Gary Francione on NZ Vegan Podcast 8/11

[Billy L]

http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com/2011/08/nz-vegan-podcast-episode...

Something struck me after hearing this first part of the interview. This may seem like an attempt at a "gotcha", and I am playing devil's advocate a bit, but I thought I would put it out as something to discuss.

In the animal shelter world in the USA, there is a movement led by vegan author/advocate Nathan Winograd called No Kill Nation which has several steps for shelters and communities to end killing of healthy shelter animals and get them adopted instead. It's backed up by very inspirational and transformational success stories (empirical evidence). http://www.thenokillnation.com/

I'm positing (as devil's advocate) that to promote pulling, trap-neuter-return, individual adoptions, etc. without a strong no-kill message is similar to Professor Francione's criticism of the actions of welfare advocates that either don't promote veganism, or present veganism as the most difficult of many choices to reduce suffering. It might be a closer analogy to compare Francione's criticism of open rescue with rescue without no-kill promotion, but open rescue wasn't mentioned in this part of the interview.

Granted, TNR and adopting is not making people feel better about euthanizing cats and dogs, the way that free-range eggs or "humane" raised meat apparently alleviates consumer's conscience, but aren't the two similar in the desire to help individual animals while working toward the ultimate goal of abolishing their killing (and not having the "proper" message being promoted as the solution)?

I'm curious to know what others think.  

[Billy L]

Interesting food for thought Tyler. I've seen a few arguments against No Kill, but have been too immersed in learning about the organizing through examples of successful cities to read up on the critique. Interestingly, (this is before reading Winograd's chat on ARZone) as many are probably aware, there is a lot of back and forth between PeTA and Winograd, in much the same way abolitionists distance themselves from PeTA. I kind of assumed that the critique was coming from PeTA, the same way the Weston Price Foundation brings up the tell-alls of ex-vegans.

[Billy L]

So, if person honestly believes that the ownership of other animals as "pets" as well as the killing of other animals in shelters and rescues are both wrong, and if that person does not make those beliefs explicitly clear whenever he talks about "pets", then, by Francione's standards, that person is doing exactly what Francione chastises others against doing.

Gary and Elizabeth are both advocating adoption, TNR, pulling animals from death row, etc. and if you are unable to participate in any of these activities, then to support rescue groups. So it's two out of three by your example Tim (unless there are in fact only two: ownership and killing - is "rescues" connected to killing or separate?). At any rate Tim, if your statement is true, my naive hope is that the standard is examined and discussed in light of this analogy, and greater understanding of the merits of all nonviolent animal advocate work is the end result.

 

[Tim Gier]

As I understand it, Francione's position is that it isn't enough to not support those practices which one believes contribute to or perpetuate a problem. He is quite explicit when he says that advocates for other animals must always make clear that all use is wrong, and that they must do everything possible to not leave any impression on "the public" generally that might be taken otherwise. Also, by Francione's standards, it would be no defense for any person to say that people who are familiar that person's positions ought to know his real opinions on a matter. He is routinely critical of other advocates, often not because they actually support things he finds problematic, but because he thinks other people will think they support things he finds problematic, as a result of those advocates presenting an incomplete or inconsistent message.

So, if person honestly believes that the ownership of other animals as "pets" as well as the killing of other animals in shelters and rescues are both wrong, and if that person does not make those beliefs explicitly clear whenever he talks about "pets", then, by Francione's standards, that person is doing exactly what Francione chastises others against doing.

[Tyler]

Let's assume that Francione started actively advocating for the end of kill shelters, and then let's assume that our society actually listened.  What would happen if there were no more kill shelters in America or Canada or wherever?  Since most shelters are often at capacity at any given time, and since they would no longer be able to kill the animals there currently, they would be unable to take in any more unwanted animals.  Then what?  That would leave people who would have taken their pet to a shelter with two choices; keep him/her, or find some other way to get rid of him/her.  Some of these people could probably find a new home for their pet, but in reality, most couldn't.  That likely means one thing; abandoning their pet.  If they're unwilling to keep him/her and they can find a new home, what other choice would they have?  So what would likely happen if there were no more kill shelters is that we would see a significant rise in the stray pet population?  Is that better?  Maybe, but the reality is that the life of most stray animals, especially dogs, is short, violent, and often diseased.  I read an article once written by a vet who said that most stray dogs don't make it on the streets for more than two years. 

 

I think the reason Francione doesn't talk about this is because he recognizes that until people change their views about non-human animals, these problems will never change.  In this case they will likely just shift from animals being killed in shelters to animals being abandoned by their owners.  The real question is, why do so many people abandon their pet?  The reason, in my opinion, is because they don't really recognize the inherent value of non-humans, and therefore, treat adoption as a casual matter and don't see any serious ethical problem with abandoing their companion animal when they no longer want him/her.  In our culture many people think it's perfectly okay to pick up a cute puppy at the pet shop, and then when he/she gets bigger, or starts barking, or isn't 'cute' anymore, to take him/her to the shelter. 

 

Getting rid of kill shelters isn't going to fix this problem.  This is probably why Francione doesn't spend much time talking about it.  Because as long as people see animals as property or resources for our amusement, nothing will ever change for the companion animals in our culture.  Like I said before, if we got rid of kill shelters tomorrow, but didn't educated the public about the moral value of animals, the problem would only shift from animals being killed to animals being abandoned. 

[Billy L]

Carolyn, it's an excellent discussion and there is a lot of new ground covered (I've listened to nearly every mp3/podcast commentary on abolitionistapproach.com). Definitely worth the time you'll spend listening.

[Billy L]

Tim, you have the right insight into what I am getting at, I'm not sure how clear I am being, and I will try and clarify it to address you and Tyler. Also I'm not sure that there is necessarily anything Gary or Elizabeth said in particular in the podcast that will stand out in relation to what I am trying to express, it's more of a question I had because I don't fully understand the condemnation of single-issue campaigns by Francione abolitionists (welfare advocacy I understand as problematic in that it doesn't end use), and the dismissal of animal advocates that are not strict adherents to the abolitionist approach.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to speak for Professor Francione, Elizabeth Collins, or Nathan Winograd.

So here goes:

If I was a strict no-kill advocate, and I heard this podcast promoting TNR, supporting rescues that are pulling animals from death row, fostering for adoption, etc. and said, the only way to help shelter animals is to organize your community and adopt the no-kill philosophy at your local shelter, all of these "single-actions" that promote helping individual animals only confuse the public into thinking one animal is more deserving than another, and does not create more no-kill communities.

I understand that it's probably a given that Gary wholeheartedly supports no-kill shelters, but he didn't use this interview to promote it, now did he? said the strict no-kill advocate.

ok

Is this example analogous to the common abolitionist approach critiques of single issue campaigns or "new welfarist" organizations? If it is, as I said before, my point isn't to claim a "gotcha", but to hopefully open abolitionist approach folks to this possibility, and point out that there is more than one way to help animals. I'm with nonviolent creative vegan education, shifting the property paradigm, etc. but what's wrong with being passionate about, say, ending Greyhound racing AND promoting veganism?

 

[Tyler]

Francione has criticized Peta for killing healthy animals in the past, but I just don't think he sees the issue of kill shelters as something that requires repeated clarification.  If a person knows anything about Francione and his views, they'll know his position about killing healthy animals in shelters.  His problem with individuals or organizations not promoting veganism or promoting veganism as one of many means of reducing suffering is different though.  Veganism, in his view, is the moral baseline of the animal rights movement, and therefore, if animal organizations aren't promoting it they are failing in their moral obligations to animals.

 

I don't want to speak for Francione, but it seems to me he would likely say that unless a culture understands the moral necessity of veganism, they will never have a clear view of the fundamental problems their culture has with animals, and therefore, there will always be animal shelters killing animals.  If they don't see a problem with eating a pig why would they have a problem with killing a dog? 

 

So, I don't think it's that he doesn't feel the issue of animal shelters killing animals is important, it's just that he doesn't mention it over and over again, prefering to focus on the main issue, which is the property status of animals and the moral necessity of veganism.

[Tim Gier]

Billy, I haven't listened to the podcast yet either, but I'd like to be clear on what you're saying as a devil's advocate so I have your question properly framed in my mind as I do listen to it. Are you saying that by advocating for what he's advocating for in regard to cats and dogs that Francione is doing essentially (or nearly) the same thing he criticizes others for doing with respect to regulatory reforms? Thanks!!

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi Billy,

Nathan was a guest on ARZone earlier this year, this is the transcript of his ARZone guest chat:

http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transcript-of-nathan-winograds

If ever I get around to listening to this podcast, I'll let you know my opinion. 

Thanks for posting this discussion here! :)

 

[Billy L]

This is up on the www.abolitionistapproach.com forum as well.