Anyone interested in the condition and treatment of animals often gets labelled as an “animal rights” activist. However, arguments for animal rights are separate and different from arguments for protecting animal welfare. While the arguments are different, readers may be surprised that the intended outcomes are often similar.
The difference matters because animal rights often has a negative and inflammatory connotation – largely because of the illegal and sometimes violent efforts of a subset on the fringe – and many who work in animal welfare or the field of animal law don’t want to be lumped together under that umbrella.
So what’s the difference? To oversimplify, the animal-rights movement would like to see animals given higher legal status, closer to humans, while the animal-welfare movement wants existing anti-cruelty laws to be fully enforced to prevent suffering. Animals are legally classified as property; technically speaking, they are considered more like your television than your child. This status is the crux of the difference between animal-rights and animal-welfare efforts.
An example of (legal) animal-rights efforts in action: A recent lawsuit in New York sought to gain the release of a captive chimp named Tommy. The lawyers chose to file a habeas corpus petition rather than pursuing other possible strategies. In Latin, habeas corpus means, approximately, “you may have the body,” and it is a procedure used when a person is unlawfully detained. The writ of habeas corpus requires the custodian to bring the detained person to court to prove the legality of his or her detention. Tommy’s attorneys specifically used habeas corpus to force the courts to consider whether Tommy is a “person” under habeas-corpus principles. They argued that chimpanzees, like other species, demonstrate complex cognition and emotion very similar to human children, and, therefore, they deserve the same kinds of rights. After all, the law has given “personhood” status to sailing ships and corporations, why not sophisticated, sentient beings? The New York court rejected the argument, in part because it found that a legal person must be able to meet its obligations as a balance to enjoying its rights. Tommy cannot understand or comply with human-like responsibilities and, therefore, cannot be given human-like rights, goes the reasoning. (Tommy’s lawyers no doubt responded, “neither can a small child or person with dementia, but they don’t lose their fundamental rights.”) Tommy’s case is on appeal.
An example of animal-welfare efforts in action: Ricky the bear was held in a tiny, barren cage at an ice cream shop in Pennsylvania for 16 years, used as a novelty attraction. A lawsuit was filed based on existing, Pennsylvania anti-cruelty laws. Because Ricky’s conditions were abysmal, the lawsuit was successful, and Ricky was released to a sanctuary.
Despite these lawyers’ different starting places, consider the outcomes. Tommy’s lawyers did not intend that Tommy be set free on the streets of New York – if they won their case, they expected Tommy to be housed at a sanctuary with appropriate facilities and enrichment. Even though they purposefully took a radical route trying to change the animal’s legal status, the outcome they sought was the same one sought – and achieved – by the traditional animal-welfare folks who worked on Ricky’s behalf. There are no serious legal scholars or practicing lawyers who advocate that animals should be given immediate and complete legal equality with humans; the impracticalities and absurdities are overwhelming. Therefore, as long as we are staying inside the bounds of the law, the real division between animal rights and animal welfare is only a theoretical one.
Animal rights gets its negative implication simply because some people have chosen to destroy property and cause injury under its flag or have seriously suggested that we immediately open all cages, gates and restraints of any kind to allow all animals perfect “freedom.” Meanwhile, ardent and civil animal-welfare proponents seek to properly enforce existing laws, examine and enhance the laws on the books and find cooperative ground where possible on these issues. It is unfortunate, and eerily familiar, how a radical minority can taint the reputations and efforts of a reasonable majority. Many of those working for animal welfare and in animal law wish it weren’t so.
Kate Burke is senior corporate counsel with Momentum Energy in Durango and owns Colorado Animal Law, LLC. She can be reached at 385-7409.
