# Do animals have rights?



## Rake (21 June 2010)

Firstly, thank you to those of you who replied to my first thread on the repeal of the hunting act. It gave me, as a "foal", a valuable insight in to the workings of the forum; and, as a born again "ANTI", has provided me with a niche in the great H&H scheme of things to maybe get on or two of you thinking about, and maybe even questioning, your beliefs in the traditional hunting staus quo.

I may be wrong ( though I`ll never admit it ), but I think that fundamental to the argument of whether hunting is cruel, fair, right or wrong, is the way we  think about the fox, the hounds and the horses, in short the animals involved in hunting. Do they have rights. If you believe that the answer is yes, then which animals have them and what are they?

I do not believe that animals have rights. I think that rights are a humanity and as such are the reserve of humans.

Come on you hoof-heads, let`s have a debate!

regards.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 June 2010)

ok Rake,consider this- do lambs and poultry have rights, i think so, they have a right to live without fear of being killed by a predator for the sake of it- that is why WE hunt.


----------



## chessy (21 June 2010)

Do lambs and poultry have the right not to be killed by predators? Do the said predators have the right to prey on said lambs and poultry?
I think this will open a can of worms, really. (Do worms have rights? :-/)


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 June 2010)

Chessy said:



			Do lambs and poultry have the right not to be killed by predators? Do the said predators have the right to prey on said lambs and poultry?
I think this will open a can of worms, really. (Do worms have rights? :-/)
		
Click to expand...

past caring, Chessy- every topic these days seems to open a can of worms!


----------



## zefragile (21 June 2010)

Maybe HHO needs a Philosophy Forum


----------



## Tinkerbee (22 June 2010)

No. Even if you leave common sense aside and go purely on the fact that there is a Universal declaration of human rights, and not one for animals...


----------



## Spudlet (22 June 2010)

Rights have to come with responsibility, and animals don't have that. If a dog bites a person, for example, that is the responsibility of the owner that did not control their dog, and also possibly the person who was bitten if they were behaving in such a way that provoked the dog, for example by hurting or tormenting it. If a person is bucked off a horse because it is in pain, does the horse bear the responsibility for that? No, because the rider should have read the signs and stopped before it got to that point.

People have a duty to ensure good animal welfare, but that is not the same as animal rights.


----------



## lillith (22 June 2010)

Via domestication and the 'right' humans feel they have to remove an animal's ability to look after itself and alter the environment to the stage where natural balances are upset humans have the responsibility to ensure animal welfare. 

Agree with above, animals do not have rights as such.


----------



## Blacklist (22 June 2010)

lillith said:



			Via domestication and the 'right' humans feel they have to remove an animal's ability to look after itself and alter the environment to the stage where natural balances are upset humans have the responsibility to ensure animal welfare. 

Agree with above, animals do not have rights as such.
		
Click to expand...

The right to be treated humanely - perhaps


----------



## soloequestrian (22 June 2010)

'Do' they have rights - no, not in the law.  'Should' they have rights is the difficult one.  Currently animals in captivity are regarded as property and they are protected by the Animal Health and Welfare Acts, which refer indirectly to the Five Freedoms, so humane treatment should be covered.  Wild animals are subject to different legislation.
If the current law is rigorously upheld, then welfare should be high, and the question of rights just a philosophical one.  I'm not sure that animals ever could have rights that are equivalent to humans....
One area that manages to skip around the law for pets etc of course is factory farming, particularly broiler chickens and battery laying hens.  There is, I think, a section of the legislation which effectively exempts these types of management because they are commercial - you couldn't keep a caged battery hen in your back garden within the law and yet millions of them are kept for commercial egg production in barbaric conditions.  So really the aim should be for ALL animals, us included, to have high welfare, and then perhaps worry about the rights issue.


----------



## Jennyharvey (22 June 2010)

I do believe animals have rights.  They have the right to live free from pain, free from abuse, free from cages, and i dont believe animals are on this earth soley for human needs and desires.  There is a lot of debate as to what it means by rights, because babies have rights but not responsibilities, same as disabled people.  So its not actually a matter of whether they have responsibilities, or fully understand there actions, but whether they can suffer.  
All animals can suffer, feel pain, fear, depression etc so maybe we should look more at that instead of actual rights.  Animals should not be inflicted with being kept in cages, killed for sport, slaughtered for meat, used for vivisection, because all animals can feel pain and fear, same as humans.  
Another question, what gives us the right to murder, abuse, use, test on, hunt for sport?


----------



## EAST KENT (22 June 2010)

Excellent post Spudlet! Therefore when a dog bites some foul human,who probably asked for it anyway, the  dog ain`t responsible.I am all for that..the person responsible,not the dog ,gets put down ..bloody great!


----------



## Niraf (22 June 2010)

Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.


----------



## soloequestrian (22 June 2010)

Jennyharvey said:



			Animals should not be inflicted with being kept in cages, killed for sport, slaughtered for meat, used for vivisection, because all animals can feel pain and fear, same as humans.  
Another question, what gives us the right to murder, abuse, use, test on, hunt for sport?
		
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely that animals suffer a chronic fear of death - obviously in an immediately dangerous situation they fear for their lives, but I don't think beef cattle spend their days dreading the trip to the slaughterhouse.  So there is no reason why high welfare can't be compatible with a humane death, therefore 'murder' for meat isn't a problem as long as the 'murder' is carried out in a humane manner.  They you can get into the length of live v. quality of life debate, the fur debate (if it's okay to eat meat, it should be okay to wear fur and leather as long as the animals have been subject to the same high welfare standards as some of us demand for our meat).  Hunting for sport is really on the fringes - generally the animals will have had a good life (?) and if it's only a short period at the end of that good life that is stressful, is that a big problem?  The only people who can really argue for animal rights with any clout are strict vegans who refuse medical treatments that have been tested on animals - how many of those are there about?


----------



## Jennyharvey (22 June 2010)

1 vegan here. I am against any animals used for food and clothing.  We simply do not need it.  Im not against people hunting for their own food, but that doesnt really happen.  Not in this country.  Most people hunt for sport and prizes.  
MOst animalks are confied to small cages or barns, except mabey a few months in the field for dairy and beef cattle.  
Studies have shown that vegans and vegetarians are healthier, lower colesterol, lower body fat, less risk of hear disease and cancer.  So im not just vegan for the animals, but because its good for me.


----------



## Spudlet (22 June 2010)

JennyHarvey, do you use medication which has been tested on animals? I am just curious to know.


----------



## A1fie (22 June 2010)

I agree with the OP. I don't think animals do have rights.  Some animals in some countries are protected by laws but that is the extent of it.  

There are welfare laws in place for domestic animals and livestock although they do not always prevent suffering.  Different countries view animals differently.  

I believe that those who own animals have a responsibility to care for them correctly.  

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan and I am pro-hunting.  None of which means that I am not an animal lover.  

I believe that all animals should be able to experience the five freedoms but I do not have an issue with eating animals although I choose to buy british meat from butchers only and organic dairy products as I believe our standards of welfare are higher than in other countries.


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

I agree with the principles of buddhists. ALL living beings have rights, All living beings should be respected. Although when youtake fleas and flies etc into account i'm not sure how possible it is to live a completely mindful life in this way. I mean if your child has head lice, you kill them, and yet a buddhist i presume would say they are a living being , so ..... 

But in short, yes IMO animals do have rights, they are as entitled to a place on this world as much as we are and i strongly believe that all the suffering caused to animals and indeed people, will have consequence in either years or lives to come. But that is another subject matter altogether 

I try to treat all living beings with respect. Apart from head lice and fleas but that is where lies the problem 

ETA fully aware that even though i don't eat meat that other animal products are used in my daily life, such as above medication, but i do believe we all have to begin somewhere, and for me my journey has just started, so please go easy


----------



## Katikins (22 June 2010)

Niraf said:



			Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
		
Click to expand...

Just to be a pain in the ar$e.  Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.


----------



## LauraWheeler (22 June 2010)

The day someone can sit a fox down and explain to him that it is wrong to come into my garden and kill two cockrels (goldie was my favorate ) and only eat one (it never came back for the other one) I will stop hunting them.

I have fallen out with my sister a few times over this topic. Unless you live in a cave don't eat meat, wear leather, makeup or recieve any medical treatment you have no right to preach to anyone else how they should live your life. I asked her if she would poison a rat? "Oh yes she said they are vermin" I wanted to know who died and made her god. Why did she have the right to deside which animal was fluffy enough to be aloud to live and don't get me started on Vegis who eat fish   
(i don't poison rats by the way i use terriors a much kinder way to kill a rat)

Anyway i'll get off my soapbox now and be prepared to be linched


----------



## soloequestrian (22 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Just to be a pain in the ar$e.  Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know?  Isn't it safer to assume that all animals ARE sentient until proven otherwise, rather than the opposite view ie requiring proof that they are sentient before we act accordingly towards them.  I'm pretty sure that all my animals are sentient - they have thoughts and feelings that matter to them.


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Just to be a pain in the ar$e.  Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
		
Click to expand...

There is a legally binding protocol (yes just googled ) that recognises that animals ARE sentient.


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

Also to add  that is was also recognised by the European union in 1997.  Animals can show similar signs of morality to a human. You only have to think of that poor knocked down doggy video on the motorway, where his doggy pal comes and drags him away to safety. He wasn't doing it to eat him, or to gaurd over him either as he let the rescuers take the dog away, he just pulled him to safety. (ok prob lame example, but in mind animals are sentient, and prob more so than a lot of bl00dy humans i could name!


----------



## Jennyharvey (22 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Just to be a pain in the ar$e.  Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously you dont understand animals very well!


----------



## Xlthlx (22 June 2010)

Before you can meaningfully answer the question as to whether animals have rights or not you really have to answer the deeper question as to what exactly rights are.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 June 2010)

sarahsum1 said:



			There is a legally binding protocol (yes just googled ) that recognises that animals ARE sentient.  

Click to expand...

That isn't a very good argument.  If there was a legally binding protocol that up was down it still wouldn't be


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			That isn't a very good argument.  If there was a legally binding protocol that up was down it still wouldn't be
		
Click to expand...

That is why i p)


----------



## Xlthlx (22 June 2010)

Niraf said:



			Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
		
Click to expand...



I don;t think anything animal or human has the right to live without pain or suffering.

That's like saying we have the right not to have toothache.

Wether and in what circumstances we have the right to CAUSE suffering is another question.


----------



## Xlthlx (22 June 2010)

sarahsum1 said:



			That is why i p) 

Click to expand...

tsk forgive my unsophisticated un appreciation of your emoticon!


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			tsk forgive my unsophisticated un appreciation of your emoticon!
		
Click to expand...

It's quite alright


----------



## Xlthlx (22 June 2010)

sarahsum1 said:



			Also to add  that is was also recognised by the European union in 1997.  Animals can show similar signs of morality to a human. You only have to think of that poor knocked down doggy video on the motorway, where his doggy pal comes and drags him away to safety. He wasn't doing it to eat him, or to gaurd over him either as he let the rescuers take the dog away, he just pulled him to safety. (ok prob lame example, but in mind animals are sentient, and prob more so than a lot of bl00dy humans i could name! 

Click to expand...

I sometimes suspect that it isn;t necessarily true that more morality is always a good thing


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (22 June 2010)

Xlthlx said:



			I sometimes suspect that it isn;t necessarily true that more morality is always a good thing
		
Click to expand...

Whether or not it is a good thing, some animals do show this. 

Do you mean, It would be better if they didn't? (sorry i'm not with it as usual)

P.s stop picking on my posts!  please note the P)


----------



## Katikins (23 June 2010)

Urm... have you ever seen a cat in front of a mirror?  Tell me that it understands the concept of 'me'.


----------



## soloequestrian (23 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Urm... have you ever seen a cat in front of a mirror?  Tell me that it understands the concept of 'me'.
		
Click to expand...

Understanding the concept of a reflection is a different thing entirely to having thoughts and feelings that matter to the animal concerned.


----------



## Serenity087 (23 June 2010)

Don't confuse the concept of "reflection" with the concept of "self".

If animals knew about reflections, they would probably seem to understand self.  But because we can't explain to them that the cat in the mirror is just a reflection of themselves, they do not understand it.

Not the same thing, IMO.  A cat will still hurt if you kick it, feel hunger if you starve it, and come begging to you if you abandon it.  Just because it doesn't have the capacity to recognise reflection doesn't mean it hasn't got a sentient mind!


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (23 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Urm... have you ever seen a cat in front of a mirror?  Tell me that it understands the concept of 'me'.
		
Click to expand...

A mirror is a man made object, we as humans have the highest intelligence (again debatable with some humans ). Animals understand me, but not in a human way. Also if you actually search you tube, cat in front of mirror, then yes i have seen plenty


----------



## Katikins (23 June 2010)

Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot.  You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion.  I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level.  Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair.  Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.


----------



## maletto (23 June 2010)

Niraf said:



			Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
		
Click to expand...

No, our lives are not more important than theirs but we are the species that has managed to domesticate other species. Therefore, it is our _obligation_ to treat them correctly, i.e. allow them to live without pain, cruelty and suffering, rather than _their _right. 

Do you think it's the foxes' rights to rip chickens to shreds for the fun of it, leaving them for dead but not taking them away to eat? 

I would say no, it's not their right per se, it's just what they do. It's in their nature. 

I would agree that it is an animal's right to hunt for food, but you could also argue then that as animals, it is our right to hunt to protect our food/pets/loved ones whatever....


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (23 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot.  You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion.  I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level.  *Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair.  Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.*

Click to expand...



No animal that I know of has committed the atrocities that man has.  My dogs are more civilised than some people. I will certainly not treat them like humans, they deserve better.


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (23 June 2010)

Katikins said:



			Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot.  You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion.  I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level.  Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair.  Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
		
Click to expand...

Who said they have human emotions? What some of us are saying is that animals are sentient, which there have been numerous studies to prove!!

And why the sarcastic stroppy tone? it's a friendly debate not a slanging match.


----------



## Xlthlx (23 June 2010)

blazingsaddles said:



			[/B]

No animal that I know of has committed the atrocities that man has.  My dogs are more civilised than some people. I will certainly not treat them like humans, they deserve better.
		
Click to expand...


u shld c sum of the stuff our muts get up 2 its a bloody disgrace!!!!


----------



## Sarah Sum1 (23 June 2010)

Xlthlx, did you used to have an Ostrich as an avatar picture? Or am i confusing you with someone else? Just curious


----------



## Serenity087 (23 June 2010)

[Apes are known to murder children and rape women.... Big cats will murder children... most animals will declare "war" on other tribes and "genocide" is very common, as is cannibalism and child abuse...

But animals lack the moral law that says all of the above are wrong.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (23 June 2010)

Harper_Gal said:



			[Apes are known to murder children and rape women.... Big cats will murder children... most animals will declare "war" on other tribes and "genocide" is very common, as is cannibalism and child abuse...

But animals lack the moral law that says all of the above are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Mark Beckoff, former Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, might disagree with you there.

Not many apes in Essex, as far as I know.  There are, however, plenty of half-cut, immoral layabouts that wouldn't pi55 on you if you were on fire.  Especially on a Friday night.  Big cats have been sighted , but no reports of them murdering children as yet. It could be a  different story in the Serengeti  admittedly. I am yet to be enlightened of any  animal responsible for the genocide/extermination of over 6 million (inc 1.5 million children) of its own species in the space of 12 years. 


any hoooow......this is interesting reading

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/883


----------



## rosie fronfelen (2 July 2010)

Rake said:



			Firstly, thank you to those of you who replied to my first thread on the repeal of the hunting act. It gave me, as a "foal", a valuable insight in to the workings of the forum; and, as a born again "ANTI", has provided me with a niche in the great H&H scheme of things to maybe get on or two of you thinking about, and maybe even questioning, your beliefs in the traditional hunting staus quo.

I may be wrong ( though I`ll never admit it ), but I think that fundamental to the argument of whether hunting is cruel, fair, right or wrong, is the way we  think about the fox, the hounds and the horses, in short the animals involved in hunting. Do they have rights. If you believe that the answer is yes, then which animals have them and what are they?

I do not believe that animals have rights. I think that rights are a humanity and as such are the reserve of humans.

Come on you hoof-heads, let`s have a debate!

regards.
		
Click to expand...

so Rake, where are you now- reporting back to the LACS?


----------



## Jake10 (2 July 2010)

Rake said:



			I may be wrong ( though I`ll never admit it ), but I think that fundamental to the argument of whether hunting is cruel, fair, right or wrong, is the way we  think about the fox, the hounds and the horses, in short the animals involved in hunting. Do they have rights. If you believe that the answer is yes, then which animals have them and what are they?
		
Click to expand...

If you take the human out (some of us don't deserve rights )

The fox - All 5 needs/freedoms
The dogs - All 5 needs/freedoms
The horses - All 5 needs/freedoms

Why should any of the animals not have theses basic rights? I do believe that they all deserve more than just these few rights/needs but it's a start


----------



## Jake10 (2 July 2010)

LauraWheeler said:



			don't get me started on Vegis who eat fish   

Click to expand...

I feel the same I'm a veggie but couldn't understand why when I said I was that the waiter put a plate of fish infront of me 
Fish is the same as beef and chicken - the flesh of a living animal!

The proper name for a 'veggie' who eats fish is - piscatarian (sp) (piscavore - only eats fish)
Someone who eats white meat - Demi/semi vegetarian
No meat/dairy- vegan
There are many more variations... Just can't remember them all off the top of my head


----------



## Alec Swan (2 July 2010)

I've read the first few posts,  then skipped to the last few.  Do animals have rights?  Of course they do.  Those "Rights" are,  however limited,  in my view,  limited to the level of respect which we apply to them.  We have a duty to be humane.  If we use animals for sport,  then accepting that there are those who will never agree with me,  we have a duty to terminate a life in a humane way,  or the most humane that the circumstances will allow.

I don't hunt,  but I do shoot,  keep coursing dogs and I also stalk deer,  which is a passion.  Without exception,  all of those who I know and respect and who also take part in blood sports,  have a passionate respect for the quarry.

There will never be a clear answer to this.

Alec.


----------



## Spudlet (2 July 2010)

Jake10 said:



			I feel the same I'm a veggie but couldn't understand why when I said I was that the waiter put a plate of fish infront of me 
Fish is the same as beef and chicken - the flesh of a living animal!

The proper name for a 'veggie' who eats fish is - piscatarian (sp) (piscavore - only eats fish)
Someone who eats white meat - Demi/semi vegetarian
No meat/dairy- vegan
There are many more variations... Just can't remember them all off the top of my head 

Click to expand...

I think there are two variations:
A. proper vegetarians, or
B. fussy eaters


----------



## EAST KENT (2 July 2010)

Male lions will murder any cubs of a group of females it takes over,to delete his predecessors genes..and it brings the females back in heat so he gets his leg over quicker! Animals do not for see pain as we do,except by experience..as in a dog that ducks to a raised hand.That is why a hunted fox does not worry too much,he will only get hunted close up once and will not percieve approaching death.It is an animals right to not witness another animals death, in case that connection might be made. Of course animals have rights,our religion demands it,which is lucky for any living in Christian countries . However ,Australia,presumably is a Christian country but have a very much harder attitude esp to farm animals and sheep in particular. Look up "mulesing" on the PETA site..if you dare.


----------



## raspberryripple (4 July 2010)

Niraf said:



			Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## raspberryripple (4 July 2010)

Katikins said:



			Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot.  You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion.  I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level.  Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair.  Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think people are treating animals _as humans_, they are treating them as _equals_ in terms of their right to be on this planet and to not have to suffer at the hands of humans who feel they are above any creature that walks this earth.


----------



## Hanno Verian (4 July 2010)

Katikins said:



			Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair.  Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
		
Click to expand...

Well said...one of my pet hates, be it owners who put their own nuerosis on their horses, to silly women dressing up dogs....


----------



## TallyHo123 (4 July 2010)

I do believe animals have rights. They have the right to live free from pain, free from abuse, free from cages, and i dont believe animals are on this earth soley for human needs and desires.
Mentioned by JennyHarvey

I totally agree with that statement.

I strongly believe animals should have rights.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 July 2010)

sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses,  perhaps you could explain why you do so.  

Alec.


----------



## Kittykins (6 July 2010)

a1b2c3 said:



			sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses,  perhaps you could explain why you do so.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

How does keeping horses equate to believing that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? 

Are animals here for our pleasure? No, patently not. Why do I choose to keep a horse? Because I enjoy the relationship I can create with another living thing - and particularly enjoy the challenge of learning to communicate effectively without using spoken language.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 July 2010)

So,  Kittykins,  you don't keep animals for pleasure,  but you do gain enjoyment from them,  and they're your words not mine.  I must admit to having problems with that argument!

The point which I'm making,  and have made previously in this thread,  is that whether we keep horses,  train dogs,  keep goldfish,  or race pigeons,  we do it because it gives us pleasure and we enjoy it.

Animal rights are limited to the level of responsibility which each of us accepts,  and in our own individual ways,  demonstrate to our charges,  and as individuals we decide upon our own direction.  

Some will be happy to hunt,  whilst others wont.  It's generally been my experience that the man who hunts,  has a far better understanding,  and yes a respect for his quarry,  than the man who would tell him that what he's doing is wrong.  Attempting to explain this the the man who sits in judgement is futile,  and I don't know why I bothered!  

You have my apologies for interrupting your thought train.

Alec.


----------



## farrierboy01 (6 July 2010)

Animal rights are a very modern concept, and is just another excuse for people to argue over rubbish.


----------



## Kittykins (7 July 2010)

a1b2c3 said:



			So,  Kittykins,  you don't keep animals for pleasure,  but you do gain enjoyment from them,  and they're your words not mine.  I must admit to having problems with that argument!

The point which I'm making,  and have made previously in this thread,  is that whether we keep horses,  train dogs,  keep goldfish,  or race pigeons,  we do it because it gives us pleasure and we enjoy it.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I would hope that she enjoys it too! So what if we do it because we enjoy it - what's wrong with that? Horses are pretty big animals, if they're not happy, they tend to make that known. 

In fact, my horse came to me because she didn't get on with her last owner. Not a bad owner (lavishes her horses with attention), just a personality clash. So clearly animals can make their feelings known.

LIkewise, in this year's Grand National, one of the horses didn't race because when the tape went up, he just stood still, depite the jockey's best efforts to persuade him otherwise.  

Horses, dogs, cats etc are domesticated animals. I think it would be far crueler to release them into 'the wild' and ask them to fend for themselves, where they aren't guaranteed daily meals and have no access to medicines.


----------



## raspberryripple (7 July 2010)

a1b2c3 said:



			sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses,  perhaps you could explain why you do so.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

In general, it's religious people that tend to believe that animals are here solely for humans to exploit. The majority of people I know that don't believe in a creator tend to view us all as equals (myself included) although there are the odd few that still think animals are just there to serve us.

I keep a horse because I love all animals and I intend to give as many of them as I can, a good quality of life when and if I can whilst i'm on this planet!


----------

