[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

Farmers, ranchers care for their animals

Monday, August 13 at 12:01 AM

I am a third-generation dairy farmer and currently working the the dairy field as a equipment install/service technician. Donald Monroe is misguided in the accusations he makes in his online letter of Aug. 2, “Think about all the other animals.”
As dairy farmers, we have a responsibility to care for our animals, as they provide us the means of our way of life. We do not “tear” the calves away from their mothers at birth. We do not leave them in tiny crates to be sold for veal. Those calves are our farm’s future, and they are well cared for. Our cows eat better than many people in Denver, and have the best people caring for them.
Pigs are kept in metal cages to protect the piglets from being eaten or crushed by their mother. When we transport our animals, the trucks stop on long shipments to provide the animals with food and water. We do not pit our animals against each other and make them fight to the death. We do not drown, strangle or beat to death animals that lose or perform poorly.
Every dollar consumers spend for dairy and meat products helps family farms like ours, and helps keep Colorado’s economy strong. Farmers, dairy producers and cattle ranchers should not be mentioned in the same breath as “Michael Vick.” They aren’t even close to being the same.

Frank Rossi, Hudson

READER COMMENTS

Frank,
It is all a political adgenda by the peta crowd. Trying to force thier feelings and beliefs iupon the rest of us useing the same old tactics. Lie , twist, and bend the truth. The belief that animals are more important then people, and the deevaluating of human life. Most people with common sense knows or can reason that treating stock animals badly is not a way to invest ina the future.

Posted by on August 13, 2007 06:02 AM

Frank, All I care about is if you are hiring illegal aliens. If you are, I have no sympathy for you. If you are following our laws, good for you.... and America, No more catering to illegals. And NO, making illegal aliens invaders all of a sudden legal through legislation is not what Americans want. They need to go back to their own countries and stand in line like everyone else.

Posted by Secure our border on August 13, 2007 07:11 AM

So Mr. Rossi, can you please tell RMN readers what you actually do with your calves, then? Because as a dairy farmer, I know you're not allowing their mothers' milk to go down their throats. That's for your paying customers.

And if they're not allowed to drink their own mothers' milk...then chances are, they're not kept with their mothers...so, where are they and where do they end up?

Posted by mytwosense on August 13, 2007 10:34 AM

Mr. Rossi also tells us that farmers don't "drown, strangle or beat to death animals that lose or perform poorly."

Yes, they do: http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=1724&yr=2007

And, like the farmer in this news article, they will continue to get away with it as along as people like Mr. Rossi are on hand to spread the "Farm Animals Are Happy!" propoganda that has, to date, fooled a very gullible public.

Posted by mytwosense on August 13, 2007 10:40 AM

FRANK-I saw a "PETA' black and white picture that came with the veal ad they ran in a national publication.I was going to a rancher's meeting and asked 5 old timers none under seventy if they had ever seen that done(calf in a crate) one told me his dad had told him this was done pre 1930s by some farmers raising veal for the social elite set. they just laughed it off as a joke from the left. the LYING PETA ORG.does not care for truth-just donations from IDIOTS like movie STARS and well meaning old ladies to keep going and kill all use of animals-remember these "PEOPLE"equate any live as having more value than humans.

Posted by LDP on August 13, 2007 10:40 AM

Posted by LDP on August 13, 2007 10:44 AM

once was not enough when i hear peta i get pizzed and must have been jumping up and down during post.

Posted by LDP on August 13, 2007 10:47 AM

LDP, do you know it takes just five minutes to research this subject on the Internet and learn the truth? That according to the American Veal Association's website, they remove calves from their mothers' within 24 hours, and keep them tied up in individual stalls until they are slaughtered?

And did you know that a Google News search will show that because of outcries from consumers (and yes, from educational efforts on the behalf of PETA), the American Veal Association has caved in and announced THIS MONTH they are going to stop this practice (although not fully until 2017 - the calves have to suffer an entire decade longer)?

It would take all of five minutes for you to research all sides of this story, but your mind is made up, isn't it? And learning any new information would conflict with that - wouldn't it?

At least have the honesty to just admit you don't give a damn what conditions the animals are kept in, you simply hate animal rights advocates.

Posted by mytwosense on August 13, 2007 10:53 AM

I grew up on a farm. The calves stayed with the mothers until they were old enough to take care of themselves. It was better to have a healthy animal. If you didn't let the mother take care of the calf then it meant that you would have to do it personnaly and use a substitute that would probably cost more. It only makes sense to let the mother take care of it. She can do a lot better job than any human can and if I had a hundred calves to be a subsitute mother to, I wouldn't have enough hours in the day to take care of them. Again. Someone's emotions are getting in the way of truth.

You know as well as I that in every organization or profession that you will find SOMEONE who isn't professional or does what's right. I believe PETA takes that one or few bad members and holds them up as the standard.

I sometimes wonder if PETA doesn't set up their own pictures if they can't find someone being mean enough to an animal.

As a matter of fact, some PETA members WERE caught doing something considered cruel to animals in the last year or so. So should we brand all PETA members as cruel to animals? Should PETA be disbanded because of a few bad apples?

Posted by Les J on August 13, 2007 10:56 AM

You are talking two different subjects here. One is regular farmers and the other is a specific item. You are trying to lump all farmers and all ranchers in one group and that is not fair either. I don't know about the veal system but I believe it was also set up by the big business, not by small family farms. You keep trying to push your view of what one is on the other and that is like painting PETA as a terrorist organization because a few members went over the line. When you go over the line, you must expect to get what you give. I feel you are as wrong as the ones you protest against because of your meathods. Change your meathods and I may change my mind about PETA.

Posted by Les J on August 13, 2007 11:03 AM

Les, did you grow up on a dairyfarm? Because this letter writer appears to be claiming that on his dairy farm, calves aren't taken away from their mothers - which would definitely be an exception to dairy farm practices.

And please don't imply that my emotions are getting in the way of seeing the truth. I'm not the one who is giving annecdotal examples of "I work on/grew up on a farm"...rather, I'm getting my facts straight from the very industry you're defending.

Also, it would appear to me that Ken Wiles is not viewed as a lone "bad apple" in his community for hanging and beating his animals - certainly not if they held a fundraiser in his honor: http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2143502?page=0. A veterinarian testifed on his behalf. And he was acquitted on all charges.

Posted by mytwosense on August 13, 2007 11:11 AM

Farmers slaughter animals for food.

PETA slaughters animals because they don't have any place for them.

Who is the more virtuous?

Posted by on August 13, 2007 11:16 AM

You are talking two different subjects here. One is regular farmers and the other is a specific item.

No - you are. You're the one who either is deliberately or mistakenly ignoring the fact that the letter writer is implying on DAIRY farms, calves aren't taken away from their mothers shortly after birth. You're saying, "Hey, I grew up on a farm and that never happened." Likely, you weren't on a dairy farm.

You are talking two different subjects here. One is regular farmers and the other is a specific item. You are trying to lump all farmers and all ranchers in one group and that is not fair either.

The letter writer himself transitioned to talking about pigs, not just dairy cows. As he mentioned them in the same paragraph where he states animals are never beaten or hung, I then cited the case about the pig farmer - a well known and apparently very successful one - did indeed do just that.

Please pay attention to what I'm actually writing so we can have a more productive exchange of ideas here.

Posted by mytwosense on August 13, 2007 11:19 AM

A "productive exchange" with a PETA fascist? That is the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Posted by whatever on August 13, 2007 02:29 PM

Doesn't PETA have a hand in the slaughter of thousands of animals through some type of "mercy" component of their agenda?

Posted by People For The Edible Treatment of Animals on August 13, 2007 02:51 PM

Ok,mytwocents, First, the calves are given their mothers milk. This milk is called clostrum. It is full of anti-bodies, and is milked from the cow and bottle fed to the calf. This is done for 3-7 days. Second, we rase our calves to replace herd loss. We don't eat our future herd. They are kept on the main farm until the are big enough to go on pasture land. Third, WE must keep our animals healthy,and happy: or WE go hungry. This is true of 90% of the dairy farms in the state. I know I've been to most of them and built a few new dairies. If you want a non PETA biased, educational view of dairies, give me a call. I'll show you.

Posted by Frank Rossi on August 13, 2007 09:49 PM

Mr. Rossi, thanks for the info. So, calves have access to their mother's milk/colustrum for no longer than the first week of their lives, at which point I am assuming they are separated from their mothers?

And would you say the average factory farm raises their calves the way you do on your, I presume, smaller family farm? If not, would you agree that smaller family farms are quickly becoming extinct, so therefore, your farm is not a typical representation of the conditions most animals are kept in today?

Posted by mytwosense on August 14, 2007 01:09 PM

We can find bad apples in every sector of industry and in fact our lives, but it does not mean that a few bad apples are the majority of what happens within those sectors of industry or personal life.

What background do you come from? How much time have you spent in a rural lifestyle?

Using this reasoning:

If so, then not only is Mike Vick associated with Dog fighting, but also the entire Atlanta Falcons is associated with Dog Fighting, maybe even the entire South Division of the NFC. We definately know this not to be true.

MTS how many Dairyfarms, Commercial Beef ranches, Purebred Beef ranches have you been associated with and have intimate knowledge of the inner workings?

True you can Google atrocities until the cows come home, but just the same I can Google great things done by rural industries and also find atrocities and lies committed by PETA.
You seem to be attempting to lump all into 1 horrible bucket and not looking at it in a case by case view. You will most definately back off of your stance while chastizing me for taking your words out of context. I have not. I have had 2 Vegetarians and Peta supporters with 5 others to review your comments before I responded. All came up with the same conclusions.

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 02:17 PM

BWR said: "I have had 2 Vegetarians and Peta supporters with 5 others to review your comments before I responded. All came up with the same conclusions."

Er...golly... I'm flattered that you took my comments seriously enough that you formed an outside commission to fully study them before you responded!

Now, what exactly have I lumped into a horrible basket? The dairy industry as a whole does separate the calves from their mothers upon birth, or almost upon birth (Mr. Rossi says they are bottle fed for 3 to 7 days - that would imply they aren't fed by their mothers ever, and therefore ARE taken away right at birth).

The veal industry does keep calves penned and tied up in small enclosures. Yes, you can Google this information - and get it right off the American Veal Association's website.

By the way, BWR...regarding your question have I ever visited a factory farm...is that necessary for me to know that conditions on most are something a human wouldn't be able to tolerate? There are countless videos available from undercover investigators that show abuse, but even pictures on the mainstream news of animals crammed together in pens is pretty much a no-brainer that life as a factory farm animal is miserable.

Oh, and one more thing...did anyone else notice that the only reason given so far by Mr. Rossi that he keeps his animals "healthy and happy" is because of profit? Not ONCE did he say, "Because it's the decent and humane thing to do."

And by the way - isn't taking with a very large grain of salt any propoganda put forth by someone with a financial interest in the subject a basic tenet of common sense? Yet its amazing how some of the responders on here aren't even able to focus on the issues being debated - they just become incensed at the very idea of concern for animals' wellbeing and want to turn this into a diatribe against PETA (never mind that there are thousands of other animal rights groups out there who also speak out against factory farm conditions).

Posted by mytwosense on August 14, 2007 03:20 PM

MTS Sure there is no $$$ in it for PETA. Any org that has lobby have $$$ implications. AND I asked about any farm or ranch. NOT FROM A FACTORY FARM. You are a stickler for accuracy, so I ask the question again. From your points, you have not been to any farm or ranch. I have been around many farms and ranches. Yes some of these people need to be prosecuted in my book, but those are the exceptions. You have never been around the good. You only choose to look at the bad. That is very sad because there are some very kind compassionate people you are condemning for your beliefs. But guess what they dont care. If you were out there and needed help, they would give it to you. But you choose to focus only on the bad apples while condemning them all. I have read PETA's documents and literature. Some of it is outright lies at best and from there gives them little credibility, even for the good they do.

You have focused on the evil, but you refuse to tell us what you do for a living? Something to hide that we can bust on?

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 05:09 PM

MTS Yes dairy calves, usually Holsteins are weaned from their mother a week or so from being born. They however are taken care of very well and handled with care and kindness. It is hard work. Why? Because that is the future breeding stock for future health and welfare for the herd.
From your emphasis that the calf is weaned from the cow at a week or so, there is something wrong and inhumame for this practice. Please elaborate. They do not grow up to be serial killers from having seperation issues like humans.

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 05:17 PM

bwr, if you see nothing inherently wrong in taking a young calf away from it's mother, then I really don't know what I can say to convince you otherwise.

And if you don't believe that cows mourn over and long for their calves that were taken away from them, again, what could I possibly say that would make you view this differently?

As for the conditions the calves "grow up" in - the ones that aren't raised for veal and killed off after a few months, that is - those conditions are very often crowded, hot feedlots. Not pastoral farms. Yes, I'm talking about factory farms, because the majority of farms today are corporate-owned, factory farms! You do know this, right? It would take just a few minutes of your time to research the subject more fully.

But I guess because we're discussing non-humans, these are all non-issues, eh?

Posted by mytwosense on August 14, 2007 05:27 PM

Answer the question MTS Answer IT
What happens that is wrong when weaning a calf at a week or so? What implications are there, especially if that calf is taken care of at times much better than our own citizens. Please answer. Your compassion for animals is honorable but you are Projecting human emotions to animals. And yes they are animals. Guess what? So are we! Your research is NOT hands on and you are taking points on the web and other literature to make your points. You have your views and you are doing everything in your power to find things that advocate those views. You did it with the hunting issue also.
Again you are condemning good people on those views.

AT What time have I mentioned Veal farms. I am talking strictly Dairy farms. We can talk about commercial and purebred beef options if you wish. You are not staying within the focus of what I described.

Almost all of the farms and ranches are not factory farms or ranches. There are a lot of farms (grains, grasses, seed) that are corp owned. BTW a lot of those Corp ranches and farms are family run establishments that use coroporations to allow for easier transfer within family members. My brother in law is a Corporate farmer/rancher and he does not have a veal operation nor does he have high level board meetings in smoke filled rooms.

Lets do a little history here! You are upset as much in profit margins as anything. You attack profits in most areas on this forum.
WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING?

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 05:50 PM

Lady I have done a lot of research on this. I have also lived within that lifestyle. But you get your food from grocery store so what do you care. You dont know the struggles that farmers and ranchers have and the risks they take to scrape out a living. Yes some have made it big. Do we condemn them? I also have direct access into experts in the field. These experts include PhD's, professors and Masters degree students studying all facets of Farm and Ranch.

Do you know how to make a small fortune in Ranching? Start with a large fortune.

Again many Corp ranches are actually family run "corporations" NO CEO for you to hate and despise. Again I have seen over and over your affliction of CEOs

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 05:59 PM

One more thing. How many of the Corporate farms are also run by rich people that their sole purpose is tax breaks and profits are not primary in the goals for that ranch. Again I am not talking grain, seed farmers. I am also not up on Corporate Pig farms. We have not been discussing but in the distraction that will come forth, I want to make sure that I am up front on this fact.

You have to look behind the covers to see some of the real answers you are looking for. Not easily gained from media such as web and other literature. Get out there. See what these people have to give and offer. Really good people that are just Fly over country to people like you.

Posted by bwr on August 14, 2007 06:04 PM

BWR said: "You have to look behind the covers to see some of the real answers you are looking for. Not easily gained from media such as web and other literature. Get out there. See what these people have to give and offer. Really good people that are just Fly over country to people like you."

I knew the debate would deterioate into a "good old salt of the earth Americans of the hearttland" versus "out of touch tree huggers" diatribe.

I'm not buying into that, bwr. You don't know anything about who I am or where I come from, nor do I need to justify my views based on where and how I was raised.

Nor are these "salt of the earth" a kindly lot in general. Give me a break, an entire community of them in Ohio turned out to support a major farmer who killed his pigs by bashing them against walls and other horrific methods. What's more, some of these "really good people" you speak of have screamed obscenities and threats in my face because I dared to protest at a rodeo. I've been mocked, derided, and made fun of countless times on this forum for my animal rights beliefs by your so-called "really good people" - in fact, you yourself have been lambasting me just about every time I participate on a thread that discusses animal rights issues.

I will tell you this - I've BEEN on both sides of the fence in terms of having been a meat-eater in the past who likewise subscribed to the view that animals are solely here for the consumption or other exploitative use by humans.

But I decided to take the initiative to look at the other side of the spectrum, the side that shows the conditions animals REALLY live in (your saying that for the most part they are treated better than some citizens is possibly one of the most audacious things I've ever read to date about treatment of farm animals, by the way).

In other words, I engaged in CRITICAL THINKING - can you say the same? I seriously doubt it, since you came into this conversation wildly swinging with furious indignation that I would even dare to question the letter writer's accuracy that calves aren't taken from their mothers on dairy farms.

Admit it, people who care about animal rights simply piss you off. Well, I suppose if I'd worked in an industry all my life that made profits off animals' suffering, I would do whatever I had to to convince myself there was no harm being done to the animals. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror.

Posted by on August 14, 2007 09:09 PM

forgot to add my name to the post above, but obviously its me...

Posted by mytwosense on August 14, 2007 10:28 PM

Again you have not answered a damn question I have asked and that tells us all ALOT! You dont answer because you do not have answers. Just emotion and that is not Critical thinking.
I have been able to sit down with friends that are PETA members and also Vegans and we have walked through multiple scenarios put forth by PETA and proved that most are false, physically / genetically impossible, or extreme examples(those examples need to be prosecuted)

AGAIN You use specific examples of wrongdoing to convict an entire group of people. A community in OHIO defines the rest of rural America. YOU Said in General.
Now that is the Critical Thinking we all should subscribe to.

SO do you believe:
Mike Vick, QB for the Atlanta Falcons residing in the South Division of NFC. Since he is guilty or most likely guilty of Dog Fighting, and gambling, that the rest of the Falcons and in fact the rest of the South NFC Division of the NFL guilty of Dog Fighting and Gambling? IN GENERAL of course. Your words not mine. Wild thoughts, Over Exaggaration? From your examples NO!

It is easy for you to lump all into 1 group because then it is easier to use the HATE propaganda that affects all but should be directed to few. I DONT HATE YOU or people LIKE YOU. That is reserved for your side. I dont have hate. I have sadness and frustration that people can do and say the things you all say and think that you are doing good. IN SOME INSTANCES YOU ARE, but definately not with the HATE you are preaching here. I truly feel sorry for you and you not understanding nature and the complexities it provides humans and what we have to deal with.

You have been consistent throughout on your views. For example you approve the starvation of elk over reducing their numbers ethically through hunting and culling. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN a bunch of wild animals starve and die? It is the most gruesome thing I have ever witnessed and haunted to this day. But that is what you support by denying the fact of starvation and disease

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 09:15 AM

You have been consistent throughout on your views. For example you approve the starvation of elk over reducing their numbers ethically through hunting and culling.

bwr, you are a dishonest debater, and thus, one I'm not going to waste much more time on. You attribute words and concepts to me that I never voiced. In another thread about allowing hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park, I questioned if there really was an elk OVER-POPULATION problem and I said I did not approve of hunting on public lands. That is not the same as "approving elk starvation" no matter how hard you try to re-state, repackage, and re-position what I said. On that thread, you also came in with a bunch of wild accusations and introduced red herrings to a debate instead of sticking to the original points in question.

Just as you're now doing on this thread, because the topic of animal rights really pushes your buttons every time. (Why is that, just out of curiosity? Why are you so threatened by the idea of human beings caring about the welfare and humane treatment of animals?) For example, when I questioned the letter-writer about when calves are separated from their mothers, you started yammering "What's wrong with weaning calves." I addressed your question then and there by stating if you saw nothing inherently wrong with separating a calve from its mother than nothing I could say could change your mind. Despite that, you keep whining I'm ignoring your questions.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN a bunch of wild animals starve and die? It is the most gruesome thing I have ever witnessed and haunted to this day. But that is what you support by denying the fact of starvation and disease.

Another wild conjecture about my viewpoints because you can't keep a cool head during a debate and focus on what is actually being stated, and calmly reply specifically to that.

By the way...do you approve of continued development into wildlife habitat? Do you approve of legal hunting of natural predators like mountain lions and wolves that typically cull the sick and diseased from the elk herds?

If so, then YOU approve of the starvation and disease of these animals.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 10:05 AM

Lady YOU DID advocate the starvation of those elk because you did not believe that they were starving as multiple agencies said. YOU not only questioned it but denied the fact that you said you DID NOT believe it. YOU are the dishonest one By denying the management of those elk, you then by DEFAULT accept the Starvation. Each action has an equal and opposite reaction. You cry of punctuation and grammer, why not use a bit of Science and Biology with your views?

WHAT PUSHES my buttons is you USING Generalizations to convict an entire group. YOU choose to ignore this fact with condemning another small group.

AGAIN the question. What negative affects of weaning a calf after a week. Does it starve? MOURNING. Please. Yes a cow has an attachment to a calf when born. But after seperation for a short time, that goes away. It is not the same as in HUMAN beings. I ASKED you what the inherent problems were. ARE you then sticking with that only answer? IF so it is not scientific, but only emotional. YOU talk crap about what you only read and what you CHOOSE to read. That is my Frustration with you. You do not answer consicely, but use soundbites. That is not Debate my dear, that is politics at its worst, and from other posts, you must know my hatred of politics. But dont weigh that into anything. Attack Attack attack

Now Pay Attention I will answer your questions Directly. Please respond in KIND

Wolves. Introduction and re-introduction is needed. Again Action Reaction consequences that some are not willing to deal with. I AM. Not able to hunt them here in Colorado nor in MT where they were introduced. In MT, there are exceptions to the killing of livestock. This is a loophole that I am not comfortable with. BTW supporter and volunteer for Wolf rescue and re-introduction.

Mtn Lions. Not much of impact on elk herds. I personally do not like the fact that they are hunted. BUT if you truly read my posts here and elsewhere, if it is legal, I am not for taking rights away from law abiding citizens. Management is needed, but again I am not for telling others what they can and can not do with their lives and $$$.

Development into wildlife habitat? What part of Metro area do you live? What do you define as wildlife habitat? This is a vague question and would like clarification as I would like to answer your question appropriately to what you are asking This is not meant to dodge, as I will answer ANY question you put forth.

So by 2 of 3 answered, I feel that I do not approve of starvation of elk. I believe in sound management that promotes predator and prey alike in the wild. I am also a believer in the fact that we as humans fall into both categories. With that said, bring on the Wolves and coyotes

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 10:32 AM

MTS

You are definately compassionate about the Dairy industry. I will try to stick to that point.

What is your proposal for the dairy industry and how would you work to address the problems you believe in?

Veal industry. You and I are probably pretty close to same lines here so not sure if there is much of a debate other than Govt involvement and my dislikes of Govt.

You mention Corp farms so I would like to ask what is your views of Corp farms for non Dairy, beef and pork. Do you support them?

Thanks in advance

Posted by on August 15, 2007 10:38 AM

Sorry last post was mine

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 11:24 AM

MTS

You are definately compassionate about the Dairy industry. I will try to stick to that point.

What is your proposal for the dairy industry and how would you work to address the problems you believe in?

Veal industry. You and I are probably pretty close to same lines here so not sure if there is much of a debate other than Govt involvement and my dislikes of Govt.

You mention Corp farms so I would like to ask what is your views of Corp farms for non Dairy, beef and pork. Do you support them?

Thanks in advance

Whoever you are, thanks for injecting a note of rationality into the discussion.

Simply put, I strongly believe we don't need to have a dairy industry at all. Unlike what the Dairy Ad Council would have the public think, milk is not a "weight loss" food, nor is it an essential source of nutrients for human beings.

In fact, I don't believe we need to have any kind of animal farming. It is a huge source of animal suffering, and that is the number one reason I'm against it. I will never buy into the line that most farm animals are treated better than people, that animals aren't capable of suffering, that animals can't feel similar emotions as people do. If one really believes that, go take the place of a farm animal right now.

Eating a vegetable-based diet is healthy and eliminates animal suffering. It's also a more efficient way of feeding the world's human population. All the land we use to grow grains for animals could be used to grow grains for humans, instead.

And we'd have a lot less polution, to boot.

It is my dream to one day see this country revert back to a system primarily made up of family-owned farms (with vegetables, fruits, and grains being their crops - hey, it's my dream!).

Not to digress too much, but I'd like to take a moment to state here that even urban families with just a patch of backyard can grow some tomatoes, green beans, squash, etc. to supplement their food sources. Unfortunately, our current set up of corporate farming and national transportation logistics has made people soft. Too bad, because if more of us grew our own food, it would be a more local, more sustainable way of feeding ourselves, and a lot easier on our environment than massive corporate farming.

So those are my basic views, and the foundation of those views are that I don't believe the purpose of animals is to serve as food, clothes, sport, or entertainment for humans.

And that's the crux of what these debates are usually about. A moral difference in opinion on the purpose of animals and whether or not they suffer. Not surprisingly, those who advocate for the eating of animals usually insist they don't suffer like humans or feel emotions like humans they do. This has become a very politically correct stance, by the way, among many even in the scientific community. God forbid they "anthropomorphize" - despite plain common sense observation that we share many similar traits with animals.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 11:39 AM

MTS After reviewing this thread again, I overstepped my bounds. I should NOT have assumed you wanted starvation for the elk in the park. I still believe that you would approve of that over management through hunting, but I should have asked first.

I made an assumption without asking and for that I apologize. I will ask first.

You however do the same thing in this thread and on others all the time, but that is no excuse for me to do so.

You assumed I would answer in a specific way as you have put me in a bucket that you consider throw away trash. You did not ask me about my views before you asked the wild life questions. I will answer any you ask if given enough of question to answer honestly to you.

You have ignored or threw most of my questions to the way side as you deem not nec. to answer. But in the big picture it lends to understanding, of which we do not have any. Not sure of why that is but have many assumptions that we can work through I guess

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 11:42 AM

I made an assumption without asking and for that I apologize. I will ask first.

You however do the same thing in this thread and on others all the time, but that is no excuse for me to do so.

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 11:43 AM

BWR, thanks for the apology. How would you suggest we keep things relatively respectful - and on track - for future discussions?

Personally, I know that I would have responded better if you had begun our discussion more like this: "Mytwosense, I see that you are debating with the letter writer about whether or not calves are taken from their mothers. Assuming they are, I'm curious why you think that's wrong?"

This wasn't a question you started asking until after you wrote some pretty heated things, and quite candidly, by then I didn't feel any obligation or interest to answer your questions.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 12:01 PM

Well MTS not sure how to approach.

Yes I was heated and frustrated. I am assuming you were also.

I guess where to start is defining the the word General. I guess from there we can find a working ground. I may have misinterpreted your use of the term General. That is where my biggest frustration point is on this subject. Once we get that handled, then we can go from there.

Also a definition of wildlife habitat or land that is being developed or over developed. The over arching answer to that to me is anywhere where we build is in wildlife habitat. We need a better boxed in term for this or I see the fact that we will be crossing ideas in the night so to speak.

Also from conversations, you have an idea of my background in wildlife, farms and ranches. Although you would never guess if you were to pass me on the street. A better understanding of your background would help in shaping the conversation.

Thanks

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 01:46 PM

BWR and MTS,

Let me step in for a moment with some information on animal intelligence/emotion. I have a master’s degree in biology (specifically non-human primate intelligence). This is an area I know a lot about. I seem to encounter people who fall into one of two groups when it comes to animal intelligence and emotion.

One group is of people who think animals are not self aware and therefore cannot possess intelligence or emotion. They can only process pleasure and pain and act on instinct/genetic predisposition and conditioning. Some in this group will grant some basic emotional ability and some ability to problem solve.

The other is the group who think all animals (or at least mammals and birds) have full (or nearly full) emotion and intelligence.

The current scientific research indicates that the reality is more in the middle. The field of study is still quite young (about 50 years old) and testing the ability to think and feel can be very difficult. However, there has been a lot of good research done. What it reveals is that intelligence and emotion go hand in hand. So the greater the ability to think, the greater the range of emotion. Memory is also an important component to intelligence and emotion but doesn’t always correlate. Complexity (physical and social) and brain size also are factors in intelligence. All research indicates that there is a range of intelligence and emotion with some species incapable of feeling even pleasure or pain to animals who have demonstrated the ability think, use language, do math, create and use tools, teach … and have very sophisticated emotional capacity. But it is important to recognize that species in this regard are not equal.

Animals in the lower phylum’s (think sea sponges, flat worms…) do not have brains or even centralized neural systems at all. They possess a few very primitive neurons that can react to very limited stimulus. They cannot think or possess any emotion. They may react to some stimuli, but do not necessarily react to pain (pleasure would be harder to test in low phylum’s).

Moving up to things like crustaceans, insects and arthropods, you find the beginnings of a central nervous system. Either in the form of a nodes (think proto brain) along a spinal chord like structure, or a very primitive brain. At this point there is the ability to react to more stimuli and feel pain and pleasure. No tests have demonstrated any self awareness, but they can demonstrate that even complex behaviors at this level are genetic.

By the time you get all the way up to mammals, you have much larger brains and a greater range of complexity to the ways animals react to pain and pleasure. You have greater levels of intelligence and problem solving. But there still is a range. You don’t start to see any self awareness until you get up to non-human primates (apes and monkeys), dolphins and whales, and a few other species (where the research is still tentative) like elephants and bears. At these levels you see tool use, problem solving, teaching and nearly human emotional capacity.

Stepping down from there social predators (wolves, lions etc.) are the next most intelligent and emotionally complex. Next down are some random species (mostly scavengers) like rats and pigs.

Social heard animals are a step down from there. That’s where most farm animals fall. They certainly can feel pleasure and pain. They have demonstrated the ability to feel some basic emotions like fear, and happiness (though this is hard to separate from pleasure). There is some room for nuance in their emotional range, but not a lot. They have not demonstrated self awareness. They have moderate memories (for mammals). It is highly unlikely (though I don’t know of any research on grief in farm animals) that they can feel grief or mourn in anything close to a human sense. But there is a strong mothering instinct and possibly could feel some sense of loss, though not a consuming one.

The science really should be taken into account when discussing animal cruelty and animal rights. Particularly, the specifics of each species should be taken into account where applicable. What is best for a dog is not the same as what is best for a cow.

I care very much about animals and have devoted a good part of my career to advocating for the protection of endangered species. I advocate for the recognition of the intelligence and emotional ability of several species and think that their ability to think, feel and reason should exempt them from being used in invasive or psychologically damaging research. I advocate for aggressively prosecuting animal cruelty. I support getting rid of farming/ranching practices that are unquestionably cruel. On the other hand I so support reasonable farming/ranching that use humane methods of slaughter. I support protecting wildlife and their habitats. I support the reintroduction of predators where ever possible. But I also support culling herds if there are not enough natural predators and they are starving. I will not ever support PETA or similar organizations because they use faulty research, poor logic, and often tactics that are cruel to the animals they are trying to help. They give animal lovers like me a bad name by association and often do more harm than good. They adhere unflinchingly to their dogma even in the face of strong counter evidence.

Posted by Keri on August 15, 2007 04:04 PM

Thank you, Keri. I am sure your master's degree in biology has given you some additional information. However, it is no guarantee that you know what you're talking about, or that what you're talking about is based on accurate research findings.

Oh, you sound very logical and knowledgeable. And it's just the kind of authoritative tone that convinces people to justify silly oxymorons such as "humane slaughtering." And that they can be "animal lovers" who eat animals. (Talk about PETA using poor logic!)

However, you lost me when you referred to pigs as a "scavenger species" of low intelligence. Hell, even pig farmers acknowledge these are extremely smart animals.

Oh, and when you equated bigger brains with more intelligence. Even a biology freshman knows the jury is still out on that hypothesis.

By the way, I would be very interested in knowing what career you have that involves you advocating for "humane" treatment of animals. I suspect you're a paid shill of some sort for some corporate interest, based on your comments on this and other threads I've seen.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 05:05 PM

BWR, my responses to yours:

Ok, be happy to...but I can't find where I used the word "general." Can you point me to that particular post? I did look for it, but just don't see where I referenced this.

Actually, I agree with your definition. Just about everywhere we've built has encroached on territory that was previously inhabited by animals.

I don't really feel comfortable revealing too much about myself on an Internet forum, to be honest. I can tell you I've never worked on a farm or ranch, so I'm not biased on the subject. (Sorry, couldn't resist, lol.) I'm sure you're aware I'm an animal rights activist. For a living, I'm a freelance copywriter. I grew up in the South, and a great deal of that time, in the country. We had chickens, goats, rabbits, and a horse, but they were all pets. We also always had cats, and now I have dogs. So, like you, I've been around animals all my life.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 05:39 PM

MTS,

I understand and approve of skepticism of claims made in this forum. So tomorrow when I have more time I will provide citations and references to academic peer reviewed research and a few sources written for a popular audience to back up my claims. I am not going to try to back up every detail, that would be an exhaustive amount of citations.

I stand behind my belief in humane slaughtering and still being an animal lover.

As to pigs being scavengers, they are. I never said they have low intelligence, I said they have lower intelligence than social predators.

As to big brain correlation to intelligence, I said that plays some role. Also, if you had a more sophisticated understanding of biology you would understand that correlations need not be exclusive.

As to my career. I will not give out much personal information on a publicly accessible board. But I will give some. My work with animals is fairly extensive. I worked with great apes for 3 years. In that capacity I have done everything from basic care giving in a sanctuary, to studying their tool use and language acquisition. I have worked in animal cruelty investigations. I trained service dogs for the blind (though as a volunteer). More recently I work in the non-profit world. I have only once worked for a for profit company (while I was in college). I am in the process of saving money and learning French in hopes of joining a NGO in the Democratic Republic of Congo working to train local villagers in the Congo River basin to stop the poaching and illegal exportation of endangered animals. I’m literally going to be putting my life on the line to help alleviate poverty in a war torn country and help stop poaching. What do you do for animals besides protesting?

Posted by Keri on August 15, 2007 07:06 PM

MTS,

BTW, just out of curiosity. I post on topics like gay rights (pro), the smoking legislation (opposed), gm foods, science, religion, universal health care, anti-racism, and constitutional theory. I would love to know what corporation you imagine would pay me to take those positions (and write about them here). Cause if you can think of one, I would reconsider my personal decision not to work for a for profit company.

Seriously though, I am a rationalist, skeptical academic that places the highest value on learning, knowledge and the scientific method. I live with an ethics professor. I have a wide knowledge base and am a autodidact. I consider myself something of a wannabe renaissance woman.

Posted by Keri on August 15, 2007 07:17 PM

Keri said: "I stand behind my belief in humane slaughtering and still being an animal lover."

Why? Please tell me how you reconcile the two.

Also, please tell me how you consider yourself a true animal lover, and PETA not. PETA, an organization that I am proud to be a card-carrying member of, put animal rights on the map. They have exposed countless cases of animal cruelty and done more to alleviate animal suffering than any single person ever could.

Without PETA, animal rights issues wouldn't be in the forefront of public attention the way it is today, and THAT'S why opposers of animal rights are frantic to paint them as villians.

And for you to vilify this outstanding organization while calling yourself a true animal lover who "stands by her belief in the humane slaughter of animals" is one of the most astounding examples of twisted logic I've ever encountered.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 09:20 PM

Keri also asked: "What do you do for animals besides protesting? "

Well, for starters I don't eat them. Nor do I support that we eat them. And I don't tar and feather organizations that are literally their only voice.

Face it, you want to still be able to eat meat, you just don't want to feel guilty about it. So, you've talked yourself into believing its possible to be a "compassionate animal lover" who can still "so support their humane slaughter."

Seriously, I have more respect for the people who just flat out admit they don't care about animal rights, they like eating meat. At least they're not being hypocrites.

Posted by mytwosense on August 15, 2007 09:29 PM

MTS on the term of General here is where you used it and I asked for clarification a couple of times

"Nor are these "salt of the earth" a kindly lot in general. Give me a break, an entire community of them in Ohio turned out to support a major farmer who killed his pigs by bashing them against walls and other horrific methods. What's more, some of these "really good people" you speak of have screamed obscenities and threats in my face because I dared to protest at a rodeo. I've been mocked, derided, and made fun of countless times on this forum for my animal rights beliefs by your so-called "really good people" - in fact, you yourself have been lambasting me just about every time I participate on a thread that discusses animal rights issues."

This is where "general" was so contetious and whre I was frustrated with your comments. Does this help you in defining the term General?

Thanks for the brief background. It does help in understanding.

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 09:48 PM

So since we agree on the term of Wildlife habitat and that any place we build is encroaching, then what do you propose? We are growing as a country if we like it or not. You say you are not for development. What do you propose?

Posted by bwr on August 15, 2007 11:57 PM

Animal rights activists are just as bad as crazy pro-lifers

Posted by Clarence on August 16, 2007 01:10 AM

MTS wanting to also clarify something here also. I was not lambasting you on your belief, but asking hard questions. You stated "in fact, you yourself have been lambasting me just about every time I participate on a thread that discusses animal rights issues."
We all are faced with decisions and those decisions have outcomes and side affects. I ask to understand how people will work with those outcomes and side affects. Some bad some good.

Thanks

Posted by bwr on August 16, 2007 08:43 AM

BWR asks: "So since we agree on the term of Wildlife habitat and that any place we build is encroaching, then what do you propose? We are growing as a country if we like it or not. You say you are not for development. What do you propose?"

A serious shiff towards redevelopment of existing developed areas...denser housing...smaller housing (for two or four people to live in a huge sprawling mcmansion is nothing short of disgusting).

Demand for housing does not exceed supply, by far. In fact, I would suspect based on the fact our state has one of the highest foreclosure rates in America that Colorado's construction industry is sitting on a great deal of empty inventory.

And there are so many commercial areas that are run down and could simply be redeveloped, instead of us continuously extending the Denver Metro limits even further.

Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 10:06 AM

BWR quoted: "MTS on the term of General here is where you used it and I asked for clarification a couple of times

"Nor are these "salt of the earth" a kindly lot in general."

Thanks, guess my eyes were tired last night because I simply could not spot where I said the word general.

And I can see how the way I wrote it could be taken as "In general, most farmers aren't kindly..."

That's not what I meant, but on the other hand, I am not necessarily convinced of the opposite. All I know is that of every protest venue I go to - fur stores, slaughterhouses, circuses, and the rodeo - it's the rodeo where the attendees more often than not insult, scream at, and threaten the protesters. They are extremely hateful towards us, period. And we're not inciting it, we make a point to be polite and respectful, or else our permits will get yanked.

Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 10:16 AM

Two things...first, typo corrections in my 10:06 post, should be "shift" not "shiff," obviously.

And to respond to Clarence's comment that "Animal rights activists are just as bad as crazy pro-lifers"...well, first off I have a lot of respect for any organization that will get out there and exercise their rights as Americans to protest against things they believe are wrong. It's hard as hell to do it, I know from personal experience.

So, I don't want to pit "animal rights" people against "pro-lifers." For the most part, both movements believe in non-violent means to achieve to their objectives.

Of course, every movement has their fringe elements. But I would like to point out that, as far as I know, no people have ever died at the hands of an animal rights activist. Animal rights activists have been murdered, but not the other way around. The same cannot be said for the pro-life movement.

Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 10:22 AM

MTS,

I support living in smaller homes. I do not support mandating that though. If someone chooses that life, and they can afford it then they have that right. Does not mean I have to agree, and in reality it is probably not the majority of the issue anyways.

Not to lambast you, but have you been out looking in the foreclosure market lately? Especially in areas that you propose and support (not the ranch, parker, etc) Urban Homes. Fun time let me tell you. NOT The supply you are talking about is mostly crap, even for flipping. Some will even be scraped in the coming yrs as the renting, foreclosures of these homes has created a complete mess. Is this a complaint I have? No, it is actually an opportunity. But it does come with risks, and those risks are not financial. See my liberal friends (not all Dem) throw their noses in the air and ask why would we move there? My conservative friends (not all Reps) look at the equity and financial gain and are supportive. LOL could not resist as they say.

Sorry to lambaste again, but have you thought more on the definition of General as you used previously and I copy/pasted for you in previous post? Thanks :-)

Posted by bwr on August 16, 2007 10:25 AM

MTS,

Sorry to lambaste again, but have you thought more on the definition of General as you used previously and I copy/pasted for you in previous post? Thanks :-)

Posted by bwr on August 16, 2007 10:25 AM

Thanks for answering MTS. In "General" I think most rural people think PETA is not so nice either. I have had cases where that is definately true. You have the right to protest, but in my eyes I would use the carrot rather than the stick in negotiating and educating beliefs. I have not always seen this with groups such as PETA. Does this mean all PETA people are mean? NO.
You even come across as a non negotiator and dictate what people should do and how they should act out their lives. Is this true in all cases? I doubt it but that is the impression that I see and have even asked for multiple opinions on the matter. I dont think it is the people, but rather the forum here. Protests, even the most peaceful are meant to Confront. To say that by confronting and getting the other side to over react in a negative fashion is not a desirable outcome would be stretching things a bit. Hell that is the best Marketing available! Confrontation brings both good and bad affects out of it. Some handle confrontation well and others do not. Does that mean they are bad? No not in all cases.

You seem to feel comfortable in the format and conditions that you have made your decisions. Your experiences have shaped your views. Even in jest it seems that you do not approve of the way I have made my decisions. I am a hands on person. I truly want to get into the middle of something and understand all avenues as again, I believe every decision we make has impacts, and side affects that we must deal with.

Posted by bwr on August 16, 2007 10:46 AM

bwr, we just moved from the highland-potter district, a couple miles from downtown, and I agree with you that the supply in terms of what they want to sell for is crap. Two, three bedroom homes selling for $350K, give me a break!

I don't have all the answers. You're against any kind of mandates, I personally think government price caps or more regulation of some sort would reign in housing prices.

For example, one reason we have so many foreclosures is because the government deregulated interest rate capping back in the eighties (or maybe late seventies, can't remember), and let the states start setting them. That set the stage for these sub prime, interest only products, which has led to a lot of foreclosures.

You should check out the book "The Two-Income Trap" - it talks a great deal about what's behind exhorbitant housing prices, and some of it is surprising to learn.

Oh, and another good book about the inefficient use of our land space is "The Geography of Nowhere."

Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 10:48 AM

Highlands area is great. The house that you are paying 350 for probably went for less than 100 10-13 yrs ago. Looked at the very house that I was to buy in 95 for 89 and now listed for 275. Improvements? not very many as it was a scrape in the early 90s late 80s

Understand the RE market very well and do understand the pricing and how it has been bastardized in last 20 yrs. Many good books out there that describe. Thanks I will pick up at store. I Choose not to spend that money on a house? Why? Why not move to an area where it can be built up and the area improved? Is that not how the Highlands and surrounding area picked up in the first place?

I would look for Govt to educate rather than legislate if we need govt for those areas. Also there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Who's fault is that? Govt. I have bought and sold multiple houses in that timeframe. Using a conservative debt/income ratio, paying a bit extra for interpretation of closing documents and loan documents, there should be little or no problems with this process. I have looked at over 100 foreclosed, shortsales, HUDs in the last month and my guess is that most were not part of the Mortgage problems. Think there are definate Mortgage problems in other housing sectors, but not where we have been looking.
I never or very rarely hear of education of our communities in such issues rather than legislation.

Posted by bwr on August 16, 2007 11:33 AM

A mass public consensus/shift towards another way of thinking is preferable to legislation, I agree. However, most of the public isn't as educated as you appear to be about the real estate market. The "psychological pull" to own their own home made many people sign the dotted line on some of these crazy mortgage arrangements.

I remember everyone, EVERYONE telling me how I was pouring my money down the drain by renting and urging me to take part in one of those no money down, interest only "for now" schemes...I just had an uneasy feeling it wasn't a financially sound idea. Now I'm glad I didn't. I think prices will settle back down to earth over the next few years, and then I hope to buy, using a more traditional mortgage arrangement, hopefully.

Why not move to an area where it can be built up and the area improved? Is that not how the Highlands and surrounding area picked up in the first place?

Agree, problem still is overinflated prices for veritable dumps, as you have seen yourself. Again, maybe if the public just makes a somewhat majority opinion to sit out on buying for a few years, we'll see prices come back down to earth. If we're not going to use any sort of government legislation.

What worries me is that I'm reading on another thread that our government is actually considering bailing out the mortgage industry. Isn't this just going to exacerbate the problem for consumers?

Posted by mytwosense on August 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Duh!

Humans are omnivores. Their dentition shows that. They are not herbivores, nor are they ruminants - no matter how much the gereral run of hay, grain, and shredded bark nuts would like them to be; nor how much such individuals generally resemble the ruminant they find preferable to human kind. (While becoming outraged at the comparrison as well.)

When someone begins to propound the idea that even cockroaches are "supeior" to man, I will suggest that that person go out and find an abandoned wreck of a dwelling; and live with all the cockroaches he/she loves so dearly.

As to PETA, if the shoe fits wear it. Civilized and rational human beings have long ago grown out of sleeping in the byre with the cattle, or in the hog wallow with the one animal that does show "recapitulation" in a manner similar to human.

But, then again, everyone to his/her own taste, as the old lady said when she kissed the cow.

Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 02:21 PM

MTS,

As promised last night a list of some peer reviewed references on animal intelligence, emotion and cognition.

Aureli, Filippo. “Post-conflict Anxiety in Nonhuman Primates: The Mediating Role of Emotion in Conflict Resolution." Aggressive Behavior. 1989 December; 23(5) pp. 315 – 328.

Bekoff, M., Burghardt, G., Allen, C. The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. 2002.

Connor, R., Smolker, R.Richards, A. “Dolphin Alliances and Coalitions.” In Coalitions and Alliances in Animals and Humans. Oxford University Press; 1992.

Crick, F., Koch, C. “Towards a Neurobiological Theory of Consciousness.” Seminars in the Neurosciences. 1990.

Herman, L., Richards, D., Wolz, J. “Comprehension of Sentences by Bottlenosed Dolphins.” Cognition. 1984; 16 pp. 129–219.

Ingmanson, Ellen. “Tool-using Behavior in Wild Pan paniscus: Social and Ecological Considerations.” In Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes. 1996.

Lefebvre, L., Nicolakakis, N., Boire, D. “Tools and Brains in Birds.” Behavioral Brain Science. 2002; 139 pp. 939–973.

Mendl, M., Paul, E.S. “Consciousness, Emotion and Animal Welfare: Insights From Cognitive Science.” Animal Welfare. 2004 February; 13(1) pp. 17-25.

Marino, Lori. et al. “Cetaceans Have Complex Brains for Complex Cognition.”
PLoS Biol. 2007 May; 5(5): e139.

Marino, Lori.“A Comparison of Encephalization Between Odontocete Cetaceans and Anthropoid Primates.” Brain Behavior Evolution. 1998; 51 pp.230–238.

Plotnik, Joshua M., Frans B. M. de Waal, and Diana Reiss. “Self-recognition in an Asian Elephant.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006 October.

Millien, V., Lyons, S., Olson, L., Smith, F., Wilson, A. et al. “Ecophenotypic Variation in the Context of Global Climate Change: Revisiting the Rules.” Ecology Letters. 2006; 9 pp. 853–869.

Reader, S., Laland, K. “Social Intelligence, Innovation, and Enhanced Brain Size in Primates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002; 99 pp.4436–4441.

Salzen E.A. “Emotion and Self-awareness.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1998 May; 57(3) pp. 299-313.

Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue, Shanker, SG. Apes, Language, and the Human Mind. 1998.

Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue, Lewin, R. Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind
1994. Wiley.

Shettleworth S.J. “Animal Cognition and Animal Behaviour.” Animal Behaviour. 2001 February; 61(2) pp. 277-286.

Whiten, A. “Imitation and Cultural Transmission in Apes and Cetaceans.” Behavioral Brain Science. 2001; 24 pp. 359–360.

Posted by KEri on August 16, 2007 03:00 PM

MTS,

Per your posts 9:20 and 9:29. It is hard to explain my ethical standpoint on this issue briefly, but I will try. Bear in mind I am simplifying it a lot. I don’t imagine it will assuage you, I am wary of even responding because you come off as being very attached to your dogma and I’m not convinced all the evidence in the world would matter to you. However, yes I am an animal lover and I eat meat. As a basis, my ethical stances are shaped largely by rationalism, Kant, Hume and Sartre.
First, I don’t think the problem is eating meat. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any sort of ethical argument that suggested eating an animal that died of natural causes is unethical. Some may find it distasteful, but that is not the same as unethical. So the meat really isn’t the issue. The issue is about how animals are treated during their lives (including actions that cause death).

As part of the food chain, we can not argue (on this basis alone) that it is wrong to eat meat, unless you also argue that it is wrong for other predators to eat meat. I find no problem with omnivores consuming meat.

However, we do have the ability for both compassion and morals. One rarely contested human moral is that cruelty is bad. So it is easy to make the leap that while it is natural to eat meat, we have a responsibility that other animals do not have, which is to behave towards people and animals without cruelty.

For me I take that to mean that we should insure that food animals have a decent quality of life (free range in my opinion), be protected from fear or emotional distress to the greatest degree reasonably possible, and be killed in as painless a way as possible.

I say protect them from fear or emotional distress to the greatest degree possible, because it is not possible to protect any animal or human (capable of feeling it) from these things in their entirety. I love and protect my dogs as much as I can, but no matter what I do, one will always be afraid in thunder storms, which are out of my control.

Also, I do think there are painless or nearly painless ways to kill. I will refrain from describing them here, but we can judge pain to a large degree based on how long it takes to get to true brain death. If it can be accomplished in fractions of a second or so, I consider the method painless.

Within these constraints we are meeting our ethical obligation to food animals. As a caveat, predators often do not afford prey anything close to a painless death. Also, humans are not the only animals who understand and behave with cruelty. Chimps find tearing apart small monkeys for fun sometimes to be very amusing. They will kill the animals and then not eat sometimes, and spectator chimps watching will sit and laugh. Rape is well documented is most social predatory mammals and some herd animals. Cruelty is not a uniquely human trait. Morals may be, it is unclear.

Additionally, I think that if you don’t want to eat meat, for what ever reason, that is fine with me. But I also think that choice is a luxury and one that requires very little sacrifice. Personally, I think it also has very little positive impact on animals in general. I think it increases a person’s use of fossil fuels through increased purchase and consumptions of synthetic materials, vitamins, and what is used to ship the range of fruits and vegetables necessary to maintain a healthy diet. The greater consumption of fossil fuels means killing animals through ecological destruction. So I think the number of animals killed by eating or not eating meat is probably a wash.

Posted by Keri on August 16, 2007 03:03 PM

MTS,

Posted by Keri on August 16, 2007 03:05 PM

MTS,

Posted by Keri on August 16, 2007 03:07 PM

First sorry for the double post, I got an error message so I thought it din't go through the first time, but I guess it did.

MTS,

As for why I do not like PETA. There are numerous reasons and I honestly just don’t have the time to go into in detail right now. But I think they are corrupt and that they are unethical because they think it is ok to lie sometimes to make their point. I think you need to look no further than careful and critical review of their many of their own documents (historic and contemporary) and publicly available files to support this claim. Corruption and dishonesty are not ok with me under any circumstances. I will not support any organization with those characteristics. If the most beloved and dear to my heart charity was exposed as being seriously dishonest or corrupt I would cease all support of them as well. Furthermore, I think they are hypocritical in who they will take money from and in their actions like adopting healthy animals under false pretenses and then euthanizing them. This information can be verified by going through their 990 statements (all charitable organizations with budgets over $25,000 have to file a 990 with the IRS each year and most are available at the foundation center website). I also think on a less egregious front, they are poorly organized, poorly research their claims, and alienate more people through their tactics than they convince (thus actually reducing the number of people are for animal rights in any form).

Posted by Keri on August 16, 2007 03:10 PM

Keri, I posted a response last night, but got a message saying it needed to be reviewed. I think because I had too many URLs in it. Let me try this again...my responses to your comments in bold.

* * *
MTS,

Per your posts 9:20 and 9:29. It is hard to explain my ethical standpoint on this issue briefly, but I will try. Bear in mind I am simplifying it a lot. I don’t imagine it will assuage you, I am wary of even responding because you come off as being very attached to your dogma and I’m not convinced all the evidence in the world would matter to you. However, yes I am an animal lover and I eat meat. As a basis, my ethical stances are shaped largely by rationalism, Kant, Hume and Sartre. So we're going into this discussion with my position already deduced as dogmatic, and your position as rational? :)...well, that doesn't bode well for you reviewing my responses with somewhat of an open mind, but I realize I was kind of harsh in my last posts to you, so I can see why you took afront. My apologies for that. I admit, it makes me very angry to hear PETA denigrated, because I have such tremendous respect for the incredible impact they've made on aniimal rights awareness...anyway, here are my comments...

First, I don’t think the problem is eating meat. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any sort of ethical argument that suggested eating an animal that died of natural causes is unethical. Some may find it distasteful, but that is not the same as unethical. So the meat really isn’t the issue. Based on what you've said so far in this paragraph, I would agree. Hey, I know plenty of vegans who say they would eat meat if they could figure out how to grow it in a lab (actually, I think they have figured that out, they just haven't put it on the market). Meat does taste good, I'm not denying that. The issue is about how animals are treated during their lives (including actions that cause death). Well, this isn't exactly the sole issue, because there are significant environmental, world hunger, and health factors associated with factory farming/meat eating, in addition to the ethical treatment of animals component. I'll touch on some of that further down in the discussion.

Humans have a complicated standing. On one hand they are animals just like any other animals. They are part of the food chain and are biologically and evolutionarily speaking omnivores. On the other hand, we posses the mental faculties of emotion, intelligence, reason and morals (or ethical viewpoint). As part of the food chain, we can not argue (on this basis alone) that it is wrong to eat meat, unless you also argue that it is wrong for other predators to eat meat. While I don't disagree that there is a "food chain," I do disagree with your apparent premise that humans are predators. What is your basis for this claim? We don't need meat to survive, in fact, millions thrive on a vegan diet. Humans don't become excited when we see a live animal, i.e., "prey" - our mouths don't salivate and we don't have the urge to chase them and tear them apart with our teeth and claws. In fact, we don't have claws like predators, nor do we have the sharp canine teeth for tearing. There are so many differences between humans and real predators, I couldn't begin to list them all here, but those are a few. I find no problem with omnivores consuming meat. Yes, I realize that, that's how we ended up in this discussion. :)

Ok, at this point, let's examine what is "reasonably possible" and what isn't. As long as we raise animals for food, I do not see how it can be reasonably possible to eliminate their suffering, and here's why. We are not, as a society, moving in a direction towards humane treatment of animals. In fact, treatment of animals is getting progressively worse. Why? Because factory farming produces most of the meat and dairy that is consumed today. And as the sole objective on these farms is profit, and profit is made by increasing production, the animals pay. You increase production when you speed up animal growth, even if it means the animal can barely stand up. You increase production by crowding more and more animals together in smaller enclosures, even if it means you have to debeak them with hot blades so they don't peck each other to death from the stress. You increase production by keeping females constantly impregnated, and constantly milking, even if that means you have to take their calves away almost immediately. You increase production by crowding more of them on trucks when you transport them from the feedlot to the slaughterhouse. And so on.

So, technology and processes are not working in the favor of animals at all, and what's more, the very agencies that are supposed to be providing oversight to animal welfare are headed by people who come straight from the industry.

In other words, the only way to really guarantee we're doing everything possible to make sure animals "have a decent way of life and are protected from fear and emotional stress to the greatest degree possible" is to not support their being raised for food.

Within these constraints we are meeting our ethical obligation to food animals. As long as you support mass raising of animals for food, you will never be able to meet those ethical obligations, for the reasons I give above.

As a caveat, predators often do not afford prey anything close to a painless death. Also, humans are not the only animals who understand and behave with cruelty. Chimps find tearing apart small monkeys for fun sometimes to be very amusing. They will kill the animals and then not eat sometimes, and spectator chimps watching will sit and laugh. Rape is well documented is most social predatory mammals and some herd animals. Cruelty is not a uniquely human trait. Morals may be, it is unclear.

Also, in anticipation of a potential argument. I do not have a problem with using tools (technology) to kill food animals. We are not the only species that hunts with tools. Chimps do, and there is limited evidence that other species do as well. Other species also “farm” animals for food. I'm not sure how this computes as one of your reasons for reconciling how you can be an animal lover and yet eat them. Rather, it sounds like you're trying to justify eating them because they eat and harm each other, so it's ok for us to do the same? How is this so, since, unlike some animals, we don't have to eat meat to survive?

And quite candidly, this reasoning is remarkably similar to one of the oldest defense tactics used by trial lawyers in the book: paint the victim as the villian. Now, I know that's not necessarily your intention, but really, what are your points here? I cannot make any other intepretation other than, "Hey, animals aren't so kind to each other, so why should we be kind to them?"

That's moving into pretty slippery territory, because then we could justify any kind of undesirable behavior on the basis that someone or something else is already doing it, so that therefore makes it "ok" for us to do the same.

While I think an ethical prohibition on all humans and animals is important, we have an additional set of ethical obligation to endangered species which has to do with larger ecosystem and diversity issues. If you are concerned with preserving diverse ecosystems, may I suggest you do some research on the environmental impact of eating meat? The findings are pretty bleak...pollution, mass destruction of rainforests (and obviously the species that inhabit them), inefficient use of land to feed 20 billion (by some estimates) livestock animals that could be used to grow food for human beings instead.

We additionally have extra responsibilities to animals who clearly demonstrate higher order thinking, awareness and cognition. Right now the species that do that (or early research indicates might fit that definition) is limited to cetaceans, primates, some species of birds, elephants, and a few others. I don’t believe any food animals in the US fit that definition, however, if evidence emerges that they do, I would at that point advocate affording them additional “rights”. Hmm, interesting...so you're saying, the more intelligent creatures deserve more rights, because they are more aware? I am sure you don't apply that ideology to humans, i.e,-mentally challenged people deserve fewer rights - or do you? If you don't, why do you apply it to animals? What about levels of pain, stress, and fear? Surely, those should be taken into account just as much as levels of "higher thinking"?

Additionally, I think that if you don’t want to eat meat, for what ever reason, that is fine with me. But I also think that choice is a luxury and one that requires very little sacrifice. You're absolutely right, it doesn't! That's what I tell people all the time when they ask, "But what do you eat then?" There are countless food choices out there that are completely animal-ingredient free and delicious. And since it's hardly a sacrifice, why in the world are we continuing to confine, slaughter, and eat countless animals a year???

Personally, I think it also has very little positive impact on animals in general. I think it increases a person’s use of fossil fuels through increased purchase and consumptions of synthetic materials, vitamins, and what is used to ship the range of fruits and vegetables necessary to maintain a healthy diet. The greater consumption of fossil fuels means killing animals through ecological destruction. So I think the number of animals killed by eating or not eating meat is probably a wash.

If we did not eat meat, we would not be breeding animals to be killed, and therefore millions, actually billions of animals a year would not lead miserable lives and be slaughtered. How you can chalk that up to "very little positive impact on the animals" is pretty astonishing! Also, are you aware that meat is one of the most fuel-intensive foods we eat? Remember, energy isn't being expended just on raising farm animals alone, it's also being used to grow and transport the crops to feed them. That's an extra layer right there that is completely bypassed when one lives on a meatless diet. It seems you have some concern for the environment. There is a TON of information out there about how meat-eating consumes more energy and contributes to more pollution than a vegetarian or vegan diet ever could. You should really research this subject in more depth if you have a true interest in the environmental effects of fossil fuels used in food production. Here's a link to a report that calls factory farming one of the primary drivers of greenhouse gases: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

There are many places in the world where starvation is rampant and not eating meat is not a choice. A friend just got back from working in a refugee camp in the Sudan. She saw many die of curable/preventable disease (medicines often have animal components) and many starve. Those who did not starve to death would have without the eggs, and occasional goat or chicken meat that is a part of their cultural diet. Not eating meat is not an option for these people, and is a case where the need to not be cruel to humans takes over. I completely empathize with this point. But the plain truth is, we're not those people. We do have a choice. Still, I'm glad you brought this up because there are many calculations that indicate we could stamp out world hunger if we freed land used to grow crops for animals for people instead. Might want to research that topic a bit more, too.

Posted by mytwosense on August 17, 2007 01:41 PM