Animal Rights and Wrongs – Can You Listen to Another?

Click here to read the complete article

190 – February, 2015

by Debra Vey Voda-Hamilton, Esq. Mediator

www.hamiltonlawandmediation.com

Over the last few weeks there have been several articles I’ve read that speak to the need for change in the administration of dogs (AKC) the legislation of dogs (PETA & HSUS) and the law enforcement with respect to dogs (welfare & rescue). In each article, the writer had a very clear point of view. That opinion either resonated with you or it did not. They did not resonate with the groups the articles were meant to criticize. Animal rights and wrongs fall on both sides of any argument. The mere fact that we take sides and champion our beliefs sometimes makes resolving difficult issues illusive.

For purposes of illustration, lets take two articles and break down their respective bias’ which may inhibit resolution. The first article discussed the drama that unfolded on Christmas eve when a resident of Waukegan, Illinois was arrested for breeding a litter of bulldogs without a $25 permit. He was arrested, his puppies were confiscated by law enforcement and given to a rescue with questionable credentials who happened to be on site at the raid. The second article explored the personhood of animals and the historical underpinnings of animal and human relationships. Both were fine articles. They were well-written and well-researched. My review of these two articles goes to the single-mindedness of their authors’ theses and positions.

The article involving the confiscation of puppies on Christmas Eve held the position, breeder beware of local laws and rules. These laws and rules were being used by retail rescues to take purebred puppies for their own profit, in cahoots with law enforcement. The author spoke about the outpouring of public support for stopping Animal Rights activists from abusing the law.

The second article discussed how mans relationship with animals evolved. The author talked about how “personhood” for pets is inappropriate given the historic definition of “personhood” and an animal’s inability to meet the terms of that definition.

As an attorney, breeder and exhibitor, I see merit in both articles’ arguments. As a mediator I see another conflict unspoken in these articles. One between people about animals fueled by the systems that fail to find solutions that are the best outcomes for all. These arguments are not black or white, but subtle shades of grey. Often, neither side sees value in their adversaries’ argument during the heat of disagreement and passion of purpose. Having a useful conversation among all involved parties is not impossible, it is simply improbable.

Courts legally view animals as personal property. They interpret the law and decide how people are to abide by it. Lawyers are hired to sell one side’s story over the other side’s. This is how the puppy breeder was arrested and lost his six-week-old puppies. He had failed to pay for a $25 breeding permit. The strict interpretation of a poorly written law led to its enforcement by animal control, together with animal rescue, against a hobby breeder. The enforcement resulted in the arrest of an unlicensed breeder and confiscation of the puppies. This law was likely intended to play out in a different way. Yet the unintended consequences of the law played out on Christmas Eve. And no one took the time, then or now, to have a conversation that explored much needed safeguards.

Strict interpretation is most often what animal rights activists want. They seek to change the way we treat our dogs. Strict interpretations enhance their purpose; the elevation of animals to non-human person-hood. Armed with studies showing proof of sensibilities in animals and that arguing that those sensibilities are being violated on factory farms and in breeders’ whelping boxes, these dedicated animal lovers work tirelessly and spend millions of dollars to change animal’s status quo.

Activists are as dedicated to their cause as we say we are to ours. However, dare I say it, we are not as driven as the animal rights/welfare groups that eat, sleep and social media breath their message. We never sit down and educate the public, animal welfare or animal rights community about exactly what we do. The AKC is gun shy after receiving several tongue lashings at the hands of better prepared, more passionate welfare devotees. Yet Rome was not built in a day. Some people need a few turns in the sandbox before they play nicely.

As a sport we suffer the torment of these people, coming on our dog show sites, possibly opening the cages of our beloved animals, risking their lives in the name of what they hold sacred – the freedom from cages for all animals. If we continue to breed the ‘us vs. them’ mentality however, we will never rest or find resolution. What is it our mothers told us, “two wrongs don’t make a right?” Without effective communication this dance will continue, ad naseaum, at arms length while stirring unrequited passion for years to come.

If, one by one, a few of the players came together to engage in a conversation, guided by a neutral mediator, it would help them stay in the room and work out best next steps. This safe method of communication would address the problem, consider solutions and help the parties find long lasting resolution to their differences. These solutions would bring best care practices of animals to the forefront of the discussion. Using mediation does this and is gaining traction.

The Animal Law committees at various Legal Bar Associations have had me speak about using mediation to resolve conflicts between people about animals. The discussion includes animal rights issues along with the usual dog bite, bark or breeder squabbles. The died-in-the-wool vegan members of animal law committees, both on the state and national level, have begun to embrace mediation as a reasonable first step. Mediation has been met with skepticism because parties believe there is nothing in it for them or that the other party will never speak truthfully. However, after participation in mediation, much to their chagrin, the parties find they do speak truthfully and usually hear something they didn’t know and that they can all agree upon and move forward toward implementing for the welfare and safety of an animal.

It is not always miscommunication that gets us in a frenzy. It is often no communication at all. Both articles were very good and spoke to opinions held by the dog show fancy. What we need now is for the discussion to extend beyond the dog show fancy to conversations with animal rights/welfare groups. They need to feel heard, respected and understood as much as we do. Without taking any initial steps to start this conversation, we will be like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. We preach to the animal choir but say nothing to our rival choirs from the other side of the animal issue tracks. We need to inform and be informed if this sport is to survive. If we want to remain able to own the purebred dog of our choice, the conversation has to start. It is up to us, one person, one conversation at a time. Listening first and talking later does not make you less right.

If you would like to learn more about how to employ mediation in a discussion you are having or would like to have regarding a conflict between you and another about an animal, please contact me at www.hamiltonlawandmediation.com.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=70387

Posted by ralbee on Feb 15 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.