Current property laws make exploitation of Connemaras, other animals possible

One cannot debate whether breed standards for horses and dogs are ethical without looking at the bigger picture of how animals fit into society.

In looking at that bigger picture, American legal scholar Gary L. Francione basically says: Shame on us.

Animals (I’m referring to the nonhuman ones) currently are in the same position once held by slaves: They are deemed as property in the eyes of the law.

In a white paper reflecting on two books he’s penned, Francione says: “Animal interests will almost always be regarded as less important than human interests, even when the human interest at stake is relatively trivial and the animal interest at stake is significant.”

Francione concludes that, until we elevate animals to the same status as people and stop exploiting them for our own entertainment, all other battles for animal welfare are meaningless.

If we elevated animals to the same status, could we use Connemaras for riding? Breeding? Hoitytoity inspections that insist that animals be certain shapes and measurements? Selling? Or slaughter? The answers likely would be no, no, no, no and no.

Which would lead me to suggest that I doubt in my lifetime animals will make it to the same status as people, because it’s pretty hopeless to expect horse and dog breeders to move from the mindset they are in now of riding, breeding and controlling everything else about “their” animals to a mindset where they would stop using animals for entertainment and social status completely.

Such an attitude of hopelessness is exactly the problem, Francione says.

Animal lovers feel like they can’t bring about that utopian change, so they settle for little changes in laws regarding animal welfare that only perpetuate the concept of animals as property because such changes make people feel better about keeping animals as things.

And then there’s the hypocrisy in those who want change, he says: “Many animal advocates claim to favor animal rights and to want to abolish animal exploitation but continue to eat animal products. That is no different from someone who claims to be in favor of the abolition of slavery but who continues to own slaves. Moreover, there is no meaningful distinction between eating meat and eating dairy or other animal products. Nonhumans exploited in the dairy industry live longer than those used for meat, but they are treated worse during that life, and they end up in the same slaughterhouse after which we consume their flesh anyway. There is probably more suffering in a glass of milk or an ice cream cone than there is in a steak.”

He continues: “If the animal-rights movement cannot take a principled position on an activity that results in the suffering and death of billions of animals for no reason other than that we enjoy the taste of meat and dairy, then the movement can take no principled stand on any institutional exploitation.”

I’m guilty of eating meat and dairy, though not because I want to eat meat and dairy. I am simply too kitchen-challenged to come up with an alternative to keep my body functioning, though my goal of 2013 will be to seriously try.

The same hypocrisy in animal rights advocates is seen in the fight against fur, Francione says: “Even advocacy organizations that purport to oppose all fur garments, including those made from “ranch-raised” animals, have routinely focused on the fur of certain animals, such as dogs and cats, or seals, as somehow morally distinguishable from the fur of other nonhumans. This nonsensical distinction, combined with the general failure of the movement to confront squarely that clothing made from other animal parts, such as leather and wool, is no less morally problematic than fur, has understandably made many people conclude that the campaign against fur is arbitrary.”

And he points out the nonsense of “humane” laws that do not prevent him from taking his dog to a veterinarian and having her “put to sleep” for no reason other than that he no longer wants her. Indeed, he says, as a general matter, he can kill her himself as long as he does so in a “humane” way.

I would note that humane laws also allow him to put a bullet in the dog’s head, an occurrence seen in the Connemara world despite the owner’s apparent lack of gun skills.

What if animals had the same status as people?

Then Connemara inspectors couldn’t require a Connemara’s leg to be a certain circumference and its head to be a certain shape to be entered in ancestral books unless humans were also requiring all babies who claim a certain hereditary background to pass a similar inspection and registration process.

As I’ve grown older, I’ve become convinced that animals are at least as smart as humans and deserve the same status. Their dexterity in doing certain jobs may be limited, by they win all contests in speed and strength. In many ways, they are superior to us.

How did things get this way? How did we get the notion that we had the moral high ground?

As a child, I grew up on a horse that should not have been asked to compete over fences. She could jump the moon when she wanted to do so, but she didn’t want to do it in competition. She was a lovely mare who would have perhaps been happy doing dressage or serving as a nice lawn ornament. I was influenced by the breeder, who continued to push me to show the horse, and I competed on the mare with disastrous results. My mom actually was the one who knew better and bought me a pony who did want to compete and who thrived in that setting.

My first mare would have benefited greatly from laws to protect her from that “abuse.”

I do believe some horses enjoy the enrichment of doing work or even need it. I would hate to see laws progress to the point that a person and horse could not compete together in an athletic endeavor.

But I also believe animals should not be forced to do anything. This includes being forced to change their evolutionary shape because some group of elitists believes it has a moral “right” to control what this breed will look like in the future.

It’s the type of bullying attitude that will not stand the test of time.

We live in a more benevolent world. Some people need to catch up.

The Internet has allowed countries far behind the US developmentally to make great strides in one decade because like minds have been able to connect and bring about real change.

The question is: Will such virtual power enable animal lovers the world over to connect and bring meaningful change to the plight of the animal in the face of the selfish “me first” attitude of current “owners?”

Time will tell.