FW: animal welfare re AfA comments and observations

[Guest guest]

Dear Animal Lovers,

 

May I make a few observations.

 

It is true that the concepts between animal welfare and animal rights did not

exist within me until I started to hear about these discussions and the many

conferences around the world today.

 

I silently hear the arguments and debates raging across the world and the

division between the two groups are getting vociferous , loud and ugly.

 

What I have been doing since child ---  sympathy for the animals has been to

help the animals in distress and do my best to alleviate the sufferings.  And

as I grow up I realise to my agony that there are issues while trying to save

the animals in distress.

 

I feel it a great pain that these observations and groupisms only lead to the

animals's loss and brings into many confusions to the minds of the people

and to those who are on the field wanting to help the animals.

 

If these are issues that are embedded and necessary then it seems that there

should be a separate topics in future conferences to come.

 

But , personally from me and considering myself as total grassroots advocates

for the animals , I would not want such diversions and divsions, rather I would

vehemently ask for a cohesion between the two and work for the objective of

helping the animals.

 

For instance I do not like zoos because the animals are kept in enclosures.  And

the zoos are being kept for what reasons I still do not know.  But under the

circumstances when the governement has a mechanism going then we should

try to work for better zoo bringing in all the mechanisms that will help the

animals

there.  I would meanwhile work for a natural sanctuary for that area. So here we

are trying to work for the animal benefits in the shorter term as well for the

longer

perspective.

 

I would prefer that there is no rights and welfare and that joining the two we

are a force for the animal liberation and freedom of happy living.  We should

be using the two for our aim and together we are a force within and outside.

 

Why cannot this happen because at the end of the day all of us are happy

if the animals are happy.  Just as we are trying to convinvce the many to be

kind to the animals so also we should convince ourselves that we work for the

animal's happiness.  Why these so many adjectives that divides us?

 

We all know how human race has been creating a problem for the entire

environment.

We all know that with human explosions especially in these Asian countries there

is no place for the animals in future.  What remains are more in the rural

sector.

Within years this is all going to change for sure and the animals are in mercy

to

the humans .  The primates are sure going to become one domesticated animal

like the dogs and so also the mongoose and star tortoises.  The large animals

will

all disappear.

 

Why should there be a CNVR/ABC for the dogs when we know that the humans

are responsible for the dog population to rise.  No matter what we say the CNVR

to

a large extent and the ABC in lesser terms from trapping to releasing the dogs

is

one big pain and terror for the dog. The anti rabies vaccination is only the

face saving. So what do we call this item? Why should there

not be the same for humans instead of the dogs?  Are we not saying that we are

talking sense and scientific understanding if we are able to contain our

population.

We are to the right topic and action.   Are we not?  It is a separate thing to

tell

a pet owner that spaying is good for the animal.

 

If the world is devoid of human race even for a decade the earth will gain its

glory

back with all the creatures back and who know the dinasours..

 

If I have said anything that has hurted anyone please excuse me.  I spoke from

my own heart and feelings and these are mine.

 

Regards to you all,

Pradeep Kumar Nath,

Visakha SPCA,

AP,

India.

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Dr John Wedderburn <john wrote:

 

Dr John Wedderburn <john

FW: animal welfare re AfA comments and observations

" AAPN List " <aapn >

Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 8:46 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note from Moderator: I am resending this as in the previous version it was

difficult to see who was saying what. Please read this version! John.

 

Kim wrote:

> Excuse me for any misunderstanding, John, but you wrote, " The AfA

> resolutions calling for humane

> slaughter - if implemented - DO promote meat-eating! If people are

> enabled to believe that slaughter is humane, they will have reduced

> motivation ever to become vegetarian. " Being against measures to

> lessen suffering would seem to be the same as advocating the

> continuation of suffering as a tactic for ending exploitation.

It is not the same at all. The ending of animal suffering as early as possible

is the aim of us all - we only disagree about how to get there.

 

> There was actually a movement for humane treatment of slaves at the

> same time as the movement to abolish slavery. Whether or not the

> slave welfare movement actually accomplished anything, it does not

> seem to have led to complacency or to have impeded abolition.

Even after reading Merritt's post on the history of slavery today, my

understanding of the slavery history is that no progress was made until the

anti-slavery campaigners embraced abolition as opposed to improved welfare - and

that, indeed, slavery might have been abolished decades earlier if the welfarist

camp had not got in the way.

 

> Human slavery and its eventual end in most of the world offers the

> best possible model for understanding what may eventually happen

> with

> animal exploitation. While Europe abolished human slavery via

> legislation, Americans fought a war over it, but preceding the war,

> there had been a number of legislative measures which sought to

> regulate slavery.

Those measures can be likened to McDonalds or KFC agreeing to make chicken cages

bigger.

 

> Where human slavery and animal exploitation differ - and this is a

> profound difference - was that human slaves could act and advocate

> on their own behalf, whereas animals must depend on people, and

> people always put other people first, unfortunately.

Agreed.

 

> People give up eating meat for many reasons. For some it is the

> cruelty of slaughterhouses and for some it is the way animals are

> raised and not the act of killing. For others it is killing, whether

> it is relatively painless or not, which tends to be the religious or

> spiritual reason. Some give up meat for health reasons, and some are

> giving up meat because of the environmental degradation of meat

> production. Whatever the reason people become vegetarian, people

> tend to become more sensitive to animals after they stop eating

> them, probably because there is no need to continue the

> psychological defenses that allow meat-eating.

Agreed.

 

> Some people respond positively to images of graphic cruelty, but

> others turn away, refusing to deal with it. Unfortunately, there is

> no one formula for reaching people.

Agreed.

 

> I see no conflict between advocating for animal rights and

> supporting incremental animal welfare measures designed to lesson

> suffering. It is true that one must guard against supporting

> welfare measures that may codify the status quo or preclude

> further progress. Things must be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Agreed.

 

> I think you are right in saying that it is counterproductive to try

> to explain rights vs welfare to a general audience, but discussion

> of the concepts among people who are already working for animals helps

> them to intellectualize their feelings and decide where they stand

> on the spectrum.

Agreed. But only a small percentage of the AfA delegates or of the readers of

this forum have a useful understanding of the difference between rights and

welfare - hence this discussion!

John.

 

> " Dr John Wedderburn " <<john% 40aapn.org>john

<john% 40aapn.org>

<john% 40aapn.org>

><john% 40aapn.org>

>

>Kim Bartlett wrote:

> Your view that the misery of animals should not be mitigated

>because having more suffering versus less suffering is a greater

>incentive for people to stop exploiting animals is held by a

segment

>of animal rights advocates, but can you provide an example of some

>horrible animal atrocity that has been effectively and absolutely

>abolished without a process of incremental regulation, reform or

>reduction?

>

>I need to make several points to answer the above.

>1. I don't believe anyone, certainly not I, has ever advocated the

>continuation of suffering as a tactic for ending exploitation.

>2. The animal rights movement has not been going long enough to

have reached

>the critical mass to effectively and absolutely abolish any of the

systems

>of animal exploitation. But, if enough people can understand the AR

>position, the time will come.

>3. The biggest and most obvious example of the thinking behind the

AR stance

>is of course Slavery. The abolition of slavery was not achieved by

treating

>slaves more humanely.

>3. But already millions of animals have been saved from atrocious

treatment

>because people like you and me decided not to eat them - think of

the number

>of animals that would have had to be killed to supply the tables at

the AfA

>conferences if it had not been decided that the catering should be

>vegetarian.

>4. If I could still believe that farm animals had pleasant lives

and quick

>deaths, I (and I am sure many others) would not be motivated to be

>vegetarian.

>6. I think it is a mistake to use the labels Animal Welfarist and

Animal

>Rightist when addressing general audiences. The terms can be useful

>shorthand when talking to people who have studied the philosophies

that gave

>rise to them. But they are not self explanatory and are open to

>misinterpretation. It is better to say what we mean - that

>exploitation of animals (ie making animals suffer for human (often

>trivial) benefit) is wrong and that we should be careful when

>approving incremental measures to avoid prolonging (maybe

>indefinitely) the atrocities that we are seeking to end.

>John.

>

 

--

Kim Bartlett, President of Animal People, Inc.

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

email <ANPEOPLE (AT) whidbey (DOT) com <ANPEOPLE% 40whidbey. com>

<ANPEOPLE% 40whidbey. com> >

web-site: http://www.animalpe oplenews. org/

<http://www.animalpe oplenews. org/>

<http://www.animalpe oplenews. org/ <http://www.animalpe oplenews. org/> >

 

__________ NOD32 3424 (20080907) Information __________

 

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

http://www.eset. com