Predators. What are they? Why are they here? And most importantly, who put them here? Did God create them or are they products of Satan's foul designs? Wouldn't we be better off without them, by getting rid of them whenever possible? In this presentation, we will examine the evidence to try to make sense of this difficult topic. To start, we must be clear that there is very little inspiration that sheds light in this area. There are hints and ideas, but few unmistakable statements. That doesn't mean that we should ignore these questions, because everyone automatically makes up their mind about them anyway. The trouble with most people's opinions is that they are made on the basis of cultural biases, personal prejudices, or usually contradictory divisions of nature into "good animals" and "bad animals". I am going to address this from my experience as a naturalist. Being a general naturalist has many advantages, in that it provides a look at the big picture that other specialists may miss.
We'll start with some foundations that underlie all else. I hold the following basic and critical premises. In the beginning, God made all life on Earth, in six days, resting on the seventh day. Everything was perfect. There was no death or decay, disease or corruption. All animals were vegetarian, as no animal killed another animal for food. "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Genesis 1:30. When we see the word "meat" in the King James version, the Hebrew word actually means the non-specific "food". The context determines what kind of food is referred to, plants for vegetarians, and after the Fall it could refer to flesh for meat-eaters. In the perfect Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were at peace with all life around them. They neither harmed any animals nor were harmed by them. Then sin came and everything became ruined and broken. Everyone who trusts the Biblical account in Genesis will agree with these premises.
Now is where our problem begins. Death is evil, ugly and cruel. Even when death brings an end to suffering and pain, it is still not part of God's perfect plan and is totally opposed to His nature. So where did the predators come from? First of all, we need a clear definition of terms. Animals can be divided into three major groups based on their lifestyle and diet.
First, the Herbivores. This is a huge group that contains all vegetarian animals. This includes many subgroups that I won't list by their technical names, but this covers eaters of grass, nuts, wood, nectar, fungus, pollen, roots, leaves, algae, fruits, and vegetables. Each subgroup has its own design of teeth, stomach, and intestines that will clearly tell you what that animal eats even if you never watch that species feeding.
Second, the Predators. This group is much larger than most people realize, since the popular idea of this group is limited to raw-meat eaters like leopards, sharks, and eagles. But that is just a subgroup called the carnivores. Other subgroups include fish- eaters like seals, cormorants, and water snakes. A massive subgroup includes eaters of insects and spiders. Many birds that we admire and love are in fact voracious predators, devouring insects by the thousands. Many small mammals, virtually all spiders, a high percentage of insects, most frogs and toads, and salamanders all feed in this way. A final subgroup includes the scavengers, those who feed on animals already dead. Many animals who kill their own food will eat carrion on occasion, but some species specialize on this diet. Many insects, like flies and wasps, eat carrion when they are young. Others do so their whole life, such as crabs, vultures, hagfish, and sea snails. So we need to realize that there are far more predators in this world than are generally thought. This includes many species we categorize as the "good" animals, like ladybird beetles, whales, frogs, and cranes, as well as what we call the "bad" animals, like wolves and alligators.
Third, the Parasites. This is by far the smallest group, specialists that live either outside or inside other animals. They feed on blood or skin or muscle or drain nutrients from their host internally. Their actions weaken their hosts, but the parasite's goal usually is not to kill. Death may result if too many parasites weaken a host too much. Or a disease carried by the parasite may kill the host. But that is not intentional or even beneficial to most parasites, as they often die when their host dies.
So these three categories cover virtually all food choices by animals. Many fit into two of these categories, as a huge number of predators also eat plants. We call bears predators, but only the Polar Bear is totally a meat eater. Most bears eat both plants and animals. The Spectacled Bear eats mostly plants. The Panda Bear eats only bamboo. As a side note, can anyone guess which group humans belong to? Most people assume we are carnivores or possibly omnivores (eaters of both plants and flesh). But if we examine our teeth, stomach, and intestines, and then compare these with the various designs in nature, we find that humans belong to the subcategory of herbivores called frugivores. When we eat meat it doesn't digest properly and creates physical ailments. That's why even perfectly healthy meat will still make humans sick, as our bodies are only marginally able to process flesh in our diet.
So now we can explore the origins of the three groups. Herbivores obviously came from the very beginning, as created in the Garden of Eden. But what about the predators, and by extension, the parasites? Can we discover who created them? There are three options. One: The predators somehow developed on their own, gradually changing from plant eaters to flesh eaters. Two: Satan made the predators, either directly or indirectly. Three: God re-created certain animals so that they could kill other animals and eat them. Let us examine each option to see what is possible and reasonable.
If we accept the first option, we are accepting a form of mechanistic evolution. The change from a plant eater to meat eater is immense. Teeth must transform from grinding and mashing to tearing and slicing. Stomach and intestines must shrink from long and convoluted to short and straight, as longer is better for digesting plants and shorter is better for digesting flesh. Paws must now be armed for catching and holding struggling prey. And perhaps most importantly, the brain must change; the very thoughts must be altered. Because from looking at a leaf and thinking that tastes good, an animal must now find the leaf inedible and instead hunger for another living animal. All of these are major changes that have to take place. If we accept a gradual change for this process, then how can we attack Darwinists, who claim the same process for all life on Earth? I reject this option for the same reason that I reject macro-evolution, because a gradual change from a reptile to a mammal or a bird is as scientifically unlikely as a gradual change from a vegetarian cat to a meat-eating one. We do not see this taking place in today's world any more than we see a bear turning into a seal. Or what about insect eating bats? Night flying bats have echolocation systems that stagger the mind with their complexity. There is no need for a day-active, fruit- eating bat like a flying fox to have echolocation, so how could this system develop gradually as bats evolve into night-flying, insect-hunting specialists? If a bat can evolve a system that makes our own sonar look primitive, than the Darwinists must be right and we are wasting our time attacking them. So I reject option number one as not possible under the biological processes I see in nature.
The second choice, that Satan created predators in some angry effort to increase the pain and suffering of our world, has serious problems. Ellen White has stated unequivocally that Satan does not have the power to create life. "The prince of evil, though possessing all the wisdom and might of an angel fallen, has not power to create, or to give life; this is the prerogative of God alone." Patriarchs and Prophets 264. So I take that as definitive and will not consider that as an option. But some people say that Satan modified early life, twisting pre-existing forms to suit his own purposes. Ellen White actually gives support to this idea as the origin of many of the dangerous plants in this world. This actually makes sense from a biological standpoint as well. Breeders have been developing weird strains of plants and animals for thousands of years. In the animal world, we have hairless cats, voiceless dogs, flightless birds, and sterile insects. Our modifications of plants have been even more extreme. So if we can do this, how much more could Satan do? Perhaps he worked either directly himself or by directing his agents after the fall.
This would appear to be a reasonable answer for the parasite category. For every parasite, we find closely related forms that are not parasites, which in fact are either harmless or beneficial. Ticks suck blood and transmit disease. But mites are nearly identical to ticks and many are valuable for eating minute detritus. Worms that invade the body and drain resources have relatives that aerate and fertilize the soil or recycle nutrients. Flies that bite or spread disease are virtually identical to the vast majority of species that are nectar feeders and crucial to pollination. Even the bloodsucking mosquitoes that can make the outdoors miserable have an interesting twist. Only the females drink blood as part of their reproductive process. You have never been bitten by a male mosquito! Never. The males peacefully drink nectar from meadow flowers. So we can easily see here how an insect created by God in Eden could be changed only slightly to now drink blood. From a tube mouth used to drink nectar, a slight change to a cutting tube to drink blood is not nearly so difficult a leap as the change from grass- eating to meat-eating. So the parasites may well be good candidates for small scale modification of their physical and mental makeup by Satan's power. But could Satan have taken berry-eating birds and altered them to eat insects or fish or even other birds? It would take a greater change than needed for the parasites, but perhaps it is within Satan's powers. So we will leave this as an option for now.
The final option is that God made the predators, in essence recreating some of the animals at the time of the Fall. Now obviously there is no lack of power; God could do this as easily as He made them vegetarian in the first place. But to say that God remade them would mean that He is responsible for their behavior. It would mean that sharks kill seals because God made them that way. A praying mantis kills other insects because God chose that lifestyle for her. This is an idea we find distasteful and wrong, since God cannot be for death.
So to review, slow adaptation is impossible, Satan can make limited changes but not enough to fully suit our situation, and God could easily make the predators but we assume He wouldn't create evil. But are predators really evil as we presume? Is taking the life of another being inherently evil, always? In a perfect world death is non-existent. Since Adam's sin, our world is contaminated by death and will be until remade into the New Earth. Once sin began, all aspects of this world changed. All animals will eventually die; it's only a matter of how and when.
Let's pretend no predators ever existed, that the herbivores of the Garden stayed herbivores forever, even after the Fall. What would have happened? At first they would spread as they reproduced, individuals dying of old age and accident but their population still steadily increasing. At a certain point, depending on how large an area they inhabit, and how healthy the plant food available, the members of any particular species will reach what is called carrying capacity. This means the amount of plant food available is totally eaten by the animals. But the animals are still reproducing and the food can't grow any faster, so there is not enough food to go around. The herbivores are forced to compete for food, the stronger out-competing the weaker. Many go hungry. Their immune systems are weakened, and disease can take hold. Eventually starvation begins as the full misery begins. Starving to death is a bad way to die. Hungry and weak, the individual slowly fades away until finally, miserably, death results. Between disease and starvation, the population crashes to a number far less than the maximum level reached before the crash. Now with plenty of food available for a smaller group size, the population begins to increase again. Eventually the group builds past the carrying capacity and crashes again. This wildly fluctuating cycle of rising and crashing populations has no end; it will continue indefinitely as long as no outside forces interfere. This system is not pleasant; the death endured by these animals is slow, painful, and ugly. This is how the Earth would be everywhere if no predators existed.
But now let's put predators into our thought experiment. Meat-eaters try to catch as many as they can to feed themselves and their young. But catching food that doesn't want to be caught is no easy task, and predators fail to catch prey far more often than they succeed. The most likely targets are the oldest, the weakest, the youngest, and the sick. They are slightly slower and easier to catch, so they are the ones most likely caught. This doesn't mean that they are the only ones caught by predators, as some people think. Random chance, surprise, or perseverance will allow a predator to catch even the fittest, most healthy prey, but this will be a low fraction of the total prey caught. The larger the prey base, the more will be available to those hunting them, and the predator population will be able to increase as well. But when the weak and excess are being removed by predators, the prey base will not increase as rapidly or might not increase at all, as birth rate equals death rate to old age and predators combined. This would mean the herbivores would not exceed the food availability limit. With enough food to go around, the plant-eaters are not as susceptible to disease and they certainly won't starve. Once again, this balanced system can continue indefinitely unless altered by outside forces. When a predator kills a victim, the end is relatively fast and painless, when compared to death by starvation and disease. Death by predator is still ugly and unpleasant, but it is more merciful than the alternative. As Scripture tells us in Lamentations 4:9, "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: For these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field." Predator numbers are determined by prey numbers, not the other way around. Predators limit but do not control prey populations. This is important and usually not well understood by people. By definition, there are never too many predators in a given area, because they can only survive if there is enough prey available. If prey numbers drop, the predator numbers will drop along with them. Under normal conditions, it is impossible for predators to exterminate the food they eat.
What happens when predators are removed by humans? There are endless examples of this around the world, but one of the most famous took place on the North rim of the Grand Canyon called the Kaibab Plateau. This area is an island of forest surrounded by desert; full of deer, bear, cougar, coyote, and squirrel. Around 1900, human deer hunters pressured the government to kill all the predators on the Plateau. This would mean more deer available to the humans, and who wouldn't want that, right? So genocide began and soon all cougars and bear were gone. The coyotes were destroyed as well, even though they were virtually no threat to deer. Coyotes don't kill healthy adult deer. They usually go after small mammals, but often settle for carrion, since coyotes are too small to attack big animals. The Kaibab deer population soared as planned, and great times for human hunters resulted. But the deer numbers kept climbing, despite the huge hunter kill rate. Soon the deer herd had doubled, and then quadrupled. More and more were shot, but that didn't help, the herd increased still. In 1906, when predator killing began in earnest, the deer numbered about 4000. By 1924, they reached 100,000 deer. Hard winters set in and deer starved by the thousands. 60% of the herd starved in two years. By 1931 they had sunk to 20,000 and by 1939 they fell to 10,000. It was a wildlife disaster that woke people up to the value of predators.
Since then, studies around the world have confirmed the role of predators to wildlife systems. Ecosystems with full levels of predators and prey stay in equilibrium, with no large fluctuations. But as soon as humans shoot, trap, or poison the local predators, everything falls apart. This is why deer numbers have exploded across North America. When market hunters decimated deer in the 1800s for public sale, deer were on the verge of disappearing from large areas of America. Hunters with power and influence took steps to protect deer from market hunting and replace it with sport hunting. Limits were set and land set aside as protected refuges. Females were left alone and only males were killed.
Predators, already losing ground, were pushed out of the Eastern United States completely. Deer increased nicely, but the faulty system hunters favored again led to disaster. With no predators left, humans assumed that role, but they didn't do it correctly. Humans killed the healthiest males for trophies, not the weakest available as normal predators do. With a huge imbalance of far more females to males, the deer reproduced far faster then they would normally do. Also, humans kill a far higher proportion of the herd than predators ever kill. Deer respond when a large portion of the herd dies by increasing their birthrate. Instead of an average of one fawn per doe born each year, now each doe will produce two to three per year. All of these factors combine to cause the deer population to climb higher then ever human hunters can control. Soon herd numbers explode exponentially and now there are more deer than there have ever been in the history of North America. Deer are shot in huge numbers, deer starve during hard winters in huge numbers, deer are hit by cars in huge numbers (killing many people in the process), and deer die from disease from overcrowding in huge numbers. All of this suffering and waste to provide plenty of sport for your average Joe shooting anyone that moves. This is one of the well hidden secrets of state game management, that sport hunting as managed for the last century actually raises deer populations instead of reducing them. This shows that replacing wild predators with sport hunting has been one of the worst mistakes possible.
This principle applies to whatever predator-prey population we study. Those areas of the U.S. that still engage in the disgrace of Rattlesnake Roundups, have documented higher rodent populations than areas with unmolested snakes. This means that regions that destroy their snakes have higher disease rates and increased crop losses for farmers, due to the unnaturally high rodent numbers. Instead of being our enemy, snakes are allies in maintaining our quality of life.
So my point is this. A world with death but no predators is actually worse in many ways than a world with both death and predators. This goes against the grain of our thinking but is a logical deduction. Would Satan really want to make predators? To not have predators exist would have increased the suffering and pain of the world after the Fall. For Satan to invent predators would have defeated his own purposes. So if we view predators through the lens of reality, rather than our cultural biases, God's involvement in making them doesn't seem so bad. Does God want death and killing? Of course not, but Adam's sin forced death to exist, so God has made the best of a bad situation by balancing the system as much as possible. Instead of an evil force, a product of Satan's spite, predation is in fact a useful and comparatively compassionate way to regulate entire ecosystems; preventing them from spiraling into chaos. In fact, we should be grateful for the services of most predators. Bats and birds and spiders devour insects. Without them we would be buried by insects, as they would reproduce until they overran everything else. Rodents also have a huge reproductive rate. Everyone eats rodents, it seems. Reptile, bird, and mammal predators include many rodent eaters. Be glad of this, for without the snakes and hawks and weasels catching the many forms of small rodents, disease would run rampant. Remember the plagues of the Dark Ages? They happened because the Catholic Church promoted the genocide of cats, as cats were considered evil. This allowed rats carrying diseased fleas to multiply and spread all over Europe. Most exotic animal infestations are due to species being transported to places where there are no native predators to limit them. When Australians introduced European Rabbits as a new human food source, they overpopulated to the point of ecological disaster, eating all the grass and overwhelming the landscape. Predators prevent and minimize disease in every ecosystem in the world. Satan wants the rodent population to explode and eat our food and spread disease. Satan does not want the snakes and falcons and coyotes to eat the rodents and limit their numbers.
So when we actually think about it, we are glad that these predators exist. We are glad insects and rodents are reduced by other animals, even when we still don't like the animals doing the reducing. What we especially seem to resent are the predators that kill the three types of animals that we most care about. First are the cute animals: bunnies and cardinals and baby deer. They are of no more inherent value than any other animal, but we object to see the hawk eating the cute little squirrel. Second are the wild animals we have economic interest in killing ourselves. When an elk is killed by a cougar, it means we can't kill that elk ourselves and put his head on our wall. If a cormorant eats a fish, it means we can't hook that fish on a line for sport. Third are the domestic animals that we have economic interest in. We raise sheep and cattle as commodities to be slaughtered for our own profit, and any predation of them means money taken out of our pockets. Skunks in the henhouse mean fewer eggs to sell.
These three areas are where we really acquire our cultural hatred of predators. Soulless industry puts out propaganda about vicious killers crippling our way of life. Ranchers invent wild stories about how wolves are on their doorstep trying to eat them, even though such stories are absolute rubbish. Lies combined with cultural bias lead us to consider all predators evil and deserving of persecution, if not eradication. We are upset when humans kill cute vegetarian animals. But when meat-eaters are killed, we let it pass, since we know down deep that, after all, they probably came from Satan anyway. And so we turn a blind eye to predator destruction, or actively promote it as a good thing. In the end, we are falling for Satan's lies, since he is the one who wants the predators to be wiped out and the natural balance destroyed. When we destroy predators we are annihilating the animals God put on this planet to keep it functional in a sinful state. Instead of eliminating evil, we are actually promoting evil, promoting Satan's desire to increase suffering, both the immediate suffering of the predators themselves and the long term suffering of the increasing numerous herbivores that will overpopulate and starve.
But is there any biological evidence for the idea that God made a special recreation at the Fall? Is there any organism which clearly is not part of Eden, which had to have begun after the Fall, and which is too sophisticated to be the product of Satan's modification of pre-existing life forms? It turns out there is a type of life that exactly fits these requirements. We are very familiar with this organism but most people are unaware of how unusual they really are. When you look at a mushroom, what are you seeing? The colorful aboveground structure is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the reproductive component of fungus, the source of spores that will drift on the wind and start new fungus growth elsewhere. The actual fungus is the hidden tendrils that grow through wood and soil. Concealed from view, these white tendrils grow and spread through every available source of nourishment. Funguses live everywhere, but most are impossible to tell apart visually, as they all look like white threads. But when the time comes to reproduce, fungus will grow a structure that is so unique to each species that it can be used by naturalists to tell them apart. The mushrooms we see on the ground and rotting wood are comparable to an apple or a pinecone on a tree, just a temporary growth whose only function is reproduction. But then what purpose do the fungal threads themselves serve? What exactly does fungus do? The only job of fungus, the only job of fungus, is to break down the dead cells of other organisms, usually plants, and turn them into nutrients that can be used as nourishment. They are the great recyclers of the world, crucial to turning useless dead matter into vital nutrients. Without fungus, dead leaves and wood would never decay and would pile up uselessly, letting nothing new grow. So fungus must exist or life on Earth would be impossible. Let me say that again. Fungus must exist. But how could fungus exist in Eden? There was no dead matter to recycle. There was no possible function for fungus in a perfect world.
Perhaps fungus is an example of some Eden plant form slightly modified to do a new job in a sinful world. There is a major problem with this concept. Fungus is not a plant. Fungus is not related to plants. Fungus is not related to animals. Fungus is a totally separate branch of life. The cell structure of fungus is fundamentally different from plant cells, and there is an important reason for this. Cells of all plants are made from cellulose; this is what makes a plant a plant. But the cells of fungus are made from chitin; this is what makes a fungus a fungus. The reason for this becomes clear when we remember what fungus does. Fungus breaks down plants into usable nutrients. How? Fungus has an extremely powerful acid that digests cellulose. This acid is perfectly designed to dissolve plant cells. But what keeps the fungus acid from damaging its own cells? The acid dissolves cellulose perfectly, but it doesn't dissolve chitin, which is what makes up the fungus' own cells. So fungus is immune to the acid it uses. If fungus wasn't foundationally different from plants, it couldn't function as it does. It is a different form of life from plants, in every way. The changes needed to turn a plant into a fungus are much greater than the changes needed to turn a vegetarian animal into a meat eating one. That's because the latter change involves changing details of anatomy and behavior, not a total conversion of every cell in an organism, as from plant cells to fungus cells. The fact that fungus is small and usually hidden is irrelevant. Fungus could not exist in Eden, as it would serve no purpose and would have no nourishment before decay began. If fungus wasn't created at the Fall, something else would be needed to do the same job. Satan would not create fungus, even if he could. Why would he want to let new life grow by recycling the nutrients? Fungus couldn't evolve from plants any more than birds could evolve from jellyfish. What all of this means is that fungus was a new creation by God to fit the changed conditions of a sinful world.
So we have in the weird, colorful world of the mushrooms a clear case of God making something totally new that feeds upon death. There is no reason to suppose that there is any difference with animal predators. Because of sin, death needs to be controlled and minimized. Predators do just that, making the world better than it would be without them. This is why God made them and made them very well. When we look at any predator, be it fish or mammal, reptile or spider, we find them to be a masterpiece of design and specialization. When we remind ourselves how many animals actually are predators, to exclude them from God's creation would leave very few animals left to consider. Predators are as intricate and amazing as any herbivore, and to disdain them as results of chaos, Satan, or man's manipulation is to make a mockery of the evidence.
So we've looked at the question of predators from logic and reason, but what does inspiration tell us? If predators are not a part of God's plan, then why did He allow them on Noah's ark? The whole point of the flood was to cleanse the world of evil, to start fresh with a remnant. Why not keep all the "good vegetarian" animals and drown all the "bad meat eaters"? But that's not what happened. "Beasts of every description, the fiercest as well as the most gentle, were seen coming from mountain and forest and quietly making their way toward the ark." Patriarchs and Prophets 97. God's miracle brought representatives of animals we don't approve of. What should that tell us?
The Bible states repeatedly that God provides for the animals. "He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field." Psalm 104:10-11. "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle." Psalm 104:14. So God gives water to the animals and vegetation to the herbivores. Sounds fine so far. But then things get uncomfortable for our preconceptions. "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God." Psalm 104:21. That can't be right. God wouldn't give meat to lions, we're sure of it. But it continues. In the sea, "wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts . . . there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season." Psalm 104:25-27. Sometimes we forget that the vast majority of sea life is carnivorous, and God provides for them all. And it doesn't matter how we interpret leviathan, as crocodile, serpent, or whale. There are no vegetarian whales. When God speaks to Job, listing the Lord's many tasks man is incapable of performing, He asks, "Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions? . . . Who provideth for the raven his food?" Job 38:39-41. And let's make no mistake, ravens are flesh eaters. In Job 39:26-30, God takes credit for the skills and behavior of hawks and eagles, all of whom are meat eaters. "He [the Lord] giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." Psalm 147:9. In the Hebrew, the first half of this verse refers to a plant eater (beast) and the second half refers to a meat eater (ravens). We accept the first half as Devine Providence but deny the second half. But scripture doesn't allow us the luxury of such caviling. We either must accept the entire verse or invent hypocritical and contradictory theories to deny the second half to suit our prejudices. And for those people who dismiss these verses as "poetical" and therefore irrelevant, we also have the direct and plain words of Jesus Himself. "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them." Luke 12:24.
So God clearly takes responsibility for feeding all the animals, both predator and vegetarian. But there's one other point to consider. Isaiah gave a prophetic vision of the New Earth to come, when all will be recreated in a perfect and peaceful state. All animals will once again be plant eaters. Those animals specifically listed include wolves, lions, leopards, bears, and several kinds of snakes. Isaiah 11:6-8, 65:25. The real question is why would God recreate animals that Satan was responsible for? If predators are products of evil, they should be destroyed with sin. Instead, God restores them to their original Eden form, in the same way that mankind will be restored to their original nature. Once their vital role as ecosystem regulators is no longer needed, they will be changed back to the peaceful animals they were in the beginning.
Now that we have established the origin of so many of Earth's creatures, how does that effect or alter our attitude and relationship to them? It is human nature to dismiss and despise what we designate as evil. As long as we consider predators to be agents of Satan, we will ignore or participate in any persecution against them. We kill hawks because they catch cute rabbits, or wolves for eating cows, or snakes just for being snakes. These actions have no moral problems if the ones being killed are inherently evil. But when we understand that these animals are under God's care, since He made them the way they are, then that changes our entire attitude toward their destruction. We realize that our duty to do no harm to them is no less than our duty to do no harm to any of God's creation. Of course, this does not mean we can't protect ourselves from attack. The Biblical principles of self-defense apply to both animals and people. But we have absolutely no permission to destroy life solely due to its nature. Shark fishing, coyote poisoning, alligator farming, fox ranching, bear hunting, bobcat trapping, crow shooting. These are all examples of blatant cruelty that we should oppose categorically. We need to also stop killing those backyard creatures that have committed no wrong. There is no bird actually called "chicken hawk"; only Ignorance has named them that. Mountain lions do not need to be "thinned out for their own good". Weasels are not mindless butchers killing more than they need. Bats are not Dracula in disguise. The unrelenting savagery directed against wolves to prop up the evil of the ranching industry must end. Pike fish do not need to be poisoned to preserve trout so that we can torture the trout to death ourselves. Seals need not be brutally clubbed to keep them from eating the ocean's fish. The practical applications extend into many areas and are crucially important.
Ellen White describes God's creation and how it was marred by sin. But she states how even now nature works in harmony according to God's plan. Note how she words the interrelation of all animals. "In the beginning, God was revealed in all the works of creation...It was He that filled the earth with beauty, and the air with song. And upon all things in earth, and air, and sky, He wrote the message of the Father's love. Now sin has marred God's perfect work, yet that handwriting remains. Even now all created things declare the glory of His excellence. There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life." Desire of Ages 20. All life benefits other life. Only man is selfish, the innocent animals fulfill the roles given to them. Predators do what their God-given behavior demands of them, and nature is the better for it.
Once we expand our circle of compassion to include the predators, we will have made the next step forward in fulfilling our God-given responsibilities toward His created beings. Will we continue to be the agents of Satan and his destructive, cruel, and vindictive anti-predator agenda, or do we have it within ourselves to care for all of the living souls of God's creation? Let us be Christ-like Christians in every area of our lives. Life is a beautiful and wonderful gift that God has given to His created beings. Each of us has the opportunity to cherish life in all of the many forms God has fashioned.
One of the most deeply held beliefs of mankind is that human beings are the absolute masters of the earth. In our society many of our practices impact on the lives of animals in a variety of ways. What is our duty as Adventist Christians to the animals around us? Is there any debt we owe to them or are we free to ignore the results of our actions? This presentation is an attempt to answer that question from the Word of God.
Developing Christ's Character in Us
There is a text that we as Adventists are very familiar with. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus tells His disciples, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Now this does not mean that we will be absolutely perfect as God is, but instead we need to have the same type of character as God. God's motives, values, and way of dealing with us, as shown by the life of Christ, are to be our motives, values, and way of dealing with others. The importance of having this experience is found in Christ's Object Lessons p. 69. "When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own."
Everything we do should be measured by what Christ would do in the same situation. The character we develop now will be taken unchanged into heaven, only the body will be made new. It doesn't matter if a person dies and is resurrected or is among the final generation that lives to see His coming, all will take the character they've developed here straight to heaven. We are to make every effort to live on Earth as we will live in heaven. "Every right principle, every truth learned in an earthly school, will advance us just that much in the heavenly school." (Maranatha p. 327) So it becomes our duty to discover the "right principles" that have been revealed to us to learn. We will focus on one of those principles here.
What God Meant By Dominion
We begin with one of the more famous texts of the Bible. I've found that virtually every Christian is familiar with it and so are many non--Christians. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26) This is the text always used to show that whatever we do to the animal creation is acceptable and approved by God. It is the Divine mandate that justifies any action we choose. But are we completely sure that we have applied this verse correctly? What is the principle being given here? The answer to that question will determine how we apply that principle-the Dominion Principle-to our daily lives.
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." (Colossians 1:16) Everything in this world has been created for Christ, including ourselves and everything around us. All of the animals were created for Christ. As Psalm 50:10-11 shows, God claims all animal life as His own. "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine." We cannot own what belongs to God; the most that we can be are caretakers. In Genesis Christ did not give us ownership of the animals, He gave us dominion.
So what does the word dominion really mean? To find out we need to understand what it meant to the original writers and readers of the Bible. In 1 Kings 4:24-25 we have the same Hebrew word meaning dominion. "For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river..., over all the kings on this side of the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree." King Solomon's dominion is described here as a very positive thing. Further, Psalm 72:2-17 is a model of how a good king is to rule over his subjects.
He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment:. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. . . .He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth. In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.... For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight. And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall he given unto him continually; and daily shall he be praised....His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.
I'm sure we can all agree that any king behaving in this manner is doing everything as he should. He has dominion over his subjects and they praise him for it. He is blessed. This is a beautiful description of what dominion means to God. Yet there is more to it then that. Verses 4-8 are mentioned in Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 754-755 as a promise given to David which finds its complete fulfillment in Christ - Christ is to have dominion from sea to sea, from the river unto the ends of the earth. As David says in Psalm 103:19, "The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." Jesus is our king! He has dominion over humans, just as we have dominion over animals. To understand how we should exercise our dominion we must first understand how He exercises His dominion over us. This is the Dominion Principle -- God is over us in the same way that we are over the animals. If we can understand this principle we will have gone a long way to understanding our role in God's creation.
We've seen in Psalms how Christ exercises His dominion. In Genesis 1:28-29 we see our dominion responsibility.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
What was included in Adam's dominion? One glaring thing not included is the eating of animals. Verse 29 makes that very clear. Adam's duty is illuminated further in Genesis 2:15, "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it." Adam was the caretaker of Eden. He had a responsibility to it. It was a mutually beneficial system. Adam was the steward of God's created works. He was God's servant taking care of God's creations. Adam's dominion was no tyrannical, dictatorial, exploitation. This is the beauty of God's dominion, that those He has dominion over praise Him for it. Doesn't Adam's dominion here sound a lot like the dominion described in Psalm 72? This is God's dominion. This is how it is in Heaven, in Eden, and in the New Earth.
Satan's Counterfeit
But like every other principle of God, Satan has a counterfeit. He has warped our concept of God's dominion over us. God is believed to be a tyrant, a predestining God that chooses who will be saved and who will burn in hell. Satan sends natural disasters to wipe out homes and lives and has convinced us to call them acts of God. When children die of starvation and when friends die from disease or accidents we are told to lay the blame on God. All of this is Satan's version of God's dominion, and of course, there is Satan's version of our dominion over the animals. Satan's dominion vs. God's dominion. To find out Satan's dominion we should first discover God's dominion. Whatever doesn't belong in God's dominion must fall into Satan dominion. If we are not following God's plan we are following Satan's plan.
The Principles of Taking Life
So what is God's plan? God's dominion? Since sin entered the Earth we now have permission to kill animals. Our question then is: When is it acceptable to take an animal's life? To answer that question we must first look at God's example with us. When is it acceptable to take a human life? Under what circumstances does God allow or direct the taking of human life?
- Capital punishment. Spelled out in the Old Testament is a detailed list of crimes that require the death penalty.
- Self-defense. This applied not only to the individual but also when Israel was being attacked by other nations.
- God's command. Israel was to destroy all the Canaanites out of the land. All of them without exception. When Achan was stoned, his entire family and household were stoned also, even though it was Achan who had committed this crime. There are many instances where God Himself or His human agents killed people at God's command.
These three categories cover the killing of humans allowed by God. Now we can discover when it is allowed to kill an animal. The first category for humans, capital punishment, does not apply to animals. Since animals cannot know the law of God, they are incapable of knowingly breaking it. So the categories for animals are as follows.
- Self-defense. If an animal attacks a human it is acceptable to kill that particular animal. An obvious example of this is David and the lion. But this does not extend to an entire species, only to the individual animal involved. This is the same as with humans. Killing a human in self-defense does not mean we can kill that person's relatives and friends.
- God's command. Two main areas are included in this. The first area is animal sacrifice. Immediately after sin God commanded sacrifice. In Leviticus they were structured and organized. All pointed to Christ's sacrifice and were intended to bring home to man the horror of sin, the vileness of every act committed against God. But what God commands He also can change. When type met anti-type, the sacrificial system reached its completion and Jesus made it clear that all sacrifice was to end. So now one area where God commanded man to kill animals has been repealed.
The second area is the killing of animals for food. This started after the flood in Genesis 9. But it is important to note that key restrictions are given to Noah at the same time. The clean animals only are to be eaten, as specifically listed in the Levitical law. But the more important restriction is in verse 4. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat" No blood was EVER to be eaten! The Levitical law spelled it out in detail in Leviticus 17:10-14. Is this command obeyed by anyone today other than orthodox Jews? Ezekiel 33:25-26 lists the eating of blood with idol worship, murder, and adultery as Israel's chief sins. This indicates how serious God considers this sin.
Some people claim that this restriction was part of the ceremonial law done away with at Christ's death, but as shown above, the prohibition against consuming any blood preceded the Levitical law by approximately 1000 years. It continued to be the rule for the growing Christian church after the death of Christ, and was stated in official church policy. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." (Acts 15:28-29) Paul reaffirms this policy in Acts 21:25. So, far from being abandoned at the cross, the divine mandate never to eat blood was continued as a vital aspect of the Christian life. It was only during the Middle Ages that apostate Christianity ignored this as they ignored so many other Bible teachings.
If the Christian basis for the permission to eat meat is from the Bible, then why don't Christians follow the entire mandate? Obviously because bloodless meat is tasteless meat. All the flavor is in the blood. This suggests that the ability of the post-flood humans to eat animals is intended to be a necessity, not a pleasure. Ellen White confirms this in Counsels on Diet and Foods p. 373. On the same page she also gives a second reason for God's allowing them to eat meat. "God saw that the ways of man were corrupt, . . . And He permitted that long-lived race to eat animal food to shorten their sinful lives. Soon after the flood the race began to rapidly decrease in size, and in length of years." So in effect, it is a discipline for the race's wickedness. Those today who argue for meat eating because the Bible allows it are, in effect, arguing for the opportunity to be disciplined and to have their lives shortened.
If meat eating was a necessity, that leads to the conclusion that when it was no longer a necessity, it would no longer be done. Less advanced cultures in all ages have had a justifiable need for meat, when better food was unavailable. But does that apply to us today, in the United States and other developed nations, where every conceivable food is available? A century ago, Ellen White extensively detailed how meat was not only unnecessary, but harmful. We are in the last days, the Final Atonement, when we should be striving to rid ourselves of the world's attractions.
An Example from the Children of Israel
An important example of God's dealing with His people is recorded in the books of Moses. Soon after the children of Israel had been brought out of Egypt, they began to complain about the lack of food in the desert. "Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger." (Exodus 16:3) The flesh pots they referred to meant the meat they had eaten. God answered their complaints by sending a flock of quail that "covered the camp" (verse 13) and the people ate their fill of them. But the next morning God sent something even more miraculous.
Upon the ground lay a white substance that the people called manna. (verses 14-15) It was like nothing ever seen before and tasted like "wafers made with honey". (verse 31) It appeared for them throughout their forty years of desert wanderings and was all the food they ever needed. God had given them a food beyond anyone's imagination and it reminded them every day of His generosity. But something went wrong. For many the manna wasn't enough.
God brought them to Mount Sinai and gave them His law and then led them on the way to the Promised Land. But during the journey the people began to complain again about having no meat. They cried out, "Who shall give us flesh to eat?...There is nothing at all, beside this manna." (Numbers 11:4-6) Imagine being ungrateful for something as wonderful as manna! God answered their complaints again by sending quail again but with one critical difference. "And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague." (verse 33) All those who ate the quail died.
Why the difference? In both cases the people complained the same way, the same birds were sent for them by an unchanging God. So why were they punished the second time? "The anger of the Lord was kindled greatly." (verse 10) Why? The only difference lies in the time frame. The first time was when they had barely come out of Egypt, before God had given them the miracle of the manna. God gave them what they asked for and then showed them something better. All should have been happy, but instead many rebelled and demanded their old ways. They had no excuse; they should have and did know better. The manna was always there and they had no lack. The first was a case of ignorance but the second was a case of defiance. God's response shows His way of dealing with each mindset.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts 17:30) As Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 9:41, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin." Those who have seen the light of truth and reject it, are in a far worse state than those to whom the light has never come. As God gives light to His people, He expects them to utilize it. "After the flood meat eating was allowed because of the hardness of man's heart." (Manuscript, Nov. 5, 1890) As we move into the twenty-first century, God has clearly spelled out a better way. Will we continue to harden our hearts to His will?
The Principles of Causing Suffering
The next question that we need to examine is: When is it acceptable to cause an animal to suffer? Again we first examine when we can cause a human to suffer.
1) Discipline. Spanking a child, locking up a thief, giving leprosy to Elisha's servant, wandering 40 years in the wilderness, letting cause and effect run its course in all its myriad forms; all are forms of discipline.
2) To save life. An example is an operation that causes pain but saves the person's life.
So then what about animals? But there are many in our society who say that the animals suffer much less than we do or not at all. Why would that be, we ask? Because they are different from us, is the answer given. But what really separates humans and animals? Ask an evolutionist that question 60 years ago and he would have glibly given a whole list of differences. Ask that same evolutionist that same question today and he'll scratch his head and try desperately to come up with something-- indeed anything-- that separates humans and animals. Every difference they hold has crumbled in the face of modern discoveries of animal behavior. Tool use, modifying of the surroundings, existence of culture, language; all are now known to exist in animals. Ask a mainline Christian what the difference is and he'll say that we have an immortal soul but animals don't. Adventists have discarded the concept of the immortal soul but unfortunately the attitude toward animals that goes with it has been retained.
How was man created? "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [Hebrew nephesh]." (Genesis 2:7) Take away the breath of life and man ceases to be a living soul. What about animals? "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." (Genesis 7:15) So animals also have the breath of life. Does that mean they are living souls? "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature [nephesh] that hath life...Let the earth bring forth the living creature [nephesh] after his kind." (Genesis 1:20, 24) "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air: and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature [nephesh], that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:19) "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea." (Revelation 16:3) Just as man has the breath of life and therefore is a living soul, so do animals have the breath of life and therefore are living souls. They are identical to us in that respect!
The only defining difference that sets us apart from animals is having the image of God. That, in its most important aspect, means we have a conscience and can choose between right and wrong. That is the only thing we can claim that the animals do not have. That's all!
But in terms of pain and suffering there is no difference! We feel pain because we are vertebrates with a nervous system, and all vertebrate animals have the same nervous system and capacity to feel pain. Our vertebra protects our spinal cord. From our spinal cord radiates nerves that lead to every part of our body. The free-nerve endings are what register pain, heat, and cold. All animals with a vertebra have a spinal cord and a nervous system like ours. Their free-nerve endings register pain, heat, and cold like ours do. Animals with a vertebra are divided into five groups: mammals (including humans), birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians. ALL of these animals feel pain in the same way that we do.
Animals feel with emotions. Animals have intelligence. They think things out and make choices based on their experiences. Entire books have been written documenting cases of animal emotion and intelligence. I could write pages upon pages reciting examples of animals using their intelligence or showing their feelings. But I don't need to, since there is clear inspiration proving the truth of it. As we look at The Ministry of Healing pp. 315-316, let us remember three questions. Do animals have intelligence? Do animals experience emotions? Do animals suffer?
The intelligence displayed by many dumb animals approaches so closely to human intelligence that it is a mystery. The animals see and hear and love and fear and suffer. They use their organs far more faithfully than many human beings use theirs. They manifest sympathy and tenderness toward their companions in suffering. Many animals show an affection for those who have charge of them, far superior to the affection shown by some of the human race. They form attachments for many which are not broken without great suffering to them.
Animals experience physical suffering (pain, heat, cold) and emotional suffering (loss, unhappiness, terror). So since we have shown that they suffer as we do, we can now go back and answer our question of when we can and when we cannot cause them to suffer.
As with taking life, causing suffering is the same as with humans.
1) Discipline. We use a leash to prevent the dog from chasing the neighbors. We spay and neuter dogs and cats to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. Where ducks gather to nest, we put electric fences around them to shock any fox out to eat the eggs. My grandfather raised many chickens over the years, and sometimes they got into the very bad habit of egg-eating. So he would fill a few eggs with extra strong hot sauce and put them out for the chickens to eat. Soon it was clear which chickens were egg-eaters and which weren't. The innocent ones looked as they always did. But the guilty chickens were wandering around with a dazed look in their eyes, bills hanging open, panting. Very soon all the chickens were innocent of egg eating, for it was a discipline that worked very well.
2) To save life. Taking animals to a vet terrifies them, but it's necessary. Giving them medicine or restricting their food also is sometimes important.
The Principles of Caring For Animals
We have looked at the principles that relate to what is permitted in our actions against animals. But what about our responsibility for them? "The merciful provisions of the law extended even to the lower animals, which cannot express in words their want and suffering." (Desire of Ages p. 500) Mrs. White then quotes Exodus 23:4-5 and explains how that was meant to relieve the work-animal's suffering.
The fourth commandment extends the day of rest to the work-animals. Other passages in the Levitical law also are directed at protecting the animals from abuse. "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee-thou shalt not take the dam with the young: but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." (Deuteronomy 22:6, 7) Here we have guidelines setting limits on how many can be taken to keep them from being exterminated. "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." (Deuteronomy 22:10)" This is designed to prevent the suffering caused by unequally yoking two different kinds of animals together; the differing size and strength make it difficult for both animals to function. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4) Paul shows that this is designed to ensure that the working animal is not deprived of his just reward for his labor. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor....For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (I Timothy 5:17-18)
The verse that sums it up is Proverbs 12:10. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Mrs. White expands this in The Signs of the Times Nov. 25, 1880.
Here is a lesson to all who have reasoning powers, that harsh treatment, even to the brutes, is offensive to God. Those who profess to love God do not always consider that abuse to animals, or suffering brought upon them by neglect, is a sin. The fruits of divine grace will be as truly revealed in men by the manner in which they treat their beasts, as by their service in the house of God. Those who allow themselves to become impatient or enraged with their animals are not Christians. A man who is harsh, severe and domineering toward the lower animals, because he has them in his power, is both a coward and a tyrant. And he will, if opportunity offers, manifest the same cruel, overbearing spirit toward his wife and children.
If animals could speak, what deeds of horror would be revealed, what tales of suffering, because of the perversity of man's temper! How often those creatures of God's care suffer pain, endure hunger and thirst, because they cannot make known their wants. And how often is it determined by the mercy or the caprice of man, whether they receive attention and kindness, or neglect and abuse. Punishment given in passion to an animal is frequently excessive, and is then absolute cruelty. Animals have a kind of dignity and self-respect, akin to that possessed by human beings. If abused, under the influence of blind passion, their spirits will be crushed, and they will become nervous, irritable, and ungovernable.
Why do we as Adventists promote vegetarianism? Is it only because it is healthier? If we think that the only reason to avoid meat is because of our own health, then we are ignoring a large section of Ellen White's writings on this. She has as much to say about the cruelty to animals involved as any other reason. Even if meat was perfectly healthy, it would still be wrong because of the cruelty to animals. The following are only a few of her statements.
I might fill pages with descriptions of the sights I have seen, the suffering among the animals that are to he used for food. When a sheep in a flock lies down and cannot rise, the others leap over or upon it as they proceed. A large box wagon follows the flock, and I have seen the drivers take up the heavy sheep, when unable to travel farther, and bounce them into the wagon, right upon their backs. And I have counted no less than eight sheep, some already dead, and others in the agonies of death, lying by the roadside, after the flock had passed. But I will not go on to describe these sickening sights. If I had not, prior to this time, discarded the use of the flesh of dead animals, I should now take the pledge to eat no more meat as long as fruits and vegetables can be obtained. (Manuscript Releases Vol. 7, p. 423)
We saw a large herd of cattle in the road ahead of us.... Some animals had been wounded; some were limping along. One poor suffering creature had both horns broken off close to his head, and the blood was flowing from the wound. Some were very lame, and were pictures of brute misery. Taken from the green paddocks, and traveling for weary miles over the hot, dusty road, these poor creatures are driven to their death, that human beings may feast on their miserable dead carcasses. (Manuscript Releases Vol. 7, p. 421-422)
Your wrong habits of eating have so educated your moral powers that you have not the spirit of a Christian. Your temper is perverse, and your treatment of dumb animals is wrong. (Manuscript Releases Vol. 3, p. 306)
Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating of flesh is unnatural....Let them, rather, return to the wholesome and delicious food given to man in the beginning, and themselves practice...mercy toward the dumb creatures that God has made and has placed under our dominion....Will the people who are seeking to become holy, pure, refined, that they may be introduced into the society of heavenly angels, continue to take the life of God's creatures, and enjoy their flesh as a luxury?...Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God's people to walk no more with them....Think of the cruelty to animals that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!...Animals are often transported long distances and subjected to great suffering in reaching a market. Taken from the green pastures and traveling for weary miles over the hot, dusty roads, or crowded onto filthy cars, feverish and exhausted, often for many hours deprived of food and water, the poor creatures are driven to their death, that human beings may feast on the carcasses... .Some animals are inhumanly treated while being brought to the slaughter. They are literally tortured, and after they have endured many hours of extreme suffering, are butchered. (Counsels on Diet and Foods pp. 380-386)
Treatment of Food Animals
In the century since Mrs. White wrote her strong statements condemning the way we use animals for food, we have developed a new way of raising animals called factory farming. The animals killed for food today are completely removed from the Old McDonald's Farm of the past.
Factory farming is big business. Whatever is cost effective is the only consideration. Mass-produced chickens and turkeys are raised in warehouses. As they grow to full size they become a solid mass of birds with no space to spare. Far overcrowded, they literally rub each other raw. The weaker are trampled to death, disease spreads like wildfire, injured and diseased birds are left untreated until they die.
Pigs and many cows are kept in closed concrete stalls. They are fed whatever fattens them quickest, not what keeps them healthy. To prevent disease, they receive massive amounts of antibiotics, in the long run making them even more unhealthy. All end up being transported long distances unprotected from heat or cold. To save some money, they are not fed or watered on these trips. They are pushed, dragged, prodded, shocked, and beaten. Many fall and break legs or hips or are too sick to move. Those are called downers and are left where they lie to die, however long it takes. If the slaughterers get to them before they die, they attach chains to their legs and drag them to the kill floor. If the animals die first, they are used for pet food. God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
Most beef cattle and sheep are raised on open rangeland throughout the west. Any animal that even remotely competes with them are considered vermin and killed on sight. The ranching industry is directly responsible for the eradication of scores of species, including eliminating grizzlies, condors, wolverines, and wolves from most of the United States. Little prairie dogs have been killed by the billions for no other reason then that they dig burrows and eat grass. The rarest mammal in North America, the Black-footed Ferret, depended on prairie dog towns to survive. So now we spend millions of dollars to save and restore what we spent millions of dollars to destroy. For not only do the individual ranchers slaughter the animals. The government's Wildlife Services kills a million animals a year, solely to benefit ranching. And how do they kill them? With traps and poisons that kill anything indiscriminately. They corner babies in their dens and gas or burn them to death. All of this bloodshed so that we can butcher the cows ourselves in our meat-addicted culture.
We rake the oceans with fishing nets that kill everything in their paths: fish, dolphins, whales, birds. 75% of the world's fisheries are at the maximum level of sustainable fishing. Any increase in the fish killed would cause biological collapse; a chain reaction that leaves almost nothing left alive. The other 25% of the fisheries are already in a state of biological collapse. And when the fish disappear, we blame the animals--never ourselves. The seals, dolphins, and sharks become our scapegoats and we wage war upon them. Dolphins are rounded up in Japan and elsewhere and hacked and stabbed to death. They are not killed for food, but only because they eat fish. The ocean turns solid red with the blood of these innocent, intelligent, sensitive creatures. God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
Dairy cows are also confined extensively. Their life is a constant cycle of being impregnated, giving birth, and having their day old calves taken from them. The bond between mother and calf is as strong as in every other large mammal, as a story of one mother cow in England demonstrates. When she gave birth, the farmer sold the calf to a farm and the mother to a different farm. The next morning, the farmer who had bought the mother discovered that she had broken out and had run away. The farmer who had bought the calf came out that morning to discover it nursing from its mother. The mother had traveled seven miles to a farm she had never seen before to find her lost calf! What a wonderful example of motherly love and dedication.
Female dairy calves are sent back into the system; males are taken to veal stalls. There they are chained in a two foot wide box. They can stand up and lie down, stand up and lie down. Nothing more. They are fed a nutrient deficient diet to keep their flesh the right color. They are prevented from exercising to keep their muscles soft. For six months they are purposely kept anemic and sick, all to provide their flesh as a delicacy.
One of our Adventist colleges has a flyer promoting their Animal Science program. In it they tell about what a great career you can have running a dairy farm or cattle ranch, and how much money you can make doing it. There, in living color, is a picture of a student feeding a veal calf on the campus farm. Is this what we really want our colleges to be teaching at this time in Earth's history?
Female dairy cows are so bloated by growth hormones and milk producing drugs that their bodies are far too large and easily break down or become infected. They are treated as living machines and are disposed of the same way.
I used to believe that since I ate no meat, I was free from causing cruelty. But I still ate eggs and was dismayed to learn how laying hens are treated. In cages two feet square, up to nine full size hens are jammed. They cannot spread a single wing. Their feathers are rubbed off, and soon they have open sores. In such crowds cannibalism becomes common, so every hen has her beak sliced off to cause her intense pain whenever she pecks at another. Of course, all the male chicks are immediately killed by the millions. The ammonia buildup in the warehouses from their droppings is so bad that workers must wear masks when they enter, but the hens are forced to breathe it twenty-four hours a day.
Wire floors are not good for chicken feet, and often their toes become enmeshed in the wire and they never free them again.... If they are near the food, they survive. Come slaughter time, when their egg-laying rate slows, they are so violently removed from their cages that often feet and partial legs can be found in the empty cages, still attached to the wire floor.
If you want to know what it is like to be an egg-laying hen, try this test. Get in a normal sized car in a closed garage and bring seven or eight other people with you. After everyone has squeezed in, roll up the windows, lock the doors, and never leave again for the next two years! That's the life of a battery hen today. I have a simple equation that I use now whenever I'm tempted to have an egg. 1 egg = 22 hours. (22 hours is the average time between each egg laid by a battery hen.) 22 hours of absolute, unrelenting, misery of an innocent, helpless, suffering creation of God. One hard boiled egg = 22 hours. A couple fried = 44 hours. A large quiche or an omelet is worth days of suffering, all contained on one plate. God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
Sport Hunting and Fishing
For thousands of years, much of people's food has been obtained by hunting and fishing. But with modern farming, hunting is mainly for sport. There is no stronger indictment of the way we treat animals than that we kill them purely for fun and entertainment. "Satan's hatred against God leads him to hate every object of the Savior's care. He seeks to mar the handiwork of God, and he delights in destroying even the dumb creatures." (Desire of Ages pp. 356-357) A better definition of sport hunting and fishing could not be written. Millions destroyed every year in the U.S. alone, all for trophies and bragging rights. Safaris that kill one of every species of African antelope to have each variety of horns. To make it more fun, many hunters use as inefficient a weapon as possible. Bow and arrow users lose half the deer they shoot. Those that escape end up dying by themselves from blood loss, infection, or from the arrow penetrating deeper to a vital organ. State wildlife agencies build up "game species" for hunters at the expense of all other wildlife. Hunters cause an average of 1100 human injuries per year and between 100-200 human deaths per year!
And then there's sport fishing-merely hunting for fish. Now remember, fish are vertebrates with a nervous system that feels pain just like our nervous system does. They don't show it like other animals because we can't hear the sounds they make without special equipment. Fish have the same social lives and emotional feelings as every other vertebrate. In South Africa an aquarium had an Oranda goldfish named Big Red. Into Big Red's tank was put a severely deformed Moor goldfish named Blackie. Blackie could barely swim or move around the tank. From the start, Big Red sensed Blackie's helplessness and took it upon himself to be Blackie's friend. Big Red would pick Blackie up on his back and help him around the tank. When food was sprinkled onto the surface, Big Red carried Blackie up to the surface so that they both could feed. At the time this story was reported, this had been going on for over a year. A year! This is altruism, the giving to others with no thought of reward, being shown from a small fish on a continuing basis. But no regard is ever given to fish and the worst tortures are heaped upon them so that we can "relax and enjoy the outdoors."
The fishhooks we use rip into their mouths with all the intensity that a nail would feel in our mouths. They use their mouth to examine their surroundings since they have no hands or paws. Often, hooked fish lose their ability to eat until the gaping wound heals. Fish lose their protective coat of mucus by being handled by humans. Without it they are susceptible to bacteria and waterlogged tissues, both of which can be fatal. Many fish are so exhausted from fighting the fisherman's line that when released they go into shock for hours and are easily caught by predators. A Canadian study found that a hooked fish removed from the water for only 60 seconds has a 72% mortality rate. Those not thrown back slowly die by "drowning in air." Sometimes it takes well over an hour. I have watched fish being skinned alive as they struggled! Our casual acceptance of cruelty to fish because they look and act differently from other animals is based largely on our emotional attachments to animals that seem more like us.
Now please understand that what I'm discussing here is not part of a political agenda or the regular environmental issues being discussed in our society. Many meat-eating, hunting, fishing environmentalists would he quite unhappy by the subjects I'm discussing.
We must examine each of our practices with animals to see if we are following God's dominion or Satan's dominion and take steps to change things if wrong is being done. Mrs. White had much to say about the North's responsibility for the Civil War. "God is punishing the North, that they have so long suffered the accursed sin of slavery to exist." (Testimonies Vol.1 p. 359) God holds us responsible if we allow wrong to continue by our silence and apathy. To say it's not our problem is to shirk our God-given duty.
Animals in the Entertainment Industry
Animals are abused on a continual basis to provide us with entertainment. Circus animals travel most of the year in tiny cages, unprotected from the weather. Look at any major circus and virtually every animal there has been or is being abused. There are blood sports such as bullfighting and cockfighting, whose only aim is to kill the animals painfully. Even such a tradition as rodeo involves broken bones, pain, fear, and death as a matter of course. Greyhounds are taught to race using live rabbits hanging from the end of a pole. Thousands of rabbits per year are killed to train greyhounds. Of course, those greyhounds not fast enough are also killed, often in secret. Is abusing animals for entertainment God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
The brutality and bloodshed that occur at rattlesnake roundups are almost too gruesome to describe. Gasoline is poured into rattlesnake dens and burrows to force them out. Many never recover from being so poisoned and many animals that share those burrows, such as the Gopher Tortoise, are also poisoned as well as having their homes ruined. The Gopher Tortoise is nearing extinction, in part due to this rattlesnake gassing. Every conceivable torture is inflicted on the rattlesnakes ripped from their wild homes. No protection or mercy of any kind is allowed for an animal so vilified by society. They are burned, beheaded, crushed, blinded, stabbed, maimed, beaten, skinned, and eventually eaten in a carnival-type atmosphere. And they feel and suffer as much as every other animal would in the same situation
Animals We Wear
Mammals used for fur are killed in two ways. First are those raised on farms such as mink, foxes, and chinchillas. They spend their short miserable lives crowded into wire cages unprotected from the weather until they are killed by electrocution, strychnine, gas, or having their necks broken. Second are those caught in the wild with leg-hold traps. Traps catch anything that touches them: pet dogs and cats, songbirds, deer. For every fur animal caught in a trap, two so-called "trash animals" are killed by the trap and thrown away. Animals caught remain for hours or days until the trapper returns. Some chew off their leg and bleed to death elsewhere. The returning trapper does not want to damage the pelt, so they club, crush, or stomp the trapped animal to death.
Around the world most cat species are now endangered due to the fur industry. Seals and kangaroos are slaughtered endlessly. All of this bloodshed for fur-lined gloves, jacket trim, coats, knickknacks, and trivial souvenirs. Alligator shoes, snakeskin belts, bearskin rugs, ostrich skin wallets. Eight million fur-bearers, plus five million non-target "trash" animals killed every year for nothing at all but fashion and appearance. God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
Our Companion Animals
We lavish millions of dollars on our pets, give them the best of attention and love, until we grow tired of them. If they become inconvenient or too expensive, then we dispose of them. Some people "set them free" at campgrounds, rest areas, in forest and town. Hardly any survive. Most die from disease, starvation, and being hit by cars. Those that live eke out a slim living. I once found a pair of skin-and-bone hunting dogs in a national forest that gorged themselves on the cat food we put out for them.
For every human born in this country 15 dogs and 45 cats are born and there's nowhere for them to go! So we leave them at pounds and that's where most die. Roughly ten million companion animals are "put to sleep" every year. That works out to something like every five seconds, all because we will not take the effort to spay and neuter the pets in our care and because we allow animal-breeding puppy mills to continue to exist. Are we fulfilling our God given duty of stewardship toward our most loyal friends?
Parrots are being driven to the brink of extinction to supply the illegal pet trade. On their way to us, nine out of ten die --- 90%! Those that survive end up as living curios, stuck in a cage for their color and beauty. Many live as long as we do, 80 to 90 years, forever cut off from the life they should be living.
Tropical fish are caught with cyanide, again up to 90% dying on route to pet stores. But in addition the coral reef and any non-target animals are left dead from the cyanide, all again so that they can end up in tiny tanks for our amusement.
Experimenting On Animals for Science
In the past it has been taught that the best way to learn about human anatomy and the theory of evolution was to dissect other species such as frogs and cats. But modern advances in computer programs and detailed human models have made such studies obsolete. Because of dissection, many wild populations of frogs have been wiped out, and it is not uncommon for lost or stolen dogs and cats to end up on a classroom table. We must not devalue life by killing just because it's convenient. We should teach the most important lesson of all, the respect for life.
One area we need to examine is whether we can cause animal suffering to save human life. This is an important subject and needs careful thought. Is experimentation on animals a justified practice? First we need to note that we experiment all the time on humans to test new products. They are called clinical tests and they involve only volunteers. We must always remember that animals in tests are never volunteers, they have no choice. So we must strive very hard to limit such tests to only the absolutely crucial. We cannot cause their suffering for trivial, repetitive, or useless tests. We must examine animal research on a case-by-case basis to determine its worth. Let us examine some examples.
One major area of animal research is cosmetic testing. Dozens of rabbits per test are enclosed in metal boxes with only their heads protruding. Then various substances are poured into their eyes to see how much damage is done. Go into your bathroom or laundry and try to find any product that hasn't been tested in this way. It can't be done. Bleach, hairspray, shampoo, mascara, and detergent are all being used to blind rabbits in pointless tests. Other animals are force-fed large quantities of toothpaste, lipstick, or creams until half the animals succumb to convulsions, paralysis, and death. Others have chemicals applied to their bare skin, causing massive chemical burns, to measure skin irritancy levels.
The companies that continue these tests say that it is for public safety and because the tests are required by law. THAT IS A LIE! No law requires it and 500 plus companies that never test on animals prove it. Results of cosmetic tests are only valid on the animal species they were performed on. To help humans, tests would need to show the exact amount of the substance required to injure a human--which these tests never show. Every time we buy a product from a company that tests on animals, such as Procter and Gamble, we are saying to them, "It's all right to do this. You don't need to change. Here's some more money to blind rabbits."
We are making it possible for the suffering to continue by our buying choices. Modern alternative tests that do not use animals and are as accurate as or better than animal tests are readily available, but companies will not switch until we force them to by our wallet.
Another vast area of animal research involves psychology tests. These are done with the stated purpose of discovering how the animals think, learn, and develop. They are not intended to show anything about humans, except to evolutionists wanting to show how our behavior evolved from monkey behavior. Endless tests are done on every variety of animal to find out how they react to punishment, such as electric shock. Finding out how dogs suffer from electric shock and the lengths they will go to avoid it, does not in any way benefit humans, and it certainly is not a benefit for dogs.
Young monkeys are placed in smooth-walled "wells of despair" for days, weeks, and months at a time. They have no light, no interaction, nothing to touch or feel for the entire time. The point is to see how they react socially after their isolation. Not surprisingly, they are severely psychologically damaged, spending the rest of their life huddling in corners, arms held around their bodies, terrified of everyone and everything.
As sad a case as any are the monkeys taken from their mothers at birth and given to fake mothers that look and feel like monkeys but that act very differently. Designed to be monsters, these fake mothers become red hot or ice cold, eject compressed air, or hurl the baby away from them. Others eject sharp brass spikes from every surface of their body, impaling any baby that won't let go. The terrified monkeys have no real mother to turn to, nowhere to go. They wait for their "mother" to stop hurting them and then crawl back onto it, until the next time their "mother" becomes a monster. All monkeys raised like this are forever mentally unstable and are unable to interact with normal monkeys. Their lives become constant isolation and fear. God's dominion or Satan's dominion?
The researcher who conducted these tests also was the editor of a magazine that published psychology test results. Over the years he reviewed thousands of tests to decide which should be published. He made a very interesting comment about the tests he reviewed. "Most experiments are not worth doing and the data attained are not worth publishing." A telling comment from a defender of all research.
The unfortunate reality is that most tests done have been done before. Tests done over a hundred years ago are still being done with only minor variations and nothing new being learned. There is such a mind-numbing mountain of tests conducted that no researcher is able to keep up on what has been done before. Many researchers come up with new variations to ensure a continued flow of grant money, not because anything important will be discovered.
If a test benefits human life then we can understand its value, but what about tests that are incapable of helping humans in any way? A famous series of tests have been performed by Dr. Robert White, a vocal spokesman for unrestricted, unlimited animal tests. His tests involve cutting off the heads of monkeys and switching them; transplanting heads on still-living beings and keeping them alive. Can humans in any way benefit from head transplanting? The only one I can think of is Frankenstein.
One final area that I'll mention is the area of drug testing. Surely we would think it would be necessary to test a drug on an animal first to make sure that it is safe. A government study was conducted on every new drug marketed between 1976-1985. The study found that half of those drugs had been relabeled or withdrawn because they were found to be more dangerous on people than the animal tests had shown.
In this country we use 40,000 different pesticides. Every single one has been proven safe using animal tests. Does anyone really believe that all 40,000 are safe? One pesticide (no longer used in the U.S.) that was also proven safe by animal tests is DDT, and we all know how lethal DDT has turned out to be.
Animal research can often be used as a "wax nose" to prove whatever the researcher wishes. Government agencies, by using animal tests, have been proving for years that cigarettes are addictive and harmful. Meanwhile tobacco-run animal tests have been proving for years that cigarettes are not addictive or harmful. And these tests continue to this day, "proving" whatever the researcher wants them to prove.
But how can this be? How can the results be so different between humans and animals? The reality is that every species is a different biological and biochemical entity. Each reacts differently to any given substance. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. When the discoverers of penicillin were testing it they had just run out of guinea pigs and had to use other animals. If they had tested it on guinea pigs it would have been fatal and they would not have known the effectiveness of penicillin at all. But the same guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine, one of the deadliest poisons for humans, but not for monkeys. Sheep can swallow enormous quantities of arsenic. Potassium cyanide, deadly for humans, is harmless for the owl. Insulin produces deformities in infant rabbits and mice. A dose of opium that would kill a man is harmless to dogs and chickens. These are only a fraction of such examples. A list of this type is virtually endless, as every substance used will have different results on different species and even between strains of the same species.
About thirty or forty years ago some scientists thought there might be promise in an extract from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree in treating cancer. So they infected healthy animals with cancer and then used the extract to treat them. No result occurred. There was no improvement. The scientists decided the extract was useless and abandoned it. Now the Pacific Yew is a small, scraggly, understory tree that only grows in the Pacific Northwest. Lumbermen dislike it because it is worthless for timber, and they usually cut and burn it. A decade ago scientists decided to try again with the Yew extract, but this time they used clinical human tests instead of animals. The results were astonishing. The extract was extremely effective on certain forms of cancer. In fact it was the most promising treatment to come along in ages. But now there was a serious problem. For thirty years lumberman had been wastefully destroying Yews as a "trash tree". It was now hard to find enough Yew trees to provide the extract. So two drastic consequences resulted from our faith in animal testing. First, the treatment of cancer patients was delayed for three decades. Second, for all that time the main source of the treatment was allowed to be foolishly destroyed instead of being utilized. How many other life saving drugs have been lost to us in this way?!
In this Yew case, our reliance upon animal tests has actually cost human life. We must ask ourselves if the cases of vivisection we have looked at (and many others) truly save human life, and if not then why are they allowed to continue? Roughly one hundred million (100,000,000) animals suffer and are killed every year in U.S. labs. That works out to about one killed every half second! I wish everyone could know the things I have learned in the last decade, could see behind the closed doors of the lab. Monkeys with steel bolts drilled into their skulls to hold in electronic attachments wired into their brains. The monkeys are not given any anesthesia as that would affect the results of the test. A simple question I would have; does screwing steel bolts into a monkey's head without anesthesia affect the results of the test?
Chimpanzees are infected with the HIV virus. They can't get AIDS, of course, no matter what we try. But once infected they can never be let out of their cage or have any contact with humans or other chimps. They are a carrier. They spend their entire lives in a cell the size of a closet. They can live that way for forty to fifty years. All alone, in the dark. Sitting in there with nothing to do, they slowly go insane. Rocking back and forth, circling endlessly, biting their hands and feet, banging their head on the wall, they are living death, and a live testament of our treatment of animals.
Reforming Our Attitude Toward Animals
We need a new perception of the other animals from that which we have inherited. We lavish attention, time, and money on our cats and dogs. Pets are wonderful. Everyone loves kittens and puppies. But beyond them things change. Cows and chickens are for eating. That's what God made them for. Ducks and moose are here to be hunted. The only possible purpose of a fish is to be impaled on a hook. All predators are pure evil and must be eradicated. The only good snake is a dead snake. We think animals are beautiful in pictures and nature films, but let them do anything that causes us the slightest inconvenience and the first solution proposed is to kill them.
We marvel at the colors on a butterfly and unthinkingly squash every moth we can find, when in reality moths are virtually identical to butterflies. For woe unto any animal that doesn't meet with our standard of beauty. Everyone "knows" all about bats and spiders, octopuses and snakes. They are ugly so they must be bad. The reality is that most people know next to nothing about such animals and what they do know is 95% nonsense. Test yourself, true or false? Bats fly into people's hair. Bats suck blood. Tarantulas swarm onto people, biting them to death. Snakes leap out of trees to strangle people. Octopuses pull swimmers down to their death. And all the answers are...false All false, as are hundreds of other stories that I'm sure we're all familiar with. Stories created hundreds of years ago to scare people are passed on as gospel truth from generation to generation. Until we throw away the myths, we will never appreciate animals for what they really are--living, breathing, feeling creations of God, with their own lives and purposes in God's plan. We may not understand that purpose, and it may in fact have nothing to do with us, but that in no way negates the importance of it.
As an illustration of our thoughtlessness in caring for the animal creation entrusted to our dominion, we need only look to the list of animals threatened with extinction. That list has grown over the years until it includes over a thousand animal species. This does not include the hundreds of species that have already become extinct in the last five hundred years. And once they are gone, we can never get them back, no matter how much we may want to.
Are There Any Solutions?
The question has often been asked, "These are terrible things being done to the animals, but what can we do about it?" We often feel helpless to stop wrongs being done, but we actually have more influence than we realize. In this presentation, I have very carefully chosen only those issues that we in this country can alter by our actions. There are three steps that we can all take to save the lives of animals.
1) Never directly cause an animal to die. Hunting and fishing are obvious but just as deadly are meat and fur. Every time we buy any fur or ivory or meat, we directly cause animals to die. Don't kill that snake. It's not out to get you. There is never any justification to ever kill any non-venomous snake in North America, and only in the most unusual and extreme cases should venomous ones be killed. They are vitally important to the ecosystem and only use their venom for two reasons: to catch food and to defend themselves. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. Find non-lethal solutions to animals in your yard that annoy you. Whole books are available detailing how to deal with backyard animals humanely. Death should never be the first option.
2) Never indirectly cause an animal to die. By buying milk and eggs, cosmetics and toothpaste tested on animals, or animals from a pet store, we allow and fund the suffering and death of animals to continue. When we visit places like circuses and marine parks that exploit and abuse animals, we make it profitable for them to exist. Most animal abuse exists only because it is profitable. When people stop giving money to the abusers, the suffering and death will stop. And don't say that you're only one person and can't have any impact. A vegetarian saves the lives of hundreds of animals by his food choices. As with spreading the gospel, our task is to help save the individual, not to look at the unsaved billions and give up.
3) Educate others of what is going on. Tell your family and friends what you've learned here. Express how much these things bother you. Vivisection exists only because the majority of people are unaware of what is happening. Abuse thrives on secrecy.
If we would adopt these three steps, we would save countless lives. We as individuals can make a difference, if we will only make the effort. It is our duty and responsibility as God's caretakers of His creation.
Conclusion
As long as we allow and/or participate in practices that hurt animals we will forever come short of Christ's admonition in Matthew 5:48. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." We cannot have the character of God when we are tainted with such cruelty. We, as followers of Christ, are to be an example to the world and universe of His law working in His people's lives. When we fulfill the Dominion Principle we will have taken one more step toward that goal.
In this presentation I've shown our responsibility to animals and the ways in which we've mishandled it. I very much condensed what could have been said, since books have been written on virtually every subject mentioned. But it can be summed up further yet in one brief passage by Ellen White. Everything I've talked about today is embraced in it.
Balaam had given evidence of the spirit that controlled him, by his treatment of his beast. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10. Few realize as they should the sinfulness of abusing animals or leaving them to suffer from neglect. He who created man made the lower animals also, and "His tender mercies are over all His works." Psalm 145:9. The animals were created to serve man, but he has no right to cause them pain by harsh treatment or cruel exaction.
It is because of man's sin that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together." Romans 8:22. Suffering and death were thus entailed, not only upon the human race, but upon the animals. Surely, then, it becomes man to seek to lighten, instead of increasing, the weight of suffering which his transgression has brought upon God's creatures. He who will abuse animals because he has them in his power is both a coward and a tyrant. A disposition to cause pain, whether to our fellow men or to the brute creation is satanic. Many do not realize that their cruelty will ever be known, because the poor dumb animals cannot reveal it. But could the eyes of these men be opened, as were those of Balaam, they would see an angel of God standing as a witness, to testify against them in the courts above. A record goes up to heaven, and a day is coming when judgment will be pronounced against those who abuse God's creatures. (Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 442-443)
I can add nothing to that but to ask that we please allow that day to come quickly, for the animals' lives and the vindication of God's character are in our hands. Let us remember the words in Isaiah 11:9, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain."