Factory Farming

Sources: 

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/problems/

https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal-cruelty/what-factory-farm

My Take on Deep Sea Fishing

     When considering animal welfare, fish rarely come to mind. Maybe this is because fish are hardly similar to us or because we can't sense that they have feelings (physical or emotional pain). However, it is necessary to consider fish when discussing animal welfare because of our relationships with them. People fish for a variety of reasons: for food, for sport, and for relaxation are a few examples. I'd like to discuss deep sea fishing, a specific sector of fishing that I have some experience with.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/documents/ethical_angler_web.pdf

     I have gone deep sea fishing twice in my life. I was young and didn't do any actual fishing the first time, but I remember clearly the second time. My family went out on a charter boat with two fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico for six hours. First, we went out to sea and stopped to fish for our bait. We used little pieces of squid to catch the bait fish. After that, we sailed for about an hour to get to deeper waters. We used the bait fish to try to catch other fish. Grouper and snapper were what we caught most often. There were many regulations with our fishing. In order to keep our catch, it had to hit a certain weight and size limit. We were also limited on the number of fish we could keep. If a fish didn't meet the standards or if we had too many already, we would release the fish.

View of the incoming storm (and some of the bait)

     Having so many regulations on the charter fishing was definitely a positive boost for ensuring animal welfare. The boat we were on also ensured that we did not put trash into the water, helping to protect the environment. However, I noticed one large breach in protecting animal welfare - the fish we kept were thrown into a cooler of ice to die rather than being immediately killed. I believe this is inhumane. When we got back to land, the fishermen filleted the fish (I assume they were dead after being in a cooler for hours) so we could take it home for food. Because we ate nearly all the fish we caught rather than keeping the fish as trophies, I think our deep sea fishing excursion was morally acceptable. However, I wish the fish were killed sooner rather than being put into shock from freezing temperatures and slowly dying. Many people may disagree because of our purpose for fishing (mainly for leisure, even though we ate the fish) or because fish were harmed in the first place, but my stance on fishing is that it is acceptable as long as we protect the environment, regulate our fishing, and use proper practices.

Our catches in Florida

     For fishing like deep sea fishing to be acceptable, certain guidelines must be followed. All laws must be followed, and the people fishing must do all they can to keep the environment clean and safe. Listed below are some links to practices to promote ethical fishing that I believe should always enforced.
http://takemefishing.org/fishing/fishopedia/fishing-and-conservation/ethical-fishing-best-practices/
http://www.discoverboating.com/resources/article.aspx?id=160
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/documents/ethical_angler_web.pdf

"Humanity"?

http://www.quotes-central.com/wp-content/uploads/pliki/humanity_is_2014-05-20_12-49-41.jpg

      While discussing the hierarchy of oppression and where animals fit on the hierarchy, an idea dawned upon me. Typically when we are judging animals to see how much protection and respect they should receive, we look at how human they are. For example, most people say that a dog is more human than a rat. But what gives us the right to judge everything else based on levels of humanity? The word “humanity” itself is meant to define the human species, not to be used on other species. We don’t judge ourselves on something like “cow-ity” or “bird-ness,” so why do we judge animals based on our own species? It doesn’t make sense.

            To begin, all people have the same level of humanity. Typically in the hierarchy of oppression, some human groups are seen as being less human than others. “Humanity” defines the entire human species, not just a certain group within that species. Believing people can have different levels of humanity is a central flaw in thought and belief systems. Thinking one person is less human than another is the root of prejudice and hatred and should be targeted to change the patterns of oppression that have existed for hundreds of years.

            If saying one human is less human than another human isn’t a glaringly obvious flaw, comparing completely different species to ourselves based on a word we have created to describe ourselves is even more obvious. What gives us the right to say one animal should be killed if it enters our homes while another should not be killed under any circumstances? Or what gives us the right to say we should kill animals at all? Saying one animal is more human than another so it shouldn’t be killed does not give us that right. No other species is human, so we cannot define those species based on how human they are. We have put ourselves at the top of the hierarchy of species and therefore believe we should define all other beings based on how similar to us they are. This seems acceptable when choosing an animal for a pet; we want a pet that seems to experience emotions how we do, reacts to our actions and words in certain ways, and portrays love. However, when it comes to topics like hunting, experimentation, farming, and pests, what gives us the right to determine that an animal deserves to die and be tortured? Putting animals in an order based on humanity is wrong, and so is saying they have fewer rights because they aren’t human.

http://iqquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/animal-quotes-3.jpg

            This brings us to a moral quandary. Sure it is wrong to say an animal doesn’t deserve rights, but how do we convince the world that animals do deserve rights and respect? If we say animals deserve the same rights we do, it seems we are confusing what is important. There are many people who the world sees as less human than other people, so isn’t this the bigger issue? I think we should focus on ensuring that all people receive equal rights and are protected, but in the process we can begin to work on protecting animals too. If people are made aware of their faulty thinking in one area, it will be easier for them to change their thinking in another similar area. This is where we must start.

Hunting

     Hunting is a pretty controversial topic in the U.S. Sides are often taken quickly - hunting is beneficial, or hunting should be banned. I grew up in a family where my grandpa, dad, uncle, and brother all hunt. Personally, I don't think I could bring myself to shoot a deer or turkey, but the men of my family always had the tradition of going down to our cabin in Dent County and shooting during deer and turkey seasons. I have always been okay with it. They hardly ever brought anything back home, and when they did, we always used the animals for meat.

http://www.prohuntersjournal.com/img/articles/hunter@sunsetV3.jpg

     Where I draw the line with hunting is when the purpose becomes solely for enjoyment or recognition rather than for food or population control. I am very against trophy hunting. We have products of taxidermy in my house, but nearly all of the animals were used for meat before being stuffed and were not killed solely to be hung on the wall. When hunting, if the largest, most majestic creature is sought out to be killed, the purpose is likely to have a trophy animal. Hunters for population control do not seek out specific animals because of size, and hunters for meat often shoot larger animals but do not care if it the best specimen of the species. My moral structures are against killing another animal to make humans feel superior. My moral structures also tell me that eating meat from an animal that lived its life naturally in the wild is far better than eating meat from an animal that was raised inhumanely in a concrete building without anything that is natural to it.
     Hunting is helpful in situations where it provides food, regulates over-population, and prevents disease spread. Laws are in place to prevent too much hunting so that populations do not dwindle to extremely low levels. Other laws also regulate how and when people can hunt, protecting the populations of animals (http://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/regulations). However, illegal hunting is a serious issue that is killing too many animals and occasionally disregards the safety of humans. Hunting out of season, not using proper methods, and hunting on private property are all too common. It is often difficult to catch illegal hunters, and organizations like the Department of Conservation need to crack down on the issue more.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201210/EarthTalkLeadShotHunting.jpg

     Overall, I believe that hunting is beneficial to humans and to the environment. Without hunting, some people could not eat, overpopulation could cause environmental harm and threats to human safety, and diseases could become out of hand. Proper instruction must be given before anyone should be allowed to hunt, and hunters must be required to keep up with current laws and regulations. The negative effects of hunting, like questions of safety, could mostly be prevented with proper instruction and ensuring that regulations are followed. People against hunting may believe that it is downright immoral to kill animals, and that also is a valid viewpoint. However, my thoughts lead me to argue that humans and animals have hunted for survival all throughout history, and it appears to be a natural part of sustaining life. Hunting is only immoral in my mind when it is done for bragging rights, to witness suffering, or only to get thrill from the kill. Otherwise, hunting's benefits outweigh its negative effects, and hunting should be protected as long as it is regulated.

Testing on Mice and Rats

     It is no secret that animal testing can be a brutal process. Animals are put through significant torture in order to better the lives of humans (or other animals, in some cases). They are often genetically modified to be born with significant defects or diseases, injected with harmful substances, burned, shocked, and killed. Experimentation on animals has allowed huge medical breakthroughs to occur that have saved the lives of many humans. However, experimentation on animals has also been extremely overused, especially within the area of cosmetics. In my opinion and the opinions of many of my classmates, the world already has enough varieties of shampoo, mascara, and hairspray. There is absolutely no reason animal testing should continue for products no one truly needs, and there are other viable options for testing (such as using donated human corneas, computer-modeled techniques, or human volunteers). Even within the medical settings, animal testing is extremely overused. Animals should not have to be put through immense torture and suffering so another allergy medicine with one small alteration can be created, or so that one brand can master a drug that another brand already has.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Vacanti_mouse.jpg

     Within the United States alone, over one million animals are used for research per year. This number is shocking in itself; however, something more shocking is that this number excludes all mice, rats, and select other animals. An estimation of the number of mice and rats used in experiments per year within the U.S. alone is over 100 million (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/). The reason these animals are not regulated? According to Congress, specific species of mice and rats are not considered animals. Mice and rats are not protected under the Animal Welfare Act, which helps regulate the treatment of animals used in experimentation to some extent. Something even more shocking than the number of mice used in experiments is that, for every one mouse used in certain research, another ninety-nine will be killed because of low success in creating certain strains of mice (Hal Herzog's "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat").

     Far too many animals are used in animal experimentation. These animals feel emotions, experience pain, and need attention and proper treatment. They are more like us than many researchers and supporters of animal testing choose to believe. They are also much less like us than many researchers claim in ways important to research; genetically, many animals used in testing offer very unreliable results as to how certain drugs and cosmetics will affect humans. Experimenting on animals, while it has resulted in some important discoveries, is not as necessary as we are led to believe. So many animals are tortured and killed for our benefit, but are we benefitting to such a large extent where brutality toward animals is justified? I think not.
     Slow but positive change is occurring. Politicians are beginning to take a stand against animal testing. This movement has not been extremely popular within Congress yet, but it is starting. For example, one politician is asking for greater regulation of mice and rats within research (http://www.peta.org/blog/congress-member-takes-action-for-mice-and-rats-in-laboratories/). Additionally, animal rights supporters actively boycott animal testing by their words and actions. Something you can do to stand against animal research is buying products from companies that do not animal test. Google is a valuable tool in finding these companies, as well as listing companies that do animal test. The following picture shows some popular companies that animal test. Most likely, you use products from some of these companies. However, there are many natural alternatives to using these products that support the lives of animals.

http://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nTUy1Cq2cI1Y_9_GKdOEQU3Up394YML2Kyb94Of4Qfg.jpg   

Information about mice and rats in research: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-laboratories/mice-rats-laboratories/