As a Catholic who had just returned home from the recent CITES Animal Committee Meeting in Shepherdstown, West Virginia I was disturbed to read a news release in my local Catholic diocesan newspaper about animal rights. The news release concerned a recent article in the Vatican newspaper L’Observatore Romano titled, "For a More Just Relationship with Animals" by a Marie Hendrickx.

The article cites "the growing popularity of the animal rights movement". It recommends, "do to others whatever you would have them do to you". She then leaps from reports of chickens in small cages and a goat thrown off of some Spanish tower during an annual festival to questioning "the right to dress oneself with animal skins". She then says that animal suffering should be avoided unless there "are serious reasons" which the "sole motive of profit is not".

It was difficult for me as a Catholic layman to write the Vatican newspaper since they do not print letters and are essentially the official paper of the Vatican. However, write I did and I would encourage all Catholics who understand the pernicious and biologically flawed goals of the animal rights movement to write articles for your Catholic publications and to talk with priests and to address Catholic groups whenever possible. This issue and this advice is just as applicable to all non-Catholics as well. Whether or not you are religious, I will bet your circles are every bit as susceptible to the propaganda of animal rights as are uninformed Catholic writers.

My letter addressed the basic concept that human rights in society are an expression of our historic recognition of the special nature of man. That traditionally and biblically man was given and has dominion over animals. After explaining the radical agenda of animal rights ("a boy is a rat, etc.) and their goals of no animal use and what that means ultimately to biodiversity and man’s living environment on this earth; I cited how the "rights" of animals have been touted while simultaneously the rights of the unborn and the infirm have been diminished.

I spoke to them about the animal rights propaganda ploy (evident in this article) to describe a chicken in a tiny cage and a goat being heaved off a tower and then to leap to the "need" to outlaw fur, pets, meat, wild animal harvest, etc., etc. I told them of the need to maintain value for wildlife and how that involves profit and how taxes and licenses are necessary to manage and maintain healthy and diverse wildlife. I agreed that chickens should be considered and that goats ought not be heaved off towers but I told them about trap research and the need to control elephants to protect poor people and the need to control whales to recover and maintain healthy fisheries. I even spoke of the myriad benefits of the money spent to shoot things like leopards merely for "profit".

Finally, and most importantly I attacked directly the notion that animals are "others" as in do unto others. We must respect animals and not cause them needless suffering but that does not include wise and sustainable use of wild and domestic animals and their parts and products. Yes, humans are indeed animals but animals are not humans. There is no moral or legal reason for us to shirk from this argument. We only shirk because of the social pressures of political correctness and for that shame on us. We should all communicate this to our friends, relatives, and associates because moral, biological, and legal facts will back us up every time.