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/

[Brandon Becker]

The first article was published October 10, 2005 (see: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2005_10/HSUScrossesline.htm), the second January 2006 (see: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/NAALPO/NAALPOvol2.htm).

 

The Go Vegan Radio interview you are talking about is from September 2009. I just listened to relevant parts of the interview and after Linden plays the sound clips from Pacelle on AgriTalk, it is clear that Best understands the reality of HSUS in his response as he explains the background of the HSUS, how they are "welfarists" and collaborators helping industry co-opt the movement.

 

I would find it shocking (in a surprising way) if HSUS said it stood for veganism and animal rights, however, it is also shocking in a disturbing (not surprising) way that Pacelle is openly joining hands with industry as "welfarist" collaborators considering industry propaganda often paints HSUS as an "animal rights extremist" group. 

[Brandon Becker]

Here's a quote from the first link that demonstrates that Best understands HSUS is a "welfarist" group:

"If HSUS is right that this movement can win justice for animals (or really, according to its stated goals, improve the welfare of the animal slaves) through education and legislation alone, then why are more animals being tortured to death today than 20 years ago? Why is the mainstream movement barely able to do anything more than increase the size of cages and bring about “humane slaughter?” Why is it helping corporations polish their public image and mitigate consumer guilt over eating murdered animals?"

 

And a quote from the second link:

"From its 30,000 members and annual budget of $500,000 in 1970, it has morphed into a body of 9 million members with an operating budget of nearly $100 million in 2005. Such a behemoth has a homogenization effect on the movement whereby it monopolizes donations to animal causes, commands ever more media, disseminates welfarist ideology, co-opts activists useful to its programs, and maligns direct action approaches, all the while staying disengaged from local humane societies and animal shelters as a whole (unless they are willing to pay HSUS a fee for services and advice)."

[Brandon Becker]

Roger, as we've gone over before, Steve Best has written extensively in the past about how HSUS is a regulationist group. See for example:

"The Humane Society Crosses the Line"

http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/HSUSCrossestheLine.htm

"The Iron Cage of Movement Bureaucracy"

http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/TheIronCage.htm

 

Second, his reaction on Go Vegan Radio was more of a sharing disgust with Bob Linden at HSUS for their collaborations with industry, not a surprise at their collaborations. Best is not naive; he understands the speciesist ideology of HSUS and you know this. I ask you to please stop framing it as otherwise so I only have to suspect you have a bad memory rather than bad motives.

[Carolyn Bailey]

I don't think this was ever meant to be an Earth shattering revelation, Tim. It may serve as a reminder to those who continue to advocate for welfare reform, mistakenly believing it will in some way, at some time, somehow, lead to anything, other than more exploitation, by more people, feeling more comfortable about consuming more animals.

[Tim Gier]

I'm sorry for being so unable to comprehend the written word that some think I need pictures drawn for me, but given that a quick perusal of Wayne Pacelle's blog reveals this, there's less here than meets the eye:

"With opinion polls showing that consumers are willing to pay more for higher welfare products, the response of major producers should be to shift to more humane methods, not to do things the same way and simply rebrand the same old product.

Humane treatment of animals means something. And we’ll be there to keep a careful eye on the companies that misrepresent their conduct and take advantage of consumers who put their faith in the law and the integrity of the companies to do as they say."

That's from Pacelle's Nov 29, 2010 entry entitled "Hijacking Humane" http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/11/perdue-lawsuit.html

So, yeah, I guess if no-one reads what the guy writes, or pays attention to what the organization he heads actually does, then this post by Francione is shocking news the portends the death knell for HSUS and the rest of the animal welfare industry. Or not.

[Brandon Becker]

It's a direct admission from Pacelle that abolitionists can point to instead of having to cite various HSUS publications that make the same point but in more words. It's nothing new for those who have been paying attention, but it can be pointed out to regulationists to help clarify what HSUS and "welfare" reforms in general are about. If regulationists who claim to support abolition really do support abolition, hopefully this will encourage them to join the abolitionist movement instead.

[Gary L. Francione]

I am not sure what is confusing anyone here.

Pacelle not only defends animal welfare, which is not unusual in itself, but he succinctly and clearly acknowledges that welfare reforms (in this case, a regulation that won't take effect until 2025) make consumers feel better about animal use. That is significant given the large number of animal advocates who do not seem to recognize that welfare is explicitly intended to have this effect and it is particularly effective because so many advocates (and movement critics) see Pacelle's HSUS as different from, and radically more progressive than, John Hoyt's HSUS.

If anyone finds this confusing, I must apologize but I can't state it more clearly and I have no artistic ability and cannot draw pictures.

 

Gary L. Francione

Professor, Rutgers University

[Tim Gier]

Yes, I understand what both you (Carolyn & Brandon) are saying, but I don't think this is anything new.  HSUS has, as Francione himself has said before, published studies which highlight the fact that "welfare" measures are good for the exploiters.  I didn't think it was any kind of secret, or that HSUS was trying to hide or deny, that they have always been working with industry to help them exploit animals more efficiently.

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think you miss the point, Tim. He would appear to be highlighting the fact that he has been suggesting for years that welfare reform is beneficial to the exploiters and consumers, and now a major welfare org publicly agrees with that.

[Brandon Becker]

I think Francione is saying that both he and Pacelle agree that "welfare" reforms will help the industry and satisfy consumers.