Civil rights for animals?

Since I was very young, I thought even somewhat "dull" animals had certain attributes. They know fear, pleasure (even if as a predator its after they eat a g'nue), and most important, they have an understanding of a sense of self. They have a foci of self-awareness. But over the years I have been all over the world. For a time I lived in Russia, Australia and Canada. Now I'm back home where I moved from Chicago when I was 12. Minnesota. I live in the burbs of Minneapolis, and here we got wildlife coming out of our ass. Several years ago we had a wolf come down from the north. I heard the neighbors dog, a large ill tempered German sheperd barking. I looked out the window and could not believe what I saw. The wolf just bit the dog in two. (I diden't think they could do that) I called the cops, they told me to take a valium and chill (and how did they know I took valium?). Then I told them in detail what happend, and they came right over.

They showed up with the fricken SWAT team, and opened up on the wolf with automatic weapons. I did ask the offficer in charge if that level of force was required. He said yes, they had dealt with "their kind" before. Keep in mind Minnesota is the only state in the union whose state animal is a rodent. (For us its the gopher, remember Carl from Caddyshack?) Gophers are really very smart. I swear to God even our squarils are smart. I have seen them look both ways before they cross the street. We have crows and ravens who run and fly in "hunter-killer packs". I also have a flock of geese who nest on the flat roof of my house every summer. Very prime real estate. It should be, I spent enough for my house. The geese use a corner of my roof as a toilet and they don't poop on any other part of it.

I have seen many animals in my world, a human made environment, and in theirs, the wild. I have seen Dolphins, Otters, and Sharks in the open oceans. I have watched very carefully, (and with a great deal of caution!) wild animals in their ellement. And I have been spell bound watching wild animals who have adapted to my environment. The other day a field mouse ran in to my garage when I was pulling my car in. I knew the damage he could do if I closed the door, (and since that night it was going down to -17 F,), I was not going to leave it open. So I got out of my car and swore loudly. He ran out. Smart mouse. I would have put down poison and in time he would get hungry enough to eat it.

The point I want to make is animals are not our personal play things. They are not toys. If you hunt or fish, fine just eat what you kill. I have no problem with that. Kill animals for pleasure and your a brutal bastard. Any questions? More later.

Originally posted by arbiture


The point I want to make is animals are not our personal play things. They are not toys. If you hunt or fish, fine just eat what you kill. I have no problem with that. Kill animals for pleasure and your a brutal bastard. Any questions? More later.

I totally agree with you. I don't like "trophy hunting" where people just kill for the pleasure and then take a part of the animal and hang it on the wall as a souvenir.

My Dad (a hunter) always told us that you should only kill an animal to eat or to defend yourself.

I agree as well. To kill an animal just for the hell of it is cruel. If you're going to eat the meat, fine.

many, if not most, countries have animal welfare programs and organizations. they play a big part in educating the masses too which is obviously a good thing.

The question of Civil Rights applied to animals is not one I think about every day. But I would join the new tide of opinion that dolphins should be designated 'non-human persons' under the law ... and I would want the same designation for all cetaceans from the greatest whale to the smallest pink dolphin in Brazil.

Gorillas, chimps, and other primates that can use sign language or communicate by other means certainly should have the 'non-human person' designation given to them as a means to end the horrendous experimentation upon them.

Thanks to the OP. You have given me reason to pause and think about this for a spell. Beyond this, the world needs to revisit the meaning of "personhood" and who is a "person" under the law.

reply to post by Pellevoisin


what would that 'non-human person' designation imply for the 'non-human person'?

reply to post by arbiture


That you have chosen to frame rights in terms of "civil" only serves to undermine your own argument. Civil defined is applying to ordinary citizens as contrasted with the military; "civil authorities". Civil rights, then belong to "citizens" as opposed to natural rights that belong to all, and that would include all species, for surely every creature great and small has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, if I find a black widow creeping upon a wall in my home, that right to life, liberty and happiness becomes moot as I will not hesitate to swat that spider in order to protect my own rights. It can be argued that this is justified because if left to share my home with me, there is too likely of a chance that at some point this black widow or its spawn will bite me and cause me harm. I can not reason with this black widow, nor communicate to it the rights we both share, I can only act in ways of self preservation, just as that black widow will do the same.

In terms of civil rights, that black widow has no right to sue me or make a citizen's arrest for my attempted murder, and as such has no civil rights. That black widow has natural rights just as you and I do, and just as tragic as humanity's seeming unwillingness to respect the rights of other species, only killing what must be killed, is the sad fact that so many people can not speak of rights without qualifying them with the term "civil". Civil rights are rights granted by governments, natural rights are those rights all species have regardless of which government deigns to grant.

reply to post by ll__raine__ll


Well, using the scale apparent in American law... that would give your average Humpback whale equal power to an international megaconglomerate.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox



so the whale gets to vote in elections?

that could be interesting. lol.

Until the time comes where consideration for all life is the norm, we shall always remain having one foot in the Stoneage.

The notion of civil rights afforded to non-human species brings up a valid question that leads to more questions than possible answers I suppose.

It leads us down a path of ethics in a way. Ethically speaking, based upon our culture, animals (of non-human descent) are afforded protections via animal cruelty laws. They are also afforded the ability to inherit one's possessions when they pass away.

While an animal may be aware of itself, its surroundings and its purpose (even in the most biological way - being feral in nature) it cannot reason with the likes of human beings. It doesn't adhere to human laws nor does it require itself to seek to follow those laws.

It lives by the law of Nature. We as humans also abide by the same laws but we have a distinct advantage as we can manipulate those laws in our favor (i.e, hunting, animal sacrificial rituals, etc.)

We as humans develop a substandard law of Men. A law that only we as humans follow because we can manipulate it and bend it to our will. An animal cannot defend itself in court nor express its defense within if held accountable to say, murder.

It is thus dependent upon morality and adherence to the laws of Nature that Men do not abuse that power and kill at will any animal for other than purpose of self preservation or food (both adhering to the laws of Nature.) One could add that killing an animal for its pelt is justified as it serves a purpose for keeping us warm, protecting our feet, etc. Thus self-preservation.