Animal Person
New York Times Finally Catches On. Or Not.

Posted: 15 Mar 2008 08:46 AM CDT

For a moment I though that the New York Times, or at least sports writer William C. Rhoden, just might be beginning to understand that animal rights isn't the same as animal welfare.

Then I read the article.

In "Vick Case Exposes Rift Among Animal-Rights Advocates," Rhoden writes:

But there remains a widening divide still simmering within the animal-rights community over the treatment of abused, high-risk animals. The friction boils down to a matter of life and death. PETA generally advocates euthanizing rescued fighting dogs, while other groups lean toward rehabilitation.

True, and I'm glad he points this out. He then writes:

The public disagreement is eye-opening for those of us who assumed animal-rights and animal-welfare groups were all on the same page.

What I don't get is why people assume that when they have different names: animal rights and animal welfare. He says there's a difference, but then he calls them all animal rights. I'm confused.

Rhoden continues:

After talking to both camps, this much is clear:

They all love the animals, but can’t seem to get along with each other.

If they have different missions, I'm not quite sure why they need to "get along" or why that's even an issue. But my favorite part is next:

The divide surfaced in the aftermath of the Vick trial . . .

. . . when the judge decided Vick would pay restitution and the dogs would not be euthanized.

THAT'S when the divide surfaced? Where's he been?

What's worse, it appeared as if maybe Rhoden was going in the direction of discovering the real difference between animal rights and animal welfare (assuming PeTA is an animal rights organization, which is not a good start), but then the story he recounts, though true, doesn't address that like he thinks it does.

For anyone unaware, Rhoden reviews the situation: PeTA thought the animals should be killed, and Best Friends--an animal welfare group/sanctuary thought they could be rehabilitated and some could be adopted out. In other words, killing them wasn't the solution. Now, you'd think that the rights group would be saying that, wouldn't you? And Michael Mountain of Best Friends agrees:

“I don’t think PETA’s argument is with us, I think it’s with themselves,” he said from Utah in a telephone interview. “It’s really difficult as an animal-rights, animal-protection, animal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization to explain away the fact that pretty much all the animals you rescue, you kill. It doesn’t make logical sense; it doesn’t make emotional sense.”

I agree with that, but this sort of muddles Rhoden's rights versus welfare theme, as he doesn't articulate the difference (again, putting aside whether or not you believe PeTA is really an animal rights organization). And what's worse is how the article ends. The third paragraph from the end is:

I must confess that the dogs were often background music to my perspective on the Vick case. I felt the sentence was unduly harsh. But this is not really a dogfighting issue or an animal-rights issue or an overpopulation issue.

Dogfighting, which is illegal, isn't a dogfighting issue? Is it not a legal issue either? What kind of issue is it, Mr. Rhoden?

This is a caring issue: If we, as a society, cannot treat the defenseless with kindness, how can we ever hope to truly care for one another?

The defenseless. Like cows, chickens, fish, pigs and sheep? Are they defenseless? Or is it just doggies and kitties who are defenseless? Given how the third paragraph began, and dogs were the "background music" (their cries and whelps?), I'm fairly sure the behind-the-music of breakfast, lunch and dinner aren't going to be explored anytime soon, which makes the whole caring statement difficult to, um, swallow.

The article ends without the rights versus welfare issue every being explored, which is probably good because this situation doesn't expose a rift "among animal-rights advocates." Rhoden says there's a difference between rights and welfare while putting them all under the animal rights umbrella. And this is after speaking with PeTA and Best Friends.

Rhoden gets the story of what occurred correct, and highlights that PeTA kills animals, but misses the core differences between rights and welfare that he claims are being exposed.

Maybe those issues, crucial to us, are just more background music to him.