easonable people have many different attitudes about animals. Some of us love them all. Some, fear most of them. Some people are absolutely indifferent about animals, whether they are wild or tame, and could care less if they never see, hear, touch or smell another living non-human. Many of us believe that it is not only ethical but absolutely necessary to use animals for medical research, while others believe just as strongly that this should never happen. Some of the latter arguments are pseudoscientific, that is, they claim that non-human animals are not appropriate models for drug and surgical experiments, regardless of the myriad successes that have been recorded in our quest to prevent and cure disease, and to perform surgical procedures that ultimately, benefit both humans and other animals, as well. Animal "rights" advocates believe that we have no right to subject animals to confinement, or to use them in any way that affects their normal lives and behavior. Their argument is one of cultural preference, couched in "ethical" terms. They especially object to the practice of killing animals for food, and this includes fish, as well as other wild and tame creatures. Many of this ilk claim and truly believe, that animals have "rights" identical to those attributed to human beings, and thus, animals must not be violated by us in any way. These people deny that we have any right to a superior position in any moral hierarchy that includes animals.

Historically, however, those who have attempted to force any legal system to accept their premise that animals' "rights" are in the same legal category as human "rights", have failed. The basis for this failure seems to be that while it may be "right" to treat animals in a way now seen as "humane", (and indeed, many States have laws defining and mandating such treatment) no governmental body has found that animals have the capacity to engage in responsible behavior and thought, thus, they do not have "rights" comparable to those of humans. We humans are usually (statistically) capable of rational and responsible action. Even when humans are born or rendered incapable of this trait, however, we insist that the same rights as those of the rest of our species be afforded them. This is our "speciest" bias, which has been our right to proclaim. We do not kill our disabled and unfortunate, but we may confine and regulate their behavior for their own good and that of others. Humans lose their civil "rights" when they act in ways that our laws have deemed to be irresponsible, dangerous to self and others, and destructive of property. And likewise, many animals that are dangerous, are dealt with in ways that prevent them from harming us or our environment, or our domestic creatures.

There has been much discussion lately of animals' "rights" due to the unfortunate attacks on some humans by some animals. Tigers and bears, alligators and sharks, snakes and wasps, all pose some level of danger to humans with whom they come in contact. These creatures may well be deserving of respect, even love in some cases, but they are not deserving of the legal right not to be confined, killed, or otherwise prevented from harming us. Because we are the top of the food chain here, and we make the rules, and we are capable of thinking about all this. Yes, we should not harm any animals unnecessarily, we should not cause them unnecessary stress and pain. And, we should not expect them to reciprocate for rational reasons, because they are incapable of this.

IWMC encourages all who love and respect both humans and animals, to talk about this concept of human rights, and the reasons why animals can never be considered eligible for similar inalienable rights, regardless of their intelligence, charisma, or appearance. Animals are simply not endowed with those mental and spiritual gifts that have blessed Homo sapiens, and their "rights" must always be subordinate in scope and in legal reality.