My mom just showed me an ad in an english magazine sponsored by the RSPCA. Apparantly they have a program called Freedom Food, which means the RSPCA has inspected the farmers, the hauliers and the abattoirs to make sure they treat the animals humanely. The ad makes me sick. So do ads for organic meat. I'm not sure why. I think it just makes the whole idea of animal slaughter more "humane". At a petting zoo in the city where I live an emu and a goose were clubbed to death. The goose had a mate that survived and she was so distraught over the death of the other goose. She wouldn't eat or do anything except crawl back and forth over her dead mate.
That's what seems to always get ignored. I feel more sorry for the animals that are yet to be slaughtered than the ones that have already gone ahead. Animals do have feelings and they shouldn't be raised to be killed no matter how "humane".

Do you think the RSPCA is just doing its best for harm reduction and be commended for that or do you support more hard line animal rights groups?

My mom just showed me an ad in an english magazine sponsored by the RSPCA. Apparantly they have a program called Freedom Food, which means the RSPCA has inspected the farmers, the hauliers and the abattoirs to make sure they treat the animals humanely. The ad makes me sick. So do ads for organic meat. I'm not sure why. I think it just makes the whole idea of animal slaughter more "humane".

Gee - I wonder where a lot of mainstream omnis get the idea that veg*ns are all extremist wackos? Oh yeah - maybe it's because when one small step is taken in the right direction, it's still never good enough.

To answer your question, I do not support more "hard line" animal rights groups. I would if I felt that they accomplished anything meaningful in the long term, but I don't think they ever have.

I'm sorry but I was just telling the truth. I actually do feel sick when I see those ads. It really gets to me. That's why I asked the question. How do other people feel. I don't thinks it helps anyone to pretend we aren't feeling something.

If people are going to eat animals, which they do, isn't it better that the animals are treated well than kept in horrific conditions? I think"humane" slaughter is better for the animals than inhumane factory farm conditions.

I see your point that people will think it's ok to murder animals if they were treated well during life. Killing animals is bad enough, even if they are treated well. What im trying to say is: I don't see anything wrong with "humane" animal farming, but I don't think it's right to kill an animal for food when I can live without meat.

Gee - I wonder where a lot of mainstream omnis get the idea that veg*ns are all extremist wackos? Oh yeah - maybe it's because when one small step is taken in the right direction, it's still never good enough.

To answer your question, I do not support more "hard line" animal rights groups. I would if I felt that they accomplished anything meaningful in the long term, but I don't think they ever have.

Please don't refer to me as an extremist wacko, firebird_81. Let's stick to our opinions, even strong ones, and not get into name calling. I think I need to make a further clarification. The term "makes me sick" can be taken to mean "very angry" or "those people are idiots". I really did mean "makes me sick". I feel it in my stomach.
Thankyou Ntelligentidiot for your comments. I think you are getting to the heart of the issue. Do we have to settle for now with harm reduction and hope for more steps later or do you think we need to go all the way now? Or do people think harm reduction is far enough-- as long as the animals were treated well during their life we can eat them if we want.

I think raising animals for "humane" slaughter is a step in the right direction.

Would I rather that animals were not raised for food at all? Of course, but in this day and age that is not realistic. Lots of people eat meat. Lots of people are going to continue to eat meat for a long, long time. I'd rather a cow that is raised for meat live a comfortable life than a life confined in a small crate being pumped full of hormones and antibiotics and all that.

I'd still much prefer the cow not be raised solely for slaughter, but if so-called "humane" practices can ease the suffering of the cow, I think it's a good thing.

I think humane treatment of food animals is a step in the right direction.

There's no way to all of a sudden stop using animals as food.. not for the world.

It's better that the animals are treated well before they die, than treated horribly before they die.

See the new article at "In The News" I posted from USA Today on Whole Foods Markets for a timely news piece relating to this particular issue.

Thanks epski, I read the article and it is encouraging. Maybe all we can expect are small steps. If they weren't listening to animal activists at all before and are now moving in that direction then that is a good thing. Here in Canada, with the case of BSE found in a cow, it took two months for the testing to be done. When asked why it took so long a person involved in the process said they get lots of "downers". These are cows that cannot stand up on their own. Most of those cows cannot stand because they have broken legs. So they have to endure that suffering as they are being hauled from the farm to the slaughterhouse. And no-one says anything. It's just part of the common practice of the meat industry.

I still find the whole "humane" treatment of animals disturbing. I do think the animals left behind wonder why their friends are being taken away. With dogs it is very apparent because if you have two dogs that are friends, when one of them dies they react just like humans. Sometimes the dog just "gets over" the death. Sometimes the dog is lethargic for awhile and then recovers to get on with life. But some dogs don't recover and just end up dying. Pigs are said to be somewhere in the same intelligence level as dogs. So what are those pigs going through as they go through separation after separation.
I think if anything, the more humanely they are treated the more alive they will feel and the more pain of separation they will feel. I think this happens to humans as well. After being is a prison camp for awhile, under terrible conditions, they will start to feel less and less. If some of the prisoners are taken away the remaining ones often can't summon up the energy to care. But if they were treated well and all of the sudden a few of the prisoners were taken away the remaining prisoners would be very emotionally affected.

Anyway, complicated issue. Thanks for your input.

Do you think the RSPCA is just doing its best for harm reduction and be commended for that or do you support more hard line animal rights groups?

Both. I think RSPCA is a politically influenced organization like any other and is to be commended for their efforts, even if their efforts are a political compromise. I also support hard line AR groups - they have the correct goal in mind, IMO. Any other goal is meaningless in the long run.

I still find the whole "humane" treatment of animals disturbing.

i agree with this, to some extent. don't get me wrong, i'm relieved to know that animals will be treated better. but i wonder if animal wellfare is a step towards animal rights or actually a step away from it. for example, i can imagine that people who eat meat that has come from the "humane" treatment of animals would lose any motivation to want to go further. in other words, an omni that supports the humane treatment of animals might think, "the animals are teated well now, so i don't have to worry about them anymore." but realistically, the whole idea of breeding and raising animals to be slaughtered is what i would like to see eliminated. and i think that animal wellfare, to some extent, makes this position more difficult.

Toward. Once there's global recognition that animals are deserving of our utmost care, we'll be that much closer to understanding that they're deserving of freedom.

Goatee,

As long as animals are being raised to be slaughtered, I'd prefer they at least have decent lives. But, like you and Stonecrest, I wonder whether more humane treatment during the animals' lifetimes is going to make it easier for people to rationalize slaughtering animals for meat. For example, I've seen a number of people on VB say that they would have no problem eating meat if they knew that the animals had been treated humanely. In response to which I can only ask, "What's humane about killing an animal for food or fur or to satisfy any other want or need of ours?"

Maybe the dispute is over more humane versus inhumane. People should definitely not use a term like "humanely produced beef." That's an oxymoron of the highest order. That said, people aren't going to stop eating meat overnight just because we're upset about the way animals are treated. As a vegan, I would much prefer animals live their lives relatively oblivious before their ultimate slaughter (and a more humane slaughter, in that they're not left to bleed to death and so forth), than that they suffer all their miserable lives. That said, I don't think any kind of "humane" label would guarantee these things. I think it would lull people into thinking their meat is somehow bloodstain-free, which feeds the argument of those who think the label is actually a setback to getting people to eat less meat.

Bottom line, people need to understand that every time they buy an animal-based product, another living, feeling creature was birthed, enslaved, tortured and painfully slaughtered in order to satisfy their taste buds. They have to go one step beyond that intellectual awareness and identify with the pig, the cow, the chicken, the way they do with companion animals, or dolphins. At that point, the tide will ever-so-slowly start to turn... One hopes.

Epski, you just took the words right out of my mouth. This is definately a good thing, treating animals destined for slaughter in a more considerate manner. But to label it "humane"? No.. there can be no "humane" production of meat.

The RSPCA.. I dunno... don't have much respect for them. At least, not in this country (Australia). They do bugger all. They don't even have no kill policies at the pounds (and pounds some of them are, not even animal shelters). My dad calls the local RSPCA "Death Row". They keep most cats only 14 days before putting them down. I've worked at no-kill shelters, so I know they can work. They pretty much only inspect cases of gross cruelty or negligence, they don't seem to care much about the day to day welfare of most animals, and thier "ethical eggs" policy is just a joke. If thier "humanely produced meat" ideas are anything like thier ideas on how to humanely keep chickens for eggs, well, I just shudder to think about it.

I'm not sure if I support the more "hard-line" groups like PETA... but I know for sure that the RSPCA is just a joke.

Goatee, I´ve struggled with the same feelings, too. As much as I want fear-free lives for all animals, I´m concerned that cleaning up factory farming and slaughter will give people more excuses to be omnis.

to be honest, i am not comfortable with animal death, in general or specifically in regards to food. So, it does make me uncomfortable that animals go to slaughter for someone's meal.

This is why *i* forgo eating meat. I do not feel comfortable with this killing for food.

but, i also believe and therefore recognize that not everyone is capable of being vegetarian. therefore, there must be humane ways of acquiring meat.

i think that certain sorts of raising and slaughtering methods are better than others. therefore, for those who are omnis, i would hope that they too would make this "more ethical" choice (as opposed to the "most ethical?") rather than just blindly buying foods of unknown origin.

i do not support hardline AR groups because ultimately i do not support AR agendas. likewise, i do not support their methodologies (often violent in origin or nature). and finally, i find that they do more harm than good for "the cause" of more humane treatment (and reduced use) of animals in our care (whether they're to be slaughtered or not).

Do you think the RSPCA is just doing its best for harm reduction and be commended for that or do you support more hard line animal rights groups?

I don't know anything about RSPCA, but about AW generally, there are 2 arguments:
1) "humane" improvements will get people less inclined to become vegetarians -> no change in the long run
2) animals should have rights, but in the current situation, it's better than nothing to at least try to treat them "humanely".

I don't think there's for sure a determination of which argument has more weight, but I myself lean towards the second argument. Hence, I support AW ideals and AW treatment, but only because AR is currently only an ideal. AW is certainly not enough and the idea is abhorrent in some way (Francione was right in stating that it's like "beat the slaves 3 times instead of 5"), although, like said, it's a great thing compared to the current situation (which doesn't fulfill even AW criteria).

I very much agree with you, Zoebird, but my problem with this issue is what the RSPCA considers "humane". The conditions which they call humane for chickens is the "barn-laid" system, which are pretty dreadful. This really isn't much of a step up from the battery-cage system, the barns are appallingly crowded.. the chickens really don't get any more room than they do in the cages. In my local supermarket there are "RSPCA eggs" which have apparently been produced in perfectly humane conditions. This is misleading. Why isn't the RSPCA for free-range? Or at the very least, barn-laid with a reasonable amount of room and decent standard of care?

I can see this being the case if they give the tick to "humanely raised meat". Yeah.. if thier standards for "freedom foods" are anything similar to those for thier "ethical eggs" I shudder for those animals.

I very much agree with you, Zoebird, but my problem with this issue is what the RSPCA considers "humane". The conditions which they call humane for chickens is the "barn-laid" system, which are pretty dreadful. This really isn't much of a step up from the battery-cage system, the barns are appallingly crowded.. the chickens really don't get any more room than they do in the cages. In my local supermarket there are "RSPCA eggs" which have apparently been produced in perfectly humane conditions. This is misleading. Why isn't the RSPCA for free-range? Or at the very least, barn-laid with a reasonable amount of room and decent standard of care?

I can see this being the case if they give the tick to "humanely raised meat". Yeah.. if thier standards for "freedom foods" are anything similar to those for thier "ethical eggs" I shudder for those animals.


Kiz:

I hear (or see!) what you're saying. I have no real knowledge of the RSPCA policies or "findings" on the matter, but i often note that what may be considered "humane" by one group--when you really look at it, it isn't.

I think my main problem, and yours it seems, is that people don't know for themselves (outside of RSPCA policies) what is really going on. They haven't researched alternatives and weighed the evidence, and then they haven't made a choice. In essense, they're being misguided and/or allowing themselves to be misguided. i guess it could be called "delusional!"

I find a similar situation here, particularly in my husband's research and his "quest" for the "more humane" or "most humane possible" means of acquiring his foodstuffs. He discovers a problem with farm fish--even though most people say "that's humane!" including various welfare organizations. Or that there's aproblem with "free range" eggs. Or so on. You know the idea. And so he seeks other alternatives and forgos a lot of "types" of foods that are "normal" for his family because he disagrees with it's acquistion (the methods of raising, slaughtering, etc). Even, to the point now, that he doesn't accept meat at his parents--a big step--because he knows that their meat is super market special--which we all know is horrible for animals, humans who work with them, and hte environment! So, he says: nope! (and he knows that it's not even "healthy"--his argument being that properly and appropriately raised and slaughtered animals have fewer hormones, and less sterssor hormones which negatively affect human health when consumed. So, he chooses as best as he can--and avoids others. I swear, it's only a matter of time for him. He says that the argument "look at the beautiful cow babies" isn't lost on him!)

We look for the term "biodynamic" when shopping--becuase it's a farming method that we have seen in action in our local area--for eggs, meat, and veggies. biodynamic is a specific type of organic, and there is a self-governed org that determines what biodynamic is and is not. There are more than 12 farms in our area that are organic veggie farms or biodynamic farms (animals and veggies), and so we do get close to the source. Really, we don't have to rely on someone like the RSPCA at all. but, many people do--and you're right, it is very problematic.

i'll admit, barn raised may be better than battery cages, but it's not that great of a step--and a mess for rivers too. We have a lot of those in DE (mostly for meat production--and in this area, you can call that "free range!") and its not good at all!