Regarding the record-breaking meat recall in California, involving an industrial slaughterhouse that used torture to compel downer (i.e, too sick to walk) cows to slaughter, I caught word of a passage from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (published exactly 102 years ago Monday).
Forcing downer cows through the kill line and into the food supply has a long and ignominious history. (The practice of mixing meat from downer cows into the food supply, of course, played a heavy role in the U.K.'s mad-cow scares in the 1990s.)
Here is Sinclair:
[T]he creatures were prisoned, each in a separate pen, by gates that shut, leaving them no room to turn around; and while they stood bellowing and plunging, over the top of the pen there leaned one of the 'knockers,' armed with a sledge-hammer, and watching for a chance to deal a blow.
...
It was late, almost dark ... and the government inspectors had all gone, and there were only a dozen or two of men on the floor. That day they had killed about four thousand cattle, and these cattle had come in freight trains from far states, and some of them had got hurt. There were some with broken legs, and some with gored sides; there were some that had died, from what cause no one could say; and they were all to be disposed of, here in darkness and silence. "Downers," the men called them; and the packing-house had a special elevator upon which they were raised to the killing-beds, where the gang proceeded to handle them, with an air of businesslike nonchalance which said plainer than any words that it was a matter of everyday routine. It took a couple of hours to get them out of the way.
(I'm quoting Sinclair from an article published in 2006 by the Humane Society of the United States, the group that exposed the recent downer-cow scandal in California. Special tip of the hat to Holley Atkinson of the Comfood listserv.)
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 5:52 pm
19 Feb 2008
Tom's angle, and his quotation, of course make sense, in light of the recent big news event. But the passage by Sinclair on pig slaughter, quoted in Unti's paper, is IMHO more powerful than this one on the slaughter of "downers."
Note, in Unti's paper, the bit about how the animal-welfare people, back in the early 20th century, were not interested in the social aspect of Sinclair's book, his emphasis on the unsatisfactory conditions of the immigrant workers in the meat industry in Chicago. We cannot say enough how very sad it has been, that sympathizers with different but related causes should find themselves so coldly unsupportive of one another.
Note also the important bit about Theodore Roosevelt. For some reason, activists like to look to politicians for remedies to big problems. But the fact is, in a democracy, politicians are not equipped to appreciate the complexity of many moral issues. In TR's case, it seems all he was interested in was public perception of the safety of the food supply; he was not concerned about working conditions, nor about animal welfare.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:17 pm
19 Feb 2008
Dear CanisCandida,
I will plead guilty to being coldly unsupportive of animal rights. At one time I was more supportive (even joined PETA), but as I worked in the vegetarian community, I was continually struck by the indifference of most animal rights activists to one species. Humans. Especially to the poor.
I argued, explained, nothing. Coldness. So, when the animal rights movement looks at my poor species, I will look at their concerns. Petty? Silly? Angry? Sad? You bet.
But there it is. I have no other response.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:37 pm
19 Feb 2008
I am serious. No smiley faces. And I am miserable, that I have to be serious about this, because, as I suggested, it ought not to be that way.
One of the most unhappy experiences of last year, for me, was attending a rally supporting proposed legislation here in NYC, to ban the use of carriage horses. Excellent legislation: the horses pulling carriages for tourists are abused, injured, slaughtered, and there were some recent incidents where they got into trouble with traffic.
But, the people at the rally were horribly cold and grim, with no interest in encouraging friendly feelings and solidarity and camaraderie whatsoever. My several attempts at striking up a conversation were rebuffed. I was appalled, and left in a funk.
At least it is true that we are not all like that ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
jhaskin Posted 6:42 pm
19 Feb 2008
I'm not asking in a sarcastic manner, truly. It is just something that I'm grappling with as I prepare to plunge into the environmental sector. The "environmental sector" covers such a huge range of individual causes, from animal rights to human rights, from protecting the rainforest to regenerating the grasslands, and onwards, practically ad infinitum. I am overwhelmed at times by the sheer volume of stuff I'm seemingly supposed to care about before I can count myself as an environmentalist.
So my solution has been to gradually whittle down the number of causes that I really feel I can sink my teeth into, with the end goal of a single cause I can devote my energies to. Looked at from one angle, it might appear that I am unsupportive of all those other causes, but it's not the case. I just feel that I can do a better job overall if I focus my limited time and energies on a single area. So I was wondering if those animal rights activists might not have been caught in the same dilemma.
Permalink
SteveCHarris Posted 1:00 am
20 Feb 2008
But in the end, aren't they overlooking human poverty because the "lesser" creatures in the animal kingdom have no way to fight back? Who wins in a fight between the poor villagers in Bangladesh and a Royal Bengal Tiger in the mangrove forest, for example? They are both competing (at times) for land and resources due to human population growth. There are over 140 million people in Bangladesh and less than 300 tigers left, so why do animal rights activists favor the tigers in this competition? I think we often have sympathies for the underdog, even if we belong to the ruling class...but I value your point that impoverished humans should always be taken into the equation.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 1:08 am
20 Feb 2008
Why do the animal rights and caring about humans have to be mutually exclusive - I am vegan not just because of cruelty to animals but also, because I think it is unfair that we in the USA have so much food, yet 165 million die of starvation every year. So my thing is, I buy cheap wholesome good food, and save money. I save money from being vegan - (no meat, no dairy, no cheese, no ice-cream!- it adds up). That money that I save, I send to countries that have famine and I give food to people that I see being homeless, - in my down town area.
So "why is it a them against us issue". Its not!
Dear CanisCandida - In every group you will have the people that think they are better/greater/smarter blah,, but that's every group. I work in a large company, and I see upper management behaving just the way you described people in your above passage. Also, my time in NYC, - I noticed people had different characteristics to the people I meet in Italy, - sometimes it's just about where you are.
Honestly, please do not make it a them (animal caring) versus us (human caring). The two can be improved together. Because we are all connected!
Permalink
Expat Chef Posted 1:32 am
20 Feb 2008
100 years after the fact we are still failing to provide a better food system, despite millions in USDA and FDA funding. Part of it is the political ties between the industry and the agencies that are supposed to watch over it.
Yes worker rights and animal rights are both important, just as important. A whole lot of fixing needs to happen.
You are welcome in my "kitchen" for a recipe, family moments, a laugh, and some political discussion.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:20 am
20 Feb 2008
I should be clearer (though I usually think I am, but am often wrong!). My problem was that most (not all, there is no all of anything (I think!)) of the animal rights activists I came into contact with were indifferent to issues of social and even environmental justice. They didn't care. They in fact actively opposed programs to alleviate poverty, had no interest in fair trade issues and so on.
I should note that I am a vegetarian (not a vegan), and do no own a car (it has always seemed to me that many people don't consider the damn cars do to animals).
So, for me, it's not about my personal choices, but about my political choices.
Does it have to divide this way? I spent a fair amount of time trying to close the divide, to no avail (the resistance/indifference mainly came from the animal rights side). So finally had to decide which side I was on. And I did.
For a long time, I avoided most of the animal rights debates. But, CanisCanidida asked, so I answered (smile). (Not that the question was directed at me specifically). I thought about it and decided to be truthful.
Frankly, it seems to me impossible to protect the biodiversity of species unless we address issues of poverty and inequality. The Tigers will not be saved if the villagers are starving (look at what is happening to the Gorillas in the Congo).
I appreciate that many people who post here understand the connection, my comments were directed towards trends I see in the broader movement.
pace,
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:22 am
20 Feb 2008
Should be do "not" own a car. and "damage" cars do. Dirty glasses and speeding fingers lead to many a slip of the pixel.
patrick in Beijing (who's frequent typos are his own)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:55 pm
20 Feb 2008
Similarly, I am not really under the impression that all animal-welfare activists in NYC are like the ones that I met at the pro-carriage-horse rally. Being of a certain age, they may indeed be typical of one set of Baby Boomers, the zealous, uncompromising, purist, exclusivist activists who are supposedly on the side of Hillary. But there too, I am as much a Baby Boomer as they, and yet temperament-wise I seem to resemble the consensus-seeking millennialists who are supposedly favoring Obama. Or whatever. : )
Thanks, JHaskins and JavaEarth, for your comments on that, and my unhappy experience.
And I certainly agree with you, Patrick, that the well-being of the Bengal tigers of the Sunderbans, say, to use SteveCHarris's example, will have to accompany the well-being of their human neighbors in West Bengal and Bangladesh.
As has been observed from time to time in Gristmill, the Gristmill battlecry "Coal is the enemy of the human race" is false, or at least misleading, on two counts: (1.) coal is by no means the only enemy of the human race; and (2.) it is the enemy not of the human race alone.
But on a more profound level, it can be said that a truly destructive enemy of the human race is "the wedge": symbol of all that divides human beings asunder, especially those who by rights should be in full sympathy with one another.
And so, as we live our lives, setting our face against that awful foe, we would do well to take to heart the concern of JHaskin to focus on one cause, which deeply cries out to us. Our own Erik Hoffner, promoter of grassroots groups, would no doubt agree, and is in an excellent position to offer advice.
To no one's surprise, when it comes to charitable giving, I prefer to support groups promoting animal welfare and wildlife conservation. But not many, and mostly on the smallish side. Animals have their devoted affluent friends, to be sure, but the number of those friends is not great, and on the other hand the number of those who either ignore animal causes or hold them in contempt is very large.
People-oriented causes also need as many friends as they can find, to be sure, and too often are sorely in want of them. But most people would at least agree that those causes are in themselves deserving, whether or not they choose to give; and that kind of agreement can certainly not be counted on when it comes to animal-oriented causes.
Sharing attention with my animals, though, there are a couple of Native American causes that I like. And that connexion keeps alive my memories of times spent in the Southwest and Montana.
My husband prefers Catholic Charities, a Very Big BINGO indeed. But he also donates regularly to the Catholic Diocese of Northern Alaska (Fairbanks), which has an extensive shoestring ministry, and not many personnel, with Native Alaskans, especially Yup'ik, spread out over a huge area. And he has made a couple of microloans, most recently I think to a man in a West African country.
We only disagree about Heifer International, which he likes, and I mistrust. He, a farm boy, thinks it is great to give animals to poor people in undeveloped countries, so that they might raise those animals and live off whatever the animals produce. My feeling is, that is fine in principle, but there is too much occasion for animal abuse, and too little transparency on HI's part. Both the HSUS and Best Friends have made doubtful statements about HI; and it would not surprise me if PETA has as well.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Geraldine Clarke Posted 12:16 pm
21 Feb 2008
HSUS let the abuses in the meat-packing plant go on for weeks when they could have shut it down immediately and stopped the torture of those poor cows. PETA kills 97% of the animals that it gets its hands on even though most of them are totally adoptable.
I have a therapist friend who has had many "animal rights" activists as patients. She is of the opinion that most ARistas were abused as children and never really dealt with that abuse and transferred all their feelings of abuse to animals. (See the HBO doc about Ingrid Newkirk and note her relationship with her father.) I'm no psychologist but this rings absolutely true with me. I have seen so many instances where ARistas just totally refuse to recognize all verified scientific evidence presented to them that contradicts their neurotic world view.
I am spending all my time now fighting HSUS-sponsored laws that are designed to take control of our animals away from us. I would much prefer to spend my time working on global warming but I was entrusted with an ancient breed of dog that has been passed down, generation to generation, for over 6,000 years. I only want to pass this ancient heritage along to yet another generation who will protect its future but the future for salukis is looking bleak in the face of all the HSUS-sponsored legislation that will make the continued breeding of these amazing animals next to impossible.
My new Year's Resolution for 2007 (renewed for 2008) was to educate the Democratic Party on the difference between animal welfare and "animal rights". I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal but I find myself in a situation where I will be voting for Republicans in my next local election since the Democratic Mayor and City Council members are promoting an "animal rights" agenda. PLEASE KEEP ME FROM VOTING REPUBLICAN and help me to educate the Democratic Party that "animal rights" is not liberal but is definitely fascist.
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:08 am
22 Feb 2008
It is surely an overstatement to suggest that many or most supporters of animal rights suffered animal abuse, and "transferred" the un-dealt-with experiences to animals. Even if that were so, it strikes me as dangerous, to begin invalidating people's ethical opinions on the grounds of what they experienced as children. Frankly, quite the opposite of the conclusion of Geraldine Clarke and her therapist friend, the childhood experience of vulnerability and powerlessness may very well have sharpened the sensitivity of those people to systemic injustice.
The charge of indifference to human suffering is another matter. I myself have not observed it, so cannot comment.
Promoters of animal rights are by no means unanimous. We disagree, for example, over emphases and strategies of PETA. An important schism was recently made public, by the judicial disposition regarding the pitbulls of Michael Vick. Some groups, such as PETA, recommend euthanization for such animals rather quickly; others, such as Best Friends, practise a no-kill policy. In this particular case, in fact, Best Friends has been granted custody of around half of Vick's dogs.
In the case of the downer-cow slaughterhouse, the HSUS's undercover investigator needed a fair amount of time to gather evidence that would impress a disinterested viewership as credible. What motive could the HSUS have for sitting on evidence powerful enough to close down the operation?
Since around the time the usually decent Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, registering as a Republican has been a symptom of one or another kind of moral deficiency. Voting Republican, by an independent or Democrat, is perhaps not so serious, but is not always beyond moral suspicion.
It is hard to believe that many local or municipal governments in the US could be voted into power on a "pro-animal-rights agenda." Would that that were possible! But, sadly, no, at this stage in our moral evolution, that sort of thing is still in the future, and animal-rights activists are almost as far from directing policy (on such horrors as whaling, CAFOs and puppy mills) as ever.
On the animal rights movement as fascist, not liberal: In intention, it is most certainly liberal, in its focus on protecting the vulnerable and the voiceless. Also liberal is its frequent targeting of big, wealthy, powerful interests as villains. But as I have observed before, its counter-cultural ethics makes it resemble the anti-abortion-rights movement on the far right. So I definitely understand how many AR people can sound and act "fascist." If it matters, I apologize for them, and assure those whom they have offended or frightened that we are not all like that.
On dog-breeding: I strongly suspect that Geraldine Clarke takes very good, loving care of her salukis; and I would like to know more about what local laws might take them our of her care.
I have not studied the matter closely, but it seems that there are three phenomena present often -- but NOT always! -- in dog-breeding, which seem troubling:
inbreeding, which tends to leave dogs vulnerable to many maladies;
unhealthful features, such as short faces and short legs, which are weaknesses;
sale to people who will not respect the dog's native disposition and abilities; e.g., salukis are gorgeous, friendly dogs, but given my circumstances, it would be most unfair for me to have one living with me.
Racehorse-breeding has problems of its own. The required transportation of studs to mares is not good. But more important, racing is itself dangerous. And the very sad case of Barbaro illustrates that it is unethical to breed horses with extremely slender and delicate legs, which is the fashion in the past couple of decades in this country.
But I have no doubt that dog-breeding can be done well, and is done well; and when that happens, it is a very good thing. I admire very much the Monks of New Skete, outside of Cambridge, NY, who raise German Shepherds on their monastery, and have written some very good books on the subject of raising dogs.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Geraldine Clarke Posted 3:36 pm
22 Feb 2008
Although the terminology is used interchangeably so discussion gets very muddy, experience has shown me that there is a vast difference between people who devote themselves to animal welfare and those who work for "animal rights". Although I disagree with them occasionally, I definitely put Best Friends into the animal welfare category. I have contributed to them in the past and will do so again in the future. You are right; Vick's dogs is an excellent case in point. Both PETA and HSUS called for killing all those poor animals immediately but many of them are now finding wonderful new homes that will give them happy lives.
The day the Vick's story came out, HSUS, hypocritically, flooded the US with emotional appeals for money to help them "save Vick's dogs!" but, when we pointed out that the dogs were being held as evidence for the trial and HSUS had absolutely no control over them, HSUS had to change their campaign to a less lucrative "Stop Dog-fighting" pitch but I'm sure that they raked in many millions from people who thought that their money would be going to help those unfortunate dogs. (Two weeks later HSUS tried to get them all killed.) It would have been so much, much better if that money had gone to Best Friends.
In the "downer cow" thread here, I've already answered your question about why HSUS waited so long before alerting the UDSA to the slaughterhouse abuses. Please read it; I would really, honestly, like to hear what you think about my post. HSUS spends its time garnering political power, not helping animals.
I never stated that most people devoting their lives to helping animals have neurotically transferred childhood experiences. I clearly stated that I was referring to the fanatics. Of course, childhood experiences determine our ethical opinions! But we can choose to deal with and work through our bad experiences and let them turn us into sensitive individuals devoted to rationally eradicating injustice or, we can let ego and anger control us and not deal with our issues and instead turn our anger outward to try to force a warped sense of morality onto other people's lives. Ingrid Newkirk (PETA) definitely falls into the latter category. She is so filled with hate that she kills 97% of the animals that she gets control of.
The reasoning and civility of your post, caniscandida, is so refreshing. Over the last few years of discussing these issues with people who disagreed with me I have been spat upon, called all kinds of horrible names, been physically accosted which resulted in bruises, gotten hate mail and had people try to follow me home from a meeting I testified at. (All those hours of watching "Rockford Files" were not wasted as I used Rockford's techniques to elude my pursuers <G> but I now have padlocks on all my gates and I NEVER leave my dogs unattended. I live in fear just because I occasionally breed a litter of salukis who go to loving homes. I'm a breeder and, therefore, totally evil in the minds of those fanatics.)
Several years ago, I rented an apartment at a ranch that housed a dog rescue. The owner of the rescue was cool but, when some of the people who worked with her rescue discovered that I had an unspayed bitch, they began whispering whenever they saw me. Later, one of them with a heart alerted me to the fact that they were planning to kidnap my dog and spay her. I moved very quickly and left no forwarding address. That dog went on to get her AKC championship and became a registered therapy dog who does wonderful work and she's passed along her great qualities to a litter that has brought delight into the lives of their owners.
There is a cultural war going on that is not being covered in the media. A small number of True Believer fanatics to whom "animal rights" is a religion has, working diligently for decades, taken control of all discussion about animals in the media and, especially, in the Democratic Party.
I have spent the last two years fighting AR inspired legislation and I am filled with disgust. I have never before in my life seen so much lying and bullying. (And I worked in Hollywood for over 30 years so that is saying a lot!) I've watched Wayne Pacelle (HSUS CEO) lie through his teeth to the CA legislature when we had just presented documentation that what he was saying was false. But Pacelle is slick (HSUS = PETA in a suit) and the legislators chose to believe his oily lies rather than to wade through the 200+ pages of documentation that proved that what he was saying was false. I have witnessed. up close and very personal, the husband of Judie Mancuso, the person behind AB1634, the proposed CA MSN (mandatory spay/neuter)law, wearing a fake badge and impersonating an official, trying to stop the opponents of that law from getting into a hearing while letting his supporters in - bullying and lying combined in one suit.
Again and again, it is the Democrats that fall for the AR lies. We breeders only have ourselves to blame because, for the last few decades while we were raising, training, loving and caring for our dogs we did not get into the political arena. Meanwhile, PETA and the AR fanatics have been effusively courting Dems. Now that we are all afraid, we are trying to make up for lost ground and are doing our best to educate the Democratic Party on the difference between animal welfare and "animal rights". That was my New Year's resolution for 2007 and renewed again for 2008.
While I will never vote Republican on the national level, at my local (very liberal) level, at the moment, the Republicans (who all want the war in Iraq to end NOW) are the better choice in my opinion. Not only are the self-satisfied, entrenched Dems catering to the radical fringe of the AR movement, they have, among other awful things, been harassing a Middle-Eastern immigrant, a self-made man in the best American tradition, evicting the tenants of his properties under eminent domain and using the fact that his buildings are now vacant to justify taking his property so that they can create a yuppified neighborhood as their "legacy". In this case, the local Republicans are the liberals. "Nanny state" Dems are NOT liberal. The establishment Dems lost their soul and their claim to moral suppority long ago. They let Newt Gingrich polarize political discussion so politics as "the art of compromise" became impossible. And they didn't get up and SCREAM for impeachment when the lies that got us into this horrible war were exposed. nuff said....
OK, what in you post have I not covered yet?
Dog breeding:
Through the ages, intelligent breeders of working dogs always bred away from genetic problems. This is getting so much easier now with all the genetic testing that is becoming available. At the moment, you are much less likely to get a pup with genetic problems from a dedicated breeder than from a shelter. (I can personally attest to this; the only dog in my house with genetic problems is a mixed breed I rescued from a shelter.) This is why it is so hilarious when the AR crazies scream the we breeders are only in it for the money (and evading taxes to boot!) because I go into the hole at least $2000 every time I breed a litter because of all the vet costs I incur to make sure that potential puppies will be healthy.
You asked about the laws I am opposing that threaten the future of my breed. There are so many that I can only summarize here. It has become obvious that 2007 was targeted in the long-range planning by HSUS as the year that they would make their "Great Leap Forward" in legislation that would promote their ultimate aim to force us all to be petless vegans. So many very similar laws surfaced in so many places that it cannot be a coincidence. And, in most of those places, if you scratch the surface, you'll find an HSUS rep.
HSUS has worked out a very long-range plan which they are implementing, small step by small step. Last week I saw this plan in action. I listened in to the hearing about two laws proposed for the state of Maine. On their surface, they do not look terribly awful. But then the Maine HSUS rep started testifying that HSUS REALLY, REALLY wants to support "good breeders" and only wants to get rid of the "evil puppy mills". The very next day I watched the passage of an egregious mandatory neuter law passed by the Los Angeles City Council which, effectively, outlaws all legal breeding in that city despite the supposed "licences" for serious breeders. And who was the most praised person for getting this law passed? Yep, the local HSUS rep.
A law like this would never pass in Maine right now and HSUS knows it so they have set up a "slippery slope" law that will allow them to come back in a few years and try to ramrod through a MSN law. And, of course, in L.A. they will be back to eliminate the supposed "exceptions". Their AR media people are already at work on it.
HSUS has over $100,000,000.00 a year in donations which they spend on their legislative agenda. (We've shamed them a bit since their Katrina debacle so, instead of charging local Humane Societies (which do good work!) and shelters for their services like they used to do, they are now donating a tiny bit to them and touting their donations to the hilt in the press.)
Getting back to the proposed laws that I am so threatened by: The MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) laws that are sweeping the country are the worst. They usually come with licences for "exceptions" for show dogs, police dogs et al. that make the laws look reasonable. But, when you look a little further, you'll discover that things like "kennel licences" will be required and kennel licences are impossible to get in urban homes that can most effectively rear well-socialized dogs.
I could go on and on about about all the "tricks" in these proposed laws that will make legal breeding by responsible, dedicated breeders next to impossible but what makes me the most angry is that I have to spend so much time fighting these laws to protect my beloved salukis when I could be out there saving other animals like I have done all of my life and work for environmental causes like I have also done all my life.
There IS an answer to the problem of animals killed in shelters. Nathan Winograd managed to turn around shelters in San Francisco and Tompkin's County from places that killed many animals into places where NO adoptable animal was ever put down. Please read Winograd's "Redemption: the Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America". PETA and HSUS have been jumping through hoops to try to discredit Winograd but his record of success speaks for itself. Could it be that, if Winograd's methods are implemented all over the country and all adoptable animals find homes, there will be no sad-faced animals left in shelters for PETA and HSUS to use bilk those millions out of the American public?
Please read Winograd!
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:12 am
24 Feb 2008
sorry for the delay in responding to this fascinating message of yours. There is a flu going around, and it seems I have got it; the fever, fortunately, has gone down.
You are kind to remark on my "civility," which is found too rarely amongst us animal rights types. As before, I apologize for the others. But in our case, I could tell at once that I like you, and I knew it even better after your second message -- even though there are all sorts of things that we probably disagree on.
I have read what you wrote about Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS on the other thread, and shall comment there presently.
My late grandmother was a great fan of "the Rockford Files," as is my mother: so see, TV makes us smarter! : )
But the story of how your bitch might have been kidnapped and spayed by self-proclaimed enlightened do-gooders is frightening. That is a perfect example of how "Coal is the enemy of the human race" is false and misleading, but "The Wedge is the enemy of the human race" is what we should concentrate on -- "the wedge" being the symbol of all that divides us from people to whom we ought to show sympathy.
Tribalism, in all its forms, is a manifestation of "The Wedge is the enemy of the human race."
At least we should recognize that people behind mandatory spay/neuter legislation have good intentions: too many irresponsible owners of cats and dogs allow their pets to reproduce, with no thought whatsoever to what is going to happen to the litters. Of course you are not like that, though. And as in all things, there MUST be an appreciation of nuance, and of particular situations. And also, as in all things, politics and legislation do not at all exhaust the contents of what really matters.
We ourselves have a gorgeous mutt, Little White Dog, aka Theodora, aka Fiordiligi, whose mother is (perhaps) a small white poodle (with whom we were acquainted, so we can testify that that is fairly true), and whose father is a bichon frise' (whom we have never met: hearsay evidence, from more or less reliable witnesses). So basically, LWD is a very messy (genealogically) mutt, who is curled up just a foot and a half from me, on my Indian blanket.
We had her spayed, early on. And I think that was the best decision. True, it would be wonderful if there could be more like her in the world. But, there would be no way of guaranteeing that, given her own mixed progeny. Plus, the issue that matters to us animal-rightsist types, we would have no idea what to do with her puppies, even if they were as adorable as she is.
On adoption from shelters: That is certainly the best option for people who want a dog or cat, ESPECIALLY when the dog or cat seems unadoptable, for one reason or another. I wish we were in a position to do that.
On legally imposed "petless veganism": Fortunately, my relationship with the HSUS does not extend quite so far as that particular destination. When done well and responsibly, the relationship between cats and dogs and human beings is a beautiful thing, and part of the "good life." For those of us who live with animals, including not only sensitive mammals but also such intelligent birds as parrots and crows, it is plain that the animals can derive much joy from the relationship -- provided that the human partners are doing their part.
It will be a long time, unfortunately, before meatlessness takes over as an unquestioned social value. Meanwhile, at least we can work for the very humane raising and slaughter of animals destined for exploitative eating. And hopefully, experiments with animal tissue produced in labs will be able to satisfy many carnivorous appetites.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Geraldine Clarke Posted 12:10 pm
27 Feb 2008
I agree; I like you, too! It gives me hope that there is a way to break through the horrible rhetoric of the "animal rights" crazies and work our way to a place where sensible people can figure out a way to make sure that NO animal ever goes homeless or is killed in a shelter. The fanatics are very small in number but they are very high in energy and I have the bruises to prove it. Every breeder I know well has rescued far more animals that they have ever bred and EVERY breed has rescues in place. We are not the enemy. I would love to find a way we can talk to each other and work out these problems away from the legislative arena.
I would love to talk to you privately to see if we could start to create some kind of coalition to work on animal problems. I don't want to leave my e-mail address here in a public arena (I already get enough hate mail for being an "evil breeder - yeah - seven litters in 35 years where all of the pups went to people who waited years for them....) but you could leave a message on the CAPLA Yahoo list and I will get it. Of course, a crazy might impersonate you (I totally admit to being utterly paranoid after all I have gone through) but I don't think that there are that many crazies here on this Grist list.
Hoping to hear from you (and READ WINOGRAD!).
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Permalink
Geraldine Clarke Posted 11:20 am
09 Mar 2008
The people on my side ("evil breeders" all) would love to open up discussions so that we can find a way to work together to make sure that NO animal is ever killed for the lack of a home. We all want that but the "animal rights" people will not talk to us.
I (and most other breeders) have rescued far more animals than we have bred but we and the people who get dogs from us are not going to take a pit bull or terrier mix from a shelter instead of a puppy from a breed that we have fallen in love with and have waited a long time for. We might take in that shelter dog in addition to the dog we want (I have) but we will still get that puppy we want. The current PETA ad campaign that insists that every puppy bought from a breeder means that a dog will die in a shelter is absolute nonsense (and this is coming from PETA which kills 93% of the animals it gets its hands on, including very adoptable animals!)
So sad....
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:21 pm
09 Mar 2008
But I dislike the hardening of team identity, under the names "animal rights" and "animal welfare." As a promoter of animal rights, I strongly dislike those animal-rightsists who seek to discredit those promoters of animal welfare who are judged deficient. By the same token, I resent being judged and discredited as though I hold all the opinions of other animal-rightsists.
Really, I do not want to have any part in such a nasty, disrespectful, anti-intellectual "forum."
And I suspect Gristmill is not the place to get one going, anyhow.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:27 pm
09 Mar 2008
I have to agree with you on this issue. Just recently my beloved Queensland Heeler went missing for the first time in 13 years (she's back). During the week and a half she was gone I was at the local animal shelter every day looking for her and observing the tragedy of the surplus dog population.
Fully two-thirds of the dogs at the shelter were pits, large terriers, rigdebacks or other large intimidating breeds. The remaining dogs were split between toy breeds and herder/mutts. I pondered adopting another dog if my dog remained gone.
I could not imagine getting a toy breed dog or a dog showing strong fighting dog lines. In our hot climate I would not commit to any of the fur-ball husky or samoyed types as I don't use the AC much. I like medium-sized working dogs. If I'm going to get another queensland I'm going to go to a breeder in cattle or sheep country who breeds for performance. Punishing breeders of working dogs because the fighting dogs people have gone nuts is insane.
The animal rights people would require the ranch owner who sells a litter of herd dogs every year to register as a breeder and maybe force him underground or away from breeding. These are the breeders who breed working dogs. The back-alley kennel breeder in urban LA isn't going to stop breeding pits or ridgebacks because there are few other economic opportunities for some of these people.
Animal rights people seem to be nuts in my book. I'm all for cows, pigs and chickens being treated with all due respect and believe they should be slaughtered at small slaughterhouses close to pasture. Massive slaughterhouses have the economic power to bribe government officials to ignore their pollution and work-safety violations where small ones do not.
The idea of removing meat animals from the human food chain seems insane to me. The pasture, grain, fallow rotation is far more effective use of land than massive monocropping and is insulated from weather and disease losses in ways that GM monocrops can never be. It's an approximation of a natural system that feeds people. They'd turn cattle, sheep, goats, chickens and ducks into pets instead of ecological partners.
The crazy animal rights people have funded a hotel for stray animals in San Francisco while the homeless sleep in doorways. Kick a dog and it's national news but kick a family into the street is background noise? It's insane.
Animal welfare NOT animal rights.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Geraldine Clarke Posted 8:07 am
17 Mar 2008
Since animals have been the love of my life, I hope to use all the time left to me to do my best to ensure that ALL animals are treated humanely but I want to make sure that the animals I love most and whom I have spent 40 years caring for and who are so incredibly threatened by the wave of draconian legislation that is sweeping the country will survive. My 6,000+ year old breed may not survive in the face of all the HSUS sponsored legislation that is being proposed all over the country.
I have spent my last two years dealing with this and I am totally appalled by all the outright lying and intimidation that I have seen in the name of "animal rights". A very small number of bullies has taken over the "animal rights" banner and they are manipulating the press with their self-righteous propaganda. A needless cultural war is the result. The fanatics are a tiny, tiny, albeit, VERY vocal, minority.
We ALL want to make sure that EVERY animal has a very good life but the fanatics are dividing us. (To divide is to conquer.) But I am very encouraged by my private correspondence with caniscandida who seems to be an extremely sensible person, just the kind of animal rights supporter we who breed and "use" (very loaded term there) animals, need to make alliances with to make sure that the best will be done for ALL animals.
We need to find a way for all animal-loving people to communicate and not get sucked into the fanatics' "animal rights" vs "evil breeder" rhetoric so we can find effective solutions to end animal suffering.
One of the many problems is the term "animal rights". I always use this term in quotes since it is an oxymoron. (Out of respect, I eliminated the quotes when referring to you, caniscandida.)
"Rights" is a human intellectual construct that is concomitant with "Responsibilities". Animals cannot be expected to understand "Responsibilities" in any abstract sense so they cannot, in themselves, have "Rights".
However, the humans who interact with and, yes, "use" animals have the "Responsibility" to treat to those animals they claim the "Right" to use, to use them humanely. So "Animal Rights" is an oxymoron but animal welfare is a term that we can all understand.
However, many of the "animal rights" fanatics, realizing this, are now using the term "animal welfare" to refer to their ideas. We have indeed descended into an "Alice in Wonderland" world.
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:38 pm
17 Mar 2008
But "animal rights" do indeed exist. And it is proper for those of us who recognize them to give constant testimony to them, as the moral evolution of our society slowly proceeds.
Meanwhile, for example:
It is certainly right to seek recourse in legal restrictions to stop the slaughter of harp seals, and of whales. As it happens, nowadays, probably a large number of people in many countries would be in favor of such restrictions, though it seems to be hardly a pressing matter for them. But it would not be right for friends of the seals or whales to commit acts of violence against the slaughterers of those animals, as the members of the Sea Shepherd organization feel justified in doing.
It is certainly right to seek a legal end of the abominable system of CAFOs and slaughterhouses in this country. Violent disruptions of those operations are not justified. But, since it is believed that widely published insight into those operations will sway public opinion against them, the deceit of infiltrators who capture unauthorized images, such as the HSUS's under-cover video photographer in the case of the "downer cow" slaughterhouse, is justified.
The testing of animals in laboratories is highly controversial. When it is done for "inessential" purposes, such as the development of cosmetics, more and more people find it repugnant. But when it is done to develop medical treatments for use in human beings, the ethics are much more unclear, with probably the majority opinion favoring the exploitation of animals in this way. Violent intrusions by animal-rightsists, such as threats to workers and their families, the destruction of laboratory equipment and records, and even the commando-like liberation of the animals themselves, are not justified. (Remember the glorious scene in the classic Spielberg movie "E.T.," in which the heroic young Elliot, inspired by the vibes of his friend, interrupts the chemical asphyxiation of confined frogs in his science class at school, and sets them free, to the great applause of his classmates. In that context, the tactic worked; but generally that sort of tactic is impractical, mostly for the sake of the animals.)
In the case of responsible owners of dogs and cats who choose not to have them spayed or neutered, and who will certainly not allow them to breed freely, it would be an unjust intrusion to kidnap those animals and perform the operation on them.
These are just very general observations. There are always particular circumstances as well, and they would require more particular comments, which might be somewhat different in gist.
I strongly disagree with the often-asserted -- and incorrect -- statement that "rights" are "concomitant with responsibilities." No, they are not. We most certainly recognize that animals have a real moral status, but that does not at all depend on their having reciprocal responsibilities toward us. Similarly, small human children have a very great moral status in the eyes of most of us: it would be wrong to abuse them, injure them, or kill them; but they for their part have no responsibility to us.
See the excellent little book by David DeGrazia, "Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction," especially the second chapter, "The moral status of animals."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink