Installing sprinkler systems for chickens?

Bob Linden wrote:

THE WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO is being organized for the purpose of creating a nucleus for VEGAN activism and advocacy, and for advancing the abolition of the use of animals for all purposes.

It is in complete opposition to recent trends in so-called "welfare reform" (where no one fares well) which are proving to be so detrimental to animals, including the contrivances of "humane meat, dairy, fish, eggs", "humane slaughter", "family farms", and all animal-derived "products" labeled "sustainable", "grass-fed", "pasture-raised", "local", "organic", "free-range", "cage-free", and "higher welfare" - and the promotion of the trivial such as flexitarianism, Meatless Mondays, baby steps, doing "something" now - and the release of undercover video unaccompanied by a vegan message.

It is to offer an alternative to a movement comprised of organizations that partner with animal-exploitation industry, including those who betrayed billions of chickens in support of amendments to the Egg Products Inspection Act.

Welcome to an event free from the deceptive propaganda of HSUS and its groupie groups that are ready to sell you "enriched" "furnished" cages, praise for pig killers, and "meat"- eating and "vegetarianism" instead of VEGAN activism at the upcoming trade show in LA in July.

It would be antithetical to the philosophical perspectives of the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO to feature speakers from organizations who admittedly routinely engage in "welfare reform" activism, as United Poultry Concerns openly states. It saddens me that Karen Davis thinks that I am refusing to schedule her because I "hate" her. Really, how can I hate someone who cares so deeply about chickens as I do, who so dramatically and empathetically articulates their suffering, and who rescues and provides them sanctuary. I don't consider her anything like the cold, calculating, deceptive, diabolical operatives of the Humane Society of the United States or Mercy For Animals, for example. I'm sure that her intentions are good. The problem is that when Karen deviates from the path for veganism to "welfarist" detours, it's bad for animals. UPC support for the heinous HSUS anti-vegan bigger-cages scam, Prop 2 in California, with its cynically-absurd title, "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", was instrumental in what is now becoming catastrophic for massive numbers of chickens. She was quoted in the NY Times back then saying that Prop 2 would provide "comfort" for chickens. A recent NY Times piece was speaking about how great chickens now have it in California (even though nothing has gone into effect). Our actions and our statements are so dangerous when they become marketing ammunition for animal-abuse profiteers. My understanding is that Karen now regrets support for Prop 2, and I wish she would be more vocal about that. Unfortunately, the "animal rights seal of approval" that the recent egg bill stamped on "enriched" or "furnished" cages, will equate to Prop 2 = "enriched" cages, a formula for disaster brought by "welfarist" activism, even without UPC support of that egg bill. And even at the time UPC was opposing the egg bill, it still invited an HSUS shill to address a conference that it was organizing. Most recently, a UPC public relations person again talked of the UPC goal to make chickens as "comfortable" as possible in chicken exploitation industry, which is a misleading unattainable exaggeration.

Some may assume that the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO may be endorsing the campaigns of its speakers, and I could not, in good conscience, for a variety of reasons, lead people to allocate resources of time or money toward installation of sprinkler systems in hen houses, as UPC so campaigns - perhaps not even fully considering the consequences to be suffered by birds ranging from compromised insulation to drowning, etc., should the systems actually be employed - as we activists save the burning barn for the ranchers. These days, newly-installed sprinkler systems will immediately be understood as "humane" and compassionate treatment of chickens, which turns us into chicken-"meat" salesmen again, as Prop 2 did, as the egg bill transformed animal advocates into egg salesmen. That same egg bill should and must be recognized as one of the most massive betrayals of animals ever, with supposed "protectors" reversing long-held positions against intolerably cruel and torturous concentration-camp conditions of "enriched" or "furnished" battery cage warehouses for chickens, and then campaigning FOR them in an incomprehensible new blood-brother partnership between chicken-massacring United Egg Producers and the pig farmer - led Humane Society of the United States, inexplicably joined by ("Animal Rights Conference" Organizer) FARM, Mercy for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion Over Killing, the ASPCA, and the (Hope Bohanec - influenced) In Defense of Animals (which now opposes). While the egg bill did not pass in Congress, it has permanently damned chickens to a future of deplorable conditions, of horrendous imprisonment, mutilation, and death which can now be stamped "humane", and become the Prop 2 standard in California, unfortunately thanks to misguided UPC past policy, and to those other groups that are about to gather at their fundraising trade show in LA.

I would suggest one possible strategy for UPC to win the hearts and minds of "anti-humane" vegans. There you have communications director Hope Bohanec, one of the biggest voices FOR Prop 2 (now against it), and one of the biggest voices FOR the egg bill (now against it), born again, writing a book against "humane meat", telling me it's everything I've been saying all along, and wanting to come on my radio program to talk about it. But she refuses to mention the groups by name who fed her the propaganda she vomited. It would not make a very compelling interview to hear something like... "So who told you that the 'enriched' cages previously considered too cruel for chickens are now good for hens, Ms. Bohanec?" "Animal Protection Group X, Bob" ..."and who told you that hens can engage in natural behaviors when crammed into such 'furnished' battery cages, even though they feel no sunlight or earth beneath their feet?" ..."Animal Rights Group Y, Bob"..."and who decided on the deceptive ploy to suggest advertising that the egg bill bans BARREN BATTERY CAGES, knowing that the public would believe that the CAGES would be banned, when in actuality, it was just that the cages not be BARREN, remedied by a stick or some wood shavings?" ..."Animal Welfare Group Z, Bob"... I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that UPC has its lines down right yet for what we're doing, but is welcome to register and attend and work to create vegan strategies that wont lead to so many such future regrets.

"Welfarist-reform" activism brings us empty promises today that only lead to broken promises in the future, giving the public rationalizations for not going vegan, when only vegan will do.

The animals need a vegan world now. The planet needs a vegan world now. The children need a vegan world now. In the face of the relentless massacre of innocent harmless billions, of climate change, of poverty, world hunger, and disease - how can we delay? Where is the sense of urgency? It is to be at the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO!

www.WorldVeganSummit.com

Problems with promoting Animal welfare reform to abolish animal use

During the 1980s and 1990s, those who promoted welfare reform campaigns claimed to really be "animal rights" advocates. But the entire point of the animal rights movement was to promote a new way of thinking about animal ethics that rejected welfare campaigns as unacceptable.

At the present time, welfarists are trying to appropriate "abolition." claiming that they really want to see abolition in the long term.

Again, the point of the abolitionist approach was to refocus the animal movement on animal rights and away from welfare reform.

Think of it this way: the peace movement that rejects war. Imagine those who favor war claiming that they are part of the peace movement because they really want peace in the long-term but see war as a means to peace.

The means cannot be inconsistent with the end. War is inconsistent as a means to peace. That is the point of the peace movement. Promoting (supposedly) humane animal use is inconsistent with no use. Welfare reform is inconsistent with the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

From: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Is it immoral to promote Animal welfare reform even if it could save a million of animals?

A person wrote: "Gary Francione holds that it's immoral to support or promote welfare reforms that would meaningfully lessen the suffering of animals -- even if, as an empirical matter, they are effective and will save a million or more animals."

There is no such thing as an animal welfare reform that would "save a million or more animals". It is a mere hypothetical. Why should I engage in discussing hypotheticals. It is an inaccurate statement. It ignores the detrimental effects that promoting Animal welfare reform has. It ignores that promoting Animal welfare reform legitimizes the very institution of animal exploitation.

I have shown above how animal welfare reforms accomplishes the exact opposite - that they make people more comfortable with exploiting animals, that they lead to an increase of consumption of animal foods, and thus an increase in the numbers of animals being exploited.

-----
A person wrote: "Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"
Spencer,
"Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"

I think that the statement is an oxymoron. I think that the statement is so far away from the reality about what Animal welfare reform accomplishes. I believe there is alot of evidence that Animal welfare reform accomplishes the opposite; and Whole foods and animal industry are promoting "happy meat" and "Welfare standard"-ratings because they know that it increases their sales. This is how businesses operates.

So I don't like simplified statements that ignore the reality that we live in, and ignore the consequences of promoting a certain position.

A person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote the exploitation of one individual in order to save 2 individuals from being exploited. Similarly person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote and legitimize the exploitation of 1000+ billions of animals by promoting Animal welfare reform (e.g. promoting that hens should be exploited in slightly bigger cages).

Such a person would also say that it is not ethical to promote and to endorse "humane rape" of one person, even if it could save 1 000 000 people from being exploited. It is not ethical to murder one person, in order to hinder 5 people from being exploited.
So ignoring that the question doesn't reflect reality, and is a false hypothesis that will never occur in real life: I belive that Gary Francione would say that it is immoral to promote Animal welfare reform in that specific situation, because that it legitimizes the exploitation of sentient beings.

Further reading:
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/622783841074707

Help or harm animals by promoting Animal welfare reform?

You have a good heart, you want to help the animals; and you are promoting Animal welfare reform because you believe that this will reduce the suffering of animals. You promote say a reform that will make the hens get some inches bigger space.

But you may not be aware of that you are:
-Legitimizing the animal exploitation by telling industry that they should reform it. It is like promoting a “happy rape”-scheme or “happy murder”-scheme for disenfranchised people groups of our society, instead of advocating against all exploitation that these groups are facing. You are telling the industry to reform the exploitation. You are not saying: ‘Stop the exploitation’. You are saying: ‘Continue the exploitation, but do it in a way that makes the nonhumans suffer slightly less”.

-Sending the implicit message to the consumer that the products based on the “Animal welfare reform” are morally acceptable and can be consumed as a “conscientious omnivore”.

-Increasing production efficiency, so the animal industry will get a bigger revenue.

Does the privileged groups of the society have the right to tell others of HOW they should exploit other individuals of our society? Do we have a right to encourage sexists and racists HOW they should exploit women and people of color? Do you think that they appreciate that you encourage others to exploit them in a way that supposedly causes them a less degree of suffering? Would you being a person who was daily subjected of exploitation like others to work for reforming the exploitation that you are a part of, and making the say traffickers earn a bigger revenue by increasing their ‘production efficiency’; or would you like others to work for abolishing the exploitation all together? Would you appreciate that people supposedly fighting for your rights not to be exploited, to tell the exploiters HOW to exploit you? Does it make sense to advocate, and is it moral to advocate exploitation of an individual as a means to a reach an end? Can starting wars lead to peace in our world? Can using and advocating for unprovoked violence result in a peaceful world?

You say that ‘the world won’t go vegan overnight’ so we have to promote these reforms. We have been doing Animal welfare reform for the last 200 years, and more and more animals are exploited for every day, which is not only caused by the increase of the world population, but also an increase the average animal exploitation that every non-vegan participates in.

If we make consumers more comfortable and happy with consuming “animal foods”, they will continue to consume animal foods. There is a reason why Whole Foods promote “happy meat” and “Welfare ratings” for the exploited animals. How can increasing the production efficiency of producers result in ending the exploitation?

---
If everyone educate one person to become a vegan and become an vegan educator every year; and we started with 125 vegans in Sweden doing this, Sweden would have a vegan majority after 17 years. There are many effective vegan educators in the world that educate several people to go vegan and to become vegan educators every year. We just need more people to educate themselves of how to effectively educate others and then to engage lots of their energy and time into this.

More reading:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-clear.../...
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/.../are-anti-cruelty.../
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/.../abolitionist-veganism...
The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?
: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/ (Ask for it in your library)

Promoting Animal welfare reform vs promoting veganism

A person wrote: "What if that instead of people becoming more comfortable with eating humane meat, people actually become more and more compassionate towards animals?"

My comments above and also this posts shows why promoting "happy meat" - which you implicitly promote (regardless of your intentions) by advocating for "Animal welfare"-reform - has the effect that people become more comfortable of consuming animal foods.

There are two alternative and mutually exclusive approaches:

Approach 1: Promoting “Animal welfare” reform:
1. Advocating ”Animal welfare reform” is saying to the industry that we want you to slightly reform the production of your animal foods.

2. The industry may implement the reform, which they likely would have done anyways, because it increases the efficiency of the production (these are the reforms that the big Animal welfare-organizations) focus on.

3. The industry sells the animal foods and can now label it as “happy meat”, “happy dairy”, “happy eggs”, etc. They can also state that we are now selling the products that Animal advocates are promoting.
“This article highlights the international trend of the animal-using industry working diligently to rehabilitate the image of veal in the public mind. To this end, two messages are simultaneously being sent:
1) Baby calves are now being turned into veal using "humane" methods, and
2) The flesh of baby calves is much tastier when the animals are raised in ways less harsh than in the past. “ [note 1]

4. The sell of Welfare-stamped animal foods increases:
“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.” [see note 2]

Approach 2: Abolitionist vegan education

Advocating veganism is saying to the consumer that you can’t justify consuming animal foods; and that all consumption of animal foods, use of animals for clothing, entertainment, etc., is completely frivolous and constitutes animal exploitation.

You sow vegan seeds, and people go vegan. The number of animals that are exploited is less than what it would have been if you hadn’t educate people to go vegan. Thus fewer animals are exploited, and less animals are suffering compared to the number of animals that would have suffered hadn’t you engaged in vegan education.

“The world won’t go vegan overnight”. Sure! And if we advocate “Animal welfare reform”, the world will never go vegan, since they will believe that it is ethical to consume “humane” animal products. If we advocate veganism, we work to end the animal exploitation right now; and people going vegan is rescuing animals from being exploited right here and now.

More to learn about vegan education: http://bliveganer.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/how-vegan-education-will-make-sweden-and-the-world-go-vegan/

More to learn here: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/
More related articles: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html
1. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1005.htm
2. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm

But 'There is a correlation between advocating Animal welfare reform and number of people going vegan'

Some people claim: <Why is it that veganism as an over all percentage of the American population is on the RISE... at the same time that more animal welfare campaigns and issues are becoming public knowledge than at any time in our history?> 

However that is not a proof.
It is easy. Whatever initially sparked off an interest, nobody ever went vegan without being educated about veganism and welfare campaigns, by their very nature, don't educate about veganism. You seem to be ignoring the massive increase in the level of vegan education not linked to welfare campaigns.which has occurred in the last few years. Despite an apparent correlation, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that welfare campaigns have 'made vegans' to any significant extent.
[Last sentences is a quote from Alan.]'

----

Welfarists are very find of demanding 'proof' that unequivocal vegan education rather than stepwise animal welfare reforms will secure the end of animal exploitation. Such a demand for proof of a future event is very silly as none of us are blessed with the gift of clairvoyance. They conveniently forget that, by the same token, they are also unable to provide proof that their own method will work.
What is needed to assess tactics is a little critical thinking based on current knowledge and we know that over 150 years of animal welfare reforms have failed to achieve anything with regard to reducing the overall level of animal exploitation. There is also evidence to suggest that, for a number of reasons, animal welfare reforms are actually counter-productive to that goal. We also know that every new vegan does indeed make a positive contribution to reducing the overall level of animal exploitation.

Instead, we can ignore all the evidence and continue using tactics which have produced 150 years of miserable failure without conceding the possibility there may be a better way forward. Sounds like a plan to me!

Grumpy Old Vegan


More reading:

Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

How promoting animal welfare reforms leads to increased exploitation and profit for the industry

Why vegans shouldn't promote Animal welfare reform

Why vegans shouldn't promote Animal welfare reform

There are many people that like to promote "Animal welfare" reforms. It is such a normalized part of our society and few people question whether this could be harmful. Few people question what you are actually promoting by promoting laws that will "reform" any exploitation.

Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.

This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimize animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.

The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit.
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occur when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.

So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reforms, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation because of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and sow vegan seeds and make people understand that you have to go vegan in order to opt out of animal exploitation. This grassroots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety

Further reading: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps

How promoting animal welfare reforms leads to increased exploitation and profit for the industry

Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.

This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Yes, obviously an implementation of sprinklers in every building may save some lives. On the other hand promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimizing animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.

The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit. One example:

"In its Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. Electric Immobilization from an Economic Standpoint, PETA argues for the gassing, or “controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)” of poultry, claiming that the electric stunning method of slaughter “lowers product quality and yield” because birds suffer broken bones and the process results in contamination dangerous to human health. The electric stunning method also “increases labor costs” in various ways. PETA argues that “CAK increases product quality and yield” because broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging are supposedly eliminated, contamination is reduced, “shelf-life of meat” is increased, and “‘more tender breast meat’” is produced. PETA also claims that “CAK lowers labor costs” by reducing the need for certain inspections, reducing accidents, and lowering employee turnover. CAK provides “other economic benefits” to the poultry industry by allowing producers to save money on energy costs, and by reducing by-product waste and the need to use water."

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peta-and-kfc-no-differences-of-opinion-about-how-animals-should-be-treated/#.U1TY5FfzISM
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occurse when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.

So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reform, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation beause of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and make vegans. This grass roots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety

An equivalent to advocating Animal welfare reform would be to share a petition in Germany during the Nazi era, which admonisted the Nazis:
‘Can you please install sprinkler systems in the concentration camps, so that they won’t be any unnecessary fire, which will take the lives of your prisoners.’ instead of actually working towards stopping the exploitation of the the people in the concentration camps.'

It would have legitimized the exploitation of the people prisoned in the concentration camps, and wasting time that could be used to actually rescue people from getting into the concentration camps and to stop that very institution..

-------
"If I was a factory farm animal" I would want people to fight for my right not to have been born in the first place. The only reason these animals are farmed (and I make no distinction between factory farming and any other type of farming - they're all equally abhorrent) is because consumers demand their flesh to eat. Persuading people that it's ok to eat animals reared under certain so-called *humane* conditions is never going to turn them vegan. They will continue to happily fork out a little bit more money for dead flesh that salves their consciences. Indefinitely. The only winners are the farmers who will rake in a lot more money with neglible extra outlay. I know of people who have gone from being vegetarian to eating meat again because they believe the *humane* propaganda. This is fact, not speculation.
Reduce the demand, and that will progressively reduce the numbers of animals in the system until eventually it stops."
Dee Weaver.

Sprinkler laws and pet shops?

Lets’ discuss the pet shop scenario: The owners of the pet shop can legally when they want to kill the animals. They can legally breed new animals. They can legally sell the animals to other people that can kill the animals right away. Then they can keep and treat the animal in any way they like to without risking any legal consequence if they just hide it to the public.

Other animals used for food can be tortured legally and without the risk of facing any legal consequence.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. They legitimize the exploitation of animals. The law that will be enforced is a law to protect 'commodities', not a law to safeguard persons.

 In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim. As long as they have sprinklers, as long as they are treated good, they can be killed when their owner think that they no longer need to take care of the animal. The focus becomes on the treatment of animals, instead of putting the focus on all use of animals. And nonvegan animal lovers think that they are helping the animals while they are consuming their dinner of animal foods, wearing their leather shoes and their wool sweater, and bringing their healthy pet to the animal shelter because of that they don't have time to take care of her. And since animals are property under the law, the animal welfare reforms doesn’t offer any real protection – not in reality and seldom in court.

Instead of using my time to draft Animal welfare reforms/sign petitions of Animal welfare reforms that perpetuate the property status and the exploitation of animals, I use my time to educate our world that they have a moral obligation not to exploit animals; and that no domestication of animals can be justified. No breeding shop/pet shops can be morally justified. Further that we should adopt and take care of the domesticated animals that are her today. It is having a good effect and many people go vegan. And thus less animals are exploited than should have been exploited otherwise.

When it comes to advocating for sprinklers in a school there is a morally a completely different issue. Children in the schools are not commodities. However if I were to advocate for sprinklers for human slaves when owning slaves were common in the USA and slaves were property under law, the moral issue would be the same.

Now may I suggest that you study some theory of the Abolitionist Approach, instead of misrepresenting us that we don’t care about the welfare of animals??

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens because that it is supposedly more "humane". I claim that promoting the gassing of chickens makes the public more comfortable about exploiting animals.
I don't want the public to exploit animals. Thus I am opposed to PETA promoting the gassing of chickens.

If the industry made a reform to change itself, which they would do without the involvment "animal rights"-organizations in order to increase their production efficiency, I wouldn't oppose this.
I am not opposing the reform I am opposing a supposedly "animal rights"-organization promoting the reform.

Obviously I would act exactly the same in an identical situation during the slavery era a couple of hundreds of years ago. I would advocate abolition and not reform.

"PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-principled-veganism-screw-the-principle/#.U1K7JVfzISM

Animal welfare reform and 'Will the Farm Bill Nullify Laws Against Animal Cruelty? '

My comment to an article:






This bill changes nothing for the animals though. They have the status of property, and whatever law reform that is made it is only in order to increase the production efficiency. The laws are not made to increase the animal welfare for the animals, other than if this increases the production efficiency.

The only thing that will change and is changing things for the nonhuman animals is people going vegan, cutting down the demand, and eventually causing an abolition of all animal slavery and exploitation when the vast majority of the population is vegan.
All of this ‘welfare laws’ do nothing to protect the animals, which are “property” and can be legally tortured and killed at the whim of their owners, and caused by the demand of the consumers of animal products. They only encourage “happy exploitation”, they encourage people to eat with a “happy consciousness”.

More information here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/#.UbMkYZz_FLM'

"As long as we think the issue is the treatment of animals, we will seek to make that treatment more “humane.” But because animals are property, that goal is unreachable as a practical matter. The treatment of animals will always constitute torture under the most “humane” circumstances. And the “treatment” (or welfarist) approach ignores that it is morally wrong to kill animals even if we treat them “humanely,” which we cannot do anyway. Welfare “reforms” not only fail to provide any significant protection for animals; such reforms actually make matters worse because they encourage the public to feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to continue to consume animals and animal products. The problem is use, not treatment. The goal is to abolish animal use, not to regulate treatment. The means to the goal? Go vegan and educate others about veganism."

------

"The bill would eliminate the minimal protections which exist for current and future factory farm animals on a national level."
I don't believe so.
Which 'protections' for animals do you think would be eliminated?
I don't see that there are any 'minimal protections', so I doubt that any protection could be eliminated.

And many people are comforted in their consumption of animal products, that they think that animals are 'protected by the law', when the fact is that the animals are not protected.
 Anyone in this world can buy, abuse and kill an animal in their home or at their farm.
Animals can't be protected as long as they are property; just like when human slavery was accepted in the society, slaves never had any real protection. [Good article covering this: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.UbMxsZz_FLN ]
--------

I don't think it would make their conditions crueler, since I don't think that farmers, who want to earn money, would introduce a practice which they become increasingly aware of doesn't give them the most profit. It may happen in some instances. But otherwise, in these instances, even if there is a law, the same farmers can torture the animals in other legal ways, and can abuse them without anyone knowing that this takes place. Animals can’t get any real protection because of their property status.
And if we animal advocates are going to protest this legislation, it will have the side effect that the public gets more comfortable of their animal exploitation. We are implicitly sending the message that regulated animal exploitation is morally okay.
And you wrote about "battery cages". This was also one of this claimed victories, which wasn't a victory: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/replacing-one-cage-with-another/#.UbM4gpz_FLM
This is an interesting debate: 'Commentary #22: A Discussion on Abolition vs. Regulation with Robert Garner': http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/category/podcast/
Now I will soon go out on a long walk in the sun with my family. Have a wonderful day! :)

-------------------

It is not at all given that the total amount of animal cruelty would increase if the bill went through.
It is not "active indifference" to recognize that promoting animal welfare regulation reform sends the implicit message to the consumer that regulated animal exploitation is morally acceptable; and to recognize that animals having the status of property are not protected by laws. This in turn makes it harder for people to recognize the necessity of veganism, since it reinforces the deep belief of our society that "happy exploitation" is morally acceptable.

Here are some thoughts that I agree with:

"If we stop promoting welfare reform and just promote veganism, then the reforms will not happen and animals will be deprived of the benefits that they can receive now as we move towards veganism. What is your reply?"

My reply:

"... If you are interested in these issues, perhaps you should read some of that work and you can start with the essays and materials available on my website: www.abolitionistapproach.com. There are no "donate" buttons on the site so you might be confused at first and think it's not an animal site but do read on!

Second, you are assuming that animal welfare reforms provide significant welfare benefits. They don't for the most part. And most are phased in over a period of years anyway.

Third, most of these "reforms" actually increase production efficiency--they lower the costs of producing animal products--and would be adopted eventually by industry anyway in the ordinary course.

Fourth, you assume that welfare reforms will lead us toward veganism. Wrong. Welfare reforms make people more comfortable about continuing to consume animals. Consider the "happy" exploitation movement that is fast becoming the new "animal movement."

Fourth, if we had a significant vegan movement that promoted veganism as a moral baseline and did not promote welfare reforms, single-issue campaigns, "happy" exploitation, etc., industry would, as a matter of economic necessity, respond with welfare reforms and all sorts of measures that were designed to make the public continue to consume animal products.

That is, if we had a clear, strong, unequivocal vegan movement, industry would respond by making welfare reforms that would probably be more significant than than the welfare reforms now promoted by these large animal groups.

The most important difference would be that we would have a movement that stood for a clear and coherent moral message: if animals matter morally, we cannot eat, wear, or use them. Period.

That is, we would have an animal rights movement and not the pathetic partnership between "animal people" and institutional exploiters we have now.

To the extent that there are benefits from welfare reforms, they would not be lost; they would actually be increased as a reaction to a strong vegan movement that was no longer in complicity with industry and that actively, but nonviolently, promoted a vision of animal personhood.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University"

Vegan education vs single issue campaigns and animal welfare reform

For each hour, we can choose to either devote it to change the root problem of people's thinking, to enable them to understand that all animal exploitation, including all domestication, is wrong. It is a zero sum game.

Or we can choose to devote it to e.g. single issue campaigns, which never change people's mentatlity at its roots. They don't make people understand that all animal exploitation is wrong. Such campaigns, including efforts to trying to regulate the law through 'animal welfare reform', have been popular for the last hundreds of years - yet the animal exploitation in the world increases for every day. They have very little impact, since they don't transform people's worldview and mentatlity about animals. We can't and shouldn't force people to change their worldview; but we should spend our time dedicated to do our best effort to educate in a way, which will enable them to change their worldview. First of all we need to plant a vegan seed in order to enable them go vegan. If we plant a seed of e.g. that only fur is wrong, it will not help them to understand the necessity to go vegan.

What is starting to turn the tide, and what is causing more and more people to go vegans, is a grass root movements of people who inspires our friends to go vegan, e.g. through study groups of World Peace Diet, table conversations at work about veganism, and vegan outreach tables.

I regularly see and hear about people going vegan through vegan education (mine and others). E.g. this weekend where I was involved in a discussion in a spiritual Facebook-group about veganism, a person understood the necessity of going vegan. We have so much to learn also about how we educate our friends about veganism.
Here is more information and links about the problem of single issue-campaigns:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

--

I would also like to share this about the efficiency of vegan education:
NZ Vegan did a street stall promoting veganism on Queen Street yesterday!

I asked how it went and the response was: "Really amazing, and such a palpable difference from when I started doing this - the common theme now is "I have been thinking about going vegan" or "I just went vegan recently" or "I am vegan yay!" or "my friend/girlfriend/cousin is vegan". It's happening! It's really happening!!!"

This is awesomely exciting news! I just got a message the other day from a nonvegan woman who said she is now committed to going vegan!

I am definitely doing my "Free vegan cupcake with a conversation" stall SOON! What are you doing to help nonhumans?
From this website: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Clare-Is-Vegan/360638237346574

If you are not vegan please read through the recommended links in the menu at the right section. Go vegan if you understand it is morally wrong to exploit, enslave, hurt and kill animals for "taste", habit or convenience. Going vegan is the only morally right thing to do: www.vegankit.com

 

----
More Reading:

Protests have been part of our history and all cultures of the world for the longest. Protests have been part of our history and all cultures of the world for the longest. People have protested all sorts of things, from war to poverty to women’s rights and animal rights. But how useful is it to even protest? With this article, I am possibly bringing a controversial take on the effectiveness of protests but I need to make a point here.

The need to protest is something I completely understand. I did protest in the past, against wars, for immigrant rights, against fur and animal cruelty. Then I came to realize that it was a waste of my time. The reason for this is that it has little educational value.

http://thebusyvegan.xanga.com/773175137/why-protests-are-for-the-most-part-useless/

 

Veronique Perrot HC I get similar responses when i go out there with Vegan education. There are obviously always a few who yell "i love meat" to you but its just the typical defense mechanism when a truth is put in your face and you don't want to face it. On the other hand, i did demos against vivisection where cards were handed out about the bad guys of UCLA. People signed them for the poor monkeys and when back to business as usual and very likely forgot about them the next day while they were munching on their cholesterol/heart disease laden sausage pizzas.

 

Veronique Perrot HC I understand what you're saying Leigh but I am less concerned about doing "what's right" (and I don't think most protests fall into that category) versus doing what's right for the animals, as in what is the most effective and what will help them the most. I am not advocating instant gratifications, which is what protesters do when they think yelling at the institutional abusers will accomplish. That is pointless. Because it doesn't eliminate the demand, wastes time and resources which could be better spent with actual vegan education. There is a lot less instant gratification or ego boosting at talking to people about Veganism, because it is not spectacular or lacks shock value. You have no way to judge the effect in the long term.

 

 

Counter productive Animal welfare legislation-reform vs. Animal rights

My response to a person:
The notion of "Animal welfare" in legislation is very old [1] and has been used as a regulationist approach. So it is not an use of erroneous language, it is merely a use of how the term always has been defined. It is sad they have stolen the term "Animal welfare" and redefined it. But lets stick to the terminology used.

"by his band of follower who repeat everything that he says verbatim and without thinking."
This is ignoring the fact that many, many people who found Gary Franciones teachings were endorsing "Animal welfare" reform and changed their approach because of the arguments. Your judgment is simply wrong. We shouldn't judge people. I write more about this in this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/hatred-violence-and-judging-peoples.html

It maybe true for some people that they blindly believe without analyzing the arguments. However, this is not encouraged. Gary Francione encourages people to educate themselves. Many people that stick to the 'Abolitionist approach' are surely thinking for themselves.
I e.g. liked PETA and other such organizations advozating for "Animal welfare" reform for a while in the beginning of being a vegan until I understood how their work (at large, I am not talking about every single action) is counterproductive and doesn't benefit the animals.
Some more good articles that show how counterproductive "Animal welfare" reform is:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-very-new-approach-or-just-more-new-welfarism/#.UXeGqMrSlI0
http://gentleworld.org/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform/

Note 1. See. e.g. this "Animal welfare"-legislation from 1966.

Promoting veganism and end of animal exploitation vs. promoting animal welfare reform

An email I received:

"If we stop promoting welfare reform and just promote veganism, then the reforms will not happen and animals will be deprived of the benefits that they can receive now as we move towards veganism. What is your reply?"

My reply:

"First of all, you are obviously completely unfamiliar with my work, which addresses these and related questions. If you are interested in these issues, perhaps you should read some of that work and you can start with the essays and materials available on my website: www.abolitionistapproach.com. There are no "donate" buttons on the site so you might be confused at first and think it's not an animal site but do read on!

Second, you are assuming that animal welfare reforms provide significant welfare benefits. They don't for the most part. And most are phased in over a period of years anyway.

Third, most of these "reforms" actually increase production efficiency--they lower the costs of producing animal products--and would be adopted eventually by industry anyway in the ordinary course.

Fourth, you assume that welfare reforms will lead us toward veganism. Wrong. Welfare reforms make people more comfortable about continuing to consume animals. Consider the "happy" exploitation movement that is fast becoming the new "animal movement."

Fourth, if we had a significant vegan movement that promoted veganism as a moral baseline and did not promote welfare reforms, single-issue campaigns, "happy" exploitation, etc., industry would, as a matter of economic necessity, respond with welfare reforms and all sorts of measures that were designed to make the public continue to consume animal products.

That is, if we had a clear, strong, unequivocal vegan movement, industry would respond by making welfare reforms that would probably be more significant than than the welfare reforms now promoted by these large animal groups.

The most important difference would be that we would have a movement that stood for a clear and coherent moral message: if animals matter morally, we cannot eat, wear, or use them. Period.

That is, we would have an animal rights movement and not the pathetic partnership between "animal people" and institutional exploiters we have now.

To the extent that there are benefits from welfare reforms, they would not be lost; they would actually be increased as a reaction to a strong vegan movement that was no longer in complicity with industry and that actively, but nonviolently, promoted a vision of animal personhood.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University"

----------

Hello Mikkel,
This website is not about shouting. It is about educating.
If we study we find out that there are some counter-productive efforts that create confusion, such as meatless monday -- which causes many people to consume more diary products (instead of meat), which also causes animals suffering and death, and this is not any way to a vegan world
www.abolitionistapproach.com/vegan-mondays/

I recommend you to read or listen to some debates on the issue (animal rights vs animal welfare). There are many people just like you who thought that all approaches help the animals, but later found out that their thinking was erroneous:
www.abolitionistapproach.com/

Please also study the 'Terms of use' of this Facebook-page.

Have a great day!

.................................................A discussion about Abolitionist approach vs "Ban Live"-export campaigns and other "happy exploitation"-campaigns:

Marianne Mojohand Yet another utterly absurd single issue campaign which suggests that we "humanely" torture and murder our animals here in Australia.

13 hours ago · Like · 2

Sarah K. Woodcock Nell Alk, well, we can always learn more. To answer your question, vegans should spend their time promoting veganism -- not signing petitions or fundraising for animal welfare organizations.

13 hours ago · Like · 2

Steven Bragianis A video from AA: "Australian standards and regulations did not protect these animals from a cruel and terrifying death": 3:53. This begs the question: What's the point of banning live export?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgxdCZRjvd0

13 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Cyn Cynology I am curious-- is AA's reason for doing these types of campaigns to prevent additional suffering and stress to the animals or to gain donation dollars and keep slaughter in their own backyard to keep it a local issue for them to fight? I have an AU friend that raves about AA claiming they have made a huge difference over there -- will have to ask her to elaborate on that.

13 hours ago · Like

Sarah Patsy I am vegan and live in Australia. Yes, I promote veganism. It will not, however, happen overnight, and especially not in a country where it is considered 'un-Australian' to be vegetarian, let alone vegan. However hard I, and people like me, promote veganism, animals will continue to be slaughtered. It can either be locally, with far less travel and stress for the animal, or we continue with live exports where the animals spend weeks travelling in high stress environments by land and sea, many dying en route. As we are all animals, which would you prefer? I do not want any animals to be slaughtered, but pretending it doesn't happen will not make it stop. It is very simple to say we should be promoting nothing but veganism, but I cannot ignore the horror inflicted upon these beautiful sentient beings. Is it better to promote veganism for the next ten years and ignore the murder that is happening daily?

10 hours ago · Like · 2

Jan Vilse @Sarah Patsy,

wouldn't the best way to save Jacob be to reduce demand for animal products so that people don't want to breed and slaughter him in the first place? Wouldn't that goal be worth using every imaginable political resource available?

10 hours ago · Like · 2

Alan O'Reilly Sarah Patsy, 'It will not happen overnight' is one of the standard reasons given for supporting campaigns such as this. The fact is that it will not happen at all if vegans continue to do so instead of unequivocally advocating the abolition of animal exploitation. Although you may wish to see animals treated in a less 'cruel' manner, such treatment is still exploitation and by supporting these campaigns you are effectively approving exploitation, albeit in a different form. How much more difficult does it then become when you subsequently try to deliver the moral message and the exploiters say, quite justifiably, that 'The animal people say what we're doing is OK'?

9 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 1

Sarah Patsy @Jan, Yes, I agree, that is the point of promoting veganism, but as you said yourself, "reduce demand" which implies that animals will be bred for slaughter for food. There will always be people who will not be vegan. There will always be people who choose cruelty. I am vegan, live this, breathe this... but I cannot ignore or forget the animals such as Jacob and the unimaginable horror he and millions of others like him are enduring every day. I feel to say, well I am only focussed on veganism, is to ignore the terrible cruelty they face daily. Yes, for people to become vegan helps the Jacobs in this world in the future but does it help Jacob today?

9 hours ago · Like · 2

Sarah Patsy @ Alan, Not everyone will become vegan, sad but true. There are too many people that simply see nothing wrong with eating animals that refuse to be educated, and there are too many anti-social people that enjoy cruelty. Sad but true. If we ignore this fact and therefore do not engage in 'exploitation' of least cruelty, do we leave other animals to fend for themselves?

8 hours ago · Like · 2

Alan O'Reilly Sarah, <Not everyone will become vegan, sad but true.> That is an opinion (not a fact) with which I do not concur. I also totally reject the notion that humans have any right whatsoever to arbitrarily decide on behalf of other sentient beings which forms of abuse are acceptable and which are not.

7 hours ago · Like · 1

Claudia Ferri Banning live export is a START

6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: You seem to be ignoring that these of campaigns make the public more comfortable about consuming animals who have been "happily" exploited. You seem not to be concerned that "animal advocates" are deciding which forms of exploitation are "compassionate." But I appreciate that people with your perspective are often unable to see this problem. That is how corporations like Animals Australia get lots and lots of donations.

6 hours ago · Like · 4

Sarah Patsy @Alan Yes it is an opinion that not everyone will become vegan. I'm interested in your opinion that everyone will. Why, and how do you think that will happen?

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: That's like saying that we ought to have dog shows because they will help some people to recognize the moral significance of animals. In fact, I have met people who have told me that their becoming vegan was the result of their being involved in the world of show dogs. So let's promote dog shows. That's where your "logic" leads.

6 hours ago · Like · 1

Sarah Patsy @Gary, I understand your point, but I don't think the public are comfortable with 'happy exploitation' at all. In my experience the public don't want to think about animals being slaughtered for their food and find it very easy to draw a distinction between the animals they share their lives with such as dogs and cats, and the pieces of packaged meat they pick up at the supermarket. I am not at all comfortable with 'happy exploitation' but is the promotion of veganism enough to prevent this torture?

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: What you are saying is that it's okay for an "animal group" to promote more "compassionate" ways to exploit. If that's what you think, great. I regard it as a fundamental betrayal of animal rights. That sort of thinking is what is responsible for all the "happy" exploitation labels being promoted by all of the large groups. If you think that's a good idea, you are confused.

6 hours ago · Like · 4

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: Such campaigns are fundamentally in conflict with an abolitionist approach.

6 hours ago · Like · 5

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: I agree that people aren't comfortable and that is precisely WHY we should be making clear that the distinctions they draw don't make any sense. I think that what groups like AA do is terrible because they are intentionally encouraging people not to examine their incoherent distinctions.

6 hours ago · Like · 3

Sarah Patsy @Gary, No, that's not what I'm saying. I have clearly stated I do not believe in 'happy' exploitation or 'compassionate' ways to exploit animals. And I can assure you I am not confused. The exploitation of animals revolts me, but so does their being butchered in an abattoir.

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: It's not a question of what you believe. It's a question of what these campaigns do and what message they send. And do you *really* believe that that sort of crap does not go on every day in Aussie abattoirs? If you do, you are very wrong. Massimo Viggiani: You are being naive. And the UK got rid of live trade in the 1890s, only to have it come back. You cannot compare single issue campaigns like this with the anti-slavery movement of he 18th-19th centuries.

5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4

Sarah Patsy @Gary, Yes, that is a good point. AA are probably one of the largest and most powerful groups here but sadly do not promote the vegan message for fear of alienating their largely non-vegan support base. Thank you for some interesting dialogue tonight.

6 hours ago · Like · 2

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: You are most welcome!

6 hours ago · Like · 2

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: You are just spouting the new welfarist line that I have been hearing for 30 years now and have refuted in my work. If you want to promote new welfarism, go to one of the trillion sites that celebrate that approach. Please not here. Thanks for your cooperation.

5 hours ago · Like · 5

Sarah K. Woodcock General observation: One of the things I have learned from The Abolitionist Approach is that animal *rights* advocates are faaaaaaar away from single issue campaigns because they understand that we need a paradigm shift faaaaaaar away from how humanity currently regards animals. It is totally apparent that the "Ban Live Export" single issue campaign is a "Kill them here, not there" campaign which could not be closer to how humanity currently regards animals and which is why there is so much nonvegan support for it.

5 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Sarah K. Woodcock Admin Note: When you say you "admire Francione's work" and also support speciesist, racist single issue campaigns, it is very clear you know nothing about "Francione's work."