|
In many ways, animal advocacy can be compared to Christianity. In Christianity, you have your Baptists, your Lutherans, your Catholics, your Methodists, and so on. Each one working on the same fundamental idea, but with off-shoots that have culminated into a religious structure that is specific to their own thoughts and ideas. In animal advocacy, you have your PETA’s, your Humane Society of the United States, your Animal Liberation Fronts, and so on. Again, each one working on the same fundamental idea (the welfare of animals), but with off-shoots that have culminated into a belief structure that is specific to their own thoughts and ideas. Where conflict arises is when people get stuck into their vision of what animal welfare looks like to them. I think it is safe to say, for the masses, that the most basic fundamental idea behind animal advocacy is that animals deserve to be treated in a capacity where they are respected as beings that have the capacity to feel pain. Even this can be broken down into types of pain; physical, emotional, and mental. But again, because even this is such a topic of debate (i.e. do animals feel emotional or mental pain); we will keep it extremely basic. From this starting point, the roads that the animal advocate can take are infinite. It is all just schools of thoughts, based on the individual, or group organizations, thinking. It is based in their opinion, their judgments, and their interpretations of what should be layered on that fundamental first building block of, “Animals deserve to be treated in a capacity were they are respected as beings that have the capacity to feel pain”. The thing is; no one is right. And no one is wrong. These are all just opinions and people acting on opinions. And yet, I see so much time go into debating who is handling things properly and improperly when speaking or acting on behalf of animals. Sure, these debates are important when they revolve around action being taken on an issue; say a new bill or resolution being proposed, or a lawsuit, etc. But why must so much time be spent pointing fingers and saying “this group/person is to blame for this”, or “this group/person is too extreme/not extreme enough”? I make a point not to come out for, or against, one particular group. The reason being, I am not going to marry myself to such a broad, blanket, statement, when the fact is that there are actions taken by each group that I have both agreed and disagreed with. To wait for that one group to come along that is so closely going to perfect my ideals that I can completely be on board with them would be like waiting for that to happen with my government; and it won’t. My rule is simple; I whole-heartedly believe, nay, PROMOTE, respectfully disagreeing. If a group does something that you agreed with, give them a thumbs-up. If they do something that you don’t, respectfully disagree, take action that you feel is needed, and move on. But taking a far-reaching, extremist stance, on a group one way, or another, is only perpetuating divide in the community, it gets nothing accomplished, and is ultimately causing inaction for the animals. I will not put on my rose-colored glasses and prance in the world of “Can’t we all just get along?”, but I will say, the sooner that we can learn to bridge these huge gaps between groups and individuals, the sooner we can start working on the fundamental issues as a larger community, and cause immeasurable change in the world of animal advocacy. Remember; we are in this for the animals.