(Preface: Studying Wildlife Conservation. I have taught ecology and animal studies for three years. I am 19.)
>>1 >>7 The idea of animals and humans being viewed the same way is deeply foolish, but before going on an ALF-style tirade hear me out.
The process of viewing an animal's situation as you would a human's is called anthropomorphism (Disney loves doing this. Watch Bambi for example, or any of the happy forest critters in any other animated film). People who follow an anthropomorphic lifestyle often view the value of wildlife as someone would see themselves in a funhouse mirror. The image of what things are, have been, and the goals for the future are all primarily the same, but it's so heavily distorted that you cannot act on your morals without becoming a hypocrite.
For example, why is it considered a bad thing when a man is treated "like a dog" or "like a mule" etc?
Because ANIMALS. and HUMANS. are DIF.FER.ENT.
You should not treat a bird as you would a human, because a bird needs different things to survive, must act differently, must be a BIRD.
Wildlife, as well as all other life, is considered to exist for no more than 6 factors:
Commercial usage
Game usage
Aesthetic value
Ethical reasons (I.E. a species should exist for it has an intrinsic right to exist.)
Scientific value
Ecological balance
Zealot groups such as Peta try to market a single point in this (if you were wondering...it's ethical...it's kinda in their name) but refuse to accept that any of the other five hold any value.
This is where hypocracy comes in. You see, you can live on only plant matter, wearing only clothes made of hemp, and still be a deplorable leech to the sustainability of life in an area. Anything you do draws back into nature somehow, and being high and mighty because you didn't do it first-hand is a hollow victory.
Let's say you oppose hunting of all forms for instance, and you decide to interfere with "them rednecks" during a seasonal deer hunt. Do you realize what you've just done? Let's take it full-scale:
>No deer hunting in a season.
>Brush and saplings are over-consumed during the winter by the massive unrestrained population.
>Other animals begin to die due to food/habitat/cover loss.
>Areas practicing ecologically balanced forestry cannot harvest. Timber costs skyrocket.
>Non-ecological forest owners take advantage and cut anyway. The area fails to regenerate for more than twice as long. Scars on the landscape become observable.
>Accidents involving deer explode, especially on roadways, now causing human casualties along with severe loss of wildlife.
>Human population (ecologically-minded, hunters, damn near everyone) hate you for what you've done. Exploitation of wildlife occurs simply to spite you.
>Predator populations expand, eventually covering up for your mistakes. As per the track record of common megafauna, there's a whole world of issues that arise from this as well.
Doesn't sound so Earth-friendly now, does it?
The point is, you can't approach humans and animals in the same ways. We are not, and never will be, the same. As a dominant species we have the ability to manipulate the world to our choosing, but doing so upsets the balance of nature. The goal is not to domineer over it, nor try to raise animals to our level, but sacrifice just a little bit of ourselves for the sake of everything else around us.
Why can't we just do that?