Kim Marie Thorburn: Humans often on the losing side of animal rights campaigns

By Kim Marie Thorburn

The cancellation of a Washington State University Veterinary Medicine School horse surgery course is a familiar saga in institutions dealing with nonhuman animals (“WSU vet school changes euthanasia practice,” March 18): Radical animal rights organizations provoke campaigns of harassment to force their values on institutional practices.

There is no nuance in these emotionally fraught crusades. Disagreements over beliefs become politicized. And usually, the rights of the nonhuman animals are put above any possible human gain.

My own medical education benefited from the dog surgery course I took in medical school. Sadly, my medical school later canceled the course when it was attacked by an animal rights campaign. I agree with the WSU veterinary surgery professor who told the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee that students would be better prepared veterinary surgeons by learning on live animals.

And don’t think that I’m callous when it comes to animals. One of my life’s great pleasures is the many horses I’ve owned, cared for, trained and ridden. Over the years, some needed euthanasia. The procedure is emotionally and technically challenging. I’m grateful for veterinarians who are experienced in the necessary skills.

Animal rights activism also impacts hunters. In 2021, while I was a member of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, bitterly divided members banned the spring black bear hunt. There was no biological reason for discontinuing the pursuit. The state has a healthy black bear population, but the hunt was fiercely opposed by animal rights activists.

Bear hunters are a tiny community, and they are passionate about their calling. As a group, they are knowledgeable about bears, contribute to wildlife conservation, and rave about bear meat. The spring bear hunt held special significance for bear hunters and contributed to conservation management by removing bears in areas where they might threaten other vulnerable species or damage commercial tree farms.

Rural communities also find their way of life thwarted by animal rights opposition to regulated killing of wild carnivores when livestock are depredated. Livelihoods are threatened when ranchers are prevented from using all available tools to deter predator attacks.

What is troubling about animal rights crusading is absolutist intolerance of social, economic and cultural practices that counter their strongly held beliefs against the use and killing of animals. Animal rights followers and their organizations fight battles with aggressive campaigns as well as in legislatures, courts and citizen initiatives. Their endgame is obliteration of legitimate social, economic and cultural practices.

Laws influenced by the fundamentalist animal rights position against killing cause long-term harm. In the mid-20th century, exploitation and declining populations of many marine mammal species warranted protection. Promoted with obnoxious animal rights politicking, the Marine Mammals Protection Act enacted in 1978 contains rigid proscriptions against harvest and conservation removal even as protected species’ populations recovered and, in some cases, exploded.

The unyielding prohibitions of the MMPA foreclosed Indigenous social and cultural traditions. For years after recovery of gray whale populations, the Makah Tribe of Washington worked within the law to resume their culturally and spiritually significant whale hunt while facing racist backlash from animal rights campaigners. Other Indigenous communities face similar vicious discrimination, dating back to the struggle that kicked off the original legislation featuring ads with tearful, high-heeled Zsa Zsa Gabor parading among Canadian First Peoples during a sustenance seal hunt.

Throughout time, humans have used other animals for companionship, food, travel, clothing, infrastructure and almost all basic needs of existence. Diverse cultural and socioeconomic animal uses bring myriad benefits, including survival, to human communities.

Humans’ treatment of animals has nonetheless evolved away from practices such as market hunting and usages likely to cause injury or other harm. Laws prohibit cruelty, regulate animal husbandry practices and limit exploitation. Policies seek to balance animal welfare and diverse human practices relating to animals. Most animal laws and regulations do not prohibit use or killing by humans but rather, establish expectation that our treatment is humane.

Animal rights conflicts have stifled many animal uses that benefit humanity and have squelched treasured cultural practices. Targets include research and medical education, rodeos, zoos, hunting, feral cat control, commercial fishing, trapping, and domestic and captive wild animal breeding. The benefits derived from these diverse human-animal interactions vary among meeting basic human needs, sociocultural traditions and enjoyment, ensuring safety, and environmental protection.

Animals deserve humane treatment and protection from population decline but granting “rights” to other species to be free from human use and killing cancels social, economic and cultural benefits and rights in human communities. And, it could limit the educational opportunities for your future surgeon or veterinarian.

Kim Marie Thorburn, MD, MPH, is a retired Spokane public health physician and a former member of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.