Wayne Pacelle and I Agree ~ Gary Francione

[Carolyn Bailey]

Dear Colleagues:

For many years now, I have been arguing that the large animal protection groups are, for the most part, partners with institutional exploiters and are, in effect, lobbying arms of the food industry. They do not challenge animal use; in fact, they actively support institutionalized animal use, and claim that it’s only the welfare or treatment issues that matter. They promote what are largely insignificant changes, many of which actually improve production efficiency and many of which are never even implemented or have dates of implementation many years in the future. They promote “happy” exploitation labeling programs where “approved” animal products are sold with the purported blessing of the animal advocacy community. I have argued that welfare reforms (if they can even be called “reforms” rather than efficiency-promoting changes) make the public feel good about continuing to exploit nonhuman animals.

My views have drawn a great deal of sharp criticism by advocates of animal welfare.

So it is with great happiness that I report to you that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, agrees with me.

Appearing before the Ohio Livestock Standards Board, which gained the support of HSUS after agreeing to abolish gestation crates after 2025 (so much for “helping the animals here now”), Pacelle praised animal agriculture:

“I do believe that agriculture is a deeply noble tradition,” he said. “There are so many great aspects to it, but we also must put animal welfare into the equation.”

Pacelle calls animal agriculture a “noble tradition” with “many great aspects.” We just need to put “animal welfare into the equation.”There you go. The problem is not animal use per se; the problem is treatment, and welfare reform, such as eliminating gestation crates after 2025, is the solution.

He also said that the welfare reforms supported by the Board:

will make Ohio agriculture “more honorable, defensible and pertinent to the consumer.

Yes, indeed, it will. That’s exactly what I have been saying for more than two decades now and I am glad that Wayne Pacelle agrees with me.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. You will never do anything else in your life as easy and satisfying.

 

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

 

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

 

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

[Lisa V]

Brandon Becker said ... "Let's keep promoting veganism relentlessly, but not limit ourselves to this form of activism alone. We can and should do more."

 

Exactly. Rights and welfare are hardly mutually exclusive. I think it's a stretch is to say that providing a few more inches of space for someone many years from now is "welfare." But even so, I don't see how welfare and rights can be separated as long as any animals at all are under the control/care of humans.

 

 

[Brandon Becker]

Roger, my main point is that I think we need to engage ourselves in government affairs rather than let industry and "welfarist" organizations be the sole non-state actors involved in making public policy. Most importantly, we need to clearly and consistently advocate for animal rights (actual rights, not slave "welfare"). We can also do other things such as working for bans on forms of animal exploitation, cutting public funding of animal-exploitation industries (ex: direct subsidies, "animal science" programs, etc), and disentangling animal-exploitation industries from public schools, hospitals, and other taxpayer supported institutions (see: http://www.rpaforall.org/factsheet9.html).

Let's keep promoting veganism relentlessly, but not limit ourselves to this form of activism alone. We can and should do more.

[Tim Gier]

Thanks Roger, 

 

I'll add those books to growing reading list. I don't know how in the world to separate the impact and influence, with respect to regulatory or voluntary reforms of the animal use industries, of the claims-making of welfare groups from that of rights-based groups, but I will give it more thought. 

[Tim Gier]

Roger,

 

You say that there is no need to engage in campaigns to regulate industry "mainly due to the fact that animal user industries react to animal rights claims with animal welfare statements". Are there concrete examples of any animal industry responding on their own in any meaningful and substantive way to animal rights claims? My sense is that whatever regulatory reforms have been enacted have been the result of steady and direct campaigning against, and negotiation with, those industries, almost exclusively by animal welfare advocates. Am I mistaken?

[Brandon Becker]

Roger, I think it's wrong to just sit back and "let welfarists do welfare." As David Sztybel points out, if we who want abolition sit back and do nothing then not only will the regulationist measures be much weaker than they would be otherwise, but we also fail to set political precedent for significant change while allowing industry unchallenged access to government policy (http://davidsztybel.blogspot.com/2008/01/red-carpet.html). Thus, we need to get involved ourselves to (1) advocate actual rights [such as http://www.rpaforall.org/billofanimalrights.html]; and/or (2) advocate abolitionist bans [bans on forms of exploitation, not practices within exploitation, as Joan Dunayer argues in Speciesism]; and/or (3) advocate the strongest regulations and enforcement that is politically possible. Only the first two are consistent with rights [the first is the most important, in my view] but the third would offer some accountability and not just let traditional "welfarists" like HSUS make government policy with industry. If we don't want to get involved with advocating regulations and enforcement, we ought to still be critical of advocating anything less than abolition.

[Mark Jordan]

How can we expect tinkering with the methods of exploitation, such as transport, cage sizes, slaughterhouses, etc. to send anything except for a "Do it right!" message? If a person or group believes that animals have the right to live free of enslavement, exploitation, and murder by humans, shouldn't they be sending an "It is not right!" message instead? The messages are mutually exclusive, you cannot send both.

Just when I didn't think it could get worse than "do it right" campaigns: for bigger cages, against certain species/menu items, that objectify women (to fight treating animals like objects!), animal rights "heroes" breaking and riding horses, and State X ballot initiatives for "humane" farms (to "end cruelty on farms") . . . enter this image and campaign that Carol points out, which takes the "Do it right!" theme to a new low - kill us at point A, not point B! Don’t be “cruel”!

:-( 
We have a lot of work to do, within the movement, and without.

I highly recommend this essay and short and awesome video series to all advocates, by Tribe of Heart/Humane Myth:
http://www.humanemyth.org/letsnotgiveup.htm 

 

To be effective for the animals, we need to think about these things, discuss them, and act upon them!

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi Lizzie,

I do not actively support the ban live export campaign being run by Animals Australia and the RSPCA because I don't believe that to ask for other animals to be slaughtered at one location in preference to another is a goal those who are working toward the end of exploitation should be aiming for. 

I believe this campaign is a very racist campaign as well, calling for "our" cows to be killed in "our" country, where slaughter is "humane" and "clean", as opposed to a "dirty 3rd world country" like Indonesia, incites racism and allows those who are kind enough to eat Australian cows killed in Australia to feel heroic for doing so.

My refusal to become involved in or support this campaign is not based on any ideal of achieving a perfect result by not doing so, my refusal to support this campaign is based on the knowledge that this campaign is asking for every single cow who will be slaughtered in the current climate, to continue to be slaughtered. Not one individual will escape this fate, not one individual will be regarded as an individual with a right to their own life, not one individual will be respected.

AA and the RSPCA are asking for Tommy, Dudley and every single cow they chose to personalise in this campaign to be terrified, tortured, and slaughtered for the gluttonous pleasure of humans, and this they would regard as a "victory". This is not something I can support in any way.

I don't believe my goals are radical, I believe my goals are achievable and I believe my goals are the very least that other individuals deserve from me.

This photo depicts, in my experience, the attitude of the general public throughout this campaign.

 

 

 

[Lizzie W]

that should say 'I simply do not understand why'* up there ^

[Lizzie W]

In what way can the reduction of the suffering involved in the exploitation of animals in the short-term, while the ultimate end-goal of a vegan world is being achieved, be conceived of as a negative thing?

If we, as abolitionists, are truly confident in arguing against all animal exploitation, surely we will able to argue just as effectively against animal industries which have adopted certain reforms as against the current system, in which abuses as extreme as those seen in the live export videos are common. Ultimately it is not only more achievable but more ambitious to promote a decrease in the level of suffering experienced by the other animals exploited by humans for food at the same time as campaigning for the abolition of these horrendous industries altogether.

Surely gradual improvements in farming conditions while people do continue to eat animal products would be preferable to animals being raised and killed in the most horrible ways (e.g. ritual mutilation or gratuitous abuse by workers for sadistic ‘entertainment’ purposes which could perhaps be prevented by CCTV in slaughterhouses) up until such a time as their slaughter is banned. I simply do not understand some of those who believe in abolition as the ultimate goal actively oppose campaigns like that against live export.

This particular campaign has brought many new people into the animal movement – thus exposing them to vegan people and ideals (like those so emotively and eloquently expressed in Patty Mark’s great speech at the first Melbourne rally) - prompted many people to go vegetarian or vegan (as comments on newspaper articles or the Animals Australia facebook site show), led to a drop in meat consumption across Australia and simply ensured that the issue of animal rights is kept in the public consciousness rather than ignored.

While many Australians have heard of Lyn White and are aware she is vegan, some self-named abolitionist campaigners (who actually share the same ultimate goal as Animals Australia, which promotes veganism) remain unknown except to a rather esoteric group of animal rights activists. Refusing to get involved in single-issue campaigns because they will not lead to a consistent or perfect result can simply mean animal activists remain irreconcilably distant from the public. In contrast, those who wore vegan t-shirts to the ban live export rallies and promoted personal change to others while simultaneously supporting legislation against live export seemed to recognise that interim improvements in the laws governing the treatment of animals and the campaign for abolition can go hand in hand and can in fact form a bridge between the conservative public and our radical goals.

[Jane Summers]

This entry is related specifically to the relevance of welfare:
If I was working with an organisation in a 3rd world country & administered the only available, but sub-standard analgesia to the dying person writhing in pain in front of me, would that make me complicit with the corrupt government who had supplemented the shipment of gold-standard medications with the less effective analgesia? Should the acute suffering of this dying person be ignored given that use of the sub-standard analgesia is providing profit to the corrupt government? Should i instead redirect my energy into an educational campaign intended to promote the emergence of a time- date unknown -when governments are mandated to facilitate optimal care of the dying? How is it possible to redirect my empathy away from any practical intervention intended to improve the quality of life of those currently suffering, into an area which is unlikely to provide any positive effect for many years?