Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Ya know, sometimes supposed animal rights groups just make me grit my teeth. They are at it again with the my way or the highway attitude and absolutely NO knowledge of what they are doing! I do rescues. The kidlets all do rescues. I work with tons of outfits that do rescues. I work with vets that do free work on rescued critters. This bill is counter productive. All it does is insure that puppy mills will survive and it will put all of the rescue folks out of business and double the kill shelters work! AND, do these people not know who they have climbed in bed with? Santorum??? He is scum, a fraud, a homophobe, a bigot, a racist and works actively against any religion other than his own (good pals with Barr and the drive to get Pagens out of the military) although he plays kissy kissy with the Statement of Faith boys such as Mike Farris! Lynda, who will stop ranting now and return you to your regular programming! - <jubileepbgv <H-O-W-L > Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:55 AM [H-O-W-L] PAWS-SB1139 Impact on Rescue > Appropriate cross-posting is encouraged! > > The following legal analysis of PAWS as it pertains to rescue organizations was recently released by attorney Sharon Coleman of The Animal Council. > > Sheila & The Choir > Jubilee PBGVs > PBGV Lifeline > *********** > > FEDERAL S 1139 by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA,) co-sponsors Richard > Durbin (D-IL,) and Arlen Spector (R-PA) - shorthand, " PAWS " - the Pet > Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 would amend the Animal Welfare Act > with subsequent rules to be adopted and wipe out the USDA's historic > interpretation of AWA as only requiring licensing and regulation of > breeders selling at wholesale. This standard was upheld in the 2003 > United States Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit > case of Doris Day Animal League v. USDA. > > Wholesaling is a simple, qualitative measure that is done on a > business model that includes compliance costs and can be anticipated > year in and year out until a business decision is made to cease > operation. Absent change in federal law, were the USDA to change > this standard on its own, it would need to comply with the federal > Regulatory and Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.) that requires > agencies to consider the economic effects of rule changes on small > entities including, businesses, organizations and individuals. This > entails estimating the number of operators affected by changes and > likely dollar impact of rule changes should small entities be those > most affected by the rule changes and an entire procedural scheme > enforced by the Small Business Administration. Agencies can > impose " significant " regulation on small businesses and non-profit > organizations but are required consider less burdensome alternatives > and to explain why it has rejected those alternatives. This law > along with some Executive Orders make dubious any USDA instigated > effort as broad as the PAWS bill. However, it would force USDA to > follow these requirements in additional rulemaking pursuant to any > amendments to the AWA. This may, or may not, result in changes to > existing regulation of licensed dealers, many of which are also small > businesses on a dollar basis. > > PAWS AND " RESCUE " ISSUES have inspired claims by proponents that AWA > only covers " commerce " in a business sense and would exclude non- > profit rescue organizations. Rather, the word " commerce " in federal > law relates to the federal power to regulate commerce under the > United States Constitution Commerce Clause Article I, ?8, of the > Constitution " [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper > for carrying into Execution " its authority to " regulate Commerce with > foreign Nations, and among the several States. " The term " commerce " > was included in AWA in the 1970 amendments to provide jurisdiction > within states as long as an activity had some impact on interstate > commerce so that there would be no requirement that animals cross > state lines. Historically the Commerce Clause has been broadly > interpreted by the Supreme Court as to what has impact on interstate > commerce, because this concept enables use of the federal > government's police power. The recent Supreme Court decision in the > medical marijuana case, Gonzales, Attorney General, Et Al. V. Raich > Et Al. available at > > provides a current reference on the broad judicial interpretation > of " commerce " for federal purposes. The Court noted that > even " Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are > part of an economic " class of activities " that have a substantial > effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. " Such > activities need not be conducted as a profit-making business. > > COMMERCE INCLUDES RESCUE since animals transferred in rescue > transactions are a significant portion of the total market for > animals. Rescue animals are particularly involved with the alleged > reasons for PAWS, i.e. use of the internet and imports as well as > frequent interstate transport and sales of animals from undocumented > sources and unregulated standards of care - often involving large > numbers of animals. There are no convincing policy reasons to > exclude the rescue sector from inclusion in the PAWS dealer > definition except as to those shelters operated under the PAWS pet > store definition and thus excluded as dealers. The additional > wording in the dealer definition, i.e. " dealer " means any person who, > in commerce, for COMPENSATION OR PROFIT, would only exclude > operators who received nothing of tangible value in exchange for > placing animals. It is possible to structure rescue placements with > no compensation, but many rescue organizations derive significant > funding from these charges. Rescue transactions are legally treated > as sales unless expressly excluded or treated differently for > specific purposes by law, e.g. sales tax, warranties, etc. Note that > the " consideration " required for a legally enforceable contract can > be only a promise to do or not do something and not money or anything > else of monetary value. The purposes of the AWA are to ensure the > welfare of animals in commerce, which includes rescue animals, so > excluding private rescue from proposed regulation of retail sellers > defeats the statutory purpose to protect animals. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi! This sounds like a good discussion!! I am new to the group - and a veterinarian - and involved in pet rescue (I foster and offer veterinary services at no charge). I always thought of myself as an animal advocate, and was very surprised to learn that there are certain animal rights activist groups who regard me, and my profession, and even my pet ownership as a violation of animal rights. I think many ordinary people get involved with some of these large, powerful, and media-saavy groups not fully understanding their agenda. The average person on the street, if asked, would say " Yeah - I'm against puppy mills. I'm against animal abuse. I'm against mass farming practices. I can get behind animal rights. " Even I would have said that... What many folks don't realize is that some animal rights groups (I don't mean to imply all) are against responsible use of animals in research (unappealing yes - but often vital to medical advancement), pet ownership (deprivation of freedom), and animal sterilization (animals cannot give permission). What would the consequences to human and animal health be if all food, research, and pet animals were suddenly " liberated " to the wild? I can say that my crew of critters wouldn't last past their next meal, if left to their own devices. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers (that is a major reason for joining this discussion group - I want to expand my perspective) - but I feel a tremendous responsibility to provide care for the animals living in situations of man's creation, whether that be farms, pharmaceutical laboratories, homes, or shelters. I can't support any legislation that limits my ability to help abandoned and unwanted animals find caring and loving homes. Best, Fairy Realm Girl ps - I noticed a poll inquiring how a vegan/veterinarian should feed a pet cat... While I respect any one's decision to abandon meat and/or meat-product consumption (I am now making that very decision) - please understand that cats are not small four-legged people. Their metabolism differs tremedously from ours and their protein requirement is far greater. To subject them to a vegan/veggie diet poses a serious nutritional risk. Please exercise extreme caution in feeding any non-commercial diet on an exclusive basis to any pet, especially cats. , " Lynda " <lurine@s...> wrote: > Ya know, sometimes supposed animal rights groups just make me grit my teeth. > They are at it again with the my way or the highway attitude and absolutely > NO knowledge of what they are doing! > > I do rescues. The kidlets all do rescues. I work with tons of outfits that > do rescues. I work with vets that do free work on rescued critters. > > This bill is counter productive. All it does is insure that puppy mills > will survive and it will put all of the rescue folks out of business and > double the kill shelters work! > > AND, do these people not know who they have climbed in bed with? > Santorum??? He is scum, a fraud, a homophobe, a bigot, a racist and works > actively against any religion other than his own (good pals with Barr and > the drive to get Pagens out of the military) although he plays kissy kissy > with the Statement of Faith boys such as Mike Farris! > > Lynda, who will stop ranting now and return you to your regular programming! > - > <jubileepbgv@s...> > <H-O-W-L > > Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:55 AM > [H-O-W-L] PAWS-SB1139 Impact on Rescue > > > > Appropriate cross-posting is encouraged! > > > > The following legal analysis of PAWS as it pertains to rescue > organizations was recently released by attorney Sharon Coleman of The Animal > Council. > > > > Sheila & The Choir > > Jubilee PBGVs > > PBGV Lifeline > > *********** > > > > FEDERAL S 1139 by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA,) co-sponsors Richard > > Durbin (D-IL,) and Arlen Spector (R-PA) - shorthand, " PAWS " - the Pet > > Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 would amend the Animal Welfare Act > > with subsequent rules to be adopted and wipe out the USDA's historic > > interpretation of AWA as only requiring licensing and regulation of > > breeders selling at wholesale. This standard was upheld in the 2003 > > United States Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit > > case of Doris Day Animal League v. USDA. > > > > Wholesaling is a simple, qualitative measure that is done on a > > business model that includes compliance costs and can be anticipated > > year in and year out until a business decision is made to cease > > operation. Absent change in federal law, were the USDA to change > > this standard on its own, it would need to comply with the federal > > Regulatory and Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.) that requires > > agencies to consider the economic effects of rule changes on small > > entities including, businesses, organizations and individuals. This > > entails estimating the number of operators affected by changes and > > likely dollar impact of rule changes should small entities be those > > most affected by the rule changes and an entire procedural scheme > > enforced by the Small Business Administration. Agencies can > > impose " significant " regulation on small businesses and non- profit > > organizations but are required consider less burdensome alternatives > > and to explain why it has rejected those alternatives. This law > > along with some Executive Orders make dubious any USDA instigated > > effort as broad as the PAWS bill. However, it would force USDA to > > follow these requirements in additional rulemaking pursuant to any > > amendments to the AWA. This may, or may not, result in changes to > > existing regulation of licensed dealers, many of which are also small > > businesses on a dollar basis. > > > > PAWS AND " RESCUE " ISSUES have inspired claims by proponents that AWA > > only covers " commerce " in a business sense and would exclude non- > > profit rescue organizations. Rather, the word " commerce " in federal > > law relates to the federal power to regulate commerce under the > > United States Constitution Commerce Clause Article I, ?8, of the > > Constitution " [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper > > for carrying into Execution " its authority to " regulate Commerce with > > foreign Nations, and among the several States. " The term " commerce " > > was included in AWA in the 1970 amendments to provide jurisdiction > > within states as long as an activity had some impact on interstate > > commerce so that there would be no requirement that animals cross > > state lines. Historically the Commerce Clause has been broadly > > interpreted by the Supreme Court as to what has impact on interstate > > commerce, because this concept enables use of the federal > > government's police power. The recent Supreme Court decision in the > > medical marijuana case, Gonzales, Attorney General, Et Al. V. Raich > > Et Al. available at > > > > provides a current reference on the broad judicial interpretation > > of " commerce " for federal purposes. The Court noted that > > even " Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are > > part of an economic " class of activities " that have a substantial > > effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. " Such > > activities need not be conducted as a profit-making business. > > > > COMMERCE INCLUDES RESCUE since animals transferred in rescue > > transactions are a significant portion of the total market for > > animals. Rescue animals are particularly involved with the alleged > > reasons for PAWS, i.e. use of the internet and imports as well as > > frequent interstate transport and sales of animals from undocumented > > sources and unregulated standards of care - often involving large > > numbers of animals. There are no convincing policy reasons to > > exclude the rescue sector from inclusion in the PAWS dealer > > definition except as to those shelters operated under the PAWS pet > > store definition and thus excluded as dealers. The additional > > wording in the dealer definition, i.e. " dealer " means any person who, > > in commerce, for COMPENSATION OR PROFIT, would only exclude > > operators who received nothing of tangible value in exchange for > > placing animals. It is possible to structure rescue placements with > > no compensation, but many rescue organizations derive significant > > funding from these charges. Rescue transactions are legally treated > > as sales unless expressly excluded or treated differently for > > specific purposes by law, e.g. sales tax, warranties, etc. Note that > > the " consideration " required for a legally enforceable contract can > > be only a promise to do or not do something and not money or anything > > else of monetary value. The purposes of the AWA are to ensure the > > welfare of animals in commerce, which includes rescue animals, so > > excluding private rescue from proposed regulation of retail sellers > > defeats the statutory purpose to protect animals. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi FairyRealm Girl > I am new to the group Welcome! > What many folks don't realize is that some animal rights groups (I > don't mean to imply all) are against responsible use of animals in > research (unappealing yes - but often vital to medical advancement), I agree with many of your points - however, I have to take you up on this. There has not been one single medical advance as a result of research on animals. In fact, the greatest effect has been detrimental to humans: the heart bypass operation was delayed by over a decade because it didn't work on dogs, costing thousands of human lives. Over 75% of drugs which are tested on animals and released onto the market as " safe " are withdrawn from sale within 5 years because of harmful side-effects to humans. A significant number (I forget the figure) of hospital admissions are the result of medications which are considered safe after animal tests. You pointed out elsewhere in your post that cats are not small humans... this is absolutely true, and it is ludicrous to think that a result of a test on a cat can be extrapolated to a human. You can't even extrapolate from mice to rats (just look at the results of fluoride tests). The whole of the animal testing industry is complete nonsense, and only exists because of the fortune that can be made out of the industry. I also have a question for you... let's just ignore all the above for a moment, and assume that the science was not fundamentally flawed, and the results actually meant something... what do you think gives humans the right to torture other beings for their own benefit? What gives us the right to take 6 billion lives per year in the hope that we might save a few thousand? And where do you stop? Is it OK to test on mice and rats? Is it OK to test on dogs and cats? How about primates? It wasn't until the 1990s that the Vatican accepted that women have souls... so, up until then, was it OK to do medical experimentation on women? How about the tests on Jews in Nazi Germany? Were they acceptable because the people conducting the experiments considered themselves to be of more value than Jews, or would it have been acceptable if it had been done " responsibly " (to use your phrase)? And, of course, the big question... if you think that it is OK to harm non-human people to benefit humans.... why on earth are you vegan??? BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Fairy Realm Girl Just wanted to add a few comments on some of the other points you raised.... > pet ownership (deprivation of freedom), I'm not aware of any animal rights groups who are completely against companion animals (I don't think of it as ownership, as I don't see that anyone has the right to " own " another being). What many of them are against is the breeding of animals as pets - i.e. the use of animals as a commodity by which people make money, particularly when there are plenty of animals who already need homes. > What would the consequences to human and animal health be if all > food, research, and pet animals were suddenly " liberated " to the > wild? I can say that my crew of critters wouldn't last past their > next meal, if left to their own devices. Firstly, I don't see that it would have any effect on human health... except that, on vegan diets, everyone would be a lot healthier! And, we'd be causing less environmental damage through factory farming (the single largest contributer to greenhouse gasses according to an EU report a couple of weeks ago), which would benefit every living creature! Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone would advocate releasing all animals into the wild. What is advocated is stopping breeding animals. I would suggest that the money made from the industries which use animals as commodities should be put to use to ensure that all of the currently living animals are given a good quality, healthy life, until they die of old age. Then once those animals have died, there would no longer be a problem. > Please exercise > extreme caution in feeding any non-commercial diet on an exclusive > basis to any pet, especially cats. I know very little about cats, but I would like to point out that the oldest recorded living dog (an animal that is " built " to eat meat) has been on a completely vegan diet for over 23 years, and is still fit and healthy (and less smelly). I also know that there are vegan cat and dog foods on the market, which I believe contain all the necessary nutrients. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Peter, Yikes - seems I've ventured into some hazardous territory... While I certainly respect your viewpoints, I must argue the validity of your claim that..... > There has not been one single medical advance as a result of research on > animals. I find the idea of animal use in research extremely distasteful, and as a member of the faculty of a major university, it is an issue I wrestle with daily. I cannot however ignore that nearly every major medical advancement - antibiotics, vaccines, anesthestics, organ transplantation, renal dialysis, tumor biology and cancer therapy, medication for diabetes, high blood pressure, mental illness - has been made as a result of animal-based science. Whether the utilization of animals for the benefit of human medicine is morally right or wrong, I think it devalues the sacrifice of these research animals to claim no good came from this body of work. If you genuinely believe that is true - would you be willing to forego medical treatment developed through the use of animal research? Again, I am not sure how to feel about this... I am exploring my soul and struggling to reconcile how - as a veterinarian in academia - to use my position to affect a positive change. Certainly humans have created quite a mess - and there are no easy answers. > And, of course, the big question... if you think that it is OK to harm > non-human people to benefit humans.... why on earth are you vegan??? I am seeking alternatives to animal use - and I am starting at home. I am personally horrified by industrial farming practices, and want to end my personal hypocrisy of animal product consumption. I am not vegan - just vegetarian (I still consume free- range eggs and organically farmed dairy). And I am still learning more about this recent change I've made in my life. > How about the tests on Jews in Nazi Germany? Were they acceptable because the people conducting the experiments > considered themselves to be of more value than Jews, or would it have been acceptable if it had been done " responsibly " (to use your phrase)? I am not so naive to expect to change anyone's mind... But I can assure you that among my immediate associates, all sentient beings are respected - human or otherwise - and nobody takes the responsibility of animal usage in research lightly. To equate these individuals with the perpetrators of the Holocaust is incendiary (and a little offensive to me as a Jew - sorry) Not trying to start any nastiness... Just seeking understanding. FRG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi again Peter, In response to a point you've made.... > Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone would advocate releasing all animals into > the wild. What is advocated is stopping breeding animals. Your point is well taken - I can accept the cessation of breeding as a reasonable means of decreasing the captive animal population. However, as I understand, many of these same groups are opposed to animal sterilization to prevent breeding? Can you offer more insight on this? I also have a personal experience along these lines to share. I am not certain how commonplace this type of occurrance is, but I can say it happened at least this once.... As an undergraduate animal science student, I took a course in Poultry Husbandry. Each student in the course (only 6 of us) was assigned a chicken house and 5,000 birds. It was our responsibility to oversee the birds (from day old chicks through adulthood) - their medical treatment, their nutrition, the mechanical operation of the heating/ventilation/food and water systems, etc - throughout the semester-long course. The welfare of that many animals was a major undertaking, and I practically lived at the chicken house tending to my flock of feathered friends. Now I am sure that the very idea of such a course would be highly offensive to many - and with my evolving perspective, I too look back on that course and wonder " Is there a better way? " Probably so... All the same, a high-profile, very well known animal rights group (whose name I will share off the message board) felt it necessary to " liberate " (their words, not mine) the birds from all 6 student houses - 30,000 birds in total - claiming that their use in teaching was morally irresponsible. These birds did not fare well - suffering predation, trauma (many hit by cars and trains on nearby roads and tracks), and death from exposure (winter weather). How could anyone argue that this is the better way? This single experience left me distrustful of the motivations (and, quite frankly, the sanity) of this particular animal advocacy group. Maybe that is an unfair basis by which to judge the whole of animal rights organizations - but gathering up the carcasses of animals I personally cared for is an experience I find hard to overlook. > I also know that there are vegan cat and dog foods on the > market, which I believe contain all the necessary nutrients. I am interested in learning more - can you provide the details? In the meantime, I still stand by my caution... It is difficult to formulate a balanced diet for dogs that is free of animal products. And to the best of my knowledge it is impossible in cats. The imposition of vegan/vegetarian morality on animals is non-sensical to me. Domestication did not significantly biologically alter these animals. The diet of wild canids and felids includes animal protein. Is the natural behavior of predatory animals morally wrong? Would this behavior have persisted (at great physical risk and caloric expenditure, no less) if vegetable matter provided a suitable dietary alternative? Okay - I'm depleted... Time for some tea and some sleep.... FRG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Fairy Realm Girl > Yikes - seems I've ventured into some hazardous territory... While > I certainly respect your viewpoints, I must argue the validity of > your claim that..... Equally, I must correct your misapprehensions.... > I find the idea of animal use in research extremely distasteful, and > as a member of the faculty of a major university, it is an issue I > wrestle with daily. I cannot however ignore that nearly every major > medical advancement - antibiotics, vaccines, anesthestics, organ > transplantation, renal dialysis, tumor biology and cancer therapy, > medication for diabetes, high blood pressure, mental illness - has > been made as a result of animal-based science. These advances would have been made with or without animal research. They have not come about as a result of animal research, but they have been tested on animals after their development in order to assess whether they are safe for humans. In many cases these life-saving treatments have been *delayed* by decades because animal testing showed they were unsafe for humans. Ironically, many " treatments " have also been considered safe after animal testing, only to prove to be hugely detrimental to human health... DDT anyone? > Whether the > utilization of animals for the benefit of human medicine is morally > right or wrong, I think it devalues the sacrifice of these research > animals to claim no good came from this body of work. If you > genuinely believe that is true - would you be willing to forego > medical treatment developed through the use of animal research? No medical treatment has been developed through animal research, it has only been tested on animals after development - therefore your question has no basis. Most medicines still on the market are there because of many years of successful use on humans, and therefore has a proven track record with my own species - I therefore would not need to rely on animal tests. If I was ill, and there was an opportunity to test a new drug for the benefit of others in the future, I would take that opportunity. > Again, I am not sure how to feel about this... I am exploring my > soul and struggling to reconcile how - as a veterinarian in > academia - to use my position to affect a positive change. > Certainly humans have created quite a mess - and there are no easy > answers. I would recommend getting some books on the subject of vivisection - if you search the internet, you'll find loads. The one I recommend, I can't remember the title right now, but it's a selection of quotes from over 100 of the world's top medical researchers and doctors, explaining why the science is flawed - and if they think it is, I am hardly in a position to argue with the world experts! Also, try searching for Dr Ray Greek, who presents the arguments from a scientific point of view. > I am not so naive to expect to change anyone's mind... But I can > assure you that among my immediate associates, all sentient beings > are respected - human or otherwise - and nobody takes the > responsibility of animal usage in research lightly. To equate these > individuals with the perpetrators of the Holocaust is incendiary > (and a little offensive to me as a Jew - sorry) It is identical - in that society, Jews were considered as " not equal " to Aryans, and therefore acceptable subjects for experimentation. The same is true of animals in our society. The fact that we have moved on to accept all versions of human as equally worthwhile is only one step - we now need to start showing the same respect for all the creatures we share the planet with. In 100 years time, people will look back on the holocaust now being perpetrated on animals (which amounts to some 6 billion deaths per year, making the nazi holocaust a drop in the ocean) with the same disgust we have for the nazi regime. And, to be blunt, I may have caused a little offence, but I would rather do that than put another living animal through a painful life and death because I considered myself to be more worthy than that creature. I'm sure the animals being experimented on would be very happy to be mildly offended as an alternative. Also, just one brief point with my moderator's hat on... this is a list for vegans to have discussions in an environment where we don't have to put up with the usual day-to-day challenges to our choices from non-vegans. I am pleased that you are trying to find answers, but please remember that posts should be restricted to ones which aren't going to be anathema to vegan views, and posting arguments which promote the harming of animals in any way is really not particularly appropriate. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Fairy Realm Girl > Your point is well taken - I can accept the cessation of breeding as > a reasonable means of decreasing the captive animal population. > However, as I understand, many of these same groups are opposed to > animal sterilization to prevent breeding? Can you offer more > insight on this? I suppose it depends on your view of animals - we've had a discussion in the past on sterilization here, and it is fair to say that views are pretty well split - some argue that they would not like to be sterilized without having a say, others support sterilization as it prevents the creation of animals who won't be looked after properly. Personally, I can see both points of view. When it comes to farm animals, most of these have their breeding carefully controlled with the introduction of male animals to a female herd at particular times of year, and the use of artificial insemination - so, simply keeping the males and females seperated would seem to be the answer to preventing breeding. Of course, this is not quite so easy to do with some animals like cats! <snipped for brevity> > All the same, a high-profile, very well known animal rights group > (whose name I will share off the message board) felt it necessary > to " liberate " (their words, not mine) the birds from all 6 student > houses - 30,000 birds in total - claiming that their use in teaching > was morally irresponsible. These birds did not fare well - > suffering predation, trauma (many hit by cars and trains on nearby > roads and tracks), and death from exposure (winter weather). How > could anyone argue that this is the better way? I think it would depend entirely on the situation the birds were kept in in the " houses " . Many chicken houses are way too small for the number of chickens kept in them, meaning that a large number never get to see sunlight, and get trampled to death. To have 5000 chickens, you would need a very large chicken house to ensure that the chickens had enough room for a comfortable life. Now, giving a chicken a comfortable life is not generally the idea of poultry husbandry. Obviously I haven't seen the chicken houses you're talking of, so can only comment in general terms on the way the industry works, but if you asked many people whether they would prefer to have a long life locked in the dark, or a single day of seeing sunshine, I think most would take the sunshine. Then, you have the question of what happened to the offspring of these chickens... particularly the male ones. Usual practice is to wring their necks, because they are useless for making money as they do not lay eggs. If they are superfluous, they are just killed - that's the way husbandry works. So, there is the argument that the " liberation " of the chickens was actually preventing the creation of many more animals that would suffer a painful death within a few hours of birth. Obviously, I don't know the exact details of either your chicken house, or of the animal rights group involved, and I don't doubt that there have been ocassions when people with the right motivation have made the wrong move, and made a situation worse in doing so. And it would be fair to say that there are a large number of people (animal rights activists or not) who simply don't think about the repercussions of their actions, and think they are doing good when they are actually doing harm. I don't see that these " errors of judgement " affect whether or not the situation they are acting on is right or wrong in the first place. > This single experience left me distrustful of the motivations (and, > quite frankly, the sanity) of this particular animal advocacy > group. Maybe that is an unfair basis by which to judge the whole of > animal rights organizations - but gathering up the carcasses of > animals I personally cared for is an experience I find hard to > overlook. Although, if this was poultry husbandry, those animals would have been turned into carcasses anyway - you just wouldn't have seen it, so your distaste was really that you had to deal with the carcasses, rather than being able to ignore the fact that those animals were going to be killed in a particularly horrific manner when their money-making potential was ended. While I'm sure that it was a traumatic experience, I wonder if you have ever visited a chicken-abbatoir to see the other possible end of those same lives - I can assure you that it is at least equally traumatic. > I am interested in learning more - can you provide the details? As I don't have any dogs or cats, I've not looked into the details - but at least one cat food is called " Vege-Cat " > In > the meantime, I still stand by my caution... It is difficult to > formulate a balanced diet for dogs that is free of animal products. And yet, the oldest living dog has been vegan for over 23 years, which would seem to suggest that it is perfectly possible. > And to the best of my knowledge it is impossible in cats. The > imposition of vegan/vegetarian morality on animals is non-sensical > to me. Domestication did not significantly biologically alter these > animals. The diet of wild canids and felids includes animal > protein. Is the natural behavior of predatory animals morally > wrong? Would this behavior have persisted (at great physical risk > and caloric expenditure, no less) if vegetable matter provided a > suitable dietary alternative? The predatory nature is not wrong - but the prey of a predator is normally living a happy life up to the moment it is killed. This is not the case for the poor animals who end up in dog and cat food, so the moral implications are ones of human cruelty, not of animal cruelty. Animals which are looked after by humans are not living " natural " lives, since it would not be natural for them to be looked after by another animal, or to have tinned food. Their regimes of excercise and diet are completely different from their wild counterparts. I don't see many people going out and killing fresh prey for their pets, so the diet they are feeding them is already unnatural. Of course, this issue is ultimately the result of breeding animals for profit in the first place, and would disappear within a generation if that practice was halted! BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Weeelllllll, that's not quite right, Peter. There are many medical treatments that were developed FOR animals and then were used for humans. Would they have been developed if there hadn't been a need for them for animals? Maybe. But probably not. In fact, it has become quite annoying to have to pay outrageous prices for things that were developed FOR animals simply because now they are used for humans! Some of the more common products are Granulex and vet wraps. So, all you humans, keep your paws off my animals products <g> Of course, that is just my rant because we use those products in rescues and now the budget gets quite pinched because of the rise in costs. Lynda - Peter <metalscarab > > No medical treatment has been developed through animal research, it has only > been tested on animals after development - therefore your question has no > basis. Most medicines still on the market are there because of many years of > successful use on humans, and therefore has a proven track record with my > own species - I therefore would not need to rely on animal tests. If I was > ill, and there was an opportunity to test a new drug for the benefit of > others in the future, I would take that opportunity. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.