Bill of Rights for Animals?

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:25 am

Bill of Rights for Animals

1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.

2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.

3. No animals shall be ill-treated or be subject to cruel acts.

4. All wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether land, air, or water, and should be allowed to procreate. Deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is an infringement of this right.

5. Animals of species living traditionally in a human environment have the right to live and grow at the rhythm and under the conditions of life and freedom peculiar to their species. Any interference by humanity with this rhythm or these conditions for purposes of gain is an infringement of this right.

6. All companion animals have the right to complete their natural life span. Abandonment of an animal is a cruel and degrading act.

7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.

8. No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of humanity. Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their dignity.

9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.

10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide.

My Question: Do you agree or disagree with this Bill of Rights for Animals? Why, or why not?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:25 am

This is an interesting thread, Jazzy, where do you come down on the question?

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:20 am

As an animal lover this is a difficult question for me to answer. I agree with the Bill Of Rights for Animals but it brings up questions for me as well: What gives me the right to own an animal? Do I own an animal for selfish reasons? I own an Amazon parrot that I rescued. Did I really rescue her only to place her from a dirty cage to a clean one? I don't believe birds should be locked up in cages, they should be free to fly. I don't believe any animal should become "pets" as that's not what they were placed on earth for. As you can see, I'm having a hard time with this since most of my life I have devoted to rescuing and taking in abused animals. I know I have given them a loving home and provide to their every need but something deep inside just makes me wish they were free to be. I love my "zoo crew" and wouldn't give them up for anything but does that make what I'm doing right?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:26 am

It is indeed a very difficult subject to reconcile on many levels. I've often felt very much like you regarding pets, and there are many other thoughts that come to mind.

Good thread! Thought provoking!

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:45 am

We should always take care of those who can't speak for themselves, or protect themselves it is our responsibility to do so.

I will admit I draw the line at some instects I have been know to kill a spider or 2.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:53 am

CARLA;1277724 wrote: We should always take care of those who can't speak for themselves, or protect themselves it is our responsibility to do so.

I will admit I draw the line at some instects I have been know to kill a spider or 2. :oYeah, I have several issues with the content of the "bill" itself as a whole and also in individual places.

If it goes too far, it doesn't go far enough - the balancing act of fairness.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:26 am

Ever go a zoo? I have and at the time I enjoyed looking at all the different animals but what gave humans the right to lock these animals in cages? Looking back at my visits to the zoo, I am saddened now. These animals are there (IMO) for the sole purpose of human enjoyment. Aren't we animals as well? Aren't prisions for humans a type of zoo where you are locked up and you are no longer in your natural environment? How come they don't sell tickets to go and watch and see the human zoos?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:17 pm

Jazzy;1277734 wrote: Ever go a zoo? I have and at the time I enjoyed looking at all the different animals but what gave humans the right to lock these animals in cages? Looking back at my visits to the zoo, I am saddened now. These animals are there (IMO) for the sole purpose of human enjoyment. Aren't we animals as well? Aren't prisions for humans a type of zoo where you are locked up and you are no longer in your natural environment? How come they don't sell tickets to go and watch and see the human zoos?

I agree with zoo's, animals are there only for our enjoyment.

they are prisoners.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:20 pm

Odie;1277748 wrote: I agree with zoo's, animals are there only for our enjoyment.

they are prisoners.:(But they are protected while inhabitants of the zoo. What becomes of those animals that don't take up residence in zoo's?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:31 pm

Ahso!;1277750 wrote: But they are protected while inhabitants of the zoo. What becomes of those animals that don't take up residence in zoo's?

not all zoo's are created equal.

some animals are in cages that are not big enough to even walk around in.

some are not treated well.

and don't even get me started on circus's.:-5

ones that are in the wild is where they want to be, in their own natural habitat.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:37 pm

Ahso!;1277750 wrote: What becomes of those animals that don't take up residence in zoo's?

They are free to live out their lives without cages and boundries.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:40 pm

Odie;1277752 wrote: not all zoo's are created equal.

some animals are in cages that are not big enough to even walk around in.

some are not treated well.

and don't even get me started on circus's.:-5

ones that are in the wild is where they want to be, in their own natural habitat.I hear you, but it's quite surprising what animals are willing to sacrifice for a guarantee of meals. I doubt animals choose much more than that...well, that and a willing or not so willing partner during certain times and in certain places.

Did you know that certain animals as well as other species do not procreate while in captivity?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:42 pm

Jazzy;1277754 wrote: They are free to live out their lives without cages and boundries.I think most become prey of other animals and poachers.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:51 pm

Ahso!;1277755 wrote: I hear you, but it's quite surprising what animals are willing to sacrifice for a guarantee of meals. I doubt animals choose much more than that...well, that and a willing or not so willing partner during certain times and in certain places.

Did you know that certain animals as well as other species will not procreate while in captivity?

Are you saying that animals don't have feelings or cannot be aware that they are locked up? Who made these animals sacrifice their natural instinct for a guatanteed meal? If certain animals will not procreate while in captivity aren't we responsible for the extinction of said species?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:59 pm

Jazzy;1277758 wrote: Are you saying that animals don't have feelings or cannot be aware that they are locked up? Who made these animals sacrifice their natural instinct for a guatanteed meal? If certain animals will not procreate while in captivity aren't we responsible for the extinction of said species? I'm not saying animals don't have feelings, but I am saying that they don't make conscience decisions like we do. Instinctively, most animals want to survive and that requires food, so animals, since they don't have values as we understand them are willing to sacrifice anything for food most often. Some may also have instincts to die protecting their offspring, but that isn't as prevalent as you might think.

My wording in the quoted post about some species "will" not procreate is incorrect, the proper phrasing is; some species "do" not procreate when in captivity. I'm not enough of an expert on that subject as say Clodhopper or yaaarrrgg may be so I can't tell you why that is, but I do know that that is a fact.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:51 pm

Ahso!;1277759 wrote: I am saying that they don't make conscience decisions like we do.

I disagree with this statement if you consider the meaning on the word Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong.

Even the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2-year-old child.

The finding is based on a language development test, revealing average dogs can learn 165 words (similar to a 2-year-old child), including signals and gestures, and dogs in the top 20 percent in intelligence can learn 250 words.

Link: Dogs As Smart As 2-Year-Old Kids: Study

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:59 pm

Jazzy;1277766 wrote: I disagree with this statement if you consider the meaning on the word Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong.

Even the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2-year-old child.

The finding is based on a language development test, revealing average dogs can learn 165 words (similar to a 2-year-old child), including signals and gestures, and dogs in the top 20 percent in intelligence can learn 250 words.

Link: Dogs As Smart As 2-Year-Old Kids: StudyI had heard it was as high as a 4 year old child. You seem to be making the argument that dogs are developing a conscience, which I doubt, but I've been wrong before. Dogs understand right and wrong as a matter of reward and punishment, but definitely not on a cognitive basis of discernment in regards to morality, nor can a child of 2 or 4.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:05 pm

Ahso!;1277755 wrote: I hear you, but it's quite surprising what animals are willing to sacrifice for a guarantee of meals. I doubt animals choose much more than that...well, that and a willing or not so willing partner during certain times and in certain places.

Did you know that certain animals as well as other species do not procreate while in captivity?

why do you think they are willing to sacrifice?

they have no idea what is going on nor did they have a say in it.:-5

its the same as us in life, it doesn't always turn out to be a box of chocolates.

most animals do not even breed in captivity and we are losing millions of them each year due to this.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:07 pm

Odie;1277773 wrote: why do you think they are sacrificing?

its the same as us in life, it doesn't always turn out to be a box of chocolates.

most animals do not even breed in captivity and we are losing millions of them each year due to this.I've already answered this question. Animals want to survive, its instinctive.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:09 pm

Ahso!;1277774 wrote: I've already answered this question. Animals want to survive, its instinctive.

they had no choice in sacrificing:-5

its their instinct that makes them want to be in the wild.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:13 pm

Odie;1277775 wrote: they had no choice in sacrificing:-5

its their instinct that makes them want to be in the wild.This is becoming circular.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:40 pm

Let me try another question that is addressed in the Bill of Rights for Animals:

7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.

Do you agree or disagree with this and why?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:43 pm

Jazzy;1277778 wrote: Let me try another question that is addressed in the Bill of Rights for Animals:

7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.

Do you agree or disagree with this and why? Agree! But why just animals? Why not all species? this is a problem with this idea. The authors are asking humans to expand our affections with just animals. If it were a truly honest endeavor, it would include all life.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:19 pm

I'm against animal testing even when it's for the betterment of mankind (medical/scientific research).

I believe all animals entitled to the same respect and rights as Humans.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:21 pm

Jazzy;1277780 wrote: I'm against animal testing even when it's for the betterment of mankind (medical/scientific research).

I believe all animals entitled to the same respect and rights as Humans.But why just animals and not rodents such as mice?

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:33 pm

Ahso!;1277781 wrote: But why just animals and not rodents such as mice?

This quote sums up my feelings on this entire subject: “Non-violence applies not just to human beings, but to all sentient beings — any living thing that has a mind, the Dalai Lama wrote in My Tibet. “Where there is a mind, there are feelings such as pain, pleasure and joy. No sentient being wants pain: All want happiness instead.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:24 am

I'd probably vote for the law. Though I can't see such a thing every getting popular support. The effects of the law could be unpleasant. For example what would happen with animal products, like meat, milk, leather, eggs, ...?

Though I've always thought it was interesting though how we choose what animals we can exploit and kill. Largely it's based on mental abilities...or just because we can. Since if a non-human alien landed on Earth and displayed intelligence (or an impressive gun), we probably wouldn't eat it despite a large difference in DNA.

The issue with the "animal rights" issue, is we already grant some animals rights. Since humans are animals (we are primates that have lost control of ourselves) we already grant a sub-set of animals full rights. Lucky us, it just happens to be the same animals that are writing the laws. We just don't extend rights to dumber animals (as we judge them). Something about that seems like an abuse of power to me.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:32 am

Ahso!;1277759 wrote: My wording in the quoted post about some species "will" not procreate is incorrect, the proper phrasing is; some species "do" not procreate when in captivity. I'm not enough of an expert on that subject as say Clodhopper or yaaarrrgg may be so I can't tell you why that is, but I do know that that is a fact.

I'm not sure either, but I wonder if the animals instinctively sense something is not quite right. If people volunteered, it would be interesting to see if captivity would have the same effect on humans. If the people feel trapped I could see that affecting libido.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:40 am

yaaarrrgg;1277881 wrote: I'd probably vote for the law. Though I can't see such a thing every getting popular support. The effects of the law could be unpleasant. For example what would happen with animal products, like meat, milk, leather, eggs, ...?

Though I've always thought it was interesting though how we choose what animals we can exploit and kill. Largely it's based on mental abilities...or just because we can. Since if a non-human alien landed on Earth and displayed intelligence (or an impressive gun), we probably wouldn't eat it despite a large difference in DNA.

The issue with the "animal rights" issue, is we already grant some animals rights. Since humans are animals (we are primates that have lost control of ourselves) we already grant a sub-set of animals full rights. Lucky us, it just happens to be the same animals that are writing the laws. We just don't extend rights to dumber animals (as we judge them). Something about that seems like an abuse of power to me.We're much better off educating ourselves past disrespect for life. thats why I think evolution is the single most important subject to understand. I'm guarded about any philosophy or doctrine that either ignores or had not the opportunity to study evolution. It is after all how we've come to be as well as who and what we all are.

As an evolutionist I've learned to respect life like I never had before.

Making political statements only divides while educating illuminates. Lets begin to really teach those coming up about evolution properly, then we will witness respect for all life.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:34 am

Then within the basic concept of the proposal, they would no longer be animals raised for food too. (doesn't bother me, I rarely eat meat and could live without it)

I think a Bill of Rights for Animals would not be considered on this basis alone, since the majority of people do eat meat.

Do you think there would be an exception made for this, the consumption of animals? And what would be considered "humane" killing methods for these creatures? The thought alone is very frightening, if you consider them as conscious beings, death is death, and could not be "humane."

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:09 pm

i should have taken notes as i read back on here, theres loads of things i wanted to say on different points made but its late and the brain isnt functioning like it should.......................

zoos, these days, do a wonderful job conserving species that are in grave danger of dissapearing and people. like myself who have no chance of seeing them in their natural habitat,can see them first hand.

circuses, in england have long since stopped using animals in their shows.

the RSPCA have had a bill passed here that states every animal has a right to adequate food, water and shelter and they now have the power to step in and remove such animals that they think are in danger without having to wait weeks to warn owners and hope for improvement and therefore putting the animal in even further distress.

i dont know if the animal rights activists abroad are anything like they are in england.................. theyve got a bad reputation here............... covering their faces with masks, sending letter bombs to peoples homes, NAILING DEAD ANIMALS TO PEOPLES DOORS !!!!!!!

many years ago they "liberated " thousands of mink from a farm near me and these animals rampaged through the country side killing poultry, pets and even attacking a baby in a pram and not many months ago another group tore down fences of a wild boar farm and a nearby deer farm. these animals ended up being run over on the roads, shot for damaging property and causing the farmers to lose their livelyhoods.

so who can say whose right, people like me who keep a dog and have gone without myself to ensure he has the best i can do for him or these so called animal lovers that cause death and destruction by freeing caged animals that end up in a far worse situation than they were in, in the first place.

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:21 pm

ooooooooooops, think i went off track a bit there and had a job to get off my soap box !!!

i think some sort of bill of rights has to be done if only to stop the live transportation of animals for meat or to improve condidtions in some of the factory farms BUT we are the ones to blame for it............... we want cheap quick food and until WE change our habits, things arnt going to change much and the animals will continue to suffer....................

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:29 pm

Jazzy;1277697 wrote: Bill of Rights for Animals

1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.

2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.

3. No animals shall be ill-treated or be subject to cruel acts.

4. All wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether land, air, or water, and should be allowed to procreate. Deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is an infringement of this right.

5. Animals of species living traditionally in a human environment have the right to live and grow at the rhythm and under the conditions of life and freedom peculiar to their species. Any interference by humanity with this rhythm or these conditions for purposes of gain is an infringement of this right.

6. All companion animals have the right to complete their natural life span. Abandonment of an animal is a cruel and degrading act.

7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.

8. No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of humanity. Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their dignity.

9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.

10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide.

My Question: Do you agree or disagree with this Bill of Rights for Animals? Why, or why not? One of the problems I have with this "bill" is the fact that its a bit contradictory and redundant in some places. For the purpose of this post I'll take #4 specifically.

It is incorrect to say that dogs today are the "natural" creatures they were before humans began breeding them. Believe me, you would not want nor would you survive a wild dog living in your home.

The Fact that we have these domestic animals living as they are is in fact a violation of rule #4. We have taken them out of their natural environment and even their natural state for our own self serving purposes. Every dog owner is violating rule #4.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:46 pm

Nice discussion.

I have several thoughts about this.

1. We already have too many un-enforceable laws to deal with.

2. Until we can work out the same kind of thing for our fellow humans, the animals stand no chance.

3. I am heartily against wanton mistreatment of ANY life form.

4. How far do you take this? Do you allow mice and rats to infest your home?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:14 am

Jazzy;1277720 wrote: As an animal lover this is a difficult question for me to answer. I agree with the Bill Of Rights for Animals but it brings up questions for me as well: What gives me the right to own an animal? Do I own an animal for selfish reasons? I own an Amazon parrot that I rescued. Did I really rescue her only to place her from a dirty cage to a clean one? I don't believe birds should be locked up in cages, they should be free to fly. I don't believe any animal should become "pets" as that's not what they were placed on earth for. As you can see, I'm having a hard time with this since most of my life I have devoted to rescuing and taking in abused animals. I know I have given them a loving home and provide to their every need but something deep inside just makes me wish they were free to be. I love my "zoo crew" and wouldn't give them up for anything but does that make what I'm doing right?

Wow... How did you rescue your parrot?

Do you really mean this?

"I don't believe any animal should become "pets" as that's not what they were placed on earth for."

Any Animal? Including cats and dogs?????

So they should be "Wild"?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:59 am

That is true, however most zoos these days are built providing great space and a good environment.

In some zoos now animals that can roam together are now put in together. In the Fota wildlife park in Ireland animals that can wonder freely are not even caged in, it is really cool.

Ireland's Wildest Attraction, Things to do in Cork, Wild Animals - Fota Wildlife

The fact is, that because of zoos, people have a greater understanding and appreciation for animals that they would otherwise never have contact with and many animals have been prevented from going extinct because of work done by zoos.

So I do not agree that they are just there for our entertainment, they are also there for us to learn and become more sensitive to the environment around us.

I do not disagree with the idea of a bill of rights for animals, but we still have a long way to go with humans.

Are people of all nations and cultures treated equally?

No, most animals in the West are better fed and cared for than many humans around the world.

We still have a long way to go as a race.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:17 am

mikeinie;1286022 wrote: That is true, however most zoos these days are built providing great space and a good environment.

In some zoos now animals that can roam together are now put in together. In the Fota wildlife park in Ireland animals that can wonder freely are not even caged in, it is really cool.

Ireland's Wildest Attraction, Things to do in Cork, Wild Animals - Fota Wildlife

The fact is, that because of zoos, people have a greater understanding and appreciation for animals that they would otherwise never have contact with and many animals have been prevented from going extinct because of work done by zoos.

So I do not agree that they are just there for our entertainment, they are also there for us to learn and become more sensitive to the environment around us.

I do not disagree with the idea of a bill of rights for animals, but we still have a long way to go with humans.

Are people of all nations and cultures treated equally?

No, most animals in the West are better fed and cared for than many humans around the world.

We still have a long way to go as a race.Its funny that as a species we are doing exactly as one familiar with evolution might expect, and that is to guarantee our own survival over that of other species. However, with this consciousness that has developed in us, we find ourselves wrestling over the concerns of other species. Rather remarkable in my view. I think those who are capable of caring but not to extremes of humanizing animals are voices of reason.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:45 am

And how would you enforce the laws when there are people in the world who can do this kind of stuff?

BBC - Earth News - Scale of gorilla poaching exposed

And then how do you manage cultural differences?

In the West we keep for pets what some people in other countries eat for dinner.

(photos too upsetting to attach)

What about mass production of farm animals for slaughtering so we can eat them?

What about the use of animals for medical discoveries?

We may not like it, but do we stand our ground and say no to the medicine when we or our loved ones are sick?

There are just so many things to consider

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:49 am

Like is fishing really a sport????

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:15 am

and why do they kill dolphins like this in Denmark?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:18 am

It's horrible what some people do to our co-inhabitants, isn't it! I'm often ashamed to be human.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:27 am

And is bluefin tuna so tasty that we need to pull them out of the ocean by the tons??

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:32 am

But then, how can we expect people to care so much for animals when we are capable of doing this to each other?:

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:41 am

Unfortunately, comprehension of everything you've so vividly presented here is also part of that consciousness.

The dinosaurs were fortunate (or not) to not understand they were eating themselves to extinction.

I wonder what the future holds for the planet and its inhabitants.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:14 am

Jazzy;1277697 wrote: Bill of Rights for Animals

1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.

2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.

3. No animals shall be ill-treated or be subject to cruel acts.

4. All wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether land, air, or water, and should be allowed to procreate. Deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is an infringement of this right.

5. Animals of species living traditionally in a human environment have the right to live and grow at the rhythm and under the conditions of life and freedom peculiar to their species. Any interference by humanity with this rhythm or these conditions for purposes of gain is an infringement of this right.

6. All companion animals have the right to complete their natural life span. Abandonment of an animal is a cruel and degrading act.

7. Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is incompatible with the rights of animals, whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research. Replacement methods must be used and developed.

8. No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of humanity. Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their dignity.

9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.

10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide.

My Question: Do you agree or disagree with this Bill of Rights for Animals? Why, or why not?

I posted this on a rural board to see what the good ol' boys thought of it. You don't want to read the responses I got.:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:20 am

hoppy;1286052 wrote: I posted this on a rural board to see what the good ol' boys thought of it. You don't want to read the responses I got.:yh_rotflHow would you describe the differences of those on the rural board and those who tend to agree with it?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:25 am

Ahso!;1286053 wrote: How would you describe the differences of those on the rural board and those who tend to agree with it?

I'll boil it down for you. Don't talk animal rights with your mouth full of meat and leather on your feet.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:26 am

hoppy;1286052 wrote: I posted this on a rural board to see what the good ol' boys thought of it. You don't want to read the responses I got.:yh_rotfl

That's probably just the lead talkin'

PLoS ONE: Lead Bullet Fragments in Venison from Rifle-Killed Deer: Potential for Human Dietary Exposure

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:32 am

yaaarrrgg;1286055 wrote: That's probably just the lead talkin'

PLoS ONE: Lead Bullet Fragments in Venison from Rifle-Killed Deer: Potential for Human Dietary Exposure:wah:

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:32 am

Ahso!;1286053 wrote: How would you describe the differences of those on the rural board and those who tend to agree with it?

I was wondering the same thing. Cultures who live off nature (like the Native Americans) held nature in much higher regard ... they understood their dependence on it. "Rural" America depends more on the state than nature though.