nationwide movement aims to ban controversial conditions

[fancbrd4me02]

Quote:
This thread isn't about the organization or hunting, please lets stay on track so we can talk about the conditions on factory farms.
We don't want this thread closed.

 

[fancbrd4me02]

Here, I'l lbring up something that I think is relevant. Do any of you all think that despite the concerns some have about the laws for treatment of animals in factory farms, that a byproduct could (and some might argue already is) that small farming/family farming has a new market for thier goods? Because I think there is some merit to that idea.

 

[redux]

I am confused. Is this thread in favor of H.S.U.S or against raising food animals in cruel conditions?

I don't know enough about H.S.U.S to voice an opinion. I know enough about my conscience to know that I don't want to have cheap food if it means that animals have to be kept in tiny cages their entire lives. I prefer to pay more for pastured animals, or go without meat altogether. An animal can be raised and slaughtered without unneccessary cruelty.

I could not care less about H.S.U.S.

 

[redux]

Quote:
I agree that is possible. I buy direct from a farmer who does not engage in cruelty. I can visit the farm any time I want.

 

[dntd]

I think proper farming has to do with the wellfare of the animals.The farmers know that there are ways to produce meat in a responsible manner but the money isn`t there that`s the truth, there is ways of making livestock lives easier on them, a life in a tiny cage piled on by you sisters, or not being able to turn around is really not humane, how much extra would it cost to have pens built that allowed them to walk or turn around .....

 

[Tailfeathers]

Quote:
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was trying to emphasize the point that others have made by using an analogy that everyone could relate to. I certainly did not mean to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with my point of view is one to be dismissed or doesn't understand the issue. Having said that, I do think the analogy is correct in that many of those who are the most vocal, visible, and outspoken are celebrity "sponsors" of those "movements" and are in fact far removed from any experience on the subject. Many others have eluded to this same point in this thread.

The second issue you bring up again is one I also tried to address and that is what constitutes "horrendously cruel conditions"? Some on here have brought up the example of the pregnant sows in the cramped pens. And others with experience have explained exactly why those conditions exist. I seem to recall something being said along the same thing with chickens and eggs.

So, while to some such conditions may be "horrendously cruel conditions", to others - and I would submit to many others - those conditions are simply a necessity that have arrived through the requirements of meeting the needs of other humans. It may not be pretty but it most likely is a necessity.

And finally, as I also initially said, before one decides to jump on the bandwagon of a movement, I would strongly suggest that one looks closely at what the end result is likely to be. Suppose one is successful in passing a law that a chicken must not be caged for any longer than a certain period of time? How long is too long? Would 24 hours be too much? Well, there goes all your poultry shows! I happen to know of some folks who have some mighty fine birds and they are kept in cages all the time. And I'm talking about fairly small cages. Not much bigger than they can stand up and turn around in. Is that "horrendously cruel"?

And suppose one is successful in passing a law that a certain amount of space is required for each chicken? How much space is enough? Who decides? Suppose you think 4' per bird is enough. But then somebody comes along and says, "Oh no. You've got to show more compassion and give your chickens at least 6' of space per bird." Oh but you say, "But I don't have that much space to give them." So they say, "Oh well, I guess you don't need them that bad. It's more important to be compassionate and it's horrendously cruel to have them confined to less than 6' per bird." And you say, "Oh, that's just illogical and unreasonable."

And they say, "Says who?"

God Bless,

 

[redhen]

The conditions are cruel..again..you know they are.
lets not say things just for the sake of winning an argument here..

they live in 2x2 cages.... they cant even walk!
Do you really think that its okay? Come on now... Lets be real...
i'm not saying stop factory farming...just make it better.... thats all..
why cant that be done?? because people are greedy and they want to cram them all in the smallest cages they can...so they can have more animals...hence..make more money..
Its just morally wrong... big time.

 

[redux]

I am less in favor of legislating this than of making it financially feasible for farmers to raise animals in less confined conditions. I think there is the potential for a win-win.

I think people who are forced to deal with raising animals in conditions as depicted in the films would tend to lose part of their humanity after a while. How could you not? You have to be able to look in the mirror at the end of the day and feel good about the person that you are.

 

[Ferrret]

Just finished watching the "Earthlings" film and I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with the movie. Likening the genocide of the Holocaust to factory farming is unfair and unrealistic. The Holocaust's intent was to remove "unworthy" races permanently by slaughter. Factory farms are not intent on making an animal extinct because they would go out of business.
I disagree with the notion that if slaughter houses were made of glass, we would all be vegetarian. People have been killing, gutting and eating animals long before slaughter houses, without issue. I think if slaughter houses and factory farms were made of glass that they practices within those walls would be better. Yeah some people would turn away and never eat a burger again, but many would make the connection of "That's where my food comes from" and accept that an animal died to fill their belly.
The notion on hunters and fishermen doing it all for the thrill of bloodshed and sport is highly misconstrued. I know dozens of hunters and fisherman who do it so they have something to eat because even the cheap factory meat costs too much. Some hunters do it for sport and nothing more, and that is a detriment, but more hunters kill only what they and their families need.
I also have to disagree that over consumption of meat is the sole reason for the increase in disease processes such as diabetes, cancers, heart attacks and strokes. Over consumption in general is the culprit for those. Society is more relaxed and more people have access to more food and will willfully eat until they feel ready to burst. Man kind has always consumed meat and this spike in disease processes is fairly new in mankind's history.
Overall the film hasn't changed my mind about eating meat. I am an omnivore, with teeth for rending meat and grinding plants. My digestive tract is designed to process both. I don't feel that becoming a vegetarian or vegan will make the practice of killing animals for food change. There are roughly 6.5 billion people on this planet, and there is no way every single one of them will stop eating meat. I will still eat hamburgers with cheese and bacon on them. I will still wear or use things made from animals.

The beginning of the film put up "stages of truth" which they listed as denial, violent opposition and acceptance. Both sides of the fence, people who eat meat and those opposed to the use of animals, experience this. Many for some reason cannot reach the acceptance stage on some matters, such as killing an animal for nourishment is a natural process. The treatment of these animals can be viewed as unnatural. Humans can be a vile lot if given the opportunity and incentive.

New laws and regulations are seen as the most effective methods. Does that instantly meant that small farms will suffer? Not necessarily. "Organic" and "Whole" foods movements benefited small local farms until rules were laid down for what constituted "Organic". (Those regulations were quoted earlier in this thread.) Factory farms use the loose terminology and vague wording to have what they can label as organic without changing much of their practices.
Perhaps a better move to making farmed animals lives better would be to encourage the use of smaller local farms, farmers markets, local butcher shops and places where you can find out the conditions of the animals before they are a meal. Encourage people to make groups to start new small farms and have operations in which the animals can be treated better, killed humanely and people can get fresh, untampered with products.

I've seen videos similar to what is shown in "Earthlings" with the end message of "Go Vegetarian/Vegan to end these horrors." That message is reliant on people being so shocked by what they see that they can't bear the thought of eating meat again, which really is a small number of people. I think that adding a message about supporting local farms and businesses who practice humane treatments would serve a wider audience.
I also have to agree again with Tailfeather's on the use of big names of celebrities. Those people have the means of keeping fit and healthy and have dietitians, doctors and personal trainers keeping them in good health. They are an unfair model of who living a veg/vegan life is. There are plenty of people who eat meat who are just as fit and healthy, and plenty of veg/vegans who are unfit and unhealthy. They will also have blind followers who won't think about the real impact of the decisions they are making and the causes they are supporting.

redux- you have a point about people being desensitized to slaughtering animals day in and day out, but if you distance yourself to a point of making an animal suffer for sheer joy, then perhaps you should get a little psychological counseling and find a new job.

 

[melody123]

Quote:
The words seperation of church and state do not exist anywhere in the constitution. If you think that it does, then you need to read the constitution. The federal government can't set up a religion and can't stop free exercise of religion. If one person chooses to use their free exercise of religion to push for a new law, then that is their right.

Besides, people are allowed to push for any law or abolishment of any law based on their own moral code. If that code comes from the Bible, the Tora, being vegetarian, hating corporations, being an athiests, loving animals, hating animals, etc - It dosen't matter.

(The real question is, why are you so fearful or hateful of religion? Would you be so quickly to offend if someone mentioned Buddha's teaching towards animals or their Native American religious/cultural teachings on animals?)

Personally I'm against the federal government getting involved, because the FEDERAL government does not have the right or responsibillity to make laws on this subject. Each individual state, per the 10th amendment, has the right.

I'm also a little worried about my own state getting involved. Because I know that the large farms will get the bills past in such a way, that small farmers like myself, will be the only one's put out of business. I'm sure that the law would require that all birds be 100% safe from predation, which means no free range animals would be allowed. There would probably be an animal ID and an expensive permit system. If have to pay $200 each year for the state of Oregon's permission to sell tomato plants out my front door, why not charge a $1,000 permit each year to keep chickens for eggs. Large producers will have no problems with this, everyone else will not be able to pay.

The best idea is to educate people to make the right choices. Both for the animals, which should be treated humanely, and for their own health .