What changes when animals have rights?
 A ban on abuse and mutilation, both physical and psychological, is obvious. Think of:
- docking;
- breeding misshapen animals, with classical breeding methods or with genetic engineering;
- neglect;
- cruelties during animal transport;
- vivisection;
- making dogs vicious;
- certain forms of animal training (dancing bears);
- sex with animals (bestiality);
- cruel games with animals;
- needlessly exposing animals to mortal danger ("military").
Phasing out factory farming and hunting for pleasure
Few people will object to a ban on situations such as factory farming. There, animals spend their entire lives unlawfully deprived of their freedom. Fortunately, few people approve of killing animals "for pleasure" either.
It is more difficult when animals lose their freedom only for a short time, or when their welfare is at stake only for a relatively short period. Examples are slaughter and hunting for pleasure, but also the use of animals in the entertainment industry.
Two measures will cause few problems:
- a legal limit on fishing and on catching other animals;
- a legal obligation to slaughter farm animals only with methods that keep their suffering as short as possible.
If people want to eat animals, there is no other way than to kill the animal, as quickly and effectively as possible.
Angling and pigeon racing
But what about angling or pigeon racing, for example? Harming the welfare of an animal for recreational purposes violates the animal's right to freedom. Should that be prohibited as well, or is a policy of discouragement also an option?
Angling. In hunting for pleasure, killing the animal is the main goal. The angler usually only wants to catch the fish. Afterwards he often releases the fish. He does not intend to kill the fish or cause it pain. Still, catching a fish with a hook or with a net violates the physical integrity of the fish, however briefly.
Pigeon racing. Pigeon racing is not aimed at harming the welfare of the animal. The sport can be organized in such a way that the pigeon loses its freedom for as short a time as possible.
A policy of discouragement
It seems that a policy of discouragement will be accepted more quickly and more widely than a ban.
For angling, one could think of:
- no longer stocking waters with fish (which is also a way of distorting the natural fauna);
- a ban on fishing by young people without adult supervision.
For pigeon racing, one could think of:
- a maximum for the distance, the frequency and the length of time a pigeon is away from home;
- a limit on the financial leeway of participants.
Education
In addition, education can change the attitude of people who deal with animals. Schools can do this for children, the government for adults. The message:
- animals have the right to freedom;
- do not get an overbred pet;
- do not get an exotic pet;
- do not get a pet that has to be kept in a cage, terrarium or aquarium;
- do not get a young pet if you have young children;
- do not take up a hobby in which the welfare of animals is at stake;
- do not hold competitions with animals.
Undesirable release
Finally, there are also forms of undesirable release of animals. By this we mean setting animals free in surroundings where they cannot sustain themselves without human intervention. This concerns animals that live more or less in a natural state, which humans have released in an enclosed area, such as Heck cattle, konik horses and mouflons (wild sheep).
In practice this means that these animals must not be neglected during extreme weather or illness to the point of prolonged suffering. Because humans released them in an enclosed area of limited size, humans are responsible for their welfare.
Keeping exotic animals in (private) zoos is also a form of undesirable release, except when the aim is to prevent the extinction of the species. This applies even when the zoo imitates the natural situation as closely as possible.
See also: Fireworks destroy more than you would wish. |
