Unlike animal welfare organizations, animal rights organizations "seek to end the use and ownership of animals."
Non serviam. "I will not serve." That is the defiant declaration of the devil himself -- and of all his earthly disciples, that multitude of mortal men and women who refuse to be subjugated to a higher authority. They reject service; they reject hierarchy; they reject the concepts of right and wrong, reward and punishment; they reject objective truth. It is not enough that they reject these things for themselves; they would have the rest of us reject them too. They abhor the sacrificial service that animals have per-formed over the centuries; the stewardship of man is anathema to them.
Such arrogance and hostility are manifest in animals rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Daniel Oliver of the Capital Research Center warns that PeTA seeks to abolish "the use of animals in biomedical research; the raising of farm animals for food and clothing, and for byproducts such as insulin; hunting, trapping, and fishing; the use of animals in education and entertainment, including zoos, aquariums, circuses, and rodeos; and the breeding and owning of pets."
In a recent issue of the Capital Research Center's monthly publication Alternatives in Philanthropy, Oliver contends that the animal rights movement has "failed to produce evidence of any widespread or systemic animal abuse in the United States today, whether in research laboratories, livestock and poultry farms, zoos and circuses, or elsewhere. Animal rights organizations," he laments, "rely on the support of a generous but sometimes gullible urban public that is sympathetic to animals but knows little about how farm animals are raised, why hunting and trapping are necessary, and why animal research is needed for progress in medicine."
What they don't know can hurt them! "Animals are hunted and trapped not only for food but to protect human lives, property, and agriculture," Oliver ex-plains. "In the United States, hunting and trapping are also integral to efforts to preserve endangered species threatened by predators." He points out that "alternatives to hunting and trapping, such as fertility controls, fencing to confine deer and other 'pest' animals, and predator reintroduction to control pests . . . have generally proved to be ineffective, costly, or dangerous."
Animal rights groups claim that "animal research has not benefitted human health; animal research is painful, and there are effective alternatives to animal research." Not so, says Oliver. "In fact," he observes, "animal research has played a key role in discovering better treatments and cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, cholera, diabetes, leprosy, poliomyelitis, rheumatoid arthritis, smallpox, yellow fever, and many other infectious diseases and chronic conditions." He also points out that "the most comprehensive study of pain in animal research found that 92 percent of research animals do not experience pain. And so-called 'alternatives' to animal research such as cell cultures, chemical tests, and computer simulations -- while already widely used -- usually can only serve as useful adjuncts to animal research."
