Editorial Animal Welfare who suffer from different forms of ally do demonstrate compassion and dementia would also lack rights be- pity toward the animals they utilize," Dear Editor: cause they too have no responsibili- he seems to berate wild animals for In his article, "An Ecologist's View ties. Ethicists, caregivers, and many failing to manifest these virtues. But of Animal Rights" (ABT, April 1994, others who are concerned with the Howard fails to realize that nature has 202-205), Walter E. Howard (1994) rights of young (prelinguistic)humans no ethic, nor can nature have one. once again takes an unnecessarily or those humans who are mentally Neither nature nor animals can be combative and unbalanced stance impairedwould find this conclusionto held morally responsible for the suf- against what he calls the animal rights be extremely disturbing. fering and pain they cause, or for movement. As a biologist, I find Howard (1993, 1994) also writes failing to show pity or compassion. It Howard's views to be extremely off- about the notions of unnecessary pain only makes sense to hold moralagents putting, not because they differ with and suffering,but he never gives read- accountable, and neither nature as a mine, but rather because his position ers any idea of what unnecessarypain whole, nor individual animals, are and suffering mean to him. By failing moral agents. is so poorly presented and argued. Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/56/7/391/46640/4449867.pdf by guest on 03 October 2021 Simply put, in his 1994 paper as else- to develop these notions, Howard Howard (1994) is also concerned where (W. E. Howard, 1991, Animal gives the reader no guidance whatso- that "they [animal rights organiza- rightsvs. nature,published by the au- ever. Biologists and others deserve a tions] propose no life at all for billions thor: W. E. Howard, 1993), animal more careful, accurate and helpful of animals." And on Howard's view, research is defensible. Journalof Mam- analysis about the conditions under an individual having some life and malogy,74 (1), 234-235), Howard de- which it is morally justified to kill supposedly dying more humanely means his colleagues by making un- animals, or to cause them pain and than it would in nature justifies cap- supported sweeping generalizations suffering. Obviously, what one ac- tive breeding, using animals by hu- that support his own position and by cepts as necessary pain and suffering mans, and causing an animal'sprema- misrepresenting what he calls "facts will be informedby his or her views on ture but more humane death when about nature." Well-developed coun- the use of nonhumans by humans. We compared to the life they would have terargumentsto Howard's views have should demand that Howard (and oth- in the wild. Appeals to the supposed been published elsewhere (M. Bekoff ers) argue their position in a clear and brutality of nature are vacuous. On & N. Hettinger, 1994, Animals, na- coherent manner, especially when Howard's own admission there are ture, and ethics. Journalof Mammalogy, Howard (1994) claims that his is a insufficient data for making claims 75(1), 219-223). I would be glad to "philosophical,not a researchpaper." about the pains and sufferings of wild send anyone a copy of this paper. Howard seems to have an impover- animals. Furthermore,who is Howard Here I will focus on a few of the claims ished notion of what a philosophical to determineif having some sort of life that Howard presents in his 1993 and argument consists of. is better than having no life at all? 1994 essays, assertions that demand With respect to the term "animal Certainlyhe should have to argue his much more careful scrutiny. (Refer- rightist," we are also not told much position against the many alternative ences can be found in Bekoff & Het- about what it means to Howard. In his views that also need to be considered. tinger 1994, from which some of this 1993paper, Howard claims that mem- One of Howard's justificationsfor kill- letter is taken.) bers of the animal rights movement ing wild animals in research is that Howard first appeals to his own are "anti-establishment types" and they will usually be replacedby others authority-to his extensive back- "generally they are very uncompro- of the same species who would not ground in natural history and ecolo- mising . ." However, Howard fails have existed if humans had not killed gy-to ground his position that "I tend to recognize that many people who those they are replacing. This fits with [my emphasis] to support society's have conducted empirical studies of Howard's insensitivity to the moral ethical and moral right to use animals the personality profiles of individuals significance of taking animal life. On ... as long as we do not inflict unnec- who identify themselves with animal his view, an individual animal's life essary pain and suffering." By using rights have found it to be a hetero- is a totally replaceable commodity. the phrase "I tend to support ... geneous organization composed of Howard (1993)even speaks of the kill- Howard clearly equivocates his posi- different factions whose members of- ing of laboratoryand wild animals as a tion but does not tell us why. It would ten try to distance themselves from "sacredact." In 1994he claims that the be nice to know in what instances one another. responsible killing of sentient Howard supports views that are for- Howard (1994)wants". to bring animals can be a sacred act when done eign to his own. nature back into the deliberation of in behalf of nature's laws" (Howard Howard also never tells us what he what has become a highly polarized 1994). Unfortunately, Howard does means when he writes about the hav- issue ... that animals have rights not indicatewhat "responsiblekilling" ing of rights, and he never tells us . ." The education about nature that consists of in other than superficial what he means by the term "animal Howard provides is that nature "re- terms, and he does not clearlyidentify rightist." In his 1993 paper, Howard quires much cruelty"and has "a death the law of nature to which he is ap- claims that a right "implies concomi- ethic." In his 1993 paper, Howard pealing. tant responsibilities, which certainly speaks of the "brutalityof naturalpre- In the present paper as well as in his are not displayed by animals." But if dation" and of "nature's brutal 1993 essay, Howard also claims that this were true, then human infants, deaths" and "cruel diseases." In de- the goal of animal rightists "is no use mentally disabled humans, and those fense of those who "should and usu- of animals." But it is just not true that LETTERS391 those in the animal rights movement valued as beneficial.Howard also are shot or trapped, for he boldly believe it morally wrong to acquire fails to present corroborative asserts that . animals do knowledge by studying animals, or data. not suffer as much mental trauma think it unjustified to protect endan- 2. Howard glosses over the issue of as people." Once again, Howard gered species. Suffice it to say, these alternatives to animal research. presents no data and ignores the sorts of false attributions are com- He does not mention that there is plethora of data that indicate that monly found in the superficial asser- much interest among diverse sci- many animals are capable of en- tions of those who want to demean the entists in developing alternatives during significant levels of pain animal rights movement as a whole. to certain animal research prac- and suffering (Bekoff, M. 1994. Basically,Howard's main argument tices. Indeed, The Johns Hopkins Cognitive ethology and the treat- in defense of animal research is that University supports a Center for ment of nonhuman animals: because what nature does to animalsis Alternatives to Animal Testing, How matters of mind inform so horrible, what humans do to them and a similar group exists at matters of welfare. Animal Wel- must be permissible, as we treat them Howard's home institution, The fare, (3), 75-96. less badly. Howard appeals to the fact University of Californiaat Davis. that individual animals bred for re- 3. In his unsubstantiated and dra- All in all, Howard mistakenly and search purposes would not have ex- matic attempt to justify human unfairly stereotypes as biologically na- isted if humans had not created them. intervention in the lives of wild ive anyone who rejects his position He claims that these animals live animals-"If humaneness is the that nature's poor treatment of wild longer, have a higher quality of life animals justifies animal research. Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/56/7/391/46640/4449867.pdf by guest on 03 October 2021 and die less painfully than do their issue, it clearly [my emphasis] is much more humane to use regu- Howard's discussion of the important wild counterparts. Howard does not issues centering on the moral dimen- dispute the claim and is undaunted by lated hunters and trappers to control surplus ungulate and fur- sions of animal use is superficial and the fact that millions of animals are narrow. His writings consist mainly of killed each year in high school and bearer populations than to leave them to disease, starvation and (often dramatized) assertions rather college classes. He justifies this in his than well-developed and well-sup- 1993 essay practice by noting that native carnivores that would kill them brutally"-Howard (1994) ported arguments. Although some an- "none of these animals would be born imal research is defensible, some is if not wanted, and they have a quality claims that, "Actually, we lack evidence that game feel much not; but even the first conclusion does life and die humanely rather than live not directly follow from Howard's es- initial [my emphasis] pain when nature's torturous life." However, says.