Focus 580; Veterinarians for Animal Rights

Is Ned. He is a veterinarian himself he's also president and co-founder of an organization called the Association of veterinarians for animal rights. He's an associate professor of ophthalmology at the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis. He also has had experience in both small and large animal private practice and is a visiting here at the U of I will be giving a talk this evening on the campus his visit is sponsored by the students for animal rights group and he'll be giving a talk at 7:30 in 180 beer hall and it's open to the public anybody who would like to attend should should feel free to do that. As you were listening this morning to our guest you can give us a call 3 3 3 W I L L eight hundred to two two to W. while that toll free number is good anywhere around Illinois or Indiana or wherever else you can hear us this morning. Three three three eight hundred two two two AWOL please feel free to call in to be a part of the conversation at any point. Thanks very much for being here. Well thank you I appreciate the opportunity to at least talk about this controversial subject.

I'd like to hear some more about how it is that you became involved in animal rights. I came from a family that was very concerned about the environment and also very. Respectful of other life although in the earlier part of our our time together we we did eat other animals and we wore parts made from their bodies and didn't think much about that. But as time went on that that changed also and by the time I left home the entire family was totally vegan which means that we abstain from all animal products wearing them eating them whatever. And it was that kind of a nurturing and sensitising situation that probably formed some of the roots that I have as far as my feelings although after I left home and went on the veteran medical school I I believe got coerced into believing that the different view towards the towards

nonhuman animals that is an exploitation of you was OK. And I fell into the trap of eating other animals using them in my biomedical research teaching programs etc. in ways that were of course harmful and fatal to them. And as time went on though I suppose my roots started to grow again or however you'd like to look at it and I started to seriously question what I was doing and realized that. Even though there might be benefits derived from exploiting other animals that that didn't make it correct that that wasn't the right way to view them or the world in general. Well when you use the term animal rights what is it that you mean what sort of Rights are you talking smack. OK I'll have to give. If you don't mind I'll give you a somewhat lengthy explanation of it. When I talk about animal rights and when most of my colleagues it's so. Little.

To protect. Going to. Tutorial just sort of. But I did just a moment of. Going to. An. Out. Of the bitter bitter. Winter. About an. Appt. Update he would. Say Ideally the reason that it's wrong to harm a human being isn't because you've labeled that individual human being. It's because of certain characteristics that are innate to that individual that make them worthy of protecting. So you look at

a human being and you see that they're alive. You see that they have interests in life that they want to pursue. You see that they suffer. They can have. They can feel pain. They can feel joy. Ideally you do not view other people simply in terms of your own values. You don't look at them from a utilitarian perspective and you also recognize that not all human beings are equal in terms of physical intellectual or other or other capabilities. So what you then do as a society is say. We don't want people to be taken advantage of Regardless of what their capabilities are. That from a philosophical standpoint from a moral standpoint they're all equal. Just because somebody is not very smart doesn't mean that somebody who is smarter has a right to take advantage of them. And so we say that people have certain rights. Of course that's a human construct. And when you look at non-human animals you see that they have

basically the exactly the same fundamental similarities that is human non-human animals are alive. They have the capacity to feel pain to suffer to feel joy in whatever limits they may have to that they have interests in life that may be far different from ours but remember just because your interests are different from mine doesn't give me the the right to harm you or to denigrate you because of that. And so when you see those similarities the fundamental similarities it's hard. Unless you're going to be arbitrary not to say that they should also have similar rights based upon their interests not based upon human values but all upon their interests so for example. Free Living raptor has interest in pursuing her his prey reproduction of open expanses to live in what have you. And it would be against their interest to take them

out of that situation and put them into a cage even if it was a big cage even a huge cage. It would still make it against their interest it would thwart whatever natural instinct and whatever behaviors that they might have. And so that's that's what I mean I don't mean that we should be according the rights to individuals who have no need for certain rights for example it would be ludicrous to say that pigs should have the right to vote. I live with pigs. None of them have expressed to me any interest in voting. So it seems to me that we can look at it in a more realistic way and say that pigs have interests in pursuing food and pursuing companionship with other pigs in pursuing. The areas in which to relax and what have you. It would be against their rights not to allow them to have those. Or to pursue those interests. I suppose that some people will react to that by saying that that

you know what you are doing is going a bit too far and attributing human characteristics to animals. Well actually I'm trying not to attribute human characteristics I'm trying to look at it in the best way I can given the limitations that I am a human being and we don't know what a pig things or what a cow thinks per se and trying to see what their behavior is and see what seems to stimulate them in positive ways and what seems to stimulate them in negative ways. As a very small example if you look at chickens who are raised for for their eggs. People talk about the battery cages as being an appropriate medium in which to raise them. And they say well you know the chickens seem to to not be bothered by that but that's not true because if you look at the behavior of the chickens and study them in a choice preference type situation you find that even chickens who are raised all their lives their short lives in battery cages will eventually

choose a free ranging situation over a battery cage. One of them's just. Lost some. Of the little. Sister. I'm just over the sense of. A system. Run. So again when you ask the chicken in a way that the chicken can understand. And I don't mean in the language situation you find that they have certain preferences and I think it's appropriate to honor those preferences. Of course I would prefer not to see the chickens being raised soley for eggs or meat production whatever but. But if people are going to do that they ought to at least allow the chicken to live a life that is consistent with their behavioral needs their social needs etc.. I could still magine people even people who perhaps especially people who are involved

in raising animals or really know animals in a way that that most of us don't. Could say that that still you know you know you talk about animals having interests in life animals feeling pain which that seems to be pretty obvious. But you know when you talk about animals say especially animals that are raised for food their interests in life are eating. And I'm not sure what. I'm not sure what else and you know I mean is it really does a sheep really feel joy and does well the day he certainly acts like they feel joy. You have to look at it in terms of being as benevolent as you can I believe if I look at certain types of people for example it's hard to imagine what they feel. People that are severely mentally enfeebled For example you don't know what they're feeling. They behave in certain ways that appear to express joy or to express dismay or whatever. And I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt and of course we do that as a society we do not allow at least under ideal circumstances people to

treat other human beings who may be severely disadvantaged in a way that is utilitarian in fashion. I mean that would be morally repugnant to do so. And when I look at a sheep for example since you mentioned that that individual I see somebody who maybe falls into the same kind of category of being not responsible for for her his actions per se because they don't you know that would be putting human values and values based upon a certain level of intellect and ability to discuss those values. But I still see that individual acting in certain ways depending on what stimulus is provided that indicate preferences and within certain bounds I think we ought to honor those preferences in a Especially if we're going to be taking them. Bring him on this earth. Of course they didn't ask to be brought on this earth. Bring them on this earth and then putting them into a confinement situation although with sheep they're not particularly a confined animal

as opposed to us a chickens or calves raised for veal or pigs raised in crates and what have you. So it seems to me we need to be careful about that. If we're going to kill and eat those animals I don't happen to be a person who does that but if some people want to do that it is I think highly inappropriate to not at least give them as good a life as possible and a life that's based on their needs not on what we perceive. Not only could talk economical terms for example. Our guest this morning is a he's a veterinarian He's also an associate professor at the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis and he is the president and co-founder of the Association of veterinarians for animal rights. And we're talking this morning about animal rights if you have questions comments. We certainly welcome your participation in the conversation. 3 3 3 W I L L is our local number toll free 800 to 2 2 W I L L or 9 4 5

5 match up the letters in the numbers. That's what you get. We do have a caller here on the line one to talk with. So let's do that. Hello. Oh hi David. I have a question for your guest. I the humane society although they're different from location location and I'm not a member of it or anything like that but there's been a we get a lot of the choice the generically country living magazines and stuff and there's been a lot of letters back and forth over the last couple years about people wanting farm cats and a lot of the Humane Societies won't give cash to farmers who want barn cats and I'm raising a general question here. Let me bring it up and civically How do you stand on neutering of animals given your philosophy stated. Yeah you bring up a point that's very good because obviously if we're going to give rights to other individuals it would certainly be an affront or an abrogation of those rights if you were to take them against their will and sterilize them. Certainly we wouldn't do that to people even

though there is an overpopulation problem in some parts of the world. And so it seems hypocritical and I believe it is too. To take dogs and cats against their will and spay or castrate them is that is a general Me require. However let's look at the opposite side of the coin though. Look at the look at the situation as to who is responsible for it is not the dog or the cat who is responsible for overpopulation. It is strictly human negligence human ignorance human vanity that has led to more dogs and cats than there are loving homes for. And the alternative for those individuals being spayed or castrated would be to kill them and we do that routinely we kill dogs and cats on an average of about a million individuals every month in this year every year and we've done this for the last several decades it seems. So I look at the situation as a crisis and one of the ways to take care of the

crisis is to Spain castrate those individuals so that there can't be any reproduction. I also look at it as and this may be stretching the point slightly that if the animal was asked if the individual is asked Would you prefer to be spayed or castrated or be killed. I think I might be wrong but I think that the individual would say sure Speyer cast me so I can live a long life like a fellow in Texas. I don't know if those are out for you or I think I gave you know I'm talking about you know much of yeah the topic is kind of interesting. I just as an aside that the rapist that was opting for castration but then they switched around. But I want to make another point this is interesting to me. One thing that we found was that there are a lot of the and I'm not I'm not trying to. I'm bringing it up as a question to you I'm not trying to suggest to the listeners that you're part of the Humane Society or part of this problem. But I'm going to guess your question I don't want to mislead you or anyone

else I know that you're not but there's been a big brouhaha about giving animals to farmers lately because quote unquote in the Humane Society I've had these people tell me this well if we give you a barn cat that cattle be dead in three months you know on average. So why should we give you the cat why you know would be better for us to kill it today. How do you feel about that because it strikes me. By the way I'm not an animal rights person but I will have this much in common with you. I would prefer to see that animal live its life in a natural setting than in a cage waiting to be killed. How do you feel about yeah I agree with you I think that you will first of all death seems to be certain if you kill somebody then you offer them no opportunities to to do anything. And unless the individual is suffering and suffering irreconcilably I don't see that we have the right to do that. So I agree. I think that. Just like you and I would prefer not to be put into a situation we are where we are totally protected to the exclusion of our ability to travel to to drive a car or to ride a bicycle to climb a mountain or whatever we choose to do and take the associated

risks. We would find it totally inappropriate to be locked up in proof provided for even though that might be a more healthy and less risk or a risk free way to live. The same thing with I would think would be in the case of the cat. Certainly if you allow the cat to go to the barn barn situation the farm situation castrated or spayed of course so that reproduction doesn't continue then at least they're allowed the opportunity to live at some at some length now. I wouldn't want to put the cat into a situation where the farmer knowingly or you knew that the farmer would sexually or otherwise abuse the cats. I mean that that to me would be inappropriate but if there's no reason to suspect that the person is going to melt treat the individual. Why not give the individual a chance to lift you up Sure. Quick follow up. Just a personal experience we do in fact firemen have a have a barn which we try to keep cats there and a problem we hear right away. Overpopulation is not a problem it's like we don't even have a cat right now because every time we've lived out

here for about 12 years and we've Well when we bought a place there was an old tom cat that managed to live on for about four years. Every so often. A crop of kittens and within about three months of the neighborhood the neighborhood we live in a country but all the neighboring dogs had eaten them all. So right now over there we don't even have a cat we can't keep them but it's a natural process when we even try to protect us so much that I don't know about. I don't think on the wild overpopulation is a problem which is kind of what you said the other thing and it's my last question and I'll just hang up and listen. David from the show always enjoy these things. Do you ever get it. Odds would I'm not bashing you mean I don't mean to be like that I sound like this but you ever get to these people because their philosophy really is in at least in some local chapters very different from what you're exposing not just hang up and listen but it's an interesting show. Well I'm glad you brought the idea that the Humane Society there is no such thing as a humane society that's generic and universal. There are numerous organizations that call themselves humane societies and just because of the description of the name

seems to fit what they're trying to do. And you're going to find there for a wide variety of opinions on how to deal with certain social issues. There's no way else I can comment on it it's as various as is the number of people in the room. I mean it's going to vary widely throughout the states. OK let's talk with some of the folks here line. A toll free line line for snacks. Hello how are you got to read and I read tonight. Children are story about Henry Burke and their group. Yes. So he began the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and we found it interesting. I don't know if you meant in the beginning I didn't tune in but to protect animals are incredibly cruel treatment at the time. You protected a child and began the F-P

command to court the trial good court and he was dragged by by neighbors of the condo was being created as a slave and had wealth all over the body that could prime children who were to go in and off the street and you could be protected under the law. Animals were non-human animals no longer protect children but there was a law there. Lobby hard to protect animals and he said if you can child as a child I will ask for it. Protection of an animal and I find it interesting that at the time people were saying animals do not have feelings they feel nothing. But you don't hear them screaming when they're when they're not louder and in the most butcher inhumane ways at being ground. I mean you don't give that any

broken heart and one good eye time is that we the way we treat creation delivery treat you know the natural resource of nature animals and any resources that the earth the way we are treating each other and when we go into a store I don't go door and we see things from Carolina that apparently some of them made in labor and also children later we don't think of second. Most of us I know actually grew but you know it you know really you are going to weigh that courage to look at what you're for. Well you bring up a real salient point. It's what we're talking about are differences insensitivity for a long time people had feelings that people of color for

example were animals. I mean to use that in a very pejorative term. And finally somebody or people recognized that people of color are human beings just like everybody else who's human being it doesn't matter what color the skin is and because that enlightened view that sense of view that increase in compassion for fellow human beings recognizing that they are similar to others that we have at least in law done away with the enslavement of people and we've. Recently unfortunately only recently have enacted laws that provide for equal rights for people regardless of their their color of their skin. It's that same type of sensitivity that I think we need to start showing towards other individuals that share this planet with us. We don't own this planet this is not our pearl or our oyster to do with as we please this planet belongs to everybody every individual who lives on the planet. And of course remember that we're trained cnt we are all trans in on this planet. Every one of us is going to die at some point regardless

of what what else we may try to do. And the plane is going to be left for the next generation of individuals human or non-human. And so I think you're right we're going to have to look at things differently and look at it with a little more sensitivity and compassion and not treat it as a strictly a resource as strictly in utilitarian terms. Well I need to jump in here because we're sort of halfway point and I need to reintroduce and get on some other callers but I mean I think some of one of the points that people I think sometimes have real difficulty with. That's a point that's often made by animal rights people is that there is essentially no difference between the value of an animal life and human life that is. And I think that some people have a have a real problem with that. Now I understand what you're saying but but then that becomes totally arbitrary. Let me try to illustrate why it's arbitrary. Certainly there is a difference in value based on the

individual who's being asked and her his perception right. I mean that's that individual's value system. There are some people who who value certain types of car or cars over over other things they would do without certain things in order to have a fancy car or whatever. That's a personal value system. But there but with dealing with living independent beings you have to be looking at it from a much different perspective than them cars or other inanimate objects. When you if you were to be in a situation were. You had to choose between a dog and a human being as far as who would live and who would die. I don't think it's wrong to to automatically be thinking to save the human being because you are a human being and that's if you look throughout this other species of animals that they share this earth and of course we all are animals. All you humans and other individuals each eats B.S. tends to try to protect its own with that that's logical and it makes

sense in terms of propagation of the species that would make any sense if you tried them. For example mate with a species that wouldn't be able to reproduce your kind or to protect a species that they wouldn't be of value to you to your own family. But now let's turn around and let's say that you've got to choose between your son assuming you have one and my son assuming I have one. And who are you going to choose. I would think that you would choose your own son. But you didn't choose your own son on the basis of a of a moral principle that you were following. You do that purely for arbitrary and selfish reasons because that is your son you know your son. Just like I would choose somebody who I knew over somebody I didn't know because of familiarity and again selfishness that I happen to know that individual. So it becomes an arbitrary thing. It's not saying that. When I say that nonhuman animals and humans are equal I'm not saying in terms of somebodies perceived value I'm talking about a philosophical thing. Talking about.

Affording them the opportunity to to have to live their life their equal in moral value in a general scheme. This morning we're talking with Ned. He is a veterinarian. He is the president and co-founder of the Association of veterinarians for animal rights. He is also an associate professor at the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis. By the way he'll be giving a talk this evening on the UVA campus at 7:30 talking about animal rights from a veterinarians perspective. This will be held in 180 beer hall. It's presented by students for animal rights and anybody who would like to attend is welcome to do that it's free and open to anybody. If you have questions for us want to be a part of our conversation here this morning. 3 3 3 W I L L and toll free 800 1:58 W while the line too is our next caller. Hello. Good morning. I have a couple of.

And I've been waiting for the gentleman's name calling about the Humane Society so if I could first briefly just go back to his call. Locally it does seem to be a group committed to providing the stats for what they consider acceptable urban situations. I no longer contribute to the local humane society and you know I think they're very upfront about what they do and what they feel about it and I think you know as long as they are and they're out asking people for money if they don't get tax money in I think they can sort of run their little group. Pretty much the way they want. But to your guest I would like to go back to when he was discussing producing food. I think he was zeroed in kind of on kik and one of the things that we have in this country is food that a

lot of people can afford. I know there are groups and some of them share many of his views who feel that any way to stop the production of meat to feed people is OK. It seems to me and as he said that he's speaking philosophically that he makes no distinction. From one person to another. That is you know for those of us who have a college education and and a comfortable living we can spend a lot more on food and still have a very nice lifestyle. Lots of these things I think would impact terribly on poor people. And I realize you know I just have the feeling it you know that that he philosophically we all are sort of one and he wouldn't feel any more commitment to a dying person than a dying dog. I'm not talking

about his son and my son in this type of thing but I just mean people as one big group of dogs cats chickens me and I would like to hear his feeling on. On producing meat for human consumption and his feeling on the yacht in the West there are groups that are I mean they're aiming to make regulations and laws that would simply drive them out of business. So animals wouldn't be killed for people to eat. Well first of all let's let's look at the situation honestly. No one and especially in this country needs to eat animal based products in order to survive. There are over 10 million of us who don't eat animal products in this country and we do very well. There are many many of those 10 million or plus individuals who also abstain entirely from eggs cheese

ice cream and honey and things like that myself included. And we live a very good life a very healthy life as far as the cost of production presently because of the status quo and because of the economic interests that have come to bear the animal based agriculture is relatively cheap. I mean if you look at. The cost of eggs for example versus the cost of soybeans relatively speaking it may seem that eggs are cheaper. However this is simply a matter of supply and demand and if you were to gear up for a stronger plant based agricultural system you would be able to find protein sources and energy sources that would be cheaper than animal based as far as poor people are concerned. I don't see how poor people can afford meat these days I mean meat is 6 exorbitantly high compared to two plant based food. The reason people eat animals in animal products in this country or other countries and some other countries is based on

preference taste preference has nothing to do with nourishment because you can be just as nourished by eating plant products. The second feature of this is that you in this country in particular we use most of our arable land or much much of our arable land to raise crops that are then fed back to a very inefficient protein converter that is non-human animals. And then we kill and eat those animals. It would make much more sense to use the crops directly Now some people argue well with ruminants we can utilize. Areas of land that are not arable that's true and in some countries and in some parts of this country that is done and good use is made of land that couldn't be used otherwise as far as human food production. However the point still remains that most of the animals that we use in this country for few for food are raised on food that could be used directly in people. And if you cut out the animal in this situation you increase the productivity and the

protein quality of course is excellent with plant based things. The old myth of you can't get all your needs from plants is absolutely untrue. It was perpetuated I'm sure by the animal based agricultural industry in order to try to perpetuate and promote their own their own business. If if you decided that. We would let you know you would like to see everyone at some point in the future become Figgins and stop eating meat. Then one hour of that is that is feasible now. OK you know I have to admit not admit it but I mean I accept that people who live in the Arctic for example native Eskimos and what have you. They're not going to be able to eke out a living on plants alone because of the environment is not conducive to that. I don't see anything wrong in the under those circumstances where they have no choice. I think that's a critical key issue here is that in our society at least in the lower 48 if you will. We have a choice we

can raise crops and use animal based I mean non-animal based agriculture. So what would what kind of strategy would you you advocate for moving away from the production of animals for food. And how do you how do you decide you want to do that how do you do. Well that there's it's a simple strategy in that. What has to happen. It's a personal choice and I can't foresee one of the present circumstances to not eat other animals when I can do though I hope to set up a cyst situation where you could look to me as a role model see that I'm doing well and understand why it is that I choose not to kill and eat those individuals and I hope that you would become sensitized in that you voluntarily and of your own volition to be redundant would choose not to do it and it is as that sensitivity spreads over time we would become less dependent upon animal based agriculture and

also at the same time the businesses that are based on animal agriculture can make the switch over to a plant based situation. So I think it's going to be a gradual process. The strategy is going to be one of just having people open their minds and their hearts if you will to be euphemistic and realize that that that their eating of other individuals is purely out of selfishness it's not out of any need to do so. And if they can come to grips with that and make the change in that that slowly will will oust evolve to a plant based situation. Let's talk with someone else line one a couple of what. What do you recommend we get at the library. Thank you. Well there are several books that are really excellent as far as just getting an understanding of the underlying principles of philosophic principles.

One is Peter Singer's book called Animal Liberation. It was published in 1985. He has published a second edition of it which apparently is greatly improved over the first one. And that came out I believe in 1901 but I wouldn't want to be quoted on that. Tom Ragan has published a book called The Case for animal rights published by the University of California Press that was published in the late 80s. It's an excellent book hard to wade through though I have to admit not being a philosopher I found it tedious but very well written very well documented. There's a book that I just became aware of called the rights of nature by Roderick Nash published in 1909 by the University of Wisconsin Press. That book is excellent because it brings together the whole situation it talks about the whole earth plants dreams non-human and human animals. The history behind our relationship with with the earth and its inhabitants and it provides a

stimulating discussion of that issue. Could you walk me on this question as well. A dog and several cats and I try. I don't like the idea that I am are killing some animals in order to feed thing I want to provide feeding them. I'm mostly vegetarian myself I've tried feeding them like macaroni o it. I'll eat some of the some corn chips or cheddar cheese chips something some some predatory thing although I don't watch the commercial dog food it's mostly corn meal lettuce injected with a lot of synthetic could you. Yeah you backed me us through our vegetarian type diet I could give you brought up a very very good question I mean the implication of your question is much more broad than just your own personal situation. What do we do about. It. Obligate carnivores such as Can't dogs are not obligate carnivores they can live very well on a vegan diet and in fact there are several companies that produce

a well-balanced and nourishment very nourishing. Commercially available diet nature's choice I think is one of them. I don't have all the names on on the tip of my tongue. Dogs can do well that way however cats have a special requirement for particular amino acid and that amino acid unfortunately is not available easily in plants. It is is available very easily through animal based products but now it's also being synthesized from a petroleum product I believe or some other product and that can be added to a cat's otherwise vegan diet to allow them to have that particular essential amino acid and then live a good life. But the big question is What are we going to do about the carnivores that we have as companions. And I think one of the things that we have to realize is that for the forseeable future we're going to have dogs and cats as as companions regardless of anybody who might not want you to have them. I personally do want

you to have them. I think dogs and cats are perfectly acceptable companions. As long as you treat them ideally the same way you would treat human companions that is you don't mistreat them you don't you respect them you treat them as individuals you don't kill them when they're used to you is no longer a parent etc. but once they're alive we do have to take care of them just like once a human being is born into the world we don't have the right morally or legally to to kill them because it's inconvenient to take care of them. And so once we have dogs and cats already in our in our midst we're going to have to feed them according to their needs and not let our own moral principles dictate how we deal with them. So nature's guidance I believe is called Nature's diet. Nature's Bester. Some like that you can you know if you. Want to contact the students for animal rights I betcha that they'll have a list of products available that would be useful to you. I think their numbers 3

3 7 1 1 3 0 0 0 and Andrea Schwartz is the person who facilitates the group 3 7. 1 3 0. That's correct. Thank you. Thanks for the call about 10 minutes left and Ned Butte Mitchie is our guest. He's a veterinarian He's also president and co-founder of the Association of veterinarians for animal rights. We're talking about animal rights here this morning in this part of focus if you have questions for us. Give us a call. I want to get on to a couple of other people here but you know that last exchange is some people that's that's that's going to be right over the edge for them to say that I'm a veteran or a vegetarian and I think my dog and my cat should be vegetarians too. I mean I mean that you know it's going to strike people as being way silly. Well it has to be consistent with a philosophy. Again it's a matter of choice. For example if you are happen to be a red tail hawk living out in the woods it would be ludicrous to be thinking about the red tail hawk having a choice of diets

choosing to go to soy burgers and getting a Sony burger instead of going on killing a mouse. But I also don't believe that Hawks Missoni deliberate about what's right and wrong. I think they react too to inherent needs that they have and don't deliberate about those situations. They don't have a choice in other words they will go and kill a mouse to eat or eat carrion or whomever. As a result of their their instincts and the result of needs you and I though we do have a choice we can actually we can accommodate dogs and cats very well. Sometimes I mean it depends on the situation so we could make that choice for them. It's a slippery slope I don't want to. I don't want to really get off on a tangent with that one but I think it's something for people to think about anyway. Just just to be consistent to think about it and you're going to have to come up with your own personal

decision about what you want to do. Presently there's no shortage of food for dogs and cats on a commercial basis that's based on animal products because it's generally a byproduct of the human slaughter of food. The food industry. You know when you're slaughtering non-human animals for human consumption. But if if there came a time when we all were vegetarians and then we would have a little different problem. Let's talk with another caller toll free line is next. Hello Mr. Mickey I hope that I'm not repeating an already asked question but do you make any distinction between the worth of a human being in the work of an animal. You know we did talk about that in I do based upon the fact that I happen to be a human being but that in no way diminishes my moral principles. The principal has tried to espouse that. It's irrelevant as far as one's own perspective as far as the value of another individual that individual is valuable to herself or himself independent of any

value placed upon them by somebody else you would not appreciate nor want somebody to view you and behave towards you in a way that's reflected only by their sense of you. By what they perceive as your value to them any more than I would want you to do that with dogs cats horses cattle or others. Apparently you are giving perception and conscious ability to be conscious and perceive and even think animals. Is that correct. First of all remember that we are animals. We happen to be homo sapiens Genus species of animals. We are no different in many respects to other animals. The ability to think you go to the ability to think to reason and to feel to be aware of ones life to be conscious is not shared only by human beings. There are many many many other non human beings who have those capabilities and part of the

problem is that we don't have the ability we are too ignorant to to know that because we don't know how to speak with the other animals as soon as we learn how to speak with them in different ways. We will learn it for example. Minor example is the issue of color blindness for many many years decades centuries we thought the dogs cats cattle were colorblind but that was because we did not know how to ask a question in a way that the cat. Bull Dog or whomever could answer it. Now that we have learned how to ask that question we find that indeed cattle dogs and cats and numerous other animals see color. We don't know in what capacity they see color because it becomes a cycle physical situation. But they do see color and what I'm saying is that when we learn more about a particular specie we will find more and more that they are more similar to us than they are different in many respects. Let me get a sense just quickly ask you about some research that was done. First of all let me say that I do

not endorse any cruelty to and I think animals should be treated always very humanely. But going up one minute just OK I agree with you and that's a fine statement to make. But let me ask you if I was to take a human child and kill that child painlessly in order to get a sample of Liber to produce a culture and and develop a test using that culture would you consider that humane treatment of the child. That was that's Nazi Germany. Absolutely. Right now right into our point as animal rights activists is that we're trying to get people to view other individuals in the same sensitive and compassionate way. We're not saying that nonhuman animals are equal to humans in all respects. But they do deserve equal consideration. And what you find abhorrent as far as treatment of a child we do worse than that to nonhuman animals much much worse than that every day every second of every day. So anyway go on with your question just let me just run this research I would like your comment on the walls of some

chicken cages. I was one chicken kid you know how the chickens are sometimes crowded into cages in these egg factories right I know very well like that. Well the walls of the chicken cage were mechanized so that the walls would gradually move inward until they would crowd the chickens. There was an inward limit they wouldn't go any farther than a certain limit but they would crowd the chickens. However the chickens were conditions of it they would peck a button and this button as they pecked a button would cause the walls to move back outward and the chickens. In other words the chickens could move could get expand their cages as much as they wanted to and they would stop pecking the button at one that's when the wall went out about 18 inches. They'd stop they didn't want the wall to go any farther. Matt and I were desperately they were not offended by being any any more proud of them. And I've taken more of my time off calling up my chances. Well however. But I also pointed out earlier in the show that Marion stamp Dawkins and numerous other. Researchers behavior researchers and myself have shown that when given a choice that is more expansive than the choice that you just talked about that is it's a fairly

limited choice because I'm sure that wall would expand to infinity when given the choice. Essentially all chickens will choose a free ranging situation I want to try to get one more caller lying to. Yeah I wanted to point out that there is a major difference between animals and humans and that humans have an intellect in animals have. There's no evidence whatsoever that animals have intellect in any degree and in fact animals there's no evidence that animals were. Animals never commit suicide. Animals don't have any concept of what their preferences are notably missing certain sets of values or a writer for right or wrong or no concepts or none of what you're saying is true it is true. There is scientific evidence to the contrary to everything that you've mentioned something. For example there is a theory that dolphins who washed up on the shore have maybe committed suicide. That's a theory nobody knows. There's there's a word no evidence there's no evidence that dolphins won't suicide.

There's evidence that dolphins washed up on the tour. But there's no. Evidence that they commit suicide. There are theories by very knowledgeable people that it may be suicide but it's all of this is irrelevant. I don't know of anyone heard all of that. No no it's irrelevant for example. Just because a human being may not have an intellect somebody who was severely mentally and feeble for example somebody with severe Down syndrome who cannot understand what is going on in this world has no intellect no ability to really reason and cetera do you think that we can use them in the same way that we use non-human animals simply because they they don't share what you consider a which I consider a very elitist view of human beings. Very elitist you know. Yeah animals have a concept of elitism No I don't know what I'm talking about elite of them unfair let's talk about what you just stated what you just stated is precisely something that I would hope that people would not accept that is that using intellect and superior intellectual capabilities as a means to defining your behavior towards other individuals aren't plants alive for evidence.

Towards certain stimuli. Well they have responses to stimuli that is correct. How do you justify killing plants. OK that that's a really good question if you let me finish that the answer that I think you'll see what's going to happen here when you look at the issue of killing animals for food non-human animals for food. What are you killing really you're killing literally tens of thousands of plants because that animal had to eat tens of thousands of plants if you ate the plants directly you would get more sustenance over a longer period of time than simply eating that individual animal. So if if plants do feel if plants do suffer of course you have to eat something in order to survive yourself then it would make it would be it would argue strongly against eating the animal and rather eating the plants directly because you would be responsible for far fewer deaths of plants than you would if you ate the animal first we're going to have to stop there I'm sure we could continue to do it to have a good discussion for another hour unfortunately. We're here at the end of the call that the beginning because this is the way I want to thank you very much for being here. Well thank

you appreciate the opportunity. I guess Ned Butte Meichi is the president and co-founder of the Association of veterinarians for animal rights. He'll be giving a talk on the UVA campus if you'd like to hear more. Tonight at 7:30 in room one eighty behavior hall is presented by students for animal rights.