In considering the sometimes inflammatory statements and accusations leveled by animal rights/animal liberation groups against zoos, circuses, and stewardship efforts aimed at species survival through planned captive management and reproduction,
we believe that it is important to consider the credibility of the source. Animal liberation and animal welfare is not the same thing, despite what some animal rights groups would have us believe.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association:
"Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of animal
welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food,
fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals."
The animal rights movement is a philosophical school predicated on the notion that all human interaction with other animals is by definition speciesist and illicit. The animal rights movement opposes conservation efforts that have saved species
like the California Condor, the Red Wolf, and the Przewalski Horse from extinction and returned them to the wild – just as efforts by zoos, circuses, wild west shows, and cattle ranchers saved the American Bison (Buffalo) from extinction a century
ago through captive management. Ultimately the animal rights movement offers no practical plan for the survival of endangered species.
Below, you will find several files in universal .pdf file form examining the animal liberation movement in general and PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in particular weighing their motives, methods, and record. These critiques
come from diverse sources, conservative, liberal, pro-business, and from within the animal rights movement itself.
Again, credibility is important. When reading or viewing attacks on zoos, circuses, and legitimate conservation programs – please consider the source. |
