- Thread starter
- #11
Wow, I was so shocked by some of the replies I got it's taken me over a week to get my bearings. Heretofore I had found BYC generally supportive, without much of the nasty flaming I've seen on other forums. But with only the printed word, and no face to face meeting, we need to be especially carefully to read what has actually been written, and not carry assumptions based on other experiences.
Thaiturkey, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I did my best to make the experience and enjoyable and educational ones for the visitors. Nobody was allowed to chase or scream at the birds (telling them they might fall in poop did an amazing job keeping kids in check), let alone grab or manhandle or otherwise freak out birds in any way. My enthusiasm and knowledge gave me the energy to enrich both small children and adults at their levels of interest and comprehension, while always looking out for the birds first and foremost. I tried to encourage the farm managers to utilize better housing practices, ie separating the ducks from the turkeys, but to no avail. Unfortunately, I know I am the exception for employees at places like this, with very low pay and temporary/part time hours.
This is only a "working farm" in that it's animals are used for show and education. It is presented as the happy ideal of childhood, not a factory farm. To that end, I think it somewhat disingenuous to use the animals in one presentation of "reality", then slaughter them at the end. I also think (as does the farm manager but not the owner) that this is not good business sense, even if the customers knew this was the fate of the animals (and can you imagine how upset they would be if they knew?) This operation is open to the public three months a year. They literally have tens of thousands of customers, at roughly $10 a head. After overhead, how much is it really to support some birds? It saves the time of each spring of having farm managers schlep to auctions, quarantine birds but invariably lose some to illness, etc. Never mind that the birds usually aren't as docile, so patrons coming to an advertised "petting farm" can't get near the animals. And there are returning customers each year who ask about specific animals. We are talking about several dozen birds here, not hundreds or thousands, nor am I talking about animals that are high maintenance in terms of cost, housing, and time (such as pigs or horses) I suggested several birds they should keep, ones that were really calm around the children and were in endless photos, or that customers always asked about, like the buff Polish Frank, or the red Cochin with the clown feet. No dice, and now they will be with me on my farm.
My views on not eating birds are mine personally and I don't expect anyone else to hold them, nor did I say/imply they should. I think it far preferable that an animal be able to run around in a relatively happy life, then be done in as quickly and humanely as possible. (I don't buy that the end goes instantly from happily scratching to blissful oblivion without a period of intense fear-but that is what should be made as short and minimal as possible if we are to remain "humane"). The fact that ducks were used for food was not as disturbing as the fact that ducks that were injured due to the owners mismanagement, who had allowed the owners to profit, were not given a modicum of care. Once they were "useless", even temporarily, off to the stew pot they went. Cold hearted pragmatism maybe (except that I would have paid more) but not what I would expect a petting farm to be about. If you have to hide the truth from your customers, what does that say about your business practices? And just because misery exists everywhere, does that mean I shouldn't try to address it as I encounter it?
TonyO for some reason only included part of my quote, concluding that farmers need money to pay for feed too and selling animals is one way to do it. I don't know why he omitted the part where I wrote that I would have paid MORE for the birds than the stew potter did.
Pets? A personal decision, again. I don't think there are absolutes. Why shouldn't a particular animal be kept as a pet, particularly ones that have been "domesticated" for thousands of years? I really think it depends on the intent of the pet owner and the relationship with the particular animals. Sure, me may tend to anthropomorphize them, but is that any worse for there welfare than not "relating" in any way? As we see with pet dogs, there are a zillion different ways to keep them from happy to incredibly cruel. I think there is a range with poultry as well. My animals are pets in that they have names, are confined to my home with a fence (with predator safe pens, coops, etc at night) and are taken care of to the best of my ability (feeding, medical and veterinary care, etc) without any demands placed on them by me, ie egg production, particular personalities. I plan on keeping/enjoying then throughout their natural lives. I know that is not for everyone and I don't expect it to be. But I don't like being told it shouldn't be my way, based on whatever experiences you might have had with others. Just because one guy abused his dog and left it outside starving on a rope doesn't mean every dog owner is bad.
As for owners of pet "livestock" doing diddly? Pascopol I think you should watch out for absolutes. I'm not sure how you define "progress and development" (for whom-the animals/the planet or for humans?) but I don't know why a pet owner should be any less an advocate than breeders or utilitarians. Case in point: I was one of the very first people to have a long conversation with Dr. Allen at FWS last March when the Muscovy ban was published. As nothing more than an owner of two pet Muscovies with nothing to gain personally, I did some research and presented the cause of the breeders, exhibitors, hatcheries, and yes even the farmers who raise Muscovies for food. He, as everyone knows now, was not aware of Muscovies beyond the wildlife arena, and I helped to inform him, enough so that in our conversation he thanked me for filling him in and asked me to send him more info and he would consider re-writing the regs. I'm not trying to take credit for single handedly changing the mind of a federal agency, but I think it shows that individuals in any interest group do not necessarily possess a single mindset and this pet owner did more than NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH for the advancement of Muscovies.
The farm is now closed for the winter. The manager realized that I was serious about taking injured birds, even though she personally thought I was nuts, and did give me one that was hurt. I also bought a chicken (still gotta go back for Frank and the cochin, which I had to think on since they're roos), some ducks and two of the Emdens. I would have love to have taken them all and it was tough deciding. So I had to have reasons for choosing some and not others, and that ultimately makes me an elitist too. Unfortunately I can't save the world. Remember the Starfish story? http://muttcats.com/starfish.htm
Thaiturkey, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I did my best to make the experience and enjoyable and educational ones for the visitors. Nobody was allowed to chase or scream at the birds (telling them they might fall in poop did an amazing job keeping kids in check), let alone grab or manhandle or otherwise freak out birds in any way. My enthusiasm and knowledge gave me the energy to enrich both small children and adults at their levels of interest and comprehension, while always looking out for the birds first and foremost. I tried to encourage the farm managers to utilize better housing practices, ie separating the ducks from the turkeys, but to no avail. Unfortunately, I know I am the exception for employees at places like this, with very low pay and temporary/part time hours.
This is only a "working farm" in that it's animals are used for show and education. It is presented as the happy ideal of childhood, not a factory farm. To that end, I think it somewhat disingenuous to use the animals in one presentation of "reality", then slaughter them at the end. I also think (as does the farm manager but not the owner) that this is not good business sense, even if the customers knew this was the fate of the animals (and can you imagine how upset they would be if they knew?) This operation is open to the public three months a year. They literally have tens of thousands of customers, at roughly $10 a head. After overhead, how much is it really to support some birds? It saves the time of each spring of having farm managers schlep to auctions, quarantine birds but invariably lose some to illness, etc. Never mind that the birds usually aren't as docile, so patrons coming to an advertised "petting farm" can't get near the animals. And there are returning customers each year who ask about specific animals. We are talking about several dozen birds here, not hundreds or thousands, nor am I talking about animals that are high maintenance in terms of cost, housing, and time (such as pigs or horses) I suggested several birds they should keep, ones that were really calm around the children and were in endless photos, or that customers always asked about, like the buff Polish Frank, or the red Cochin with the clown feet. No dice, and now they will be with me on my farm.
My views on not eating birds are mine personally and I don't expect anyone else to hold them, nor did I say/imply they should. I think it far preferable that an animal be able to run around in a relatively happy life, then be done in as quickly and humanely as possible. (I don't buy that the end goes instantly from happily scratching to blissful oblivion without a period of intense fear-but that is what should be made as short and minimal as possible if we are to remain "humane"). The fact that ducks were used for food was not as disturbing as the fact that ducks that were injured due to the owners mismanagement, who had allowed the owners to profit, were not given a modicum of care. Once they were "useless", even temporarily, off to the stew pot they went. Cold hearted pragmatism maybe (except that I would have paid more) but not what I would expect a petting farm to be about. If you have to hide the truth from your customers, what does that say about your business practices? And just because misery exists everywhere, does that mean I shouldn't try to address it as I encounter it?
TonyO for some reason only included part of my quote, concluding that farmers need money to pay for feed too and selling animals is one way to do it. I don't know why he omitted the part where I wrote that I would have paid MORE for the birds than the stew potter did.
Pets? A personal decision, again. I don't think there are absolutes. Why shouldn't a particular animal be kept as a pet, particularly ones that have been "domesticated" for thousands of years? I really think it depends on the intent of the pet owner and the relationship with the particular animals. Sure, me may tend to anthropomorphize them, but is that any worse for there welfare than not "relating" in any way? As we see with pet dogs, there are a zillion different ways to keep them from happy to incredibly cruel. I think there is a range with poultry as well. My animals are pets in that they have names, are confined to my home with a fence (with predator safe pens, coops, etc at night) and are taken care of to the best of my ability (feeding, medical and veterinary care, etc) without any demands placed on them by me, ie egg production, particular personalities. I plan on keeping/enjoying then throughout their natural lives. I know that is not for everyone and I don't expect it to be. But I don't like being told it shouldn't be my way, based on whatever experiences you might have had with others. Just because one guy abused his dog and left it outside starving on a rope doesn't mean every dog owner is bad.
As for owners of pet "livestock" doing diddly? Pascopol I think you should watch out for absolutes. I'm not sure how you define "progress and development" (for whom-the animals/the planet or for humans?) but I don't know why a pet owner should be any less an advocate than breeders or utilitarians. Case in point: I was one of the very first people to have a long conversation with Dr. Allen at FWS last March when the Muscovy ban was published. As nothing more than an owner of two pet Muscovies with nothing to gain personally, I did some research and presented the cause of the breeders, exhibitors, hatcheries, and yes even the farmers who raise Muscovies for food. He, as everyone knows now, was not aware of Muscovies beyond the wildlife arena, and I helped to inform him, enough so that in our conversation he thanked me for filling him in and asked me to send him more info and he would consider re-writing the regs. I'm not trying to take credit for single handedly changing the mind of a federal agency, but I think it shows that individuals in any interest group do not necessarily possess a single mindset and this pet owner did more than NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH for the advancement of Muscovies.
The farm is now closed for the winter. The manager realized that I was serious about taking injured birds, even though she personally thought I was nuts, and did give me one that was hurt. I also bought a chicken (still gotta go back for Frank and the cochin, which I had to think on since they're roos), some ducks and two of the Emdens. I would have love to have taken them all and it was tough deciding. So I had to have reasons for choosing some and not others, and that ultimately makes me an elitist too. Unfortunately I can't save the world. Remember the Starfish story? http://muttcats.com/starfish.htm
