near the fire now - though it rages below you, and may only be a matter of time before it reaches you. The sprinkler system is working, but only enough to do some mild damage control - not enough to stop the fire from spreading. There's an average sized fire extinguisher on this floor, like all the floors, and you desperately imagine holding off a fire for a few more minutes with it.
You make your way to the window. You see rescuers setting up a jump blanket - and you realize you're not the only one who climbed higher to avoid being burnt to death (at least for now). They motion to you - jump, if you're willing and able.
You know if you jump, you'll most certainly get hurt - but it will be treatable, and livable. Your other option is to stay and hope th suppression system holds out and a fire fighter makes it up to your floor to rescue you - or that fire crews put out the raging fire beneath you. What would you do?
Now, what should they have done with the elephants?
Let the group rescue them, but this sanctuary wouldn't even protect the elephants or treat them for tuberculosis which they allowed to take over every new elephant introduced as they advocate no human contact.
I appreciate the clarification. Your explanation was very useful as I had never thought about the differences between a rights or welfare activist. My initial response was, Laws are so tangled I'd rather focus on solid results. I think animal welfare is more attainable
Maybe not a good topic for this channel but regardless, I'm very interested in your opinion of hunting? I am an animal lover (really I am) but I am a hunter and do support ethical, proper hunting. I know this is probably a very controversial topic for this channel but I would love to see a video on this topic. I would also be interested in your opinion of introduced species. For instance, in the US, the european starling (you have one I believe), the european house sparrow and the rock dove (pigeon). These are all invasive species that have caused some issues with native species. Your thoughts on invasive species?
Thank you.
Good Job, it's hard to balance both sides on a day to day basis.
animal welfare because you can still eat meat,go to zoo and aquariums, and love animals
At first I didn't even had an idea about the subject but when hearing that there is a difference between "animal rights and animal welfare " I searched for it and your video helped me a lot coz I'm still a freshman at veterinary medicine 🌸
I'm closer to the animal welfare side my self. I do think you should have the right to eat animals, but I also think they need to treat them with a high level of care and kill them quickly. On the other hand I think that many animals should have equal rights to humans, I'm not going to outline which ones as I don't know.
+goku48071 Why should SOME animals get the same rights as humans but not others? What makes one species deserving of rights, while it is perfectly fine to slaughter and torture others? How well would I have to treat YOU for it to be OK for me to kill and eat you? Or (if you are female) steal the milk that you made for your baby (who was taken away at birth and killed shortly after for meat)?
Regardless of how animals are treated in the meat dairy and egg industries, they all meet the same fate: an extremely premature death. Why do we humans have the "right" to sentence other animals to that fate?
+Tasha Sturm I don't think it's right to torture animals, the only animals that I think we should do testing on is homosapien, with permission. As I said, I do think people should have the right to eat animals, but we should have to treat them with care and kill them as humane as can be done, do don't think ban anything works, but I do think there should be restrictions. Now to the final point, a lot of animals kill other animals for food, we need to eat living things to survive it's a fact of life.
goku48071 Well torturing animals the the norm in the meat dairy and egg industries, so if you support them, then you are also supporting that torture.
And yes, lots of animals are obligate carnivores (meaning they have to eat meat) but humans are NOT. We are among the 70% of species that are herbivorous
I don't agree with the practices of the meat industry and think it needs to be changed, one thing that I think more money to be spent on is lab grown meat, it does exist and I think it's the best option to make most happy, as I don't think banning things work. Next you are right humans are herbivores, but many can't afford to eat vegetarian, and before you comment and say that eating vegan is cheap, yes it is, but only if you cook your own food, not all are good at cooking or live if someone that can or will cook vegan.
+Tasha Sturm humans are omnivores, always have been...eating meat and fish is how we developed our current brain size, fish in particular are critical for babies brain development...
thank you now i can tell the diffrence
Back in 96 when I worked for a local Metro Park we had an interesting situation arise that divided people who fell on the side of animal rights and those on the side of animal welfare. The issue was that the deer population was out of control. At the time, I learned that a healthy deer population numbered around 25 deer per acre. In contrast our park had nearly 200 deer per acre. As a result the plants and vegetation that the deer relied on for food became so sparse it was in danger of going extinct from the area and the deer were starving to death. It was determined that the deer population needed to be brought under control and after considering a few different options the park opted to hire a professional sharpshooter to bring down the population and donate the meat to local soup kitchens. In the days leading up to the sharpshooter arriving several people gathered in protest. Some were for animal welfare and some were for animal rights. Going through this situation with the park is when I learned I was for animal welfare over animal rights.
What do you think of the culling of native red dear in Scotland?. I also support animal welfare views but i find sometimes people judge me because i support the culling of dear. I try and explain that as there is no longer a natural predator for the red dear the sick and injured will not be picked off and will suffer over long periods of time or die of starvation in the harsh winters, but others think that killing them is wrong. I think that a quick end from a trained and experienced gamekeeper is preferable to a slow death.
I think each has room depending on the environment and experiences of the animals and whether or not they believe they co-exist with humans or understand they are in human care.
I am somewhere in between animal welfare and rights. I'm a vegetarian, don't agree with animal testing, and I support rehab centers and sanctuaries.
The elephant issue is one I've been thinking about a lot lately. I went to Zoo Camp at a zoo that banned bullhooks and used protected contact. I really agreed with this practice when I saw it- it seemed much safer and humane. But I have a couple of similar-minded friends who have recently gone to elephant sanctuaries that allow guests to have full contact. This seems really dangerous to me and yet everything seems to be fine. I asked one friend if the place she went to used bullhooks and she said she did extensive research beforehand that said they did not. So there must be a way to move elephants in a safe and humane way without the use of bullhooks. I just don't know enough about the subject to know what it is.
Wow I was completely ignorant of this. Thank you.
why this video didn't show me an ad is beyond me...
Thanks for the video, Jessi! Definitely a thought-provoking topic, something I hadn't thought about much before. I'm surprised that there are so many grey areas in this topic.
Iv been trained in animal welfare and part of the syllabus I was trained in was some what ifs situations and we as a class was told keep a calm level head and listen take in the concerns of members of the public animal owners activist and law enforcement then try to educate but always take in account of other peoples views because there’s the right way the wrong way the dangerous way
wow dang, good video!!
my opinion....is that the elephants should be moved until their home is safe, but without the use of the bull hook.
alternative tools, like food lures, other elephant sounds, or a handler's voice, could be used to get them to willingly enter the trailers.
my question....how we're the animals brought to the facility in the first place? how did the organization get them into their trailers without the bull hook? did the former "owners" have them loaded and ready for Paws to pick them up?
this explains a lot about the actions of some people.
I love to eat animals breakfast lunch and dinner
I don't think animal rights argues that animals should have the SAME rights as humans. Animal rights advocates believe that animals should be given equal CONSIDERATION even if not equal TREATMENT. This article explains it really well: www.thoughtco.com/what-are-animal-rights-127600
I'm a scientist and I'd like to share some thoughts about the use of animals in research. I personally work with Zebrafish, and would not, myself, be capable of working with mammals. Too much compassion for mammals. But I definitely recognize the necessity of animal research. Cell culture research is great, but cells are just not as complex as an organism. So to study diseases and how to cure them, animal research is necessary. Scientist do their best to keep animal's suffering at a minimum, and they do, indeed, kill animals. But that's not conceptually different from the meat industry (and tbh, lab animals receive way better treatment than many animals in the food industry).
Whenever I'm in an argument with someone who is against animal research, I ask 2 questions:
A) Do you eat meat and, if yes, how is it different? (I'm actually vegetarian myself)
B) Would you like to test newly developped drugs on yourself? The drug doesn't kill cells in culture, but it may make your kidneys fail, or maybe fry your brain... wanna test it?
Question B is very important I think, because we will not stop developping drugs, even if animal testing is forbidden. Pharma companies will just need to find human volunteers. And as no one in rich countries would accept to take such a risk, they'll go to poor countries, where people will accept to do it, because the $5000 dollars they'll receive in compensation will feed their families for a year. But they may die, killed because it would have been "oh so terrible" to inject a mouse with the drug. Is that really more ethical? Or should we stop trying to develop cures for human disease? Stop trying to develop a cure for aids? Stop developping vaccines for new emerging diseases? Stop it all in name of animal rights?
PS: Sorry, I tend to get a bit heated about this topic.
I love animals which is why I've sided with animal welfare because zoos know what they are doing and the animals will live longer than they ever would in the wild because of their access to veterinary care and a well-balanced diet. In my opinion, the ultimate cruelty to animals and plants is extinction.
Zoos are a business, not a charity
Your point? Prisons are a business too. Does the fact that someone is making money off it automatically make it okay?
Not exactly. But the fact remains that they are prisons. There are ways to educate people without having animals live in tiny enclosures their entire lives. Furthermore, conservation efforts are minuscule compared to the profit that is made off of captivity. It's just an effective charity cover to give zoos a good name. Not to mention that the act of removing animals from their original homes is a very questionable practice for an organization whose mission is to "conserve" those places.
No offense but I have real doubt you don't know how zoos are actually operated. None of the animals are taken from the wild unless there are very extreme circumstances. All of them are either captive-born or were taken from illegal or helpless situations (i.e. a baby elephant has an injury that means they cannot live out in the wild ever again or a snow leopard that was captured and sold in the pet trade and doesn't have the ability to live in the wild) or they are the descendants of wild-caught animals. Sure, there are way to teach without animals but we have them because of one reason or another and there's not better way to teach children and adults than to show them the real flesh-and-blood animal. All of the zoos accreditated by the AZA have conservation programs. The Bronx Zoo and Colorado University are trying to breed genetically-pure Bison to save them from extinction. The Bronx and Toledo Zoo are working with the Tanzanian government to keep the Kihansi spray toad from going extinct. In order to keep these animals safe and happy and healthy they need people and those people can't work full time for free.
You're confusing zoos from sanctuaries. Sanctuaries operate in the way you explained - by taking in injured animals who can't survive without intervention. It seems that you have some examples as to the good work a few zoos are doing but you're still glossing over the fact that they are all still glorified prisons. Your belief that looking at a distressed animal in a cage is more fun than reading a book is not a good reason for someone to spend their entire life in captivity.
Usually I only see people talking about animal rights with highly intelligent species like bonobos, dolphins, etc.
I support animal welfare awesome vide :)
Bullhook definitely causes less discomfort than wildfire.