I think in general, any group that raises public awareness of these issues is doing good work. When groups like PETA engage in silly activities like sitting in cages on the sidewalk wearing nothing but painted on tiger stripes, they hurt their own cause, though, by losing credibility. I find myself reading info they put out and then checking with other sources to see if I can find verify it through groups I find more credible.Of course, the upside to this is they raised my awareness and caused me to do research on the issue, so overall that is a good thing.

I think the ASPCA in conjunction with city/county animal cruelty law enforcement do as well as they can with the money and personnel they have. Other groups are determined to rescue abused/abandoned animals and prosecute owners. I support organizations like that

I think any animal activist or group that says animals are more important than people are delusional. Some animal rights/Protection societies create more problems than they solve. The local Humane society has such strict rules about home and yard conditions, I could not adopt from them. Yet they adopt dogs to families who have no--or very little knowledge of how to raise a balanced dog---because the house has a fence or some other requirement.

I live in a trailer court, so I was quickly told I was not a good candidate. When I asked why, the answer was something about trailer court people don't have fences and historically mistreat animals. When I mentioned I have a fence and my last two dogs were 15(stroke) and 20(cancer), the lady sniffed and said, How long did YOU have them?

When I said From puppies she did back down some---but , rules are rules---so no adoption.

Wonder what she would think about my present rescue/pick of the litter pair---typical trailer park dogs--a Rottweiler/German Shepherd mix rescued from a family who moved---they had no clue how to handle Max, so he was basically out of control. Then there is Louie the Lip----picked out of a litter of Lab/Border Collie mix pups. Except, as Louie grew up it became painfully obvious Dad was not a Border Collie---but a pit bull.

Funny, but my neighbors and the local cops have no problems of any kind with my dogs---as I train them for this environment.

So, some are well meaning and try to help animals sensibly. Others are more intent om making people adhere to their ideas of animal care---be those ideas doable or not. And others who must have a secret desire to be an animal as they value animal life over human life.

Animal rights ACTIVISTS are heros.
Animial rights EXTREMISTS are terrorists.

There's a difference.

In my book anyway.

We can agree on that point 100%!!!

After poking around on different sites, like peta and ASPCA and the like, I came to only one conclusion.

The people of the ASPCA and groups like that are people who do care about saving as many animals as they can with what little money they get. This makes them HEROS.

Peta and groups similar to, well the only thing that came to mind was, 'When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.' The amount of brutal and cruel videos and pictures they use is mind blowing. But then again when you are trying to shock and horrify people into believing in your cause, then I guess that's what you do. Pathetic.

Unfortunately I don't think they're smart enough to see that by doing this, it's just turning people off and against them. The only ones that suffer are the animals that they say they are trying to protect.

There is a huge difference between animal RIGHTS groups and animal WELFARE groups. PETA is an animal RIGHTS group. If PETA had their way, nobody would use animals for any purpose, including food, medical research, search and rescue, helping animals, or even as pets. This is because PETA believes that animals have the same RIGHTS as people, and as such milking, eating, having them as pets, or otherwise "enslaving" them is morally wrong.

An animal WELFARE group is concerned with the humane treatment of animals in whatever use they have. They advocate for comfortable and appropriate housing and treatment of food animals, for humane killing of food animals, for laws that enhance the lives and well-being of animals such as anti-tethering laws and anti-abuse and cruelity. They are not opposed to using animals for food, working at jobs, or as pets; they just demand the animals are treated as humanely as possible for whatever use they have.

I strongly support certain animal welfare groups, ones that use reasonable methods to ensure humane treatment of animals in all settings.

Meghane is 100% correct.

No, Meghane is not 100% correct (but she is not 100% incorrect, either). I am an animal rights activist and I do NOT belong to PETA. Animal rights spans a spectrum of beliefs, as does any movement. Few people really understand the movement because they base their entire knowledge off what they hear/read in the media--which means they equate animal rights with PETA. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most animal rights activists I know do NOT belong to PETA and do NOT believe that animals have "the same rights" as people. That would be absurd. They believe that animals have the right to self-determination (when possible) and freedom from abuse by human beings. Factory farming--begun after WWII and where most people get their "meat"--is horribly abusive to animals. Most people don't want to hear that, because they don't want to give up their meat and dairy. But do some research and what you will discover is that what happens to billions of animals a year on factory farms in order to feed our gluttony is beyond hell and is DEEPLY immoral. When we purchase those products, we contribute to the brutality against animals. That's just the bottom line, whether we like it or not.

Further, most animal research is abusive and utterly unnecessary. As one researcher (Ph.D, biologist) told me: "I stopped because I couldn't stomach the abuse any more. And we've been curing cancer in rats for years. Animal research is precisely why we can't find the cures for disease. It's a nineteenth-century pseudo-science, it's cruel to animals, and it should stop."

As for animal welfare: it sounds great in theory, but is wholly impossible. Did you know that there are about 100 federal agents charged with ensuring "humane treatment" for every animal in every zoo, circus, rodeo, lab, slaughterhouse, factory farm, puppy mill, and cattery across the ENTIRE NATION? "Humane treatment" is a fantasy.

If anybody is truly interested in understanding these issues a little better, here are some great links:

http://www.factoryfarming.com
http://www.farmsanctuary.org
http://www.pcrm.org
http://www.isawearthlings.com/trailer.html

If you're interested in learning about animal rights, I recommend Gary Francione's book, "An Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?" You will, no doubt, not agree with every position he holds (and neither do I), but he is a sane and kind human being who has devoted his professional and personal life to the rights of animals.

All of us, in this culture, have been taught certain ways of seeing animals, certain ways of understanding evolution--that there is a hierarchy of being, that animals are "beneath" us, that we have every right to do whatever we want to them as long as what we do passes our (arbitrary) designation of what or what is not acceptable. But this is a reflection of cultural ideology, not some universal truth. There have been (and are) cultures who do not see animals the way we do, and would not understand our brutal treatment of them to satisfy our perceived needs. The brutality against animals in this culture *is* "immoral" and *should* end. Animal welfare will end nothing. Animal rights has a chance. And let's not forget: the concept of "rights"--as it now stands--is an invention of humans. There's no reason why it can't be altered to include the inalienable rights of the land and the animals, as well. I have never understood the fury some people exhibit when asked to reconsider their assumptions about animals. Long before I was an animal rights activist, I knew people who were and I never became angry at the different truths they revealed to me. The animal rights activists are not the monsters or "terrorists" here. The people who brutalize the animals are the monsters and terrorists. We all need to open our hearts and our minds to learning about the real experience of animals. We have been terribly blinded--by industry, by the government, by religion-- to both their terrible and their beautiful reality, and especially to our own complicity in the former. Almost worse, we have been manipulated and indoctrinated to fear those who work on behalf of freeing the animals. We are, in effect, in a deeply Orwellian state when it comes to animals in this culture.

"We have enslaved the rest of animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form."
-William Ralph Inge (1860-1954, Deacon and Professor of Divinity at Cambridge)

"The fate of our fellow animals is of greater importance to me than the fear of appearing ridiculous: it is indissolubly connected with the fate of men."
-Emile Zola (1840 - 1902) French Novelist, Author Accuse

"There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their mental faculties. Like man, they manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery. Sympathy for the animals is one of the noblest virtues with which man is endowed"
-Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) Naturalist and Author of "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection"

"There is no difference between the pain of humans and the pain of other animals. The love and tenderness of the mother for the young are not produced by reasoning, but by feeling, and this faculty exists not only in humans but in animals as well."
-Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, philosopher/scholar in Judaism (1135 - 1204)

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals"
-Dr. Peter Singer, (1946 - ) Australian Ethicist, Author, Professor Princeton University

"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
-Leonardo Da Vinci, Italian Painter, Sculptor, Architect, Musician, Engineer, and Scientist

Thank you Organic Smallhome for your posting. After reading you post, took the weekend to look into the links that you provided. This is the conclusion that I came to.

Meghanes definition between animal rights and animal welfare groups is a good way of distinguishing the two apart and as far as Im concerned very accurate.

Just because someone isnt a member of a group or organization specifically by name, doesnt mean that their not one of them. Pretty much actions and words tell you that a person is member of a very similar group.

Another thing I found is that PETA is very bias in its view to the point of manipulation. Meaning, if they only tell us the worst things then we will have to side with them. There are two sides to every story and if the same person tells both sides, then you can never make a wise decision.

As for people associating PETA as animal rights group due to the media. Well, when the media is about 90% correct in their reports about PETA, why shouldnt they come to the conclusion that PETA is an animal rights group?

All of the people here, I would say, believe whole heartedly that animals should not be abused or tortured just because they are animals, whether they are pets or raised for food. You would have to be as dumb as a fence post in believing that these people dont care about things like that. Yes, there are a few out there that need mental treatment, but this will never be a perfect world.

---Archie

You're welcome. :)

Yes, Meghane was right about the distinction, I agree (which is why I stated she wasn't 100% incorrect, either). The problems inherent with trying to enforce humane treatment of animals are, however, insurmountable. Farm animals, for example, are largely exempt from protection: factory farms can do whatever they want to these animals and there is no legal recourse on behalf of the animals. Yes, this will "never be a perfect world." But since we are talking about horrible suffering on the part of billions--billions--of animals every year, just so people can have their bacon-and-eggs, I think it warrants serious and urgent attention. Used to be, animals were raised on factory farms. Since WWII, however, farming land was inexorably and slowly stolen--with assistance from the American government--from American farmers and taken over by agricultural corporations. In order to meet the meat-and-dairy demands of a growing population, these agri-concerns began a systematic abuse of animals--hidden from the public, of course. What goes on in a factory farm is simply unimaginable. When this happened to people, we called it a "holocaust." It happens to animals, who are terrorized beyond belief, and we shrug our shoulders and say, "that's life." We are only able to do that because it's not our back that is getting broken, it's not our face that is being smashed, and it's not us who are being sodomized and tortured. If people "believe wholeheartedly that animals should not be abused or tortured just because they are animals," then those same people should rise up in vigorous and outraged protest against factory farms. They don't, so I wonder just how much "wholeheartedness" goes into their compassion.

P.S. About PETA: can't stand it. I think it does the animal rights movement far more harm than good. I agree that it makes perfect sense for people to equate animal rights with PETA: after all, PETA put animal rights on the social and cultural map. But it has outlived it's usefulness, in my opinion, and has turned itself into a egomaniacal, self-appointed spokesperson for the animals. I just want people to understand--if they care to--that there are many, many animal rights people who don't belong to PETA, who take the issue very seriously and debate it seriously, and who don't always agree. For example, there are animal rights philosophers whom I respect very much, but with whom I sometimes vigorously disagree. Gary Francione, for example, is a brilliant animal rights lawyer, but he believes that we should allow companion animals to die out, so that there will eventually be a no-pet society. I find this to be ridiculous, for a whole lot of reasons I'm sure nobody here is interested in hearing. BUT: his LEGAL reasoning behind animal rights is solid. I could cite a number of other scholars, as well, but why bore everybody--lol? My point is, I guess: PLEASE understand that the media representation of "animal rights" and their supporters is a terribly, terribly skewed representation, perpetuated--let's remember--by a media often owned by conglomerates that have investments in factory farms, etc. Some reporters/networks--like Anderson Cooper/CNN (in my opinion)--try to get outside the box every once in a while to dig a little deeper and look at things rationally, but overall, folks in the media are no less misled than the general public.

Here's a debate between Erik Marcus (vegan writer and supporter of animal welfare efforts) and Gary Francione (animal rights lawyer). For those who might be interested, of course. :)

Meghane was speaking of PETA.

PETA does want all animals to be set free.

No milk, no meat, no leather, no pets, no eggs, no riding, no pulling, no using of animals for ANY reason at all by people.

No, Meghane was speaking of PETA as a representative group of animal rights. It is not: it does not represent the movement, it represents itself and its own philosophies.

No milk, no meat, no leather, no eggs, no abusive use of animals of any kind: most animal rights people believe this. If you could see the horrendous conditions in which dairy cows are "farmed," as well as what happens to chickens (in battery "farms" OR so-called "cage-free farms"), you'd feel exactly the same way. There has never been such a wholesale abuse of animals in the history of this country as there is today. It's an abomination against decency. As for pets: I disagree with Peta on this one.

There are hundreds of dairy farms in Oregon. I've been inside the milking barn of more than one and driven by dozens. All those cows out in their lush green fields don't look horrendous to me. Rather picturesque actually, unless it is a really hot day and the wind is blowing from the manure pit.

What I think hurts the reputation of activists is that a lot of them rely on hearsay and not the actual facts. The truth hurts, but it's better to live with the truth than with a lie.
I grew up on a small dairy, about 100 cows. Yes, if the day was too hot for them to be out, the cows were kept in.
Responsible farmers do look for signs all the time and have them tested regularly. Heck, the cows get better medical care than I do.
Activists need to clean up their reputation first. Then people might listen to them a bit more.

Hi - new to this part of the boards. This was a really interested discussion going on here. I just wanted to add my two cents, since I work in medical research, and I have used animals (mice primarily) in my work. I think one of the chronic problems of the masses is that no one really has access to complete information. It's the same with the issues we're talkin about here - before I did some reading into the issue, I also associated Animal Rights with PETA, and generalized the entire group of people into over-zealous extremists.

But also realize that the demonization of animal research is also an incomplete picture. Yeah, I don't enjoy using animals in my work, but to say that the sacrifice is completely unnecessary is akin to saying that further development in medicine is unnecesary. It is true that some experiments do not work, and no data is generated - that's universal in all science. The difference between wasting a plate of cells and wasting the lives of a dozen mice is significant, but that's why there are protocols in place to ensure that licences to use animals in experiments, whereas we don't need to obtain permission for growing a vial of yeast. There has been tremendous change in the field of animal research - people have refined techniques so fewer animals need to be used, experiments are done on small rodent species as opposed to the dogs and higher mammals of the 19th century. Some experiments are now possible without the usage of animals at all. There are multiple boards and councils devoted to the humane treatment of research animals, a profound improvement from the 'olden days' of research. It's not perfect, but it's a continuing process, and in the meantime we generate cures like insulin. To call this meaningless and "19th century pseudoscience" is just as wrong as assuming all animal activists are extremists and unified in their views.

The nobel prize in biology was awarded last week to the inventor of the knock-out mouse. By removing genes from mice and observing the effects, amazing progress and knowledge has been acquired about diseases that not only effect humans, but animals as well.

PETA does want all animals to be set free.

Set free isn't even enough for them. I'm big into fishing amateur bass tournaments. We go thru great care to make sure the fish not only stay alive (it costs us if they die). In addition, there are chemicals we use in our livewells to help them keep their protective slime coat up, as well as helping to destress the fish, not to mention using coolers full of ice during the summer to keep the water in the livewells cool. All that's not good enough for PETA, though. They began a campaign a few years ago to disrupt as much of the tournaments as they could. They'd come around boats who were obviously fishing, and begin splashing with paddles from canoes, or using power boats to throw wakes. I had a couple of morons one time start beating on my boat with their paddles!! All because the fish must feel pain when hooked. They'd feel a helluva lot MORE pain if we killed our catch! It got to the point where MAine had to introduce legislation to outlaw their antics, and even still they continue. Although I don't think those two will beat on many more boats with their paddles.

Isnt that the truth tho! these people are truly whacked out. Most states have had to pass legislation in regards to the nutballs harassing hunters. They release fur bearing animals from their pens which is a gauranteed death sentence to the animal, they prefer to see animals die of starvation than be harvested by hunters, they try to force their styrange rules and perverted ways on law abiding people who support the welfare of animals in most cases. They are totally blind to any way of life or views other than their own.

I wish I never went to that first link that Organic Smallhome posted. Wow, that was disturbing. I've heard things about factory farms, but that was the first time I saw pictures like that.

I hate to admit it (but I need to be honest with my views), but I will continue to eat meat. I not only like it, but I am pretty underweight, anemic, and have other health issues. Also, I believe in the food chain and I think that if animals are treated humanely in both life and death, then it is ok to eat meat and the like. I understand both sides of it, but it is just not in me to become vegan or vegetarian.

But I do want to make some changes. I do not want to support these factory farms or put ANYTHING in my mouth that has suffered. So my question is...how can I make sure that the meats I purchase (both for home cooking and when ordering in restaurants) are not factory farm animals?

Thanks,
Gabi

I have never been a big meat eater, and do not miss it at all...I do eat chicken occasionally, maybe a few times a month...and I will admit that I am weak at times and give in to my urges for dairy, especially butter and cheese. My goal is to not consume any animal products at all, but it takes conviction and a whole new way of thinking about and preparing food. I admit at times I am a wimp when it comes to some convictions.

A good book for anyone who wants to hear the truth is "Diet for a New America" written by a man named Robbins, of the Baskin-Robbins family - I believe he turned down his inheritance from the company because of his beliefs.

People want to remain ignorant of where our meat and dairy comes from. From the time we are in kindergarten, we see nice little food charts with pictures of smiling happy cows and pigs and chickens, acting all enthused about being murdered for the good of our health! Well, guess where those "educational" food charts come from?? The Meat and Dairy Industry, thats who! Who stand to make big money by making sure that from a very young age we are preached to about the good of eating animal products. That way, we grow up to be consumers of meat and dairy.

It is easy to remain ignorant of the facts when you go in to a nice clean supermarket and see your pieces of meat in a neatly wrapped little package. More people should see what really goes on in the slaughter houses, and also the days months and years of hell that animals live through just to get to the slaughterhouse. The pictue of the happy smiling cow in the pasture munching on grass is a big fat lie. Eating animals is barbaric.

The question is not, Can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer? (Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832)

All large farms do not raise their animals inhumaely. many are responsible caretakers. The scale required to raise enuff animals to feed the country and to export to others is by necessity large, especially because we want our food at the lowest costs possible. What makes an animal happy and content is not the same as the human requirement. An animal with a full belly and adequate housing is a happy animal.

There are many avenues of better food, if you are in a rural area there is a possibility of buying from a local producer where you can see the way the animals are kept. Even if you are in or near a city there is access to local food, you just need to do a bit of research on that.

How bout this PETA stunt:
they call the owner of a rabbitry inquiring about the animals as if they might be interested in purchasing. Once they get to the farm they begin with small talk about rabbits but before long the owner of the rabbitry realizes the real reason of the visit when the peta members begin to make disparaging remarks. The owner asks them to leave but they persist and a slight physical altercation ensues, the police are called, etc., etc.
several days go by until the rabbitry owner sees the same car parked down the road, he goes to his barn and discovers the peta terrorists stuffing rabbits into boxes which they plan to release into the wood; surely a death sentence to them all. the rabbit owner is an expert at martial arts and subdues the attackers, police come and arrest the PETA creeps.
There are more similar horror stories.

Man evolved eating meat, animals evolved to serve mans needs. Nothing wrong with that but some responsibility is required on the part of man to give proper care to his charges. Most do so. Its not fair to judge an entire industry on a few bad examples.

All large farms do not raise their animals inhumaely. many are responsible caretakers. The scale required to raise enuff animals to feed the country and to export to others is by necessity large, especially because we want our food at the lowest costs possible. What makes an animal happy and content is not the same as the human requirement. An animal with a full belly and adequate housing is a happy animal.

There are many avenues of better food, if you are in a rural area there is a possibility of buying from a local producer where you can see the way the animals are kept. Even if you are in or near a city there is access to local food, you just need to do a bit of research on that.

How bout this PETA stunt:
they call the owner of a rabbitry inquiring about the animals as if they might be interested in purchasing. Once they get to the farm they begin with small talk about rabbits but before long the owner of the rabbitry realizes the real reason of the visit when the peta members begin to make disparaging remarks. The owner asks them to leave but they persist and a slight physical altercation ensues, the police are called, etc., etc.
several days go by until the rabbitry owner sees the same car parked down the road, he goes to his barn and discovers the peta terrorists stuffing rabbits into boxes which they plan to release into the wood; surely a death sentence to them all. the rabbit owner is an expert at martial arts and subdues the attackers, police come and arrest the PETA creeps.
There are more similar horror stories.

Man evolved eating meat, animals evolved to serve mans needs. Nothing wrong with that but some responsibility is required on the part of man to give proper care to his charges. Most do so. Its not fair to judge an entire industry on a few bad examples.

I don't know if I'd call it "barbaric" to eat meat, but I certainly would call the conditions and treatment of the animals in these factory farms "barbaric".

I live in the city and I don't think I'm going to find a farm anywhere near here! Also, I can't see myself travelling to a rural area on a weekly basis to shop for meat - it's just not practical. I'm just trying to do the right thing and NOT contribute to or condone these horrific farms. If I'm going to buy and eat meat (which I am), then I want to buy meat from animals that have been treated in a humane way.

Anyway, I just wanted to know if anyone knew a simple way to ask for meat from a restaurant or a supermarket that has been raised on a "humane" farm. I would think there is some sort of reference to meat that comes from these places instead of those horrible factory farms. There MUST be some "term" that is used.

Gabi

The only way of which I know to buy 'humane meat' is to find a small town meat company that butchers small numbers of stock.

The meat supply system in the US has to provide such huge quantities of meat that megafarms are necessary to produce enough animals----which then have to be 'finished'---fed a particular diet to produce the grades of meat needed----which has to be done in those mega-feed lots. That is the only economically feasible way to keep meat prices down.

The same technique is now being done with catfish farming---huge ponds packed with fish---fed and sorted by size.

We buy our meat from a service company---it is prime grade, meaning the stock are fed a better diet---and probably in smaller groups. My BIL buys from a small town meat company---we both buy a quarter beef or more plus ham/pork selections every 6 months.

I found an organic beef company online. They are fed a good diet with nothing "harmful", and they are supposedly treated humanely. It's expensive but I think it's worth it.

This is what it says on their website:
"You will receive premium beef from animals that were born and raised with respect and dignity.
Our beef are treated in a humane manner at all times.
They are free to roam and have unrestricted access to fresh air, sunshine, water and food at all times."

There are several grades of beef, 'prime' & 'choice are 2 of the grades, has nothing to do with what the animals eat nor the number in a feed lot. It has to do with the finish quality of the carcass, the fat content is a part of that grade criteria.

Another term which confuses people is 'certified Angus'. That does not mean it is and Angus by breed, only that the animal has/had a certain percentage of black hide.

Most of the steaks sold in steak houses are derived from cattle which would not grade prime/choice; those steaks are largly cut from old dairy animals and other lesser grade cattle, then brined for a period of time to tenderize them & add flavor.

Its too bad the city dwellers are unable to have good quality food available to them but many city folks do take the trouble to search oput the better stuff; maybe a bit inconvenient but its all about what you want I guess.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. All I wanted to know is if there is a term that people use at restaurants or supermarkets to make sure they are getting "humane meat", so to say. Does ANYONE get what I'm saying?

I personally don't care about grades of beef or breed of the animal. I just want to be able to eat meat that came from animals that were treated humanely.

Fancifowl, as you can see from my last post, I did "take the trouble" to search out the better stuff, and I posted the link to the site I found. I'm not sure what you mean by "inconvenient" - am I supposed to drive out to the country on a weekly basis to get meat? I am not looking for "good quality food" (that is available in almost every restaurant in the city!)....I am simply looking for meat that comes from animals that were treated humanely.

gabro----did you read what I wrote???

Quote--The only way of which I know to buy 'humane meat' is to find a small town meat company that butchers small numbers of stock. Unquote

You do not say where you live. I do not think you can get what you want in a large city---at any kind of a reasonable price. Simply because the logistics in providing that kind of product to a store in a large city will increase the price by at least double if not more.

You can find a small town meat company in many states that use stock raised more humanely than the mega-farms---but you will pay a hefty premium for the product---again, due to the extra costs involved in production and processing.

BTW, I apologize for forgetting---you could switch to buffalo meat---buffalo cannot be raised in the same conditions as cattle---they have to be raised on range land. Buffalo meat naturally has less fat and many people cannot tell the difference between it and beef when prepared in the same ways.

So, that would be the most economical---and maybe the olny---solutionm to your dilemma.