Something Other than They Are

Recently I was involved in a discussion on another forum initiated by a hopeful vegan person asking if there was a humane source for animal based food for carnivorous pets.  My response was that there is not.  Though with great populations of domesticated carnivorous animals who are dependent on humans for food, we are, so far, fraught with choosing the life of one animal over another.

Plant stuffs can be formulated to meet the health and nutritional needs of some obligate carnivore species, namely domesticated cats.  And omnivorous ones, such as dogs, generally cruise easily on vegan diets.   However, should this option fail a particular animal, Gary Francione, esteemed promoter of the grassroots Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights,  explains that in our responsibility to all domesticated species who are already in existence we may succumb to a morally excusable use of one animal for the food of another however morally unjustifiable it remains.  Of course,  the greater goal and where our efforts must go is to the end of domestication all together supported by human veganism. Only then will our moral quandary cease.

The emotional pain of any vegan’s moral dilemma of feeding carnivore domesticates should not be dispelled by a delusion of  so called humane slaughter or happy exploitation up to the point of death of those animals who would be food. Neither of these is realistic.   Not to mention, our emotional suffering is not the problem, but a symptom of our radical error to use animals at all.

A colleague of mine also participating in the discussion commented that the exception of excusable immoral use of some animals for the sake of feeding others brought about the sense that if we care for carnivorous animals who by force  have no choice but to depend on us -and we owe them care – at least we are not expecting them to be something other than they really are.

From this point I have borrowed the topic from that forum in order to expand on some of the demoralizing effects of domestication here.  Though my colleague understands well the importance of accepting any species for its true nature, her comment turns the spotlight on the very foundation of domestication, which  is the requirement that all species in fact be denied of who they truly are in order that we may exploit them for particular attributes of theirs that we calculate as being beneficial to us.

Two common pet species illustrate this well.  Dogs,  which are known in the form of over 300 hundred breeds today, are all related genetically to the wolf.   However it came about for humans to take the step to the ongoing domestication of the wolf for specific human purposes, this artificial selection could be maintained only by killing the ones born who did not display the desirable traits of the service requirements – regardless of whether they would be otherwise healthy and viable animals for life in the wild. In other words,  some of the very traits that make a wolf  who he truly is were seen as undesirable in the domesticated  version. We either killed off possessors of those traits or eventually curtailed those traits that cannot be erased by husbandry by non-lethal punitive measures. Dogs now still suffer this fate.  And the wolf itself is generally scorned by those who keep his natural prey, or the domesticated version of  the now extinct original prey species, as livestock.

What measures will society not take to make sure that dogs will not wander large territories, travel in packs, hunt or kill  what would be typical prey species, vocalize at certain volumes or durations, dig holes,  gnaw things, etc.? All these are traits that make a dog, derived from wolf, who he really is.

Cats, loved and hated seemingly in equal measure, also live in the balance of the whims of humans.   We are thrilled when they hunt and kill rodents, but vilify them for doing the same to birds, while the mechanism and instinct to hunt and kill either is no different. By the way, it’s popular to cite the numbers of birds killed by domesticated cats each year to prove their evil, while never mentioning the numbers of all species of animals killed unnecessarily each year by humans. The former pales in contrast to the latter. We have felt justified to mutilate their feet with claw removal (actually toe removal) to save our furnishings from their natural scratching habit. At the same time we leave them for hours in lonely abandonment because we think their apparent independent habits mean they don’t need attention, stimulation or social life.

For a plurality of species enslaved to our use we don’t want some parts of what makes them who they really are as long as those behavioral characteristics or anatomical features get in the way of our ego satisfaction, ease of use, or the financial bottom line.  Horns, ears, tails, beaks, wings, hair coats, teeth, hooves, whiskers, etc.,  all may be amputated, mutilated or otherwise altered to meet some human desire (sometimes disguised as need), regardless of the adverse effect on the animal.

When we want more of some  behavioral characteristic or physical attribute,  we breed to accentuate those out of proportion to the point of ill health or disability.  We manipulate the living conditions to override biological rhythms to meet our demands or expectations without regard to how it might affect the animal’s quality of life by taking away from her all that would be her natural tendencies.  The health problems of these animals  are usually mitigated only by their early age of slaughter or otherwise shortened life span. Perhaps they become the beacon for a specific campaign to  improve their welfare through regulation during the inescapable servitude of their forced existence, but that never will end the problems.

We may attempt to replicate certain habitat and activity preferences in some cases, but often these are only a fractional mimic of the wild/free life and all are subject to human judgment as to appropriateness or even necessity.  We have to have the time and want to afford them, as well, let alone have the financial wherewithal  to do so.

Of the wild animals that remain undomesticated for lack of usefulness to us or for inability to survive in captivity, they are often assigned the role of pest or trophy, as if their very act of living is annoying or a status symbol to be won.  Pests are regularly adjudicated by capital punishment to preempt any real or imagined danger potential  of their natural habits as they affect humans or other domesticated animals .  Their territories are blockaded by fences and screens – sometimes weaponized with barbs or electricity – or the earth is laced with poison, or set with maiming, if not deadly, traps.

Water is cut off  to them or whole ecosystems are destroyed leaving them nowhere to move and nothing on which to live.  Some attempts on their part to survive within the human development that has overwhelmed them are portrayed as aggressive and hostile offences.  Then, we may just shoot them, blow them up or burn them out.

When we are emotionally and intellectually struck by the immoral unfairness, the inequity, the sorrow and the brutality that comes to domesticated animals and the wild animals subjected to demise as the side effect of domestication our responsibility is not to make the system of domestication easier to live with, but to follow the signs pointing to our mistake and resolve our dis-ease by recognizing  that we can – and ought to – live without domestication.

Non-violent communication with and education of animals living with humans because of domestication is a popular subject recently that deserves attention, but not as a justification for ongoing domestication. More importantly, the inroads into the development of mutual relationships without coercion and use between human and non-human animals are vital for the care still owed to all the domesticated animals already in existence.  A primary tenet of this approach indeed requires that we see all species for who they really are.  Being used by humans is not part of that picture.

Further Reading –

Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

“Pets”: The Inherent Problems of Domestication




Gaining Vision

By questioning the legitimacy of domestication of animals and finding it irrational as a means to a just and peaceful world, we are responsible for developing a viable alternative way of living.

The new culture without domestication is underway.  Daily, ongoing abolitionist vegans and newly turned abolitionist vegans reject the use of animals as justifiable and each of them who is able takes care of animals who are refugees of domestication.

In the previous essay (Recognizing a Blind Spot) I mentioned fear of apocalyptic conditions and worse case scenarios for animals as domestication ends (But what will happen to all the animals if everyone goes vegan?),  as well as the desired and habitual companionships between animals and humans that many people do not want taken from them. Both fears may cause reluctance in supporting the end of domestication.

If we are to take ending domestication seriously, we do have to answer the question  of the potential extinction of certain species.  This may be distasteful and feel Machiavellian to some, but let us not forget that many of the domesticated breeds came at the price of extinction of their wild predecessors.  I would argue that the entrenched practice of domestication preceded Machiavelli in its manner of “dishonesty and killing of innocents” as the means to its power.1

If we hang on to domestication as a supposed virtuous means to avoid extinction of some species – ones who absolutely depend on our compensatory care at huge expense to so much more – we risk the extinction of other species who are at least equipped to live independently if we return them access to untold acres of land and water.  Not to mention that these free living species are vital for biodiversity and ecosystemic well being.

Keep in mind that as domestication dies out we would regain the ability to grow more plants for human consumption, which requires less acreage and water to sufficiently feed everyone to good health. We would reinstate forests and other public lands that have been co-opted or destructively usurped for unsupportable numbers of domesticated grazing species.  We would allow the return of large predators who for generations have been persecuted and driven to destitution, toward extinction, if not forced extinct entirely.

Undoing the disaster of animal domestication  may push our emotional buttons, but it is a selfish anthropocentric reaction to lament life without dogs, cats and others whose lives are valued conditionally according to our arbitrary criteria.  If we agree that animals have the right not to be property we agree there is no choice but to stop forcing existence of some while denying the valid existence of others.

Having animal lovers among us who are comfortable and knowledgeable about caring for refugees of domestication is key to a healthy transition away from domestication. For any person reading this at the time of publishing who can’t imagine living without certain animals, it can almost be guaranteed that in your life time you’d have plenty of needy animals to adopt or foster through this transition.  If we were to end breeding of all domesticated animals today it would be at least one human generation (25 -35 years) for the youngest of some of them to reach their potential natural lifespan (longer for certain species like some birds and elephants.)

This timeline would most probably be extended by the fact that all breeding would not end at once, and some may not be reasonably or easily controlled at first.  Feral, stray and unwanted animals represent  a desperate population already,  in the midst of domestication. As it ends support for the teams of caregivers will be developed.  New or expanded professions of caregivers and educators related to humans and animals sharing territory under the right of none being property will emerge.

Educating ourselves on the ways to have relationships with animals without expectation of them serving us to fulfill their reason for being alive not only goes to meeting our obligations to them for forcing their existence, but presents an opportunity to reconcile with nature and begins our revised outlook toward  the roles of human- animal relationships in the new culture. By ending animal use we are able to spend time building relationships without dominance or superiority, not only between us and the animals for whom we care, but with our fellow humans.

Through non-violent education teaching people to see animals as beings deserving of living in freedom alongside us and enjoying the right not to be human property is the gateway to letting go of our fears of not having animal relationships. Most people already agree that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause harm to animals, so guiding them to develop mutual relationships with those in their care without expectations and baggage of traditional human-animal relationship concepts is an early phase of our transition out of domestication.

Many people I know, myself included, are turning their homes and properties of acreage into sanctuaries that support  this work.  By removing the methods of coercive training and forced behavioral compliance  we learn to communicate with animals in a way that acknowledges their sentience and intelligence, that does not require dominance or punishment and begets a cooperative relationship that respects the boundaries of etiquette and safety.

Taking this approach with animals for whom we do care develops our understanding of meeting the other human and non-human beings of the world  with whom we may think we have no relation as exactly  the same as those we already hold dear. With unconditional love, where no one is “other”, there is freedom and justice.

1. Niccolo Machiavelli,  Wikipedia

Recommended Reading:

Recognizing a Blind Spot

There is a huge blind spot for many of us when it comes to discussing the rational end of domestication of animals and what happens next because we are only able to imagine the end without the vision of the new culture (Read next Gaining Vision).

Many of us see the end of domestication only as a sort of totalitarian abandonment or mass extermination of certain species, a kind of apocalyptic mayhem. Who wouldn’t shudder at the thought of the billions of domesticated animals simply being sent to run amok, or genuinely worry about how they would fare if no one cared for them?  Of course, simply opening cages, doors and gates is not a responsible action in the redevelopment of culture without domestication.

Often, we can only see our own loneliness in a world where domestication ends, so we resist ending it. We  have a deep seated habit for personal companionships with some animals, enamored and enabled by their dependence on us and our dependence on them to the point that we cannot imagine life without a dog at our heels, a cat in our laps, or a horse in the field, to name a few of our favorite fetishes.

Our entire social and economic system is based on thousands of years animal exploitation and could not be dismantled in one fell political swoop or all at once by any means save perhaps cosmological catastrophe. This makes it seem altogether insurmountable. Plus a majority of people appear to see no problem with the way things are and form another possible obstacle. Let’s be level headed, we know that such a shift will require and endure a period of transition.  This should not prevent us from seriously approaching the end of domestication of animals.

For anyone concerned that the end of domestication is untenable let’s consider that humans – as anatomically evolved as we are today – emerged about 200,000 years ago. Domestication didn’t get a foothold until about 190, 000 years later.  Homo sapiens have survived far longer without domestication than we have lived with it. Today’s rate of demise of the planet’s ability to support humanity in its current domestication driven way of life suggests that we won’t  live much longer with it either.

With only about 5000 years of recorded history, first hand contemporary accounts of life before domestication of animals are not available.  The written records, especially from the last 2000 to 1500 years up to today – whether biased official historical presentations, commercial and political propaganda along with personal observations in correspondence,  literature and other commentary –  outline and, in many instances,  highlight the detrimental disturbances and misfortunes of the practice of domestication.

From the devastation of wild life, to the decimation and enslavement of indigenous populations to the desecration of land and water sources to disease to war to wage slavery, to the torture of the animals, ill-fated dietary habits and more, they are all replete with connections to the earliest pastoralists.1  Is this something we honestly want to preserve?

Since we today only know a world built on domestication it’s not surprising that a popular argument it is that is natural and justifiable and even worthy of celebration and honor.  We pick and choose single issue symptoms  as the problems of the human condition or animal welfare, ignoring the festering unjust source of so many of our conflicts, domestication of animals.

A large census of us have been convinced that our lives are better, more convenient, more enjoyable with domestication.  Yet, none of us has lived without the influence, direct or indirect, of the oppression, inequality, unfair competition, scarcity, desperation, brutality, conflict and fear that are ready side effects of animal domestication.  How can we really know that our lives are better from domestication than they could be without it?

Sure, for some few there are great riches and power to be had in this system, for some number more there is an achievement of arrival in to a contrived lauded standard of living. Many more dream for a costume of such fashionable happiness,  perhaps not understanding that it doesn’t necessarily include freedom or security.  And regardless the amounts in our bank accounts, many of us still suffer some form of impoverishment, whether by abject discrimination and oppression, disease, or as lack of empathy and emotional or spiritual destitution. All of these are symptoms of the manifestation of the domestication of animals.

If so many of the ills of society can be linked to the domestication of animals – not to mention the grotesque torture of the animals themselves or their subjectively restricted and dependent lives as property – doesn’t it make sense that ending domestication would be a priority in our aim for restoring  well being to the planet?2


1. David A. Nibert,  Animal oppression & Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism and Global Conflict,  2013, Columbia University Press

2. Recommended reading:

Gary L. Francione and Anna Charlton

Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach 

Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals

The Abolitionist Approach

Giving Sanctuary

Now is the time to abolish the domestication of animals. Let’s detach ourselves from the environmentally destructive and deathly slave trade of non-human beings.  It’s never too soon to end the demand for animal products by living a non-violent vegan life which will open the door for a world wide paradigm of peace. Denounce animal use for food, entertainment or convenience; support the end of the breeding of animals that require humans for sustenance, shelter and privileges of freedom and take responsibility for one or more animals that are already alive by giving them refuge with you for the rest of their lives.

For generations we have been made aware of the high numbers of unwanted domesticated animals, such as our typical canine and feline pets and horses. But there are also birds, rabbits, rodents, reptiles, and amphibians. Certainly, there is no longer hiding the brutality waged against farmed animals. (By the way, any husbandry that claims happiness for the animals but still ends in premeditated slaughter is not a viable alternative.)

This age old problem will not disappear unless we destroy it at the root, by the cessation of animal domestication. Any animal that has been removed from its natural habitat with no hope of returning to the wild, or that has been born into captivity deserves sanctuary to live out its life without a price on its head or a debt to be paid.

When you have freed yourself from the chains of animal use, you have an opportunity to see the world in a new way.  Explore the affinity between humans and non-human animals. As part of your care for them during the transition to the end of domestication you should study their anatomy, physiology and social behavior. To the best of your ability provide the habitat that best meets the needs of the species in your care, allowing them as much freedom as possible. Learn about the origins of the species, become familiar with the idea of mankind cohabitating with animals on earth without the notion of controlling them.

Ending animal domestication may seem like folly to some, but I see it as a great step toward the positive and sustainable redirection for humanity and the planet.

Be vegan. 

As I Was Saying

The dictionary is one of my favorite books. I can go on a word journey and entertain myself following one definition to the next, connecting threads or traipsing off on a tangent into previously unknown realms. We humans have created an impressive system of symbols and sounds to express our feelings and our ideas and to just keep track of things. But do we really understand what we are saying?

According to Oxford Dictionaries,  it is not even possible to get an accurate count of how many words there are, though English, with its mongrel ancestry and sponge-like capacity to absorb foreign or newly coined words, is comprised of upwards of three quarters of a million words.

With so many choices one would think that the precision of our descriptions and communications would be without room for interpretation – or the need for it. It seems that we would always be able to say what we mean and mean what we say. Yet, when the truth is unflattering or offensive or too direct, or we don’t want to be judged as lowly for unsavory or unseemly activities we resort to euphemism, giving our unpleasant concept a softer and more appealing taste. This manipulation of words is quite powerful as advertisers, politicians, religions and con artists well know.

However, the words that convey literature, poetry, lyrics, philosophy and science come from the same lexicon. Speaking or writing eloquently is admired as an art. Words are a medium which is crafted into complex philosophies or simple truths, embellishing civilization and defining culture.

Consequently, culture begets a psychology that can supersede one’s individual psychology, or perhaps it is better to say infiltrate one’s moral intuition, so that is it is possible that our behavior can be led in an irrational direction merely if rational language is applied, or if certain language is omitted. Euphemism works its magic.

This is well illustrated in the promotion of “humane slaughter”,  “compassionate consumption”,  “natural horsemanship” and, frankly,  any  case of exploitation of animals where the animal is purported to be “happy” in his or her servitude and imprisonment. The multibillion dollar industry of animal slavery and its inevitable cruelty thrive with the help of selective language.

Humanity is splintered into countless cultures and sub-cultures and most of us live under the influence more than one. A side effect of this is that we might unwittingly embrace utterly opposing moral attitudes within our lives simply because a sub-culture and its language obscure our insight. Consider your own immediate family values, your employment culture, your social network of friends and your personal hobbies. Undoubtedly, there are many overlapping features in each, but it might be that you are taking pleasure or pride in something that if it were described in another way would make you cringe.

Horse people – those that are attracted to horses and keep them for purposes of sport, or work or pleasure – are such a sub-culture where perfectly conscientious people in areas of, say, health and ecology and, in general, good citizenry for the sake of a better humanity simultaneously do terrible things to horses. There is even a stigma for being too kind to a horse. A horse that is too sick or lame to work or be ridden after he has been broken down through use is considered a burden. A horse that does not readily comply or fit in or in some way earn his keep is beaten and over worked. On the other hand he may be handed off in a quick sale or left to receive minimal care if not outright neglect. Or maybe he is just killed.

Through culture, history, advertising, and one of the worst forms of justification for malevolence, in my opinion, tradition, people who admire horses for all the reasons for which they deserve admiration go on to kick them, whip them, exhaust them, force them, demean them, enslave them and find disappointment in them. All of these infractions take place under the guise of positive definitions of words like athleticism, sports, adventure, pleasure, teaching, respect, gentling, skill, energy, therapy, etc.

There are the euphemisms like tap, bump, contact, support, leg, rhythm, squeeze, correction – all replacements for adverse pressure or a hitting impact intended to cause discomfort and pain. There are tie-downs and hobbles and gag bits, undisguised terms for available accouterments considered reasonable and necessary for controlling a horse.

Another vein of patois is the creative interpretations of a horse’s signs of communication, where fear is described as silliness or idiocy. Lack of understanding to a human’s request is willful resistance and disrespect. Curiosity and initiative is rudeness. And poor performance of any maneuver is just plain laziness with no accounting for possible pain or inability to physically conduct himself without risk of injury.

If the word child , woman or man is substituted for horse in any standard discussion of horse husbandry and use, it sounds like unconscionable and sociopathic behavior. The reason for that is simple; it is unconscionable and sociopathic behavior.

If the defense and rationale is that animals are not the same as people and they should be domesticated and bred to be used by us, then that is the shame of humanity for taking such a narrow view of our community of earthlings. Mankind upholds language as a signifier of his superiority as a species, but as I see it we are overstating that claim.


Be Vegan 

Acknowledgments: Thank you to Michael Bevilacqua and David Castro for the depth of their discussions with me, and to Alexander Nevzorov for telling it like it is.

Our Animals, Ourselves

With the undertaking of domestication of plants and animals humans took advantage of their environments and essentially stylized them to facilitate the acquisition of food.  One general long term effect is that gathering became centralized and hunting was restructured as highly “organized predation”.  [i]  With the advent of specialized food producers other members of the community were free to think about other things. [ii] This led to a boon of innovation for humans, and acquisition of knowledge about life and nature that we could hardly wish to be without, but did not come without a price.

When we domesticated those others we domesticated ourselves as well.  In the same ways that we cultivated, tamed, restricted, categorized, labeled and used plants and animals, so did many men, women and children fall into line as “others” while populations developed a hierarchical system of ownership, suppression of many by the few, and, most sadly, divorced themselves from nature by labeling animals and some humans as having an otherness less worthy of a full free life than some.

What astonishes me is that while humanitarian and civil activism rages against the segregations, the imprisonments, the slavery, the rapes  and any other humiliating injustice you can think of for humans, so come the cries to the effect of  “ These people are forced to live like animals!” or “It is a crime to treat people like animals!”

Statements like this are common vernacular.  In the dialog of recent episode of a popular science fiction television program a father defends his daughter’s right to privacy against authorities who want to study her ability to predict the future by saying he will not allow her to cooperate  since they only want to test her and probe her “like an animal.”  He is well aware of the inhumane consequences of such treatment.

And what of those animals brought up for comparison to humans? If people can see animals that live in such conditions or receive such treatment that no human should be subjected to the same, what have we done?  How can we point to an example of our own making as if it is somehow something animals bring upon themselves, as if it is a fault of their characters or that it doesn’t really matter to them?

Animals in their natural environments avoid unsanitary conditions, overcrowding and anti-social behavior.

Domesticated animals – most often animals raised as food, but even pets and service animals – are routinely subjected to lives of compartmentalized storage, artificial and forced breeding arrangements, and separation from family bonding, nurturing and socialization that can leave them emotionally ruined. Horses most certainly live within such programs.  In the name of human superiority and economics, not to mention frivolous entertainment,  this is usually ignored or twisted to fit neatly into our rationale for using animals for personal gain.

If the greatness of a civilization is judged by how it treats its animals, as has been variously quoted, most notably by Gandhi, I ask, is there yet a civilization that deserves the mark of greatness on that premise?   If we exploit fear and inflict pain, humiliate with punishment and deny intelligence and emotions of the animals we incorporate into our cultures we are operating at the lowest level of our potential.

The knowledge we have gained on the backs of animals has brought us to a place where it is not necessary to continue the practice. It’s time to listen to our words and actions towards animals and realize that if we would not accept treatment toward them as reasonable for ourselves it must cease.  Only then will the accolade of greatness we hope to attach to our civilizations be apt.

[i] Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape  , McGraw-Hill Book Company (1967)

[ii] Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel , W.W. Norton Company (2000)

An Outlet to Free Thinking (Revised with Notes)

Revised February 11, 2015

The primary reason for me reviving my childhood love of horses as an adult was to satisfy my need for adventurous activity. I was going to get myself out of the house and add value to my life with athletic prowess.  I was going to boost my confidence by achievement in the show ring.  Happiness would bloom within my soul by virtue of the relationship I had with a horse.

The glamour and grit of the horse world with its leather accoutrements, Olympic heroes and rugged cowboys enticed me. The idea of leading a partnership with a large animal was intoxicating. But when I began to participate in this world of horses the road continually turned and the happiness I had sought began to disappear from view.  After a few years I had acquired several horses and spent thousands of dollars on lessons and training, but instead of seamless progression of improvement in skill and relationship something else entered my awareness.

Nearly all the ways that the traditional and conventional methods of horsemanship directed humans how to be with horses required that the human prevail as the dominant partner.  The horse was required to obey and submit with respect.  The horse was a tool of transport, equipment for sport, a commodity for entertainment and profit.   His fear, his pain, his choice were all subservient to the will of the human. This is still the mainstream attitude.

While the mainstream manages to run up to a dam against free thinking, there are outlets.  It is possible to open your eyes and look into the eyes of a horse and see some-one instead of some – thing.  It is possible to question authority and listen directly to your horse and your own heart.  There is room to step back and review the popular culture of domesticated horses and admit that it is a manner of enslavement and imprisonment.

This may sound shocking, but it is not hard to see the parallels. Of course, there is even a whole language that ranges from euphemisms to clear terms for dreadful acts that are numbly accepted as normal things to do unto a sentient being.  The equine industry – make no mistake, it is big business – fights tooth and nail to validate its history and tradition as justifiably righteous.

Yet there is no law that says one must treat a horse so appallingly and if you are uneasy about gaining your happiness from the physical or emotional pain of others you can walk away from all that tradition – and you can still have a relationship with a horse1.

When I awoke to this notion of liberty for horses I found an opportunity for enlightened self-development2.  I was more attracted to nature as a part of myself.  I discovered the freedom and truth that can be revealed through science.   I began to climb out of ignorance and live fully through intelligence, which includes intuition, and heartfelt reasoning.

And now indeed happiness has bloomed within my soul by virtue of the relationships I have with the horses in my care.3


1. In the original post I had said “…-and you can still have a horse.” This may have suggested that it is acceptable for a human to own or keep horses as if they are ours to use and breed for our benefit and fulfillment over what the needs and desires of a horse might be. It is imperative to understand that by now any horses or other non-human animals we take into our care must be approached with the consideration of them as their own persons and that we are giving them asylum from the persecution of domestication. In adopting, fostering and giving sanctuary to any species there is necessarily  some level of relationship and perhaps even true friendship. However, let me be clear that there can be no force or coercion employed  to make an animal like you or respect you, or appear to do so. They owe us nothing.

My revision to say “…-and you can still have a relationship with a horse” is acknowledging that many of us have affinities  with certain non-human animals and that there  are captive and domesticated horses in need of homes. The relationships I describe are part of the transition from domestication to emancipation, they are not mere welfare reforms aimed at maintaining human use of animals for any reason. The ultimate goal is to end  the tradition of domestication itself.

2. When one begins to think critically about the coercive and painful (physical and psychological) types of training, restraint and confinement used on domesticated animals, even those we claim as companions, our first reaction might be only to look at the treatment and miss the point that bestowing property status on animals is the root problem.  When I speak of my awakening to the notion of liberty for horses it is not only about walking away from harsh treatment, but that there is no superior being present.

The opportunity we all have for self-development is based upon a different attitude toward non-human animals where they are free to express themselves without punishment. When we accept the equal inherent value felt by each sentient being we must reexamine our interpretations of  signals and communications from non-humans and more closely check our motivations for initiating interactions with them. That we are not able to safely turn already living animals loose at this time, that they still must be subjected to certain types of confinement and continue to rely on us for food and shelter requires us to modify our management to offer them the most freedom within those limitations as long as they last.  This will be discussed further in other essays related to the transition out of domestication.

3. “And now indeed happiness has bloomed within my soul by virtue of the relationships I have with my horses.”

In the original ending of this post, I called the horses in my care, my horses.  Legally I do own them and while changing the language doesn’t change the law, perhaps it is a way  help us  rightly see non-human animals as persons and not wrongly to view them as things that we can possess.  I will revise it as such for now, but I don’t want to create confusion or encourage euphemistic phrasing that obscures the unjust property status of animals.