Humane Slaughter

[robert]

A friend sent me this message so I'm passing it along:

 

Strange but true: Poultry - chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese

- are NOT protected by humane slaughter laws in this country,

even though they make up 95% of all animals killed for food in

the United States (9 billion birds a year). Today, you and I

have the power to change that.

 

To get Congress to amend the law to explicitly provide the same

basic protections for poultry that cows, pigs, lambs and other

livestock have, we need to demonstrate widespread support as

quickly as possible. Join me in signing the Petition for

Poultry. It will only take a minute of your time to help

billions of animals. Click here:

http://www.PetitionforPoultry.org

 

I also hope you'll join me in urging Secretary of Agriculture

Mike Johanns to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act for

birds. Current USDA policy excludes poultry from the Act's

protections, leaving billions of animals without any protections

from cruel treatment. I have joined The Humane Society of the

United States and thousands of caring people across the country

in demanding that the USDA reverse this arbitrary policy. Please

add your voice to this important effort by clicking here:

 

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/p4p_humane_slaughter?rk=IdzDIh61sm7mW

[chesty leroux]

Thanks for these links Rob, I will get on it.

[flex24]

Humane slaughter??? Let´s promote veganism and antispeciescism.

 

Reforming injustice is perpetuating injustice.

[madcat]

Its still a step toward promoting the fact the bird are living beings with feelings. The world might become vegan some day but that is still far off in the distance. I don’t think it’s far to make the animals we can’t save suffer also.

[Crash]

Totally agree with madcat. Farm animals are explicitly left out of animal protection/ animal cruelty laws because of the meat and dairy industries' influence and lobbyists.

[flex24]

Its still a step toward promoting the fact the bird are living beings with feelings. The world might become vegan some day but that is still far off in the distance. I don’t think it’s far to make the animals we can’t save suffer also.

 

It is a step for promoting the mentality that birds are objects or resources. Bienestarist reforms are the worst that could have happened to the animal rights movement. If many human animals are not vegan now is because very few (if any) are promoting animal equality and veganism as an abolishing principle instead of wait that the law looks for better condition for non-human animals. All our efforts should be directed for abolition and education. It is the best way to maximizing results with the same resources and time.

 

Maybe it is better that you read Gary Francione interview:

 

 

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1)

 

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2)

[Crash]

It is a step for promoting the mentality that birds are objects or resources. Bienestarist reforms are the worst that could have happened to the animal rights movement. If many human animals are not vegan now is because very few (if any) are promoting animal equality and veganism as an abolishing principle instead of wait that the law looks for better condition for non-human animals. All our efforts should be directed for abolition and education. It is the best way to maximizing results with the same resources and time.

While that may be true, what about the animals currently in the system, who are being slaughtered as we speak ? We can't stop their deaths right now, but don't they deserve some mercy ?

[flex24]

While that may be true, what about the animals currently in the system, who are being slaughtered as we speak ? We can't stop their deaths right now, but don't they deserve some mercy ?

 

What happens is that making bienestarist reforms will in the majority of cases get only minor improvements in the quality of life of the birds.

 

If you compare the damage to the movement as a whole of promoting a reforming mentality with the real improvements, you could easily realize that the strategy is a very bad one..

 

On the other hand, much more animals are saved by making a vegan (specially an antispeciecist one) than looking for reforms.

 

All could be good intentions. But we should analize strategy and that one is not a good one.

 

Again I invite you to read Gary Francione interview:

 

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1)

 

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2)

 

 

P.D. They dont deserve mercy, they deserve justice.

[Crash]

If you compare the damage to the movement as a whole of promoting a reforming mentality with the real imporovements, you coul easily realize that the strategy is a very bad one..

 

On the other hand, much more animals are saved by making a vegan (specially an antispeciecist one) than looking for reforms.

 

All could be good intentions. But we should analize strategy and that one is not a good one.

 

P.D. They dont deserve mercy, they deserve justice.

I agree animals don't deserve to be slaughtered (don't know what you propose as giving them justice) and agree that making some improvements could conceivably slow down abolition -- if that was what was on the table -- which it is not, but it should be. However, that is not what's on the table right now for the general public.

 

Until abolition is an option what about the animals currently in the system ? Are they to be casualties slaughtered in the most painful way possible ?

[flex24]

Until abolition is an option what about the animals currently in the system ? Are they to be casualties slaughtered in the most painful way possible ?

 

The problem is that advocating those reforms:

 

1) Will show people that isn´t interested in non-human animals that the problem is how we treat them instead of ¿why they are exploited at all?.

 

Moreover, they will consume animal products (meat, eggs, leather, etc) with more tranquility because they believe that the animals are well-treated.

 

Historically it has been showed that bienestarist reforms only got perpetuating the injustice.

 

2) As i have said previously those reforms get only minor improvements. We can note that in thirty years of reforms we have get 25 squared cm more for laying hens.

 

3) All efforts we do in getting minor improvements could be directed toward promoting animal equality and and veganism. As i have said that would save much more animals.

 

I myself direct my efforts to doing so, and now there are few organizations that do that. That is the reason because in thirty-five years instead of decrease animal explotaition, it has increased.

 

Here are a few examples of abolitionist organizations:

 

www.liberanimales.org (Perú)

 

www.igualdadanimal.org (Spain)

 

www.defensanimal.org (Spain)

 

www.abolitionist-online.com (I think it is USA).

 

http://www.anima.org.ar/ (Argentina)

 

www.rightsforanimals.org (Spain)

 

If the ¨monsters¨ as PETA or HSUS that has a lot of economical resources would change its strategy, the situation would be very different.

 

 

If all were so, there would be much less people that surprise so much when they hear that some ¨crazy¨ says that human interests and non-human animal´s interests should be considered in a egalitarian way. Much more people would be vegan of course.

[Crash]

I really can't argue, because I agree with you for the most part flex24. I will say that some people will not consider animals as having rights and their only exposure to this way of thinking (ie, animal rights) comes from HSUS and PETA, which to get any leeway have had to deal with reform because abolition is out of the question for people, the media and the powerful organizations behind all the lies. Even if I do wish different organizations would take a different stance, I will do whatever I can to help the plight of animals in the best way I can at this moment.

[flex24]

I really can't argue, because I agree with you for the most part flex24. I will say that some people will not consider animals as having rights and their only exposure to this way of thinking (ie, animal rights) comes from HSUS and PETA, which to get any leeway have had to deal with reform because abolition is out of the question for people, the media and the powerful organizations behind all the lies. Even if I do wish different organizations would take a different stance, I will do whatever I can to help the plight of animals in the best way I can at this moment.

 

 

 

Well if you agree, it is better that consider working promoting veganism and equality. I know that PETA or HSUS would never change its tendencies but you really can.

 

I don´t know if there are some organization in USA that have abolitionist strategies but you could in any case initiate your own organization. It is easy and funny, only you have to look for a few people that are antispeciscists vegans. You dont have to earn a lot of money or a very famous organization. The promotion is better at a local level, getting vegan after vegan, one by one.

 

I´m sure that way you will do much more in the same time.

[madcat]

http://www.cok.net/abol/

[madcat]

You do have some great points, but I think ultimately going from our current state to a totally vegan community is far too great of a leap. As sad as that is. Some times I think it actually does more harm then good to AR to promote hard core vegan ideals, because I think too many people think its “weird” or “too extreme” or something like that. I am not saying we should set our goals lower, or compromise. All I am saying is I think it is easier to slowly lead people in to it then to force it one them all at once. Many many people see nothing wrong with eating animals or wearing their skin. That is the way they were raised, to tell them it is wrong seems like a personal attack on their way of life and how they were raised. They see animals as objects to use how ever they see fit and until they come to the under standing that animals are more then just objects they will stop listening.

 

This is the same with people going vegetarian. Does it fix everything? No. Does it help? I know this can be debated, but ultimately any step toward having the general public view animal husbandry and slaughter as cruel and unnecessary is a step in the right direction.

Any step toward having the general public view animals as having the ability to suffer and feel pain, and wanting to minimize that I believe is a step in the right direction

[Crash]

You do have some great points, but I think ultimately going from our current state to a totally vegan community is far too great of a leap. As sad as that is. Some times I think it actually does more harm then good to AR to promote hard core vegan ideals, because I think too many people think its “weird” or “too extreme” or something like that. I am not saying we should set our goals lower, or compromise. All I am saying is I think it is easier to slowly lead people in to it then to force it one them all at once.

 

Many many people see nothing wrong with eating animals or wearing their skin. That is the way they were raised, to tell them it is wrong seems like a personal attack on their way of life and how they were raised. They see animals as objects to use how ever they see fit and until they come to the under standing that animals are more then just objects they will stop listening.

 

This is the same with people going vegetarian. Does it fix everything? No. Does it help? I know this can be debated, but ultimately any step toward having the general public view animal husbandry and slaughter as cruel and unnecessary is a step in the right direction.

 

Any step toward having the general public view animals as having the ability to suffer and feel pain, and wanting to minimize that I believe is a step in the right direction

Exactly People will not change overnight, no matter how much you or I want them to. But different things work for different people and people take different paths before they get to the same destination (much like some people can go vegan overnight and some need to go vegetarian first). Hopefully this will be the same for people with both abolition and reform working for animals rights.

[flex24]

All I am saying is I think it is easier to slowly lead people in to it then to force it one them all at once

 

Well, im not talking about forcing in any moment. I´m not talking abiut FLA. Moreover, we could not force if we wish so. Each one will change by himself. As they were educated in a speciecist society, we too and you see that we have changed. Talking about equality is neither forcing nor being violent. Radicalism is coherence and as the name say it means ¨going to the root of the problem¨.

 

For example in my country there are 78.1 % against bullfighting. And vegans??? i don´t know. Maybe 0.2%?

 

That is a great damage. People lives believing (as me in certain time) the bullfighters are murders and meat eaters or egg eaters are not.

 

Now I know that neither bullfighters neither omnivores are murders, they are only people educated in a speciesist way. But the other 78%? They will continue thinking bullfighters are the evils and they are the saints.

 

Why??' Because in my country are continously campaigns against bullfighting. And of course many of the campaigners are not vegans. They say that torturing a bull is bad in the arena but for his food is very good.

 

Of course, im working to change that, but people that is now in the movement have to cooperate also.

 

Some times I think it actually does more harm then good to AR to promote hard core vegan ideals, because I think too many people think its “weird” or “too extreme” or something like that.

 

That is because nobody talk about that. It would be very normal if since 1970 people would have promote antispeciescism and veganism as abolitionist principle.

 

I have heard a lot of times that people could see us as crazy freaks but they never say when we should start. Maybe in two hundred years when the number of non-humans animals murdered each year be three times more?

 

If you have good arguments, people will understood you.

 

People that say they are with animal rights are sometimes omnivores, ovo-lacto vegetarian. Animal rights is anything now. That is because nobody explain things as they are (well, now things are changing. All time lost would be recoverd).

 

 

Any step toward having the general public view animals as having the ability to suffer and feel pain, and wanting to minimize that I believe is a step in the right direction

 

 

All people know that non-human animals suffer and feel pain. Also it is important to remember that they not only can suffer but enjoy his life.

 

We can talk about equality and veganism using images, videos or emotional arguments (obviously always with rational arguments first). There is nothing special with bienestarist reforms.

 

 

Also, getting a few antispeciecist vegans is much much better than a lot of people that thinks animals are resources but we should give them a few cm more of room.

 

It would be a chain reaction. Antispeciescist vegans will get more antispeciecists vegans.

 

On the other hand omnivorous reformists will get more omnivorous reformists. I dont look abolition in any place here....

[finbarrio]

I think all steps towards toward our shared goal are good steps. It took me several steps to get to vegan. Therefore, with people I know personally, I encourage them to take steps at their pace, and for their reasons (ie. health, animal welfare, principled living), that will ultimately result in their being vegan as well. A more forceful or less personalized approach may have the opposite effect.

IMO, encouraging all steps towards positive results for animals and education of humans is a more realistic approach that encompasses a more long-range perspective. If I had to choose between getting 10 people on the road to veganism, or getting 1 person to be totally vegan, I'd take the 10 people every time.

[madcat]

If I had to choose between getting 10 people on the road to veganism, or getting 1 person to be totally vegan, I'd take the 10 people every time.

I absolutely agree.

[Crash]

If I had to choose between getting 10 people on the road to veganism, or getting 1 person to be totally vegan, I'd take the 10 people every time.

I absolutely agree.

Not to "gang up" on you, but I agree that starting 10 people on the road to veganism (who will become vegan) compared to 1 absolute is the better scenario.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Crash

[_raVen_]

flex24, is there any way to get your blog translated? I'd love to read it; it looks good.

[madcat]

Even if it was not definite, and even if they did not become 100% vegan. 10 people who are 80% vegan would still have more of an impact + at lease they already have their minds open to the idea and possibility of being vegan.

[flex24]

flex24, is there any way to get your blog translated? I'd love to read it; it looks good.

 

Well, it is one of my next projects but now I think is difficult (Maybe if you know someone who is completely bilingual could translate the texts and I will open a English version).

 

Also you could take it as an encouragement to learn spanish

 

By the way, there are two Spanish blogs that have an English version:

 

www.thinkvegan.net

 

www.veganactivist.net

 

 

But the Spanish version of both blogs is far more complete