Praising Pets and the Idea of Pets is a Joyful Exercise
Praising pets and the idea of pets is a joyful exercise. After all, there are 15,000 years of experience to validate the indispensable bond that unites humans and animals. If you prefer the micro to the macro, there are millions of us in America whose thoughts on the subject go straight to that singular dog or cat who enriches our lives, who brings us closer to the mysteries of other beings, and who remind us -- in the best possible way -- that living right is always a shared experience.
But our exercise today is not quite so simple, or so uplifting. No, in this forum we are to regard pets as a matter of debate. That is, “Should we have pets?”
Hum. This is not a fruitful argument. It’s an idle abstraction, like debating, “Should we have love?” In these kinds of sentences, the word “should” takes on a faux ethical burden. We tug on our chins and the inevitable warning flag rises: Aren’t we thus obliged to forbid that which we should not have?
The danger with this argument is that it gives unintended hope to our enemies – and by that I mean the real foes of animal welfare and protection. They cannot win in a head-on clash of 21st Century ideas about the place of animals in our society. They are unable to defend, say, the monstrous cruelties that occur in puppy mills. All they can do is try to change the subject.
So they draw a fraudulent line in the sand. They claim brotherhood with all those Americans who have pets in their households, which happens to include a majority of the population. They point across the divide to forums like this one and they say, see those animal rights misanthropes are caught up debating whether Americans should even have pets. You know where this is headed, and it’s not in a good direction for animals.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
is the happiness a pet can provide someone. They love unconditionally, they dont care how you look, smell, act, dress. They dont see your bank account and then decide if they love you or not. You are always popular to them, your attention is what they crave. Pets... one of lifes greatest and purest joys.
I don't get the idea that domestic pets were enslaved into companion servitude by people thousands of years ago. It was a mutual decision. Just as the siamese alley cat I now care for figured out "hey, if I cozy up to this thing it will feed me". If we ware to blame then so are the animals (dogs and cats from that time that found out if they hang around these people are a souce of food . Originally it was a compromise by species just as other species do in the wild. To insist we should not have them in our lives is to ok their extermination seeing as after thousands of years in our society there is no ecosystem that can handle them. We can't turn back time and unless letting them wreak havoc on species that have never had to deal with them can be justified then they will forever stay a part of us. To fight for fair and dignified treatment of them is possible but to go farther than that is much more dangerous to everything else on the planet as well.
You could domesticate just about any wild animal with effort and breeding over time. It is easy to desensitise an animal from their natural fear of us. It is doable to train and condition wild animals to live with us. Some animals have been radically physically changed through their DNA in order to be most exploitable for humans. Just because we CAN do these things to animals, doesn't mean we should do them. Just because we can domesticate a tiger or a cat, doesn't mean we should.
Many conservationists strongly advise and educate visiting people to NOT feed or touch wild animals or birds in national parks because it will alter their natural behaviour. This can potentially harm and kill the wild animals who become dependent on the seasonal visitor food source, or may attack humans as a result of losing their fear of them through contact and then be killed for it later. We know that we shouldn't interfere with the natural life of wild animals and for this same reason, we should not keep pets or domesticate animals. We ought to care for the domestic animals who already exist but cease breeding any more into existence for our own personal gratification. No, domestic animals should never be released into the wild, it would hurt them and it would hurt the wildlife.
How was it a mutual decision on the part of the wolves who were killed by the tribespeople when they displayed aggressive traits? This is how they were bred. The docile ones were kept and bred. The aggressive ones were killed. Puppies didn't ask to be taken from their mothers. This happens on a mass scale today. Whether the pup comes from a puppy mill or a happy home with a family of humans, children should never be taken from their mothers but that is exactly what is happening.
While wild animals should only be observed and it is possible to leave them be and not disturb them, our domestic animals would not survive. We have a choice. Do we continue to care for those that we created and have come to rely on us? We can't turn back time and change this situation we have created. While the mutual decision was not made by all members of both species a fair percentage did. We as humans are to blame for the situation we have made just as we will be responsible for the loss of these species if we are able to stop the breeding of them. I would prefer not to think of them having to pay for our mistake with their extinction but that is the cross we will carry should it happen. In a perfect world we would not have doomed them to this reality, but in a perfect world their wouldn't be so much war, starvation, disease, ect. Knowing that a perfect world is a nice dream but impossible to achieve we need to concentrait on acheivable goals.
While I do not keep domestic animals as pets I keep constrictors and the like. While every animal rights people will see this as even worse I have some questions.
1) Provided my co-inhabitants(I call my kids but others would call pets) are healthy and live as fullfilling lives as any domestic cat or dog and were not snatched frome the wild, why is it wrong.
2) Is showing those who do not know that there is no reason to fear animals long viewed by the general public as dangerous and evil a bad thing. You can learn alot from reading and photos but you can't overcome a inherant fear without actual contact.
3)While facts are stated claiming around 60,000 cases of salmonila a year from reptiles I nor anyone I know who keeps them(and I'm in contact with people all over the country) has found proof of any. We don't doubt there are some but the plague like statistics seem un-verified.
4) While I believe in restrictions to protect wild populations abolishment will do more harm than it ever could good.I may not see animals wild or not as a comodity, if you give them no value and obolish controlled collection of various species then no one will be around to inforce collection quotas will the black market trade could wipe them out all together.
4). By looking at the statistics of the wild animal trade, endangered animals are poached less when their trade is banned. Sure they are still poached, but far less than when it is open season on stealing these animals from their natural habitat. What would happen if the tiger trade was merely regulated rather than banned? Disaster! I have even been reading about the sex slave trade and prostitution recently. In countries where it has become legalised and regulated, the number of prostitutes working exploded ten times, many of them slaves from other countries. So it seems in the attempt to regulate an already exploitative industry where most of these women get abused, raped and beaten (not to mention traded!), this just made it worse -much, much worse!
Freedom. Worth a thought.
Have a great night.
Desert Girl
3). Human safety is a different issue to the moral issue of whether or not we should keep pets . It just adds to it, but is not the primary question of importance. So whether it's safe for you or not, makes no difference to the animal who's freedom is on the discussion board.
Throughout history, humans have suffered terrible diseases and deaths because of our interference with other species. All of the major plagues and pandemics were caused by our exploitation of " food " animals . The most serious diseases that threaten human health revolve around our unnatural contact with other species -bird flu, swine flu , mad cow disease, 95% of food poisonings are from eating animal foods, the number 1 source of water pollution worldwide is from animal production, the biggest killer of men and women in western countries is heart disease -eating animal products ( meat , dairy, eggs) are heavy in saturated fat, free radicals, excess protein and cholesterol and is the main contributor to the disease. Exploiting animals is killing us!
1). Because animals deserve rights to life and freedom as we do, it is wrong to "keep" and "own" pets -no matter who the species is -whether a dog or a snake. I wouldn't keep a rare African pygmy man as a pet, and I wouldn't keep a rare boa constrictor as a pet either. No matter what the species, and no matter how well I treat them, I have no moral right to own anybody.
2). The benefit of a human overcoming a snake phobia is no moral justification for the animals' imprisonment. Just because we benefit from keeping wild animals in the zoo for people to 1. enjoy and 2. learn from, doesn't make it right. We can take benefit from slavery, but it doesn't make it right. Zoos claim that they are a major source of education for the public which can lead to greater protection and conservation, but the proof is poor. The vast majority of people who visit zoos do not read the facts beside the animals. They gawk at the animals in their prisons and enjoy the convenient caged sight of them without having to venture into the wild. Switch the species. Would it be ok for us to keep wild human "savages" as pets and justify it for the purposes of educating people to help protect the rare tribes and overcome any fears they may have about the people? I think not -it's wrong to own people and confine them -no matter how nicely they are looked after -it's wrong. Fact: early last century the London Zoo had a display of an African pygmy man.
While I would never care for a animal with the only reason being to help people overcome their fear of it . It is a added bonus. If I had the choice of letting a animal become extinct from mans incroachment and Being able to take part in ensuring they are not lost forever I would chose the second. Since I cannot myself change the fact that it will happen to them in the wild since I do not have a hand to strike down those who would cause the extinction of a species I would like to help in a achievable goal such as assurance populations. Einstien once said that worse than the evil doers of the world are those who stand by and don't do anything. There is no getting around the fact that not all animal in captivity are cared for to the highest standards, but to say that all animals kept in captivity are imprisoned and better off in the wild is unreasonable and also untrue. If we could turn back time and give them back their homes that no longer exist then it might be,but until that day some are better off in protected habitats unless their extinction is no big deal. While this does not pertain to all species and we can't change the past we can right the wrong we have done to those it does.
We should be obliged to care for the animals whom are in our care and give them the best lives possible. For the animals who can be returned into the wild, they should. But for the others they should remain in captivity and given a good life. But we should never keep wild animal unnecessarily, what I mean by that is, for our own benefit and amusement - zoos , tourist parks and reptile centres with paying customers are a good example of exploitative situations. We should only be helping animals if they need it, with the primary focus of getting them back into wild, or creating a safe wild sanctuary, and then preventing them from needing our care in the first place by protecting wild places from human degradation and interference.
Einstein was a vegetarian .
Animals belong in the wild. We need to give enough habitat to thrive, and stay out of it!
Another clarification on the word " kids ". I understand that this is a term of endearment and affection for your animals so I understand your sentiment. But it must be made clear that there is a very real moral difference between having kids and keeping pets . While it is the natural course of our lives (at least for some) to have children , they are our own species and it is in the children's interest to be with us. It is not in the animal's interest however to be with us, and it is also not natural. They didn't ask to be born into imprisonment. They did not consent. Unlike human children who grow up and leave home, pets like cats and dogs and snakes are grown adults. They must remain with you and depend on you as though they were children. But of course they are not children, they are adults. If they were to live the natural life they were meant to, that they evolved to live, they would be living independently, finding their own food , their own shelter, choosing mates, making their own choices, taking risks and living life -in the wild where they belong. So they are not really kids, they are adults, forced to live as dependent kids, never getting the chance to grow up or to live independently.
Here is where I get a big conflicting opinion from animal welfare and animal rights . Most in animal rights oppose feeding live prey for the reason of the prey items welfare. I feed both pre killed and live depending on the animal which either way is a evil thing to all AR people and is no point to argue it. Do I let those in my care do what thousands of years of evolution have prepared them to do ? Or do I feed them food prekilled by a human (co2) for reasons other than their safety. I know it's a pointless arguement that could go on for ever so I won't debate it. Theirs no point if it is not going to change my opinion which is no matter what I do their will be some people who don't agree with it. I also use the term room mates as well as calling the animals in my care my kids . They are born independent from birth and to call them my kids does not mean they are treated like human children . I am one of the people who relate to animals more than my own species. A few hours on you tube is enough to make anyone feel guilty enough to kill themself or others for the wrongs we have committed against animals, but that won't do anything for those animals that we can help. The vast spectrum of beliefs on how to protect species other than our own are almost a un-uniteable number of groups so we each can only do what we feel is right for them.
It is argued that zoos help conserving species by breeding them, but really they are just keeping up their own "stock" to share around with other zoos. So long as wild animals are kept in captivity and not released into safe habitat, the zoo animals who are bred are not contributing to their own survival. The only members who matter are wild ones, otherwise they are merely exotic pets exploited for entertainment and pleasure for humans.
What all wild animals need around the world is HABITAT!!! This should be our primary focus if we are really serious about conservation. Habitat. Give them a place to live and they'll thrive!
The groups I was refering to are the turtle and tortise consortium and others life the Vietnamese Bear Rescue programs. Some work outside of the country their species are native to because we currently have not found a way to protect them in their native land.While we all could just point a finger at the ones responsible for a species extinction being people with compassion and a feeling of obligation to stop our own kind from doing this is the difference between humans and everything else on the planet. I am not saying it is right but most animals kill indescreminatly either for food and territory or mates, that nature as it was intended to be. I am not saying it is ok for us to do this to other species at all. I don't get where humans became so high and mighty to think it's ok to kill another species yet not our own. I know most will say it is because of our capacity for knowledge and all of that but the double standard we give animals is pretty lame to me. While it's not hard to tell I could use spell check when I make these posts it is straight off the top of my head and I am not trying to please or dis-please anyone with what I post. I understand that some of my actions may be contradictory to what I say I feel. No ones perfect ,
Hello McDowelli. Ok, I agree with rescue groups and sanctuaries for animals who are injured, orphaned or their species are threatened, but strictly without paying visitors (then it becomes a zoo!).
We cannot justify our exploitation on non-human animals (for pets , food , etc) on the basis that they are less intelligent than we are or that they have little capacity for moral judgement, because in the case of humans, we still provide basic rights and respect. We do not exploit retarded humans and believe they still deserve basic human rights. We ought to grant non-human animals the same. The only thing that should be required for animals to be a part of the moral community of consideration is sentience.
Hi there again. Another day, another argument! Let's get into it shall we? Now, u can have your own opinion about how and whom you feed your snake pets . And u can choose to sniff at mine, but here is just one other possibility:
If I were to raise a blind owl (as my Aunt does), I can choose to feed her in one way which involves violence and suffering on the part of the prey, or can feed her in another way which involves no suffering at all. Choice 1 suffering for the nourishment of owl, choice 2 no suffering for nourishment of owl. In the first instance if I choose to feed the owl either cut meat that I had bought for her or a live (or dead) mouse I am making a choice that the owl lives and the mouse dies (or the cow dies for the meat). What moral difference is there between a cow, a mouse and an owl? The owl might be prettier and be more desireable to our fettishes of beautiful wild animals , while our feelings about mice and cows are dull, but these feelings we have about which animals we like have little to do with morality, that is, who gets to live and who gets to die. What if I were to rescue a blind mouse as opposed to a blind owl? Then I would be favouring the mouse. You see? My decision to feed the owl a mouse means I am making a speciesist choice.
If I really did rescue a blind owl, if I had no other choice but to feed her meat and or mice, I would choose to let the owl die because this would be in alignment with my values for anti-speciesism and non-violence. She would have died anyway in the wild. Me feeding her mice is very different from the owl getting her own mice in the wild because she is making the choice rather than me. In my Aunt's case, the conservation people were going to put her down, but my Aunt took the owl into their home instead where she lives with them. She's 20 years old now! Anyway, I would rather the owl lived so I would hope I wouldn't have to make that awful choice to let her die. What I would do instead is a solution that could allow both the owl to live AND the cow to live and the mouse to live. SO there would be no violence and no suffering in order for one life to live. I would take a drive onto the desert highway early in the morning once a month and find a freshly killed kangaroo. I would collect the roo and take it to the local butcher. I would freeze the cut pieces of roo (with the fur) and feed the owl in rations. That way I am not creating any extra demand for killing animals. This is the only ethical choice available to me.
When you think about the dogs and cats who exist to serve humans in the millions who otherwise wouldn't exist -that is A LOT of meat they need to eat. So many animals are required to be killed for these pets when their existence is not natural in the first place. Compared to their original ancestors, there are only a few thousand wolves and wild cats in their natural habitat. Their takings would be tiny compared to the domestic pets of the world. Our dogs BTW, are all vegan. All healthy too. They get a diet with all the nutrients essential for dog health . We do not have to require that other animals are killed in order for our own to live.
I have always wanted to visit oz and plan to when I can afford it. Most of the animals in my care are of Australian species. I also love their policy on wildlife. I fully agree with their policy of outlawing live feeding. I have over the last year been converting all in my care to co2 euthanized prey items. While some have tahen to this change with no problem, others are a little more difficult. A few have forced my to do the "Here comes the airplane comin' in for a landing ,open up the hanger" routine for 10 minutes or so. My point about to feed live or prekilled was that alot of people see either as wrong for for it is wrong to keep animals in the first place. I can respect that veiw but I am not planning to up quit anytime soon. I agree that we tamper with nature too much and that life takes it's coarse when it does. You should read my post about animal testing to get the full extent of my opposition (in most forms) to that subject.
The only thing that should be required for animals to be a part of the moral community for consideration is sentience.
What did u think of the analogy I made of being faced with a decision to choose which animal gets to live: the snake, or the mouse? Why choose one sentient being over the other? Why is one more valuable or deserving than the other? In the answer lies the discrimination. The snake is more "beautiful", I "like" snakes more, the snakes are my " pets ", but the mice are not, snakes are "iconic", snakes are "cool" animals, snakes are "rare" and deserve protection/to live, mice are "common" and "overpopulated", mice are small and stupid, and in your words; mice are "items". All of these descriptions and labels are irrelevant to morality and what is important in choosing to grant life or death. The only thing that is important to making a moral decision about someone's life is sentience and the ability to suffer. Both the snake and the mouse possess these. Neither species has any more right to life than the other.
When a wild snake kills food to eat, he does it for the purpose of survival, he does it naturally and it is his choice. When a human keeps a snake for the pleasure of keeping a pet, and then kills small animals for the snake to eat, the killing is no longer natural and is no longer the decision of the snake. The killing is done by the human for the pleasure, (not the survival) of the purpose of keeping a pet. The killing changes from being something that was essential (as survival in the wild) to something that is unnecessary and trivial (as owning a pet).
Hi there McDowelli, thanx for ur thoughts. BTW I have always loved snakes -they r wonderful. And it is obvious u love them too and care very much about them which is why u chose to live ur life with them. Just wanted to let u know that I acknowledge this.
Your first note on "animal-rights-people" I think could do with a redistinction. I would call them "animal-welfare-people" because welfare and rights are very different things. Welfarists believe it is ok to use animals so long as it is done "humanely" so I guess what u r talking about is the opinion of some welfarists who may believe that keeping "wild" animals cannot be done humanely and therefore only domestic animals should be used as pets . The rights perspective is different. A pet, property to a human, cannot possibly possess rights, and there certainly aren't any in the legal system for animals. Pets, even if they are happy, cannot enjoy even the most basic rights that we humans enjoy like the right to life, the right to freedom and happiness. So if animals are to be granted these very basic rights, they cannot practically be property. The animal rights perspective argues not that animals should be treated better, but that they shouldn't be treated at all in the first place!
"Praising slaves and the idea of slaves is a joyful exercise". As u can see I've just changed the original quote (by HSUS) by replacing the word "pet" with "slave". In the end, it's very simple. Pets are our living property. They are our slaves. A happy slave is still a slave. No matter how nicely or humanely we claim to treat our pets, this doesn't stop the act from being unethical. Some human slave masters described their slaves as members of their own family and even having love for them. This does not justify their slavery however. Owning human life is immoral, just as owning non-human animal life is immoral.
What right do we have to forcefully breed them? To choose their mate for them? To alter their natural biology, their DNA? What right do we have to forcefully remove the young babies from their mother? To give them to humans as their property? What right do we have to dictate their entire lives, whether they live or die, whether they go outside to pee, whether they receive affection or not? To force these animals to live dependently on us forever as though they were children, to never grow up. What right do we have to dictate their social lives, to deny them contact with their mother and siblings? What right do we have to "own" these animals as our property, as our "companion" slaves, to be under permanent "house arrest" for the rest of their lives, to never leave your property alone? None of these things occur to the wolf who is free and independent. We should not breed domestic animals.
While I agree that most domestic animals have little or no choice to or who they breed with , My kids are pythons and boas. While many oppose to the keeping of them (captive bred like mine or otherwise) theirs is a different situation.There is no way to force or coerce them to doing something they do not want. If either party has a objection then nothing would happen. Further more if either has problems healthwise then they won't copulate. While they are not and should not be kept or cared for by the majority of people my Ursilla, Igor, Giselle, Nelly, Carl, Che' ,and Abidon are proof that we can co-exist and learn from Those so very alien to our own kind.
p.s. I do not breed ,but my kids are allowed interaction with their own kind and has not resulted in anymore animals. No grandkids.
Hi there McDowelli, thanks for ur story about your beloved snake pets . It is clear u love them very much and they get the very best of care from u. I think that's great! I believe we are all obliged to care for domesticated animals and give them the best life possible as we are responsible for bringing them into existence. I am strictly against breeding pets and wish they didn't exist. While I am sure your snakes live relatively happy lives and enjoy your company, this is no substitute for the life they evolved to live -free, wild, and roaming in their natural habitat.
At a pet shop one day I asked questions about a snake and the keeper assured me that all snakes want to do is eat and be comfortable. If all their food requirements are provided by their master, there is no reason or need or desire by the snake to wander off or get exercise. They can stay happily in their enclosure forever. But I've heard of friend's snakes who wander off around the house and "disappear" somewhere for days in the house curled up somewhere. If snakes didn't want to move about, why do they choose to do it given the choice? Moving around an artificially lit enclosure or getting "let out" once in a while around the house is entirely different to enjoying the fresh air, sunshine and soil of outside. Snakes, like any wild animal or human animal, deserve the right to be free, find their food, practice self-determination, pursue their desires, make their own home in the ground or trees, wander the land, etc, etc.
You and I may be excellent animal carers as well as some of the human population, but the sad fact is the majority of animal owners are not good carers at all. A pet is meant to be for life, but most pets end up destroyed at so called "shelters" when owners give them up when they become inconvenient, boring or expensive. The man who bought that snake at the pet shop sold him on after he got bored. Remember a happy slave is still a slave! So the fact that they are well cared for and happy doesn't make it right. Thanks for listening. Desert Girl.
Whether talking about pets, hunting, animals as food, or other animal rights issues, I will never agree with the animal rights movement's viewpoint on these things. The Humane Society comment ends with "not a good direction for animals."
I agree. Let's suppose, that either by a consensus "moral" decision of humanity, or by legislation, that nobody owned pets any more. What do you suppose would happen to the ecosystem? Today, we already have a problem with animal control. What would happen if we stopped euthanizing strays? What would happen if we stopped pulling them off the streets at all? What would happen if all those pets in homes today went free?
I would predict that they would completely demolish the ecosystem.
I remember growing up in the midwest. One year, animal rights protestors were successful in drastically limiting the number of deer hunting licenses. That winter, there were thousands of deer starving to death. The Federal Government had to come out and mass euthanize them. This was a direct result of hunters not killing them during hunting season.
Humans have "unbalanced" many of Earth's ecosystems. We are the sole top predator in many food chains. We are the _primary_ top predator in even more food chains. Take us out as the top predator (in other words, stop controlling, killing and using animals) and the entire ecosystem goes out of whack.
What happens if the rabbits are eaten by the coyote, and the coyotes suddenly stop eating them? Answer: billions of rabbits.
Our place in the ecosystem is essential. Domestic dogs and cats, in particular, have no place in the ecosystem. They are not wild creatures, and have been selectively bred for so many millenia, that we cannot even really call them part of an ecosystem anymore. They are part of human society now, not part of the Earth's ecosystems. Unleashing them on the wild, along with many other domestic animals, would be extremely irresponsible, and could even result in the complete collapse of entire ecosystems.
This leaves us in a difficult place. We either remain as the self-appointed animal stewards...or we resign that position and hope/pray that it does not result in the total collapse or radical restructuring of world ecosystems. Which is more "moral," having no pets but destroying the ecosystem to do it, or having pets and keeping the ecosystem intact.
I suppose there is a third option. Take all the domestic animals, and sterilize them. Then, when people's pets died, it would be the end of that evolutionary offshoot, and we wouldn't have to worry about domestic cats, dogs, pigs, cows or other animals running amok in the ecosystem. Somehow, however, I doubt that the animal rights folks will be in favor of the planned genocide of domesticated animals.
I have a very serious question for the animal rights folks: How would you deal with the problem of species or specific groups of animals running amok, overbreeding, and damaging an ecosystem? Or the example I gave above...thousands of animals starving because of lack of predators? What to do in these situations and remain "moral"? Is it okay to kill them them? When is it okay? Who gets to decide when it is okay and when it is not? If "self defense" would be a reason, would "species defense" be another, and if so, does that include defending other species against each other, or just humans against other animals?
It's a valid question, particularly because far too many people jump into "pet ownership" too quickly without thinking about what might happen later. What does happen later? The "pet owner" gets a job in another city or a new apartment that doesn't allow pets or a girlfriend who is allergic. And where does the "pet" go? To the pound. And then often to death.
It's an EXTREMELY valid question.
How dare the HSUS respond as if the decision about whether or not to care for another living being is simply "an idle abstraction."
"Should we have pets?" is simply an extension of those questions many people ask themselves, "Should I buy or adopt?" "Should I adopt this dog?" "Should I care for this cat?" "Should I accept this responsibility?"
It's a valid question and something we all should think about.
This line of reasoning is consequentialist: Pursuing questions of this sort will make an otherwise open public (?) closed to a discourse about ethics and nonhumans, which will further impede the just end of ending animal exploitation; therefore, as a means to stopping the "greater" injustice of meat consumption, for example, we ought to avoid raising them. This is an interesting argument. However, it by no means provides the foundation that you imply it does to your argument that as a question of ethics this discourse is an “idle abstraction.”
On our own premises regarding nonhumans and property, those who adhere to an animal rights-type philosophy should recognize that Francione's complaint follows. Avoiding the question by appeals to consequentalism (Doesn’t this problem arise with our entire project then?) isn’t valid as a matter of ethics.
You imply that the debate's goal is to end animal exploitation, this is wrong. A debates purpose is to persuade, understand and discuss. If the goal is to end animal exploitation then you are better off speaking to or running for a seat in Congress since there is where actual laws are passed. Indeed, the very fact that we live in a society based upon the rule of law supports consequentalism as a valid and proper means to resolve debate and affect action and change.
A conseqentialist's perspective of ethics: Bad actions have negative (relative) consequences for the actor. If unethical actions are considered bad actions then there needs to be some form of negative consequence? What are the negative consequences *for the human* who treats animals as property by eating meat and owning a pet? Without the "consequence" the ethical concern is nothing more than abstraction meant to disparage those who oppose the "animals are property" view.
Because consequentialism logic results in your beliefs being incorrect you resort to attacking the method as opposed to the message; or at least acknowledging that in fact the fundamental difference between consequentialism and deontology is the heart of the disagreement.