Court case highlights animal welfare issues - challenges public perceptions??

[Tim Gier]

Does this article support the idea that by taking legal action, even if such action is unlikely to make an immediate difference in the lives of other animals, public perceptions about other animals will begin to change?

Court case highlights animal welfare issues

by SUSAN MANN

Producer wonders whether federal charges against Brampton, Ontario poultry producer will be used to undermine public’s confidence in farming

Chicken farmer John Maaskant is concerned the publicity surrounding charges against Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. under the federal animal welfare legislation will give animal rights groups more opportunities to criticize the industry and make it look bad.

“They will criticize whatever is a sensitive area,” says Maaskant, who farms in Huron County. The groups might talk about animal welfare, but what they’re really trying to do is restrict animal agriculture and, if possible, eliminate it, he claims.

Please read the whole thing.

[red dog]

I certainly hope people will see the article and question the morality of using animals for food, but I'm pretty sure some readers will make the connections and others won't. The article you posted is from an animal agriculture publication, so obviously it's biased. Everyone quoted in the article supports animal agriculture, with the exception of Liz White and possibly Stephanie Brown. The CFIA, the agency that laid the charges, is in favour of slaughtering animals and isn't working to stop the slaughter industry. And from the quotes the writer chose to use, it appears no one is advocating abolition/sending all the animals to sanctuaries as a solution. A highly regarded expert wants the industry to invest in better vehicles, and some readers will take her opinion as authoritative.

 

On the other hand, it's possible that animal advocates could use the story as an opportunity to advance an antispeciesist argument. What do you think? Would it help if we submitted responses to fill in the gaps in the story?

[Carolyn Bailey]

I believe that by taking legal action, and assuring "the public" that improvements will be made in the way chickens are treated, the public feels reassured that their own consumption of chickens is appropriately justified. I don't believe, as a general matter, this changes public perceptions about other animals in regard to them being used as our commodities and exploited accordingly. 

On a different matter, from the article: 

The company is “distressed and concerned that these incidents occurred first and foremost for moral and ethical considerations, but also because we rely on the good health of birds in order to ensure the continued success of our company,” Gardin-Frazer says.
 

This seems to support the suggestion that if those who were advocating for these chickens were to advocate for them as rights bearers, the small welfare improvements would fall into place on their own, and the advocates' time may be better spent focusing on liberation, rather than regulation.  

[Mo Orr]

I agree Carolyn.

Those who may make the connection will be those who are 'ripe' to hear it.

"We're talking between 30 and 50 trucks carrying an average of 10,000 chickens (each). That 's what goes through the plant every day.”  Those numbers make me want to vomit.