Fwd: Let's agree to disagree and still work together

[Guest guest]

Dear All,No two individual animal organizations are same. Each of them has

something unique and different from another.

 

So is the fact that point of view on various facets of animal right and

animal welfare have lead to different view/policies for different people and

organizations.

 

I sent a rescued goat(kid) to a lovely and well maintained shelter in Pune.

The kid is now goat and is living a fantastic life there. However the

shelter has 'kheema' minced meat as one of the items in their weekly

shopping list. While one goat is cared for, slaughtered goats are bought as

food Yet it is a self contradiction, but that is life. Nothing is absolute

in real life.

 

Vegans do not consider vegetarian as 'pure' enough. Many Non vegetarians

find hunters disgusting, hunters consider poachers bad but not much against

hunting of animals that are not 'endangered'.

 

While I am a Vegan, I do not feel I should be harsh to anyone who is not

vegan and still working for animals. I do not like several things they do,

but when there are several things they do, which no one else can and I must

appreciate them for that.

 

Of the tens of organizations that fought it hard till the supreme court to

get dog killing banned across India, not all were vegan. Most lawyers

and activists were even meat eaters, but they were 100% sincere in their

intentions and their animal love for dogs and companion animals at least was

very genuine. I do not think I have the capability to do what they did.

 

Same is the case with most other landmark victories we have had for animals.

It was all a team work between dozens or hundreds of people in each case.

And then hundreds of small and big victories have been achieved by people

across country who are not vegan. Some landmark victories have been by teams

and individuals who may have not been even in touch with any vegan or

vegetarian.

 

If each organization / individual decides to only work with the ones that

match 100% in the philosophies. We will be left with hundreds of groups of

2-3 organizations each.

 

Most animal lovers over a period evolve to become vegetarian. Many do not.

We live in the real world, not an ideal one.

 

Let's accept the fact that all animal protection organizations have lots in

common and a lot in uncommon. Many animal organizations are primarily

engaged purely in wild life conservation, which is one of the part of animal

protection and we must and we should support them in causes that are common.

 

We may of course at other occasions, privately keep persuing the

organizations to move towards elimination of cruelty to all animals, and not

just those who are 'cute' or 'endangered'.

 

Regards

 

 

Manoj Oswal

 

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM, <

journalistandanimals wrote:

 

>

>

> Dear Nilesh,

> Thank you very much for writing on this important issue.

> The Coalition to End Tiger Trade (Link here :

> http://www.endtigertrade.org/about_us.html ) which includes WWF also has

> the following members :

> 1) WSPA : an organisation that promotes humane slaughter and meat eating.

> Remember the question answer session repartee between Peter Davies and me

> in

> Madras where he was justifying meat eating? I was just wondering if PAWS as

> an animal rights organisation is aligned to WSPA in any way, such as being

> a

> WSPA accredited member society or something?

> 2) HSUS and HSI : Both endorse and promote humane slaughter and sustainable

> use of animals for meat.

> 3) Zoological Society of London : Promotes animal captivity and sustainable

> use of animals.

> 4) David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation : David Shepherd is pro hunting and

> pro sustainable use.

> 5) British Association of Zoos and Aquariums : Promotes animal captivity

> and

> sustainable use.

> I do appreciate that you want to know more on WWF's policies and will

> endeavour to pass on your queries to the respective departments. But if you

> have a particular reservation about PAWS aligning with WWF because WWF

> promotes 'sustainable use', it would be helpful if you could expand on the

> purpose of choosing only WWF as your area of concern when there are animal

> welfare organisations promoting meat eating and sustainable use. I would

> also kindly draw your attention to the fact that the AfA conference

> position

> on culling wild animals in zoos in Madras in 2007 was non committal. Just

> like non vegetarianism, I raised the culling issue myself with the EU/EC

> representative who dealt with it.

> Your query is much appreciated. I look forward to your response. Thank you

> again for expressing your thoughts.

> Warm regards and best wishes,

>

>

>

>

> On 7/14/09, NileshBhanage

<NileshBhanage<NileshBhanage%40asbi.co.in>>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Once WWF publishes it's policy/view on following the animal

> > rights organization like PAWS will join for opposition

> >

> > 1. Meat Eating / Global Warming / Non-Veg food

> > 2. Leather Products, wearing & Sale

> >

> > Regards,

> > Nilesh

> > PAWS

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[journalistandanimals<journalistandanimals%40gmail.com>

> <journalistandanimals%40gmail.com>]

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:20 PM

> > AAPN List

> > Regarding tiger farming

> >

> >

> > Dear John,

> > Kindly note that the WWF TRAFFIC position on tiger farming

> > is a conservation one that is allied to the animal welfare one of groups

> > like the Born Free Foundation and IFAW. WWF and TRAFFIC remain opposed

> > to

> > killing tigers for farming purposes. This alliance of conservation and

> > welfare is quite rare, although this has taken place for the elephant

> > polo

> > issue. I just wonder why the major animal rights groups have not joined

> > the

> > tiger farming opposition? Can anybody enlighten me on this?

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> >