Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Kim, I think u raise a very interesting ethical question...but... it seems that most of that disaster relief for farmers actually comes from human-aid relief funds more then animal rights groups. I mean how much do you think that groups like ours contribute to farmers when disaster strikes? In other words, is this really an issue...or are you just voicing a concern? I think ur point is valid, just not sure if it¹s a problem. Lucia DeVries has been fighting for Domestic Animal Transport in Nepal for a long time, yet she is vegetarian and abhores the idea that so many here eat buff momos, however, when one sees a tractor trailer full of water buffalo stacked sideways to the gills, bouncing down rough Nepali highways while still half alive on their way to the slaughter house, one must do something to help farmers become more humane (transport technology, funds to retrofit trucks, etc.). It's a quality-of-life issue amid a crazy meat-eating world. In the case of a natural disaster, I think u may be right theoretically, although not helping a drowning cow or bunch of stranded chickens seems cold. Anyway, I am sure that animal groups that feel strongly in this regards are doing things to reduce meat consumption so that the overall effect on domestic animals during disasters would be less and less over time as production decreases to match a lower demand. Cheers! Jigs Kim Bartlett <anpeople Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:03:28 -0700 <aapn > relief of animal agriculture disasters I think animal protection organizations that step in to prop up systems of animal agriculture in disaster situations need to think through what they are doing and determine if it is consonant with the mission for which they were originally organized. If they are strictly welfarist organizations that believe that humans have a right to subjugate, enslave, consume etc. animals as long as their treatment meets minimal humane standards, then there would not necessarily be a philosophical conflict with vaccinating and de-worming animals for the benefit of livestock farmers, but it seems to me that there is still a question about the use of funds for such purposes, because animal protection organizations get their funding from donors who intend it to be used to protect animals and not to protect livestock industries. I am not against doing things to make life easier for beasts of burden or to improve living conditions for animals being raised for meat or skins, and I am definitely not opposed to doing things that ease the pain and suffering of animals who are to be killed for food or furs or whatever, but I think that supporting livestock farmers so that they can continue their exploitation of animals without experiencing a financial loss due to these natural disasters is not necessarily in the best interests of animals. If you go into a disaster situation and save the lives of livestock animals, is what you are doing really a net gain for these animals? Eventually they will be slaughtered, probably under conditions that create extreme suffering, and most of them are not fed or watered for a certain period of time leading up to their deaths because it would be viewed as a waste of money or time to provide them with food or drink that would not be transformed into whatever commodity they are being killed to produce. At a conference in the US in 2007, a WSPA rep from Latin America showed slides of a rescue of cattle who were at risk of drowning. The person seated next to me asked me if drowning was any worse a death for a cow than being hung up or knocked down and having her throat cut, and I had to admit that drowning didn't seem so bad. There is a dilemma in this, because on the one hand one wants to relieve any and all suffering, but on the other hand one does not want to simply defer the inevitable agony of these animals for the benefit of those who will profit by keeping them alive until it is more profitable to kill them. Kim Bartlett ><aapn <aapn%40> > > " Weintraub " <weintraub <weintraub%40comcast.net> > > >4 - 6 vets with cattle and or poultry experience are urgently >required to work with the Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary >Department in Myanmar for 4 weeks during July. > >The team are required to work in disaster affected areas >administering triage, co-ordinating preventative health care >measures through vaccination and de-worming. > >Must be Asian nationals due to Visa restrictions. > >If you meet this criteria and would like to take part in this >Emergency Disaster Response project please contact the WVS Head >Office as soon as possible. > >Worldwide Veterinary Service <<info%40wvs.org.uk>info <info%40wvs.org.uk> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Jigs, WSPA and the RSPCA are spending large sums on disaster relief for livestock farmers. It's not a secret: it's in their literature and on their websites. They partially justify their animal disaster relief services by saying they are protecting people's livelihoods. The item from the Worldwide Veterinary Service indicates WVS is undertaking livestock relief in Myanmar. As I said in the earlier posting, I am in favor of animal welfare measures that reduce animal suffering, but I think the propriety of animal protection groups taking on as an official program something that basically supports the system of animal agriculture should be discussed. Animal welfare charities need to be reasonably certain that their actions lead to reducing animal suffering rather than prolonging it. The UN food program wants everyone to ramp up their food production to feed the hungry, while refusing to discuss the impact of meat or human population growth on world hunger, or how increased food production will only add to environmental degradation. They intend to treat the symptoms while the disease spreads, and I guess I think that is essentially what animal welfare groups are doing with disaster relief for livestock farmers. But I don't imagine that I have all the answers, just that I think there are questions to be asked. Kim >Kim, I think u raise a very interesting ethical question...but... it >seems that most of that disaster relief for farmers actually comes >from human-aid relief funds more then animal rights groups. I mean >how much do you think that groups like ours contribute to farmers >when disaster strikes? In other words, is this really an issue...or >are you just voicing a concern? I think ur point is valid, just not >sure if it's a problem. Lucia DeVries has been fighting for Domestic >Animal Transport in Nepal for a long time, yet she is vegetarian and >abhores the idea that so many here eat buff momos, however, when one >sees a tractor trailer full of water buffalo stacked sideways to the >gills, bouncing down rough Nepali highways while still half alive on >their way to the slaughter house, one must do something to help >farmers become more humane (transport technology, funds to retrofit >trucks, etc.). It's a quality-of-life issue amid a crazy >meat-eating world. In the case of a natural disaster, I think u may >be right theoretically, although not helping a drowning cow or bunch >of stranded chickens seems cold. Anyway, I am sure that animal >groups that feel strongly in this regards are doing things to reduce >meat consumption so that the overall effect on domestic animals >during disasters would be less and less over time as production >decreases to match a lower demand. Cheers! >Jigs > > > > > > >Kim Bartlett <<>anpeople >Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:03:28 -0700 ><<>aapn > > relief of animal agriculture disasters > > > > >I think animal protection organizations that step in to prop up >systems of animal agriculture in disaster situations need to think >through what they are doing and determine if it is consonant with the >mission for which they were originally organized. If they are >strictly welfarist organizations that believe that humans have a >right to subjugate, enslave, consume etc. animals as long as their >treatment meets minimal humane standards, then there would not >necessarily be a philosophical conflict with vaccinating and >de-worming animals for the benefit of livestock farmers, but it >seems to me that there is still a question about the use of funds for >such purposes, because animal protection organizations get their >funding from donors who intend it to be used to protect animals and >not to protect livestock industries. I am not against doing things >to make life easier for beasts of burden or to improve living >conditions for animals being raised for meat or skins, and I am >definitely not opposed to doing things that ease the pain and >suffering of animals who are to be killed for food or furs or >whatever, but I think that supporting livestock farmers so that they >can continue their exploitation of animals without experiencing a >financial loss due to these natural disasters is not necessarily in >the best interests of animals. > >If you go into a disaster situation and save the lives of livestock >animals, is what you are doing really a net gain for these animals? >Eventually they will be slaughtered, probably under conditions that >create extreme suffering, and most of them are not fed or watered for >a certain period of time leading up to their deaths because it would >be viewed as a waste of money or time to provide them with food or >drink that would not be transformed into whatever commodity they are >being killed to produce. > >At a conference in the US in 2007, a WSPA rep from Latin America >showed slides of a rescue of cattle who were at risk of drowning. >The person seated next to me asked me if drowning was any worse a >death for a cow than being hung up or knocked down and having her >throat cut, and I had to admit that drowning didn't seem so bad. > >There is a dilemma in this, because on the one hand one wants to >relieve any and all suffering, but on the other hand one does not >want to simply defer the inevitable agony of these animals for the >benefit of those who will profit by keeping them alive until it is >more profitable to kill them. > >Kim Bartlett > >><<>aapn >><<aapn%40>aapn%40> > >> " Weintraub " <<>weintraub >><<weintraub%40comcast.net>weintraub%40comcast.net> > >> >>4 - 6 vets with cattle and or poultry experience are urgently >>required to work with the Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary >>Department in Myanmar for 4 weeks during July. >> >>The team are required to work in disaster affected areas >>administering triage, co-ordinating preventative health care >>measures through vaccination and de-worming. >> >>Must be Asian nationals due to Visa restrictions. >> >>If you meet this criteria and would like to take part in this >>Emergency Disaster Response project please contact the WVS Head >>Office as soon as possible. >> >>Worldwide Veterinary Service >><<<info%40wvs.org.uk>infoinfo%40wvs.org.uk>info (AT) wvs (DOT) \ org.uk >><<info%40wvs.org.uk>info%40wvs.org.uk> > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Definitely some points for discussion Kim and this is often on the minds of any animal advocacy group in these situations no doubt. However, would like to mention that in Visakha SPCA's disaster relief work we have forged new relationships with farmers through the camps and made inroads they could not have ordinarily by the action of caring about people's livestock. The farmers get to know about Visakha SPCA and then can turn to us later for advice regarding how to treat their animals. Also in a disaster we can show that animals lives matter and are deserving of help. Heifer International as far as I understand buys " new " animals, they do not help " fix " existing animals. I asked them once and they said they wait a certain amount of time before going into a disaster area. kind regards, Weintraub, Seattle, Washington USA Visakha SPCA Volunteer Global Outreach Director www.VisakhaSPCA.org Visakha SPCA 26-15-200 Main Road Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530001, India Tel: 91-891-2716124 (office) 2001046 (shelter) email: Pradeep Nath, Founder and President vspcadeep - Kim Bartlett aapn Monday, June 23, 2008 9:03 PM relief of animal agriculture disasters I think animal protection organizations that step in to prop up systems of animal agriculture in disaster situations need to think through what they are doing and determine if it is consonant with the mission for which they were originally organized. If they are strictly welfarist organizations that believe that humans have a right to subjugate, enslave, consume etc. animals as long as their treatment meets minimal humane standards, then there would not necessarily be a philosophical conflict with vaccinating and de-worming animals for the benefit of livestock farmers, but it seems to me that there is still a question about the use of funds for such purposes, because animal protection organizations get their funding from donors who intend it to be used to protect animals and not to protect livestock industries. I am not against doing things to make life easier for beasts of burden or to improve living conditions for animals being raised for meat or skins, and I am definitely not opposed to doing things that ease the pain and suffering of animals who are to be killed for food or furs or whatever, but I think that supporting livestock farmers so that they can continue their exploitation of animals without experiencing a financial loss due to these natural disasters is not necessarily in the best interests of animals. If you go into a disaster situation and save the lives of livestock animals, is what you are doing really a net gain for these animals? Eventually they will be slaughtered, probably under conditions that create extreme suffering, and most of them are not fed or watered for a certain period of time leading up to their deaths because it would be viewed as a waste of money or time to provide them with food or drink that would not be transformed into whatever commodity they are being killed to produce. At a conference in the US in 2007, a WSPA rep from Latin America showed slides of a rescue of cattle who were at risk of drowning. The person seated next to me asked me if drowning was any worse a death for a cow than being hung up or knocked down and having her throat cut, and I had to admit that drowning didn't seem so bad. There is a dilemma in this, because on the one hand one wants to relieve any and all suffering, but on the other hand one does not want to simply defer the inevitable agony of these animals for the benefit of those who will profit by keeping them alive until it is more profitable to kill them. Kim Bartlett ><aapn > > " Weintraub " <weintraub > >4 - 6 vets with cattle and or poultry experience are urgently >required to work with the Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary >Department in Myanmar for 4 weeks during July. > >The team are required to work in disaster affected areas >administering triage, co-ordinating preventative health care >measures through vaccination and de-worming. > >Must be Asian nationals due to Visa restrictions. > >If you meet this criteria and would like to take part in this >Emergency Disaster Response project please contact the WVS Head >Office as soon as possible. > >Worldwide Veterinary Service <<info%40wvs.org.uk>info > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Hi Kim, thanks for the update. I had no idea that large sums of money (how much is large?) were being spent on disaster relief for farmers, but good to know - but not good news really. Does not make much sense, UNLESS you consider the misdirection of many INGOs world over. Take the WWF in Nepal for example, who now spend most of their budget on combating ³Global Climate Change.² Meantime, just today one of the last remaining fresh water dolphins was fished out of the river and hacked up and sold in the market. Folks in the know estimate we are down to a dozen. Where was the WWF? Figuring out how to reduce carbon emissions no doubt, and spending millions there - but not one poster about the freshwater dolphin can be seen written in Nepali along the river banks or in the villages. Makes u crazy when you think about it. Now back to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I can¹t take them seriously, considering how many pets are executed in their shelters each year. So what is the difference between helping LIVESTOCK farmers and PET farmers? Nothing really. Best regards, Jigs Kim Bartlett <anpeople Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:03:38 -0700 Jigme Gaton <herojig Cc: <aapn > Re: relief of animal agriculture disasters Jigs, WSPA and the RSPCA are spending large sums on disaster relief for livestock farmers. It's not a secret: it's in their literature and on their websites. They partially justify their animal disaster relief services by saying they are protecting people's livelihoods. The item from the Worldwide Veterinary Service indicates WVS is undertaking livestock relief in Myanmar. As I said in the earlier posting, I am in favor of animal welfare measures that reduce animal suffering, but I think the propriety of animal protection groups taking on as an official program something that basically supports the system of animal agriculture should be discussed. Animal welfare charities need to be reasonably certain that their actions lead to reducing animal suffering rather than prolonging it. The UN food program wants everyone to ramp up their food production to feed the hungry, while refusing to discuss the impact of meat or human population growth on world hunger, or how increased food production will only add to environmental degradation. They intend to treat the symptoms while the disease spreads, and I guess I think that is essentially what animal welfare groups are doing with disaster relief for livestock farmers. But I don't imagine that I have all the answers, just that I think there are questions to be asked. Kim > Kim, I think u raise a very interesting ethical question...but... it seems > that most of that disaster relief for farmers actually comes from human-aid > relief funds more then animal rights groups. I mean how much do you think > that groups like ours contribute to farmers when disaster strikes? In other > words, is this really an issue...or are you just voicing a concern? I think > ur point is valid, just not sure if it's a problem. Lucia DeVries has been > fighting for Domestic Animal Transport in Nepal for a long time, yet she is > vegetarian and abhores the idea that so many here eat buff momos, however, > when one sees a tractor trailer full of water buffalo stacked sideways to the > gills, bouncing down rough Nepali highways while still half alive on their way > to the slaughter house, one must do something to help farmers become more > humane (transport technology, funds to retrofit trucks, etc.). It's a > quality-of-life issue amid a crazy meat-eating world. In the case of a > natural disaster, I think u may be right theoretically, although not helping a > drowning cow or bunch of stranded chickens seems cold. Anyway, I am sure that > animal groups that feel strongly in this regards are doing things to reduce > meat consumption so that the overall effect on domestic animals during > disasters would be less and less over time as production decreases to match a > lower demand. Cheers! > Jigs > > > > > > Kim Bartlett <anpeople > Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:03:28 -0700 > <aapn > > relief of animal agriculture disasters > > > > > I think animal protection organizations that step in to prop up > systems of animal agriculture in disaster situations need to think > through what they are doing and determine if it is consonant with the > mission for which they were originally organized. If they are > strictly welfarist organizations that believe that humans have a > right to subjugate, enslave, consume etc. animals as long as their > treatment meets minimal humane standards, then there would not > necessarily be a philosophical conflict with vaccinating and > de-worming animals for the benefit of livestock farmers, but it > seems to me that there is still a question about the use of funds for > such purposes, because animal protection organizations get their > funding from donors who intend it to be used to protect animals and > not to protect livestock industries. I am not against doing things > to make life easier for beasts of burden or to improve living > conditions for animals being raised for meat or skins, and I am > definitely not opposed to doing things that ease the pain and > suffering of animals who are to be killed for food or furs or > whatever, but I think that supporting livestock farmers so that they > can continue their exploitation of animals without experiencing a > financial loss due to these natural disasters is not necessarily in > the best interests of animals. > > If you go into a disaster situation and save the lives of livestock > animals, is what you are doing really a net gain for these animals? > Eventually they will be slaughtered, probably under conditions that > create extreme suffering, and most of them are not fed or watered for > a certain period of time leading up to their deaths because it would > be viewed as a waste of money or time to provide them with food or > drink that would not be transformed into whatever commodity they are > being killed to produce. > > At a conference in the US in 2007, a WSPA rep from Latin America > showed slides of a rescue of cattle who were at risk of drowning. > The person seated next to me asked me if drowning was any worse a > death for a cow than being hung up or knocked down and having her > throat cut, and I had to admit that drowning didn't seem so bad. > > There is a dilemma in this, because on the one hand one wants to > relieve any and all suffering, but on the other hand one does not > want to simply defer the inevitable agony of these animals for the > benefit of those who will profit by keeping them alive until it is > more profitable to kill them. > > Kim Bartlett > >> ><aapn <aapn%40 >> <aapn%40> > > >> > " Weintraub " <weintraub >> <weintraub%40comcast.net <weintraub%40comcast.net> >> > > >> > >> >4 - 6 vets with cattle and or poultry experience are urgently >> >required to work with the Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary >> >Department in Myanmar for 4 weeks during July. >> > >> >The team are required to work in disaster affected areas >> >administering triage, co-ordinating preventative health care >> >measures through vaccination and de-worming. >> > >> >Must be Asian nationals due to Visa restrictions. >> > >> >If you meet this criteria and would like to take part in this >> >Emergency Disaster Response project please contact the WVS Head >> >Office as soon as possible. >> > >> >Worldwide Veterinary Service <<info%40wvs.org.uk>info >> <info%40wvs.org.uk>info <info%40wvs.org.uk >> <info%40wvs.org.uk> > > >> > >> > 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.