Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

Transcript of Professor Steven Wise's Live ARZone Guest Chat

Transcript of Prof. Steven Wise’s ARZone Guest Chat

14 May 2011 at

6pm US Eastern Time

11pm UK Time and

15 May 2011 at

8am Australian Eastern Standard Time

 

 

Carolyn Bailey:

ARZone would like to welcome Prof. Steve Wise as today’s Live Chat Guest.

 

Professor Steven M Wise, described by USA Today as ‘America’s best-known animal lawyer’, has practiced animal protection law for 30 years. The first person to teach a class on Animal Law at Harvard Law School, Wise has taught "Animal Rights Law" or "Animal Rights Jurisprudence" for 20 years at many law schools, including University of Miami, Vermont, Lewis and Clark, St. Thomas, and John Marshal. Former president of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, founder and president of the Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights, he has written four books, and numerous law review and popular articles about animal rights and has collaborated and communicated for years with leading scientists in the fields of primatology and animal intelligence and behavior.

 

Wise argues that chimpanzees, bonobos (sometimes called "pygmy chimpanzees"), elephants, parrots, dolphins, orangutans, and gorillas should be granted the status of legal personhood to guarantee the basic protections of bodily integrity and freedom from harm.

 

He has long directed the Nonhuman Rights Project (www.nonhumanrightsproject.org), which is currently comprised of 50 researchers from law, political science, natural science, sociology, psychology, mathematics, public relations, and other disciplines. The NhRP intends to file the first path-breaking lawsuits that demand that a nonhuman animal be recognized as possessing certain fundamental rights under the common law.

 

While reviewing "An American trilogy," the July/August, 2009 issue of VegNews called Wise the "John Grisham of the animal rights movement". His books are:

 

●        Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000) 

●        Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights (2002) 

●        Though the Heavens May Fall (2005)

●        An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery and Dominion Along the Banks of the Cape Fear River (2009)

 

Would you please join with me in welcoming Steve to ARZone today.

 

Welcome, Steve!

 

Sky:

Hello

 

Steven M. Wise:

Thank you.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Welcome, Steve!

 

Jason Ward:

Welcome Steve!!!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Welcome!

 

Tim Gier:

Hi Steve!

 

Ben Hornby:

Welcome!

 

Michael T Tiedeman:

Hi Steve!

 

Sadia Rajput:

Hello Mr. Wise! How do you do?

 

Colinwhocares:

 :-D gidday Steve

 

Will:

Hiya Steven


Brooke Cameron:

Hi Prof. Wise!

 

Mangus O’Shales:

Hello!

 

Roger Yates:

Welcome to ARZone, Steven.

 

Carolyn Bailey

Steve will be responding to his pre-registered questions first, and then we’ll open the chat up for all members to engage him.

Please refrain from interrupting Steve during his first session, and feel free to send a private message to an admin if you wish to address Steve at any time.

 

I’d now like to ask Jason Ward to present the first question to Steve; when you’re ready, thanks, Jason.

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks Carolyn - Good day Steven. You originally practiced Personal Injury Law, could you please elaborate on what drew you toward animal law and why you became an animal protection lawyer.

 

Steven M. Wise:

I read ANIMAL LIBERATION. I had never thought much about how nonhuman animals were treated. Now I knew and I could not forget it. I decided to use what legal talents I had on their behalves.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Barbara DeGrande would like to ask the next question, when you're ready, Barb.

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you Carolyn!  Recent research seems to reveal that animals are more intelligent and complex than we have ever previously believed.  What do you think is one of the most important discoveries concerning animal intelligence that might help liberate animals?

 

Steven M. Wise:

The most important discovery was that many nonhuman animals had minds. We continue to learn just how complicated those minds are, step by step.  I am rarely surprised when some new aspect is reported.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Tim Gier would like to ask the next question, go ahead, Tim

 

Tim Gier:
You are familiar with arguments within social movements about “insider/outsider” status. As a lawyer working to change existing laws, your role in that regard would be considered as that of an insider.   Many people argue that insider status compromises the ability of a person to affect real social change, because insiders, to achieve and maintain that status, must necessarily moderate their claims and negotiate their positions.  Effectively, to achieve political results means to achieve “watered down” results. What do you think?

 

Steven M. Wise:

I am a lawyer working within a common law system. Common law change is usually incremental change. I can either work within the system that exists or fight to erect a different system.  My years of practicing law, and my years of studying how our legal system operates, have persuaded me that the system  is quite stable, so I don't expend my energy trying to change it. Instead I struggle to make the case for the fundamental legal rights of nonhuman animals by using it. I wrote THOUGH THE HEAVENS MAY FALL , which focused on how the slave, James Somerset, used the legal system, to abolish slavery in England, to show how it was done and how it could be done.

 

Roger Yates:

The next pre-registered question comes from Leah. Leah?

 

Leah:

Hi, Steven. What criteria are typically used by judges for determining whether a being is autonomous?

 

Steven M. Wise:
I argue in RATTLING THE CAGE and DRAWING THE LINE that what I call "practical autonomy" exists when a being is able to desire something, act intentionally to achieve her goal, and has a sense of self sufficiency complex to allow her to care whether she has achieved her goal. I discuss numerous cases in which I argue that this is something that judges care about.

 

Leah:

Thanks.

 

Leah:
Can I follow up?

 

Barbara DeGrande:
Go ahead Leah.

 

Steven M. Wise:
Sure.

 

Leah:
Thanks! That's what you think they should do, right? But what do judges tend to base it on?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Autonomy is one of those words that are seen as nearly self-evident. Rarely are there judicial appeals to specific facts. In our cases we tend to spend a lot of time presenting evidence that demonstrates that our nonhuman animal plaintiffs have what I call practical autonomy, as this not appear self-evident to judges.

 

Leah:

OK. Thank you very much.

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you Steve.  Our next question will be asked by Mangus O'Shales. When you are ready, Mangus.

 

Mangus O’Shales:

Thank you! You're a lawyer, what do you think about people who break the law to help other animals? What about when they burn down buildings?

 

Steven M. Wise:

As a lawyer I cannot publicly condone the violent breaking of laws. Otherwise I may next address you as a former lawyer.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you, now Brooke Cameron is up with her question, Brooke?

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Tim! In your 1997 review of Gary Francione, Thunder Without Rain, you explain how his argument against hypothetical legislation which would provide cows with adequate drinking water is mistaken. Could you please explain how you think that critique may or may not apply to Gary Francione’s waterboarding analogy?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Whoops. I may have missed Gary's waterboarding analogy. What is it?

 

Tim Gier:

Gary says that advocating for the better treatment of cows before slaughter would be like advocating for soft, padded waterboards..

 

Steven M. Wise:

Alas, the analogy does not jump out for me. But I will give it a try. If a cow is certainly going to be killed, I would want her to be killed as happily (if that is the right word) as possible, even as I hated the law that made it certain that she must be killed. I would want that for myself and those I care about. If I must be waterboarded - say my government is trying to obtain information from me about what it is like to participate in an ARZONE chat - I would be grateful for those who had advocated previously for soft, padded waterboards

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Steven, and Tim.

 

Roger Yates:

Next up is Professor Tim Gier, star of the latest “Coexisting with Nonhuman Animals” Podcast. Tim…

 

Tim Gier:

Realizing the internet is infallible in all matters of knowledge, I have read online that there were legal protections in place for some human slaves in some American jurisdictions even while some humans were not protected against slavery itself.  For instance, in some places it was illegal for a master to kill his slave, in others, it was illegal for a master to rape his slaves. Would you speak to the truth of this and what bearing it may have on human-nonhuman relations?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Human slaves then, like nonhuman slaves today, are often the subject of legal protections, such as anti-cruelty laws. I am unsure what you are asking me about any bearing this might have. Would you be so kind as to ask it in a different way?

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks, I'll try. What I was trying to get at is whether the property status of slaves (or nonhuman animals) is in and of itself something that necessarily stands between them and basic rights protection It seems that if there were laws against killing slaves, then that wouldn't be the case.

 

Steven M. Wise:

If one is a thing, one lacks all legal rights. One may be the subject of any number of protections, perhaps protections greater than one would have through rights. But one would lack rights and one's protections would always be at the whim of rights- bearers. This is a complex question and I only type with two fingers.

 

Tim Gier:

:-)

 

Jason Ward:

Next up with their question is Barbara DeGrande - please go ahead when you are ready Barb

 

Barbara DeGrande:

You have advocated for rights to be extended to primates such as chimps and bonobos, but what about rights for all sentient beings? Does your work in primatology reinforce thinking that only those who are most human-like are worthy of rights?

 

Steven M. Wise:

There are two Steve Wises. One is Steve Wise the animal rights lawyer. The other is Steve Wise the human being. Only the former Steve Wise writes books and blogs, teaches "Animal Rights Jurisprudence" and litigates on behalf of nonhuman animals.  The latter Steve Wise has his opinions, but understands that judges don't care about them. I have written for years about a thick legal wall that separates all humans from all nonhumans. The purpose of the Nonhuman Rights Project, and my personal legal work on behalf of nonhuman animals, is to punch a hole in that wall. Just a tiny hole. Once the wall is breached, the legal questions that can be asked will be profoundly changed, from what species are you (and if you are not human, you have no rights), to what it is about you that should entitle you to the legal rights you claim?  The common law is, I mentioned, a step-by-step process. From tiny breaches, walls may tumble.

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thank you.

 

Roger Yates:

The next question was written by ARZone's transcriber supreme, Kate Go Vegan (busy transcribing of course), so Carolyn will ask it on her behalf. C?...

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Roger. Kate's question is in three parts.  On your blog, you wrote: "The common law is a step-by step process that, in Mansfield’s words, ceaselessly 'works itself pure.' It rights the most egregious wrongs first. Then it turns to the harder questions." Why do you consider denying personhood to those animals with human-like cognitive complexity to be more egregious than denying it to other sentient animals? Do you have any plans for how you are going to approach the "harder question" of obtaining legal rights for those animals without human-like cognitive complexity?  How much harder will it be if the others have been given rights on the basis of their similarity to humans?(quote from...  http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2011/05/07/why-the-nonhuman-rights-project-is-unique-in-the-history-of-the-world/).

 

Steven M. Wise:

If I may, I would like to view these last two questions as parts of the same query. In RATTLING THE CAGE, I focused on personhood for chimpanzees and bonobos. In DRAWING THE LINE, I focused on 8 or so other nonhuman animals. My arguments come from  two directions, liberty and equality. Liberty has nothing to do with whether a nonhuman is human-like. It deals with whether a being has those qualities that our present legal system would recognize as being sufficient for personhood and rights. I argue that practical autonomy is sufficient and that species is entirely irrelevant. One is entitled to rights as a matter of equality if one is similar to a rights-bearer in a legal-relevant way. I argue that being human is not a relevant characteristic. These questions are difficult to answer briefly, as they comprise the subjects of my first two books.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve. I'd like to ask a question now. In your paper “Arguments in favour of basic legal rights for nonhumans,” Reform (Australian Law Reform Commission March, 2008- ), you spoke of a case in which the Environmental Department prosecutors and others sought a writ of habeas corpus from a court in Brazil on behalf of a chimpanzee named Suica, who was caged at a zoo. Unfortunately, before the case could be finally adjudicated, Suica died and the case was dismissed. Could you please explain what the intended outcome was for Suica, as an individual,  had the case proceeded and how Suica would have benefited from a positive outcome.  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reform/reform91/3.html

 

Steven M Wise:

I am not certain, but believe it most likely that the object was to move Suica from a place in which she was being treated as a means to someone else's ends (a zoo) to a place where she would be treated as an end in himself (a sanctuary). You can see that I am unsure of Suica's gender.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

I was too. Thanks. Tim Gier would like to ask the next question, when you are ready, Tim.

 

Tim Gier:

You may have already addressed this, so forgive me if my question appears repetitive  I understand the rationale behind the idea that we ought to, as a matter of law, consider at least some other animals as persons rather than things. But wouldn’t it be the case that in so doing the effect would be to further marginalize those unlucky enough not to be so considered? In other words, wouldn’t it be the case that by expanding the definition of person to include a few more species, we would run the risk of forever excluding huge numbers of other animals from legal rights protection? Why not just recognize that there is broad category of beings who are nonpersons who are, nevertheless, not things?

 

Steven M. Wise:

I assume you want me to answer as Steve Wise the animal rights lawyer, rather than as Steve Wise the human being. My opinions as Steve Wise the human being are merely interesting. My opinions as Steve Wise the animal rights lawyer may be more important in the long run. A Legal system may do whatever it wishes. I see my job as to identify correctly the rules under which it plays and play the game as well as I can on behalf of nonhuman animals. It is hard to peer too far down the legal road. I have to be content with breaching the legal wall and trying to manage where that will take us.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you. Barbara DeGrande has the next question for you.... Barb?

 

Barbara DeGrande:

The story of Lucy Temerlin touched me deeply and seems to be symbolic of our human failings towards other beings. What does her story mean to you?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Lucy's story means that we must be very careful when we conclude that something is good or bad for nonhuman animals who may often be quite different from us. I have trouble figuring out what my wife wants. Nonhuman animals I approach with great caution.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Next up will be Roger's question, Rog?

 

Roger Yates:

In the foreword to ‘Rattling the Cage:Toward Legal Rights for Animals,’ Jane Goodall writes, “Only when animals can be regarded as “persons” in the  eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often-fuzzy law protecting animals from abuse. Rattling the Cage explains how legal rights for animals can help to stop so much of the abuse that, today, goes unpunished.” However, “Rattling” is limited to making the case for legal rights for bonobos and chimpanzees. Was that deliberately conservative on your part - “tactical” even - or do you actually place apes in a “higher” moral category to other animals?

 

Steven M. Wise:

RATTLING THE CAGE was my first salvo. I have since moved well on. But I understand that law is a conservative profession and judges may be conservative souls. If I want them to do what I want them to do, I need to speak to them in harmony with what they believe.

 

Identifying the core values of our legal system and shaping legal arguments that invoke these core values in the service of attaining the fundamental legal rights for nonhuman animals is, and has always been, at the center of what I do.  If the core values change, so will my arguments.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Steven. In your review of Rain Without Thunder you are critical of Francione (and Regan) for what you suggest is an inappropriate use of "animals" you particularly say that certain beings - like insects - are never to have rights so I'm really asking if you are using misleading language too, in the sense that you are not focused on "nonhuman animals" as much as specific ones that meet certain criteria. Is that fair?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Sheesh, Roger. That was 14 years ago. I can't recall what I wrote. But I may get the idea. I rarely talk about "animal rights" for two reasons, "animals" and "rights." There are a million species of animals (us included) and an infinite number of possible rights. The legal issues will, I suspect, be two: (1) is the plaintiff the kind of being who should be a legal person, that is have the capacity for having any legal rights at all", and (2) if some, what legal rights should she have?

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Leah is up next, when you're ready, Leah, thanks.

 

Leah:

I think you answered it earlier, but in case you have anything to add: What made you choose to pursue rights for nonhumans based on judicial opinion rather than legislation?


Steven M. Wise:

Judges are in the business of dispensing justice. Legislators are in a variety of businesses. I prefer to argue from justice, and am good at it. Others are better than I in appealing to legislatures. 

 

Leah:

Thank you!

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you Steve, Brooke Cameron is up with another question. Please go ahead Brooke.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Tim.  What is the difference between your work and Gary Francione’s?

 

Steven M. Wise:

I am not clear how you might characterize Gary's work. If you tell me, I will tell you how, and whether, my work differs. I can say how my work differs from the work of nearly any lawyer in the world, and it is this.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Well, Gary doesn't think that legal changes which would bring about abolition are at all likely given the current speciesist mindset.  At the same time, he thinks that all sentient beings deserve one legal right - the right not to be property - and that there's no need to sort out any human-like characteristics in order to protect them. He also thinks that people who support incremental reforms of the "animal industry" are actually doing more harm than good because those reforms don't do anything meaningful for other animals and, in fact,  they cause people to feel okay about continuing to use other animals.

 

Steven M. Wise:

Twenty-five years ago, I decided how I intended to gain legal rights for nonhuman animals. My work - even my theoretical work - has that intensely practical purpose. I am pretty much on schedule, though I concede that my hair is significantly greyer than my posted photo demonstrates.

 

With respect to the first issue - the likelihood of change. I became an historian of human slavery to write THOUGH THE HEAVENS MAY FALL. Who would have thought that human slavery would end when it did when it had been going on for so many millennia?  I cannot guarantee that nonhuman animals will gain personhood soon. But I can guarantee that, if no one tries, they won't.

 

Next. Steve Wise the human being may agree that sentient beings deserve the right not to be property. Steve Wise the animal rights lawyer sees no current basis in law for that and so does not think about it except when he is riding his bicycle. Next. The first part is the thirsty cow problem, which I addressed. And I make legal arguments to judges who may, or may not care, about what makes people feel okay. There are laws that demand we respect others no matter how we feel about anything. They regulate our behavior, not our mental states. I may not like you or want to eat you. But I better not.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks very much!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Tim Gier would like to ask the last of our "formal" questions for today next, please go ahead, Tim

 

Tim Gier:

Whenever I think about legal solutions to those problems which go to a person’s (or society’s) core beliefs, I cannot help but think about abortion in the United States. As much as I am personally convinced that every woman must ultimately have the right to decide the fate of her own person. I am less convinced that the legal answer provided by Roe v. Wade has done anything to make the abortion issue less contentious, or the availability of abortions themselves less difficult. Do we run the same risk in seeking legal solutions to the moral problem of animal use? Would laws against animal use serve to further entrench widespread opposition to the idea that other animals deserve our moral consideration?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Before ROE v. WADE in the US, abortion was illegal most places. It has made abortion much much easier to obtain, which is why the anti-abortion folks fight so tenaciously. Steve Wise the human being is very concerned about moral consideration. Steve Wise the animal rights lawyer is determined to require humans to respect the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals whether they want to or not.

 

Tim Gier:

May I follow up please?

 

Steven M. Wise:

Of course.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you. Do you think that the kind of legal reform you are trying to bring about-- perhaps we'd call it piecemeal?- avoids the sort of contentious reaction from the sweeping Roe v. Wade decision?

 

Steven M. Wise:

The common law is inherently piecemeal. That is one of its great strengths. Judges can stick their heads out to see the reaction. Another strength of the common law is that it can be easily changed, by legislatures and by the judges themselves. That also makes them more open to trying something new. One reason the reaction to ROE was so strong was that it inserted the right to abortion into the Constitution, which is hard to change indeed.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! This concludes the formal session of Steve's chat for today. I'd like to now open the chat up for all members to engage Steve in dialogue, and ask that if you have a question, you please PM an admin with your intent.

 

Steven M. Wise:

Welcome. I'm down to my thumbs.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

I’d like to begin this open session by asking Maynard Clark to ask the first question, when you’re ready, Maynard.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you. Steve, what issues emerge in working for animals across the Internet with the professionally diverse, multi-layered, multi-professional Nonhuman Right Project, and what progress is being made? And thank you for working to REQUIRE humans to respect animals' fundamental rights, whether or not they want to respect them.

 

Steven M. Wise:

The Nonhuman Rights Project is comprised of 50 very smart, very committed folks who are scattered across the US. And they are all volunteers. It's amazing how much we get done under those circumstances. Even I have only met half of the volunteers  We hope to file the first suits in 2012, if all goes right, and 2013, if not.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you very much Steve, and as always, for your outstanding work!  Do 'friend' me on ARZone.

 

Steven M. Wise:

:-D

 

Maynard S. Clark:

:-)

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Steve.

 

Steven M. Wise:

Very welcome. It was a privilege.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Tim Gier has one more question for you, thanks, Tim

 

Tim Gier:

Steve, what do you think the single most important thing is that people as individuals can do to advance the rights of nonhuman animals?

 

Steven M. Wise:

I am doing it. Planning very careful and meticulous lawsuits with the potential of winning big and losing small.  Voting for AR friendly legislators at every level.  That's two.

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve. I'd like, at this time, to thank Steven Wise sincerely for giving his time to us today, we really do appreciate it!

 

Steven M. Wise:

You are very welcome.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks for your insight and advice, Steve.

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks for the 'WISE' words ;-)

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Steve, for being here today!

 

Richard McMahan:

Thank you Steven.

 

Ben Hornby:

Thanks Prof. Wise.

 

Leah:

Thanks!

 

Mangus O’Shales:

thank you Steve, and thank you to ARZone for the usual good work!

 

Barbara Degrande:

Thank you!

 

 

 

ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after chats by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.

Views: 448

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone

Comment by Carolyn Bailey on May 17, 2011 at 8:21
Thanks Craig, and Roger!
I must have missed it when you posted it in March, Craig. I apologise for that! I'll definitely read it now though. :)
Comment by Craig Cline on May 17, 2011 at 0:29

HI Carolyn,

 

ARZone previously posted my article, so I assume you could find it again by searching ARZone's archives.  It was posted on March 25, 2011, and I think you will find it to be "worthy" of reading and sharing with others.  Hope this helps!

 

Craig Cline

Comment by Carolyn Bailey on May 16, 2011 at 21:06

Hi Craig,

I certainly agree with your suggestion that our priority should be to change the opinions of the general population before assuming that any laws will be either accepted or respected. 

I'd be very interested in reading your paper, is it possible to post it, or a link to it, in ARZone?

Thanks!

 

Comment by Craig Cline on May 16, 2011 at 6:16

I want to add my thanks to Steven.  In his dialogue, he described himself as an "animal rights lawyer." and as a "human being."  He later said:  "I rarely talk about 'animal rights' for two reasons, 'animals,' and 'rights.'"  His focus is on lawsuits, "with the potential of winning big and losing small."  His secondary suggestion is that people vote for animal rights friendly legislators at every level.

While I do not disagree with Steven, I offer these thoughts for further discussion and action:  We can seek to use the law as our primary remedy and means for change in seeking rights for animals, yes.  But can't we, and shouldn't we, FIRST AND FOREMOST, simply ask people, "up close and personally," to consider the morality and ethicality of their behavior?  Behavioral changes are more likely to lead to changes in the laws.  Laws are largely (and unfortunately) controlled by business interests and their lobbyists.  The MAD (Meat And Dairy) industries have great power, and because so much money is at stake, legislators are unlikely to change the existing laws in truly significant and meaningful ways.  Therefore, the legal process leads to small, incremental gains, and sometimes even, reversals to the animal rights causes.

In part because of this scenario, I wrote about how people should take action to eliminate "animal wrongs," by implementing the use of "The Golden Rule."  The article was called "Rights, Wrongs, and The Golden Rule," and I wrote it as a concept that people would more likely embrace and act upon than animal rights per se.  Animal wrongs IS all about animal rights at its essence, of course.  In my opinion, it is a much easier concept for people to "see," believe in, and take individual action on.

I invite Steven's comments, and those of any of the ARZone group.  Thanks.

 

Craig Cline

Salem, Oregon

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+