Vicki Hearne wrote an essay called What’s Wrong with Animal Rights, which I found in a book required for a school course. She opens it speaking about a circus rhino who supposedly found some kind of joy in being retrained each morning; otherwise he’d “forget” his tricks. Hearne, who is herself an animal trainer, must know that the standard training methods in circuses include beatings and withholding food. What creature would purposely forget in order to be retrained, and find happiness in it?

She goes on to talk about happiness for any animal as having a purpose and a talent, which must be carefully cultivated (presumably by trainers). “If it had not been a fairly ordinary thing, in one part of the world, to teach young children to play the pianoforte, it is doubtful that Mozart’s music would exist,” she says, as if to somehow imply every animal needs to have the Secretariat molded out of him, and that every animal would want to. I’m sure that many children in that part of the world resented the pianoforte, just as many today hate being forced to play team sports.

This is not to say that the little league short stop would want to quit sports entirely; perhaps he’d rather play soccer. In the same way, not every dog with a champion pedigree wants to be a show dog. The pitcher may be an all-star and that poodle may be a ribbon-winner, but this does not necessarily mean that either is happy. Hearne does say in her essay that happiness, in whatever form, is from a meaningful source, and not from empty flattery and praise. Because of this belief, she resents strangers (and probably acquaintances as well) from gushing over her show dog in the typical bubbly way most people talk to pets. She implies this is a form of dishonesty and false praise with a shallow intent; it’s somehow insulting to the dog. Of course, she says all this in reference to her Airedale show dog, whose “work” is parading around a show ring, which is as shallow an environment as any other. In the show ring - the canine equivalent of beauty pageants - the dogs are admired for their body and not for how well they may fulfill the purpose for which their breed was created (and remember that Hearne believes a true purpose is the origin of happiness).

So far this article has little to do with animal rights, just as Hearne’s had little to do with animal rights. She spends a good portion of her article describing praise and even goes into differentiating between possessive pronouns, but eventually gets to the point: “I am the only one who can own up to my Airedale’s inalienable rights.” The rights of animals are ultimately in the hands of whoever has custody of them. This is the reason there is an animal rights movement – to counteract the many out there who do not respect those rights. “People who claim to speak for animal rights are increasingly devoted to the idea that the very keeping of a dog or a horse or a gerbil or a lion is in and of itself an offense.” It is indeed an offense when they are kept by the uninformed or irresponsible in a situation that is unfair to the animal. It is particularly unfair to the lion, which, unlike the others, is not a domesticated animal, has not been bred to be dependant on humans, and has very specific needs, which most people cannot provide for.

To Hearne, though, this is no crime: “In Africa, 75 percent of the lions cubbed [born] do not survive to the age of two. For those who make it to two, the average age of death is ten years. Asali, the movie and TV lioness, was still working at age twenty-one.” She goes on to mention a few other examples of animals who live longer lives in captivity. What about those whose lives are cut dramatically shorter in captivity, such as the panda and killer whale? Surely their lives are better in captivity anyway, she says, because “The wild is not a suffering-free zone or all that frolicsome a location.” As an animal trainer, it appears like Vicki Hearne is taking the side of the animal entertainment industry, so she inevitably has come to this point - one that zoos and other captors of wild animals use to justify themselves.

In the most outrageous part of her essay, she states, “It is true that it hurts to be slaughtered by man, but it doesn’t hurt nearly as much as some of the cunningly cruel arrangements meted out by Mother Nature.” This is a ridiculous proclamation. Slaughter by man hurts just as much if not more than what Mother Nature can devise. There is a profound difference between the two: wild animals, conditioned to survive out in the wilderness, live a free life until they die in whatever fashion nature has intended. On the other hand, animals raised for food are captive and restrained their entire lives (thereby not ever given a chance to have a real purpose, and so by Hearne’s own argument they are not happy), until they meet their end. Nature never devised anything so cruel and mercilessly relentless as the slaughterhouse killing floor.

Ending animal slaughter is the biggest focus of the animal rights movement, because of the extent and scale of the suffering. Throughout the essay, she makes statements along these lines: “Animal rights are built upon a misconceived premise that rights were created to prevent us from unnecessary suffering,” and that rights stem from happiness instead. But being free from misery is the most basic element of happiness – when was the last time the two existed simultaneously? Therefore, contrary to Hearne’s arguments, animal rights should indeed prevent unnecessary suffering.

It is the work of animal rights activists to alleviate suffering. We must make our stand and counteract those who exploit animals for their own gain. It is unfortunate that there are people who make their living working with animals but think that surviving in the wilderness is a fate worse than death. And it is unthinkable that such a person can call the right not to be tortured in medical experiments “a trivialization.”

--In writing this essay, which helped her to form many of her ideas about animal rights, Rachel Crowley discovered that Vicki Hearne is actually a very well-known and respected animal handler/trainer. “I think its interesting how people could love the same creatures but believe completely differently.”