ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE: WHY WE ARE VIGILANT ARTICLE BY: PATRICK BRAY
Some may be familiar with or may have even earned an “animal husbandry” degree from a major university. This same degree morphed over the years to recognize and include more of the science, ultimately providing students with a degree in what is now Animal Science. Is there a difference in animal husbandry and animal science? For those of us involved in raising animals for food, we understand them as the same and that the degree has simply progressed with time, as has science. Now, take a step back and look at it from a non-scientific view, or from someone who may have no experience with raising livestock. The term “animal science” seems to have unintentionally removed the human aspect from caring for animals, at least in the label. Those of us who work in animal agriculture understand the importance of animal husbandry practices to care for animals and to ultimately provide a safe, quality product for our consumers. From cattle to chickens, the farm animal industry has spent millions of dollars developing animal husbandry practices to create safe environments for both animals and humans while maximizing production with as few resources as possible. All of that sounds very industrial, but for those who live and work on a farm and ranch, you know what I mean. This highlights our challenge: the words we use and their unintentional meanings. Is there a difference between animal rights and animal welfare? It seems they are just as interchangeable as animal husbandry and animal science, but really, welfare and rights are much further apart. Google “animal rights law clinic” and there are no less than 6 major universities, including Harvard, that are teaching students about animal rights under the law and how to further those rights. This is far from animal welfare, which focuses PG. 34 :: SPRING 2020
on the treatment of animals, how we handle and care for them, not what rights they have under the law. However, in the public arena, rights and welfare are often interchangeable, which is a concern for us involved in raising livestock. It is what drives many of us in the policy arena to be extra vigilant when it comes to policies that involve all animals. Very few laws separate pets and food animals when it comes to animal cruelty. I am guessing that many of the readers don’t see the issue with that because those of us who take care of animals also condemn animal abuse so the law probably makes sense. But, every law is open to interpretation and that is why we monitor and take action from the beginning to get the laws right the first time so laws don’t cast a larger net than intended just because a few people in urban areas have hoarded animals. In the most recent Arizona legislative session, a bill was brought forward to outlaw “animal fighting paraphernalia.” Most animal fighting of any type is outlawed in most states, so outlawing paraphernalia doesn’t seem so bad. However, the original draft included a definition that said “paraphernalia” included medical treatment supplies! Yes, the wound coat or penicillin you might have on hand in case of animal injury could be considered “animal fighting paraphernalia.” Some may think this is a far stretch but only a few years ago an individual was charged with cruelty for taking a neighbor’s dog that was harassing his cattle. This charge was dropped, but the fact that anyone has to even go through this process, when the law is clearly on their side, is ridiculous. That is why we must be vigilant with all animal law changes because there will be unintended consequences and overzealous prosecutors who have other intentions outside of
enforcing the law. These intentions do exist, otherwise several major universities would not have animal rights clinics that push this agenda. It is no different than the environmental law litigators we see today whose work has completely destroyed the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act. What we are always concerned about is the camel’s nose under the tent. Certainly, agriculture has its work cut out for us to engage in education and to curb animal abuse. We must challenge policy makers to find solutions in other ways rather than making new laws. Passing new laws makes people feel good but rarely do they stop bad actors. I encourage those in animal production to continue to answer the tough questions. Be honest with consumers and explain the science and husbandry behind your practices. If you need more information, direct them to sources that can explain the use of antibiotics, animal handing practices and humane slaughter. While not all parts of our business are meant for children’s books, we should not hide those tough moments. We raise a wholesome product, not only for our own families’ tables, but also for our consumers. Considering recent events around the world, we should also be grateful for our customers who trust in our product. Instead of the knee jerk reaction to be defensive, we should take time to also thank those who continue to support us because there are far more of them and only a few who seek to end the food animal industry. For more information about Arizona Farm & Ranch Group visit: www.azfarmranch.org, follow them on Facebook (Arizona Farm and Ranch Group), or Twitter @AZFarmRanch.
