What do the libertarians on here think about Animal Rights?

[navy-vet]

I don't care for mice in the house or shop as they carry disease and can cause fires by chewing on electrical wires and can actually create a significant amount of structural damage. I would never use glue traps, and I never kill anything I don't have to, but when I do, I do it in what I believe is a humane manner. I've caught them in the humane traps and released them outside, once I forgot to check one and later found it all shriveled up, which made me feel rather bad. I have also used the spring kill types which kill quickly. My cat Merlin has caught several and brings them to me alive for disposal. I take em outside and chuck em into the woods. I might have chucked the same one more than once. Most have looked alike and were the same size... I might start marking them with a magic marker and if they come back I'll waste em.

Naw I won't do that. Can't fault em for trying to come home....I will just keep chuckin em into the woods....maybe go deeper

[libertarianinternational]

'Animal rights' is an oxymoron.

Next.

[navy-vet]

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.^[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,^[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."^[1]

[pessimist]

[Dianne]

We are all animals, so don't understand this thread. All animals should be treated humanely. Whether we eat each other or not, all animals should be treated humanely. I laugh at you idiots who believe you are superior to an animal, stating god gave you infinite wisdom to kill .... as you stand behind your big gun and ammo... Come tell me how strong you are when you fight a bear on your own without a sub machine gun ....lmao ... God gave you the intelligence to use a weapon, he did not give you the right to kill outside of your survival.

[Mr Tansill]

So (1) what is "our" legal system? Can I opt out of it and remain in my location, with my home, and my own protection? And (2) who defines what "harm" is?

(1) I suppose I was referring to the legal system (set of laws, statues, etc.) of the United States, but more accurately, I was referring to what the "ideal" legals system should look like. My choice to use the term "legal system" was perhaps poor - what I meant was "codified societal norms." Yes, you can opt out of it to the extent you opt out of society. If you mean can you sit in your house and never pay taxes, then no, you can't opt out of it, nor should you be able to.

(2) People do, through philosophical investigation and using their own personal experience to make logical inferences and then abstracting rules from those results. Apply (test) them and see what the result is. If good, continue, if not, go back to the drawing board, gather more data, or check your logic.

Bottom line I was trying to make was on the subject of what "rules" people should make up - my position is that only those things which cause direct harm to other entities should be formally "forbidden" in our society. Such a society would be one which I think would maximize the freedom of all individuals, while still providing basic respect and rights for everyone.

[helmuth_hubener]

We are all animals, so don't understand this thread.

Usually when people say "animals" they are excluding humans. The mental correction is generally done automatically and so there is no problem. In the same way, you likely auto-corrected my first sentence in this post. As a matter of fact, the sentence should say "Usually when English-speakers say 'animals'" to be technically correct.

All animals should be treated humanely.

This may or may not be true. Even the hardest-core animal-lovers like Deb are not so sure about rats. So there are apparently some exceptions. I would dare say: many exceptions! But even if you want to go Jainist and stop stepping on bugs, that doesn't address a very different question:

May we force other people to treat animals humanely, at gunpoint if necessary?

I answer that question no. And frankly I do not think that all animals should always be treated humanely either, but that is a different issue. Even if I could agree with your statement that all animals should be treated humanely, as a libertarian I would still have to say that we are not entitled to use force and violence against those threating animals differently than you and I think they should be treated.

Whether we eat each other or not, all animals should be treated humanely.

To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another. At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me. I really, really, don't want you to kill me. I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan.

[helmuth_hubener]

The example was a dog being abused and neglected by his owner - not a guy trapping rats that have infested his house.

What is the moral difference? Is the dog more intelligent than the rat? More aware or sentient?

There are certain absolutes, right! That's what you told me.

It seems perhaps my own absolutes are more absolute than yours.

But that isn't the hill I want to die on.

Why not? It's an absolute! Right?

It appears to be an absolute with dogs, but not with rats. Some mammals are more equal than others.

In any case, whether your moral stand is consistent or not, what matters to me as a libertarian is just this: Don't use aggressive force to make me follow that stand. That's it! Believe what you want. As long as you are not going to force me to treat animals according to your own esoteric standards -- at gun-point if necessary -- then I'm happy and we can coexist nicely.

[helmuth_hubener]

Answer me this: were I to find you, kidnap you, and truss you up like a Thanksgiving turkey in my barn, would you be in favor of me skinning you alive?

Answer: I would very much prefer your doing this and leaving me alive to your killing me humanely.

What'chu think, osan? Aren't you coming back to further cream and demolish me? You wouldn't want to lose the junior high debate, would you?

[Deborah K]

This may or may not be true. Even the hardest-core animal-lovers like Deb are not so sure about rats. So there are apparently some exceptions.

This is misleading. I think I've made myself quite clear that treating any animal inhumanely is unacceptable - even in the case of a rat infestation.

May we force other people to treat animals humanely, at gunpoint if necessary?

May we force other people to treat other humans humanely? And if the answer is yes, then why doesn't it apply to other sentient beings? Because they're property? And if that is your answer, then would you have the same argument if slavery were still legal?

I answer that question no. And frankly I do not think that all animals should always be treated humanely either, but that is a different issue. Even if I could agree with your statement that all animals should be treated humanely, as a libertarian I would still have to say that we are not entitled to use force and violence against those threating animals differently than you and I think they should be treated.

A one-size-fits-all point of view never works in real life. And let's be clear here, this isn't about "treating animals differently..." - that implies much more than torture. We are talking about accepting people into our communities who brutalize their pets; livestock; etc..

To kill and eat someone is the least humane thing one could do to another.

In order for a human to eat - something has to die. Not ALL killing is inhumane. As I mentioned before, there are studies now on plant responses to being cut and killed, and there is evidence that they communicate.

At least, it's the least humane thing you could do to me. I really, really, don't want you to kill me. I would far rather you skin me alive than you kill me, as I told osan

My guess is, that after being skinned alive, you would be in such horrific pain that you would beg him to put you out of your misery. But I digress.

[Deborah K]

What is the moral difference? Is the dog more intelligent than the rat? More aware or sentient?

There are certain absolutes, right! That's what you told me.

It seems perhaps my own absolutes are more absolute than yours.

Why not? It's an absolute! Right?

It appears to be an absolute with dogs, but not with rats. Some mammals are more equal than others.

In any case, whether your moral stand is consistent or not, what matters to me as a libertarian is just this: Don't use aggressive force to make me follow that stand. That's it! Believe what you want. As long as you are not going to force me to treat animals according to your own esoteric standards -- at gun-point if necessary -- then I'm happy and we can coexist nicely.

Again, it's quite clear that even in the case of a rat infestation, eliminating them should be done humanely. You think you have the moral high ground because you think that, no matter what the circumstance, people should be allowed to brutalize their animals. Period. That's what you think. You try to couch it as non-aggression toward people and their property, but as I suggested before, one-size-fits-all philosophies don't always pan out in the real world.

HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails. What would you do? The truth.

[Deborah K]

Rodenticides are far more humane than snap traps.

How so? Poison causes excruciating pain. Snap traps break their necks and kill them instantly. At least that is my understanding. At any rate, as I stated, I'm not inclined to argue about rat infestations and how to eliminate them. I rather think it is a straw man with the intent to move the goal posts.

[Deborah K]

Well, I don't like the sticky traps. Imagine being suck till you die of thirst.

Agreed. That is a form of torture, imo.

[helmuth_hubener]

Again, it's quite clear that even in the case of a rat infestation, eliminating them should be done humanely.

Perhaps it should be; perhaps it shouldn't be. Sincere, normal, decent people will differ on this question. And even you, as you say, it is not a hill you choose to die on. Why not? Why die on the hill for dogs, but not rats? All I can come up with is that clearly it's just societal norms. There's no moral, metaphysical reason. Dogs and rats aren't that different. One is just cuter.

So, far from being "quite clear," to me it instead seems quite fuzzy.

You think you have the moral high ground

Nope. I just think that I am giving what is the logical answer as to when it is permissible to pull out guns and start shooting people. When it's OK to use force. The answer: only defensively. Having that answer doesn't make me superior to anyone. I'm not even the one who came up with this philosophy -- I'm just parroting Rothbard and other clear-thinking giants.

I do not think of myself as superior to you in any way. I'm just a guy. And I happen to like logical consistency. And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.

HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails. What would you do? The truth.

Do I know the guy?

[helmuth_hubener]

I rather think it is a straw man with the intent to move the goal posts.

Well are we talking about animal rights, or are we only willing to talk about cuddly dog and cat rights?

[Deborah K]

Well are we talking about animal rights, or are we only willing to talk about cuddly dog and cat rights?

Animal rights as it pertains to whether or not a community should accept as a neighbor, a person who abuses his animals. Read the very first post I wrote, that you responded to. Put the debate back in that context.

[Deborah K]

Perhaps it should be; perhaps it shouldn't be. Sincere, normal, decent people will differ on this question. And even you, as you say, it is not a hill you choose to die on. Why not? Why die on the hill for dogs, but not rats? All I can come up with is that clearly it's just societal norms. There's no moral, metaphysical reason. Dogs and rats aren't that different. One is just cuter.

So, far from being "quite clear," to me it instead seems quite fuzzy.

Nope. I just think that I am giving what is the logical answer as to when it is permissible to pull out guns and start shooting people. When it's OK to use force. The answer: only defensively. Having that answer doesn't make me superior to anyone. I'm not even the one who came up with this philosophy -- I'm just parroting Rothbard and other clear-thinking giants.

I do not think of myself as superior to you in any way. I'm just a guy. And I happen to like logical consistency. And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.


Do I know the guy?

First, when I state that you think you have the moral high ground, it doesn't mean that I believe you think you are better than I am, I don't. It means I think you believe that you have the better moral argument based on your one-size-fits-all philosophy. You have turned the debate on its head with comments like: "to pull out guns and start shooting people. When it's OK to use force." So now I need clarity. Are you talking about laws that favor animals, or are you talking about people who won't tolerate animal abuse in their community? Even if it means knocking some $#@! on his ass for it.

[helmuth_hubener]

My guess is, that after being skinned alive, you would be in such horrific pain that you would beg him to put you out of your misery. But I digress.

It's not a digression. I prefer life. The only time it's generally considered "humane" to end a human life is when there is no hope for recovery and continued life.

If it's A-OK to kill -- the worst, most serious, most permanent harm you can inflict upon an animal -- then it is extremely morally problematic to claim that it's not OK to inflict less serious harms such as torture or abuse. I don't know if you realize just how morally problematic that is. I encourage everyone to really think about it. As Siggy says in What About Bob?: "I’m going to die. You are going to die... What else is there to be afraid of...?"

May we force other people to treat animals humanely, at gunpoint if necessary?

May we force other people to treat other humans humanely?

There we go! This is what I want to discuss! If by "treat humanely" you mean "not initiate force against" then yes! Unequivocally yes!

And if the answer is yes,

It is!

then why doesn't it apply to other sentient beings?

Well that's the question, isn't it? Here's my question: why would it? Why would a intra-species rule for humans apply to animals? Will a rule suited perfectly for human nature be equally suited for dog nature, or for rat nature? I don't think it will be.

A one-size-fits-all point of view never works in real life.

You know that there are absolutes in this world.

Which statement should I pick? Which one do you really believe? Which one is true?

We are talking about accepting people into our communities who brutalize their pets; livestock; etc.

My cousin's nickname is "kicker of the cows." Have you ever worked with cows? You might kick them, too. Is my cousin -- a known and admitted brutalizer of livestock -- a horrible person? I don't think so, but maybe you do. Even if you don't, someone else does. Millions of people in India think we're all wrong for not properly treating the cows as sacred. What's the solution?

I already stated my own preferred solution: free communities. Freedom means that all are free to organize their communities however they choose. You can kick the brutalizers out of your community! You really can! It's not that hard. You just have to do it in a voluntary way. It takes only a small amount of effort, planning, and mutual respect to do it the right way, vs. the wrong way.

Does that make sense? No one on the thread really addressed this idea I presented. You can ban animal torture under libertarianism. You can ban nudism, you can ban racism, you can ban landlordism, you can ban music piratism, you can ban whatever your heart desires to ban! You just have to do it the right way.

[helmuth_hubener]

Animal rights as it pertains to whether or not a community should accept as a neighbor, a person who abuses his animals.

Including his rats. Right.

[presence]

HH, what would you do if you were walking home one day, and you heard the horrifying yelps of a dog in pain and felt compelled to find out if there was something you could do to help, only to find out that some sadistic bastard had a litter of puppies that he was laying on a tree stump and hacking off their ears and tails. What would you do? The truth.

I'm not sure what you propose to do about it... should we swat raid every veterinarian's office that does the deed? Federal dock and crop licensing programs?


I see it as a freedom of religion issue. I might suggest a method or practice I personally perceive as more humane... otherwise I'd leave the guy alone, they're his dogs.

If the noise was persistent and impeded my enjoyment of my property, I might seek a cease and desist order to control the noise pollution; perhaps a civil suit if I accrued damages to my business.

[helmuth_hubener]

So now I need clarity.

Thank you a million times over for keeping this a real conversation and actually seeking understanding (unlike some people...). That happens too rarely. Thanks.

I will be glad to clarify and amplify.

Are you talking about laws that favor animals, or are you talking about people who won't tolerate animal abuse in their community? Even if it means knocking some $#@! on his ass for it.

Thou shalt not initiate force.* It doesn't matter whether the person initiating the force has a badge and a clipboard or not. The police officer enforcing some fiat made-up legislation decreeing animal treatment is in the wrong, and the vigilante knock-down-artist neighbor is in the wrong also. In a libertarian world, you will be liable for your attack on him and any damage caused. You can be forced to make restitution.

That is, if there is no contract stating otherwise. In many communities there probably will be. If you are right and not wanting animals abused is an important universal and absolute value that all humans share, then virtually all communities will have such a contract. And so in that case, both the security guard and the vigilante neighbor could be in the right, just enforcing the just and voluntary rules to which everyone -- including the animal torturer -- already agreed!

* There are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc. More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences. Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.

[Deborah K]

If it's A-OK to kill -- the worst, most serious, most permanent harm you can inflict upon an animal -- then it is extremely morally problematic to claim that it's not OK to inflict less serious harms such as torture or abuse. I don't know if you realize just how morally problematic that is. I encourage everyone to really think about it.

What I find problematic, is that you believe that killing is worse than torture or abuse. I'm not including murder here. I'm talking about ending the life of animal in a humane way for food. You think that is worse than the act of killing them? I really don't know what to say about that.

As Siggy says in What About Bob?: "I’m going to die. You are going to die... What else is there to be afraid of...?"

Dying because you were tortured to death? I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of dying while in excruciating pain inflicted upon me by someone or something else. That would make me afraid to die. Other than that, I don't think I'm afraid to die.

There we go! This is what I want to discuss! If by "treat humanely" you mean "not initiate force against" then yes! Unequivocally yes!
It is!
Well that's the question, isn't it? Here's my question: why would it? Why would a intra-species rule for humans apply to animals? Will a rule suited perfectly for human nature be equally suited for dog nature, or for rat nature? I don't think it will be.

I don't believe you have to jump to that conclusion in order to believe that animals should be treated humanely.

Which statement should I pick? Which one do you really believe? Which one is true?

You are equating a point of view with an absolute.

My cousin's nickname is "kicker of the cows." Have you ever worked with cows? You might kick them, too. Is my cousin -- a known and admitted brutalizer of livestock -- a horrible person? I don't think so, but maybe you do. Even if you don't, someone else does. Millions of people in India think we're all wrong for not properly treating the cows as sacred. What's the solution?

What's the problem? Kicking a cow does not equate to brutality unless you're stomping on a calf right after it's born, or something like that. As far as I'm concerned, your cousin is disciplining his cows. I smack my dogs and horses occasionally, when they act up. It doesn't hurt them, it just gets their attention, and they know I mean business and to stop the nonsense.

Cows are sacred in India, horses are eaten in France, dogs are eaten in VN. Another argument I'm not inclined to get into.

You can kick the brutalizers out of your community! You really can! It's not that hard. You just have to do it in a voluntary way. It takes only a small amount of effort, planning, and mutual respect to do it the right way, vs. the wrong way.

And what if they refuse to leave, and refuse to stop torturing their animals?

Does that make sense? No one on the thread really addressed this idea I presented. You can ban animal torture under libertarianism. You can ban nudism, you can ban racism, you can ban landlordism, you can ban music piratism, you can ban whatever your heart desires to ban! You just have to do it the right way.

Provided the perp complies with your "right way".

Do I know the guy?

What difference should that make? Give me both scenarios.

And I happen to like logical consistency. And luckily for me some smart men have come up with a logically consistent political system of thought that I can adopt as my own.

And I happen to like it as well. So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand? The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals. I would like to see their take on it.

[Deborah K]

Thank you a million times over for keeping this a real conversation and actually seeking understanding (unlike some people...). That happens too rarely. Thanks.

I will be glad to clarify and amplify.
Thou shalt not initiate force.* It doesn't matter whether the person initiating the force has a badge and a clipboard or not. The police officer enforcing some fiat made-up legislation decreeing animal treatment is in the wrong, and the vigilante knock-down-artist neighbor is in the wrong also. In a libertarian world, you will be liable for your attack on him and any damage caused. You can be forced to make restitution.

That is, if there is no contract stating otherwise. In many communities there probably will be. If you are right and not wanting animals abused is an important universal and absolute value that all humans share, then virtually all communities will have such a contract. And so in that case, both the security guard and the vigilante neighbor could be in the right, just enforcing the just and voluntary rules to which everyone -- including the animal torturer -- already agreed!

* There are exceptions: strange circumstances, edge cases, etc. More precisely stated, the libertarian rule is: if you choose to initiate force, be prepared to face the consequences. Retaliatory force can now be brought to bear against you.

Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with. But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)

[helmuth_hubener]

What I find problematic, is that you believe that killing is worse than torture or abuse.

Killing is much more permanent. It may even be more painful. Not having died, none of us are authorities.

I'm not including murder here. I'm talking about ending the life of animal in a humane way for food. You think that is worse than the act of killing them? I really don't know what to say about that.

You mean do I think that killing them is worse than torturing them, I presume. I can only speak for me. I would rather be tortured than killed. I have been tortured, and I have never been killed so I don't know much about it, but I know that were I killed my body would no longer be alive, and I would far prefer it to be in pain and alive.

I don't believe you have to jump to that conclusion in order to believe that animals should be treated humanely.

You ask why wouldn't our human-to-human rules apply to animals, I ask why would they? Both are equally "jumping to a conclusion." There's no reason to believe either way, in the absence of more information.

You are equating a point of view with an absolute.

Very well. I guess maybe you see a difference. I just figured an absolute was something that applied to everybody -- that is, something that's "one-size-fits-all."

What's the problem? Kicking a cow does not equate to brutality unless you're stomping on a calf right after it's born, or something like that. As far as I'm concerned, your cousin is disciplining his cows. I smack my dogs and horses occasionally, when they act up. It doesn't hurt them, it just gets their attention, and they know I mean business and to stop the nonsense.

Well I agree, and you agree, but not everyone would agree. Some people would say that kicking a cow is brutalizing him. What do we do, just tell him he's wrong? Why is he wrong and we're right? What makes us so special to decide? Can we read cow's minds?

In a free society, here's the solution: everybody gets to choose for himself! The guy who is against cow-kicking can live in a community with that forbidden in its bylaws, or subscribe to a distributed legal system that prohibits it. The ones who are fine with or at least willing to tolerate their neighbors kicking cows and poisoning rats, but not microwaving cats, they can join communities or legal systems under that standard. The whole range, the whole spectrum of opinion, can each have their own happy place.

And what if they refuse to leave, and refuse to stop torturing their animals?

Then you hold a gun to their heads and you force them to stop or leave. It's in the contract. You have the perfect right to do so (or to do whatever it is the contract says you're entitled to do in response to the violation).

Provided the perp complies with your "right way".

No, it is not assumed that everyone will comply. The standards are enforced, just as a mall or condo community today will enforce their standards. As long as it's contractual, it's on the up-and-up.

What difference should that make? Give me both scenarios.

I don't know. If I know him and am surprised by his behavior based on my knowledge of him, I might stop and talk to him, ask what's going on. If I know him and know he's a little bit messed up like that, I might probably just ignore it. If it's just a random stranger I'll never meet again, maybe I'll ignore it (especially if I'm in a foreign country and many others are doing the same kind of thing), maybe I'll question him. Maybe if I'm in a particularly strange or foul mood I'd hassle him about it, but I would hope I wouldn't. You only live once. I have only so much outrage to go around. There are far more important things for me to devote energy towards.

And I happen to like it as well. So, would you mind citing some articles by these men that pertain to the topic at hand? The topic of what to do about people who torture and abuse animals. I would like to see their take on it.

I'll see what I can find.

[helmuth_hubener]

Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with. But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)

I understand, and I think that's a common and normal attitude. That's one reason why I think that very few people brutally abuse animals in public, and I do not see any reason to suspect this would change in a libertarian society. It's a very tiny, very marginal set of people who would do this. It's not a problem today. It's not a problem for libertarianism. It's an extreme scenario, an edge case.

[presence]

Agreed. That is a form of torture, imo.

What about flies?

I set a sticky trap for flies in my laundry room and I caught a bat. Should I go to jail? Be fined? Thumped?

[Deborah K]

What about flies?

I set a sticky trap for flies in my laundry room and I caught a bat. Should I go to jail? Be fined? Thumped?

This is an example of why one-size-fits-all points of view don't work. There's no use in trying to set traps for me for believing that torturing animals is wrong.

If I were to answer "yes", you could turn my own quote against me, and rightfully so:

Some people take their philosophies to absurd extremes.

But no, I wouldn't agree that you should be fined, thumped or jailed. Especially since it was not your intent to torture the poor bat.

[Dianne]

Philosophically speaking, there isn't anything about this that I disagree with. But in the real world, just don't ever torture animals around me, you won't like the outcome. (Not you, in particular, HH - just in general.)

Same here, don't torture any animal anywhere around me without expecting to leave with a load of buckshot up your arse. That's my libertarian point of view. I co-founded the humane society back in the 1980's with a lady named Patty Lewis. I had to get out of it, because of my fear I would kill someone. I still have the visions, the same PTSD from the experience. I have seen horrific abuse and torture. And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.

[JK/SEA]

Years ago, i was a member of Sea Shepherd. I got very involved in stopping the Makah Tribe from killing whales even though their Treaty with the United States said they could.

I now look back on that episode in my life with mixed emotions. I ended up in front of a Judge over this.... my case was dismissed.

I use glue traps for rodents. I have a 60 grand muscle car in my garage. Glue traps in all 4 corners. I keep my home free of any random food sources in and out.

I also swat flies and mosquitoes, and kill hornets that have started a hive on my house.

There. Confessions are good for the soul.

[JK/SEA]

Same here, don't torture any animal anywhere around me without expecting to leave with a load of buckshot up your arse. That's my libertarian point of view. I co-founded the humane society back in the 1980's with a lady named Patty Lewis. I had to get out of it, because of my fear I would kill someone. I still have the visions, the same PTSD from the experience. I have seen horrific abuse and torture. And believe me, you don't want to torture an animal anywhere, anyhow I will know about it.

i don't recall seeing ANY Humane Society folks at any Makah whaling protests...were you there?