Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

Harold D. Guither, University of Illinois

Janice Swanson, Kansas State University

Background

he animal rights movement

has emerged from old ideas
but with new philosophical
perspectives that emphasize moral
and ethical standards for how
humans should relate to and treat
animals. Although similar attempts
to revolutionize societal values
concerning animal use have
occurred in the past, conditions
were not ripe for the movement to
be taken seriously. One philosopher describes the current movement as a major revolution in
social concern with animal welfare
and the status of animals.
The major conflicts of values
concerning animal use have arisen
from a society that has changed
dramatically during the 20th
century. With the loss of an
agrarian ethic, increased industrialization, and a society concentrated in an urban environment,
people do not interact with animals
in the same way or for the same
purpose as in previous generations.
Production efficiency and
technology have allowed consumers to be more distant from food
production and other animal
products. At the same time, pets
have become a more important
dimension of our life-styles. Under
these conditions, a diversity of

attitudes, philosophies and ethics

regarding animal use have developed.
Traditional values of animal
care and use are being questioned
by society. Animal advocacy and
the promotion of a new animal
ethic pose challenges to individuals
who work directly with animals in
any phase of business, profession,
or leisure activity. These conflicts
will affect how society dictates the
use and care of animals in the
future. And regardless of the
problems in determining the status
of animals in western society, the
movement to recognize and protect
animals will continue to grow. For
owners, users and consumers of
animal products and services, these
new values may indeed defy
conventional ways of doing
business and challenge contemporary life styles. Issues related to
the environment, food safety, diet
and health have also attracted
animal activists to join with groups
sharing these concerns.
Animal welfare is based on
principles of humane care and use.
Welfare positions are founded on
the basic premise that animals can
and will be used to benefit humans,
and the responsibility of use carries
certain obligations to the animals.
Generally, animal use obligations
include appropriate husbandry;
provision of essential food, water
and shelter; health care and
maintenance; alleviation of pain

and suffering; and other needs.

Obligations to animals under a
welfare ethic continue to evolve
with societys expectations and
scientific understanding of
animals. However, definitions of
animal welfare obligations vary. In
the traditional sense, humane
treatment is the primary concern,
with little or no consideration of
the ultimate use. But recent shifts
in attitudes have challenged the
traditional definition. The
ultimate use of the animal is now
also a concern.
Some assert that there are
essential (biomedical research) and
nonessential uses of animals
(entertainment). These animal
welfare advocates will ardently
support animal use practices that
are perceived to produce widespread benefits to society, thus
justifying required use of animals,
but reject support for nonessential
use.
Animal rights includes some
fundamental differences from
animal welfare. Animal rights, in
its purest form (animal liberation)
is not concerned with humane care
and use of the animal. Rather, it
focuses on whether humans have
the right to view and use animals
as resources and what rights
animals are entitled to as living,
feeling beings.
These rights are determined
regardless of human benefits from
animal use. Use is not a consider-

Texas Agricultural Extension Service The Texas A&M University System Zerle L. Carpenter, Director College Station, Texas

ation. However, most animal

rights supporters are more pragmatic in their approach to instituting change by working to abolish
cruel or abusive situations to
eliminate animal suffering.
Support for animal use can be
found where mutual benefits are
perceived for both animal and
human, such as pet keeping.
However, a segment of rights
advocates believe that nonhuman
animals are not to be used for any
purpose by humans that animals
are not ours to eat, wear, or
experiment on.
Implementing this philosophy
would mean eliminating all uses of
animals for food, clothing, leisure,
or research purposes. In effect,
this implies the adoption of
vegetarian diets; the elimination of
wool, leather, or fur for clothing or
ornamental purposes; and the
abolition of animals used for
leisure activities, such as in
hunting, horse and dog racing,
zoos, circuses, or aquariums.
Animal rights in the political
context can mean almost anything
from a campaign to achieve the
liberation of all animals, including
pets, to much more limited goals
pursued through horse-trading and
compromise in the policy making
process.
Reformist or Abolitionist?
Animal activists may be identified
as reformists or abolitionists. The
reformists usually include those
who believe in the views of
philosophers but want to work
within the system to improve the
conditions under which animals
are treated.
The abolitionists work to
eliminate all uses of animals that
they see as causing pain and
suffering. Efforts to destroy the fur
apparel industry, stop veal production, stop laboratory animal
research and product testing,

192

promote vegetarian diets, and ban

hunting are a few goals of abolitionists.

Current
Situation and
Forces of
Change
The animal protection
movement has evolved into three
types of organizations: (1) local
humane societies and societies for
the prevention of cruelty to
animals; (2) national and state
organizations with a range of
objectives and differing degrees of
reformist and abolitionist goals,
and; (3) grassroots activist organizations encouraged by the leading
animal rights and animal welfare
groups. Groups 2 and 3 are most
involved in influencing public
policies affecting animal care and
treatment.
Most attempts to make
national policy have occurred since
World War II. The following
legislation identifies successful
efforts of animal welfare advocates
to influence policy:
The Federal Humane
Slaughter Act of 1958, with
amendments in 1978, required
federally-inspected meat plants to
comply with humane slaughter
conditions.
The Animal Welfare Act of
1966, with amendments in 1976,
regulated transportation, sale and
handling of dogs, cats and certain
other animals used for research
and prohibited animal fighting
ventures.

The Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972 prohibits
killing, capturing and harassing of
any marine mammal without a
permit.
The Health Research
Extension Act of 1985, an
amendment to the Public Health
Service Act, established animal
research standards, including
animal care committees, and
required research plans for the
reduction of animal use, alternatives to animals, or the reduction of
pain and discomfort to animals
used in research.
The 1985 farm bill set
precedent for including animal
welfare issues in omnibus farm
legislation and required the
Secretary of Agriculture to set
standards governing the humane
care, treatment, and transportation
of animals by dealers, research
facilities, and exhibitors. These
standards were to describe minimum requirements for handling,
housing, feeding, watering,
sanitation, ventilation, shelter from
extremes of weather and temperature, adequate veterinary care,
separation by species, exercise of
dogs, and an adequate enriched
environment to promote psychological well-being for nonhuman
primates.
Each research facility must
establish at least one committee of
not fewer than three members to
assess animal care and practices
and reflect in animal care practices
societys concerns regarding
animal welfare. It must also
provide training for its scientists,
animal technicians, and other
personnel involved with animal
care and treatment. The National
Agricultural Library was mandated
to establish an information service
on employee training and animal

legislation has been proposed

to establish management
practices for veal production.
In Europe, certain management practices and space
requirements have been
written into law. For example,
in Sweden no more than three
laying hens can be kept in one
cage and dairy cows must be
kept on pasture at least one
month each year. In the
United Kingdom, the Farm
Animal Welfare Council has
recommended a stocking rate
for broiler chickens not
exceeding 34 kilograms per
square meter during the
growing period.

experimentation to reduce animal

pain and stress.
The 1990 Farm Bill provided
that a dealer may not obtain any
live dog or cat from a source other
than a city, county or state pound;
a private entity under contract with
a local agency; a registered
research facility, or an individual
who bred and raised the animals.
Any animal sold by a dealer must
have valid certification.
The Animal Facilities
Protection Act of 1992 was
supported by animal users and the
animal industry to stem increased
incidents of vandalism, theft, and
threats to research workers. After
several years of effort, Congress
passed a bill that made destruction
of animal research or production
facilities a federal offense if
damage exceeded $10,000.

Animal Welfare and

Animal Rights Issues
The issues encompassing
animal welfare and animal rights
cover animals used for food, in
research, and for pleasure and
leisure activities. Animal rights
and animal welfare organizations
often focus their attention on a few
specific issues such as fur animal
production, housing and feeding
veal calves, use of animals in
research, egg production from hens
in cages, or pet overpopulation.
The issues that probably will come
up in future legislative debates
include the following:

Humane management
practices. To what extent
should government dictate
management practices under
which food and research
animals are produced and
cared for? For example,

Humane treatment criteria.

Under what criteria will
humane treatment of animals
be measured if humane
treatment is the objective of
government rules and regulations dealing with animal
care?
Genetically altered animal
species. Should public funds
be used to develop genetically
altered animal species and
under what conditions should
their introduction and reproduction be permitted?
Damage control. Should
poisoning, trapping, or
shooting of animals be
permitted to protect domestic
livestock and crops?
Hunting and trapping.
Under what conditions should
hunting be permitted on public
lands and interference of
hunters be allowed? Should
the steel leg hold trap be made
illegal nationwide?

Endangered species. Should

an economic impact assessment be required when
restrictions on the use of
public and private lands are
considered because a species
of animal or bird is threatened
or endangered?
Animals in research. Under
what conditions and for what
purposes should animals be
used in research? Animal
research is now subject to
regulation and control. Some
groups advocate prohibition of
all animal research.

Policy
Alternatives and
Consequences
Control and Regulation
of Management
Practices
Individual producers now have
almost complete freedom to choose
those management and production
practices that they believe will give
most efficient production and
lowest cost per unit produced.
Policy choices include the following:

Let producers decide what

they believe are the best
management and production
practices. The traditional
criteria by which livestock and
poultry well- being has been
measured in the past
growth patterns, weight gains
and appearance are being
questioned. Such standards
may not be acceptable to the
animal rights advocates.

193

Establish boards or commissions, as the European Union

and some individual European
countries have done, to
establish acceptable humane
practices for producing
livestock and poultry. Educate
producers and encourage
compliance with these
recommended practices.
Questions are not only
emanating from the animal
advocacy community, but have
been developing within the
scientific community as well.
However, the intention of each
community for the development and use of animal
welfare information is different. The commission would
reconcile these different views
to the benefit of all societal
segments.
Establish rules and regulations
through the public hearing
process and enforce compliance through law enforcement
officials and levy fines for
noncompliance.
Require labeling of animal,
dairy and poultry products to
indicate the type of production
practices used.

The development of acceptable humane practices could

result in 1) the development of
more rigid systems of production
that would be viewed as more
humane and more easily enforced,
or 2) the development of systems
that could provide optimal animal
production and enhanced animal
welfare under a variety of production conditions. If humane
standards were established and
enforced by government rules and
regulation, the outcome could
bring higher production and

194

marketing costs, lower returns and

reduced incentives for investment
in the animal industry. Considerable disagreement as to what
practices are really humane could
result.
Agribusiness firms have an
important stake in policy decisions
that affect management and
production practices. If new
facilities were required, the
production and marketing of the
new facilities and equipment
would benefit agribusiness.
However, if regulations and
restrictions reduce production,
those involved in processing and
marketing these products would
suffer reduced business.
New policies that would
increase costs and reduce supplies
of animal, dairy or poultry products could raise food costs for
consumers. However, some
consumers will pay more for a
product that has been produced
under what they believe is more
humane conditions. In Europe,
many stores feature free-range
eggs from hens allowed to run out
in open lots. Prices reflect the
higher costs as in the case of
organic foods in the United States.
New policies that bring about
new regulations also add up to
more bureaucracy, more civil
servants to implement the policies,
and more costs to taxpayers. The
alternatives are not just more or
less regulation, but what values the
public believe are important
enough to pay the cost of such
policies.

Genetically engineered
livestock and poultry
Policy choices include the
following:

Prohibit all research with

animals to develop new

genetically engineered strains.

Permit research on genetically

engineered strains but allow
no patenting of genetically
developed strains.
Permit both private industry
and publicly funded genetic
research and permit patents
for successfully developed new
strains.

Genetically engineered strains

of livestock and poultry could
mean increased efficiency and
profits for some producers.
However, if patent restrictions
limit a producers rights to
reproduce and sell these new
strains or types of animals, the
economic benefits may accrue
mostly to the developers and patent
holders.
Biotechnology could open new
markets and opportunities for the
agribusiness community. New
animal strains, growth hormones,
or other products that enhance
production would be quickly
adopted by producers. The
agribusiness firms and dealers
marketing these products would
see expanded growth and business
volume.
One concern of environmental
groups is the effect of new genetically engineered plant or animal
products upon the purity and
diversity of the total ecosystem.

Control of predatory wild

animals
Predator control has become a
policy issue in part because efforts
to poison predatory animals have
also resulted in poisoning of nontargeted animals. Policy alternatives include the following:

n
n
n

Give farmers and ranchers

complete freedom to use
poison baits and other means
to control predators and
protect their livestock.

Private land owners could also be

affected if restrictions are placed
upon how their land is used for
farming purposes.

Hunting and Trapping

Restrict use of poison baits
that will be harmful to other
animals and birds.
Prohibit use of all poison baits
and other predator control
measures.
Develop baits that more
specifically control the target
predators without harming the
non-targeted animals and
birds.

Restrictions on damage
control practices such as poisoning
of predatory animals could mean
greater losses for livestock producers and could discourage production in some parts of the country.
Sheep producers in the west have
been adversely affected by limits
on poisoning of coyotes. However,
further research is underway to
find more targeted ways to control
predatory animals, avoid harm to
non-targeted creatures, and reduce
predator control costs for producers.
Environmental concerns have
resulted in limits on the poisoning
of predatory animals. The predators could become threatened if too
many were killed. Poison intended
for the predators has caused losses
of other valuable wildlife species
that were not predators on domestic livestock.
Rules and regulations under
the Endangered Species Act have
affected the lumber industry more
than animal production up to this
time. However, future determinations could affect those who graze
animals on public lands where
endangered species are found.

Although a long standing

tradition in rural America, hunting
and trapping are viewed as cruel
and inhumane by many concerned
with animal welfare and animal
rights. However, the sale of
hunting rights has become a
significant source of ancillary
income for some farmers. Policy
alternatives include the following:

n
n

Prohibit all hunting and

trapping except among those
who must depend upon these
activities for food and economic survival.
Prohibit hunting and trapping
on public lands, but permit
these activities on private
land.
Let states make their own
policies regarding hunting and
trapping.
Let states set policies for
hunting, but prohibit use of
the leg hold steel trap or other
devices that are considered
cruel and unnecessary.

Public policies dealing with

hunting and trapping could
adversely affect those rural
residents who have had relatively
free choice in the hunting and
trapping activities. Animal
advocates generally oppose
hunting and trapping. Conservation groups support controlled
hunting to maintain adequate
wildlife populations that can
survive and reproduce. Restrictions
on hunting and trapping that affect

threatened or endangered species

would be supported by environmental groups.

Research with Food and

Laboratory Animals
Current policies require
oversight on research plans and
implementation. It allows research
approved by a committee or board
to insure humane treatment to the
greatest extent possible and the
minimum number of animals
needed to conduct the project while
still producing valid results. This
is the current policy under the
Animal Welfare Act. The policy
choices include the following:

n
n

Allow unrestricted the use of

food and laboratory animals
for research purposes.
Prohibit all biomedical,
product testing and farm
animal research.

Restrictions on use of animals

in research or product testing could
raise costs or restrict availability of
new drugs or household products.
Those who suffer from diseases or
other ailments have very special
concerns about restrictions that
could affect their future health and
well-being.

Conclusion
Animal rights and animal
welfare issues are not likely to be
the highest priority issues during
the 1995 farm bill debate. However, animal activists will continue
to pursue their goals and join with
other groups that share common
environmental, health and food
safety concerns. Farmers,

195

agribusiness, consumers and their

organizations need to be a part of
this dialogue as part of the political
process.

References
Finsen, Lawrence and Susan
Finsen. The Animal Rights
Movement in America. New
York, Twayne Publishers,
Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1994.
Jasper, James M. and Dorothy
Nelkin. The Animal Rights
Crusade. The Growth of a
Moral Protest. New York: The
Free Press (a division of
Macmillan). 1992.
Marquardt , Kathleen, Herbert M.
Levine, and Mark LaRochelle.
Animal Scam. The Beastly
Abuse of Human Rights.
Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Gateway. 1993.

This publication edited by Hal

Harris, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Clemson
University, and Ron Knutson,
Professor and Director,
Agricultural and Food Policy
Center, Texas Agricultural
Extension Service, The Texas
A&M University System.

Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service serve people of all ages regardless of
socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Acts of Congress of May
8, 1914, as amended, and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Zerle L.
Carpenter, Director, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M University System.