In any case, those who raise animals for slaughter, I’m sure are focused on the welfare of their product en mass… They take into account the whole “barn” or “house” full of animals – An expected (and acceptable) amount of mortality is part of the industry standard. They really don’t consider the individual animal – when there are 1,000 hogs in one building – the concerns of 5 or 10 that aren’t particularly “happy” don’t amount to much. The same is true in chicken houses – I’ve been inside of a very “modern” egg factory – and I truly understand that the “cages are more valuable than the birds”. The needs of a few hundred individual birds make little difference when you have a million…

The producers take their “product” seriously – as long as on the whole they are making a profit. The well-being of many animals slip through the cracks in a systems like this. The “quality” of life any factory farmed animal is fleeting and questionable – Common sense tells most that if an animal cannot stretch, lie down, move, groom them selves, etc… it’s got to be a pretty horrible life. The industry sees them as “healthy” if they keep making eggs or can get to the slaughterhouse (alive) to make “meat”.

Sorry – this is not “concern” for the well being of the animal – it is making profits “efficiently”. And it is not “neccessary” or “essential” to man’s health & well-being. It is suffering that is needless – Go Vegan.

You say you “know how to treat animals with care and respect”. That is definately a contradiction as “care and respect” would imply that the animals were left to live their lives free of captivity… and oh yes – free from an end at the slaughterhouse.

People who depend on “experts” to guide them in the care of “food” animals are severely lacking “common sense”. I don’t need a degree to know that animals that can’t tend to their young, can’t groom themselves, can’t excape their own excretement – are not happy. It’s really just that simple.

“Experts” are hired and trained by the industry – of course they are going to advise those methods that make the most money for that industry. It really is just that simple.

Perhaps the cost of animal “foods” will go up. Perhaps this the reality of what things “should” cost? If we also eliminated the artificial price supports and supsidies to animal agriculture – then the price of animal “foods” would be more realistic. It’s just that simple.

“Cages are beneficial to animals” – In the case of the sows… when left to nature mother pigs lean on their front feet and gently lay down to avoid crushing their young. In fact, there’s a national “problem” with feral pigs… If they kill their young by such clumsy mothering… how then are there so many to be “over-populated”?

Besides, isn’t it true that the industry allows for a certain “percentage” of mortality? Doesn’t the industry routinely “cull” runts, or eliminated whole barns because of a downed market? So now we are to believe that the farmer is concerned with the .0? percent that may accidentally be harmed by mother? Sounds like it’s an excuse to control the animal (economically)… it’s just that simple.

And the birds… now – they are a different story here. Even though it’s known by common sense (and “experts”) that they are territorial and require space to establish a “pecking order” – the industry still wants to pack 6 – 8 birds in a tiny cage so that it encourages cannibalism. Oh but wait! The “cure” for that is to sear their beaks off! Again, it is so the industry can make their profit. It’s just that simple.

These birds supposedly would poop on their eggs and encourage A-flu? So how do you explain all the free range birds and backyard birds? After cats & dogs backyard pet chicks are most popular… How is it that those eggs are sold/eaten without poop – and without “Avian – flu” outbreaks? In fact, isn’t it so – that birds kept in filthy conditions encourage A-flu… certainly the videos inside factory egg farms are filthy beyond disgust.

I too don’t trust information from the internet or from videos especially when it concerns animal agriculture and the way it tries to convince common people to ignore their common sense. They lie and distort the truth in order to justify the way they raise animals for “food”… It’s just that simple.

Egg hens are “spent” after a short miserable life – there is no “humane” end for them – or for any animal that is raised for “food”.

It is impossible to grow and consume animal products and remain “humane” or “ethical”… It’s just that simple.

A plant based diet… better for health, better for the planet and certainly better for the animals. Go Vegan

The bulk of the pictures and videos used to promote Prop 2 talk about and show severe misery suffered by animals in factory farms. For many people, this is their first exposure to the reality of 95% of meat, dairy, and egg production. It is shocking and evokes sympathy, and that is a very good thing.

Barna,

Again, all the heavy hitters that represent the vast majority of animal agriculture are firmly opposed to Prop 2.

In every industry contraction, there are always some winners, financially speaking. Niman Ranch isn’t fighting Prop 2 because Prop 2, sensibly, aims to ban the most torturous abuses, which Niman does not do, so they be positioned to steal a little bit of market share from their competitors. So you have a very small percentage of the industry that is in opposition to the rest of the industry; a little divide and conquer can be an effective strategy. Furthermore, if all animal products cost as much as much and required as much land as Niman Ranch products, animal consumption would drop precipitously, and the market for vegan alternatives would skyrocket.

But Niman’s time will come. Prop 2 is being led by long-time ethical vegans. I don’t always agree with HSUS’ tactics but you better believe Wayne Pacelle and the folks in HSUS’s farm animals division will not be satisfied to stop at a “happy meat” nation. Again, the ag industry understands this, which is why they’re afraid of Prop 2. They know that it doesn’t end there.

You claim a) that vegan campaigns are under-funded and b) that vegan campaigns don’t need funding. I say funding helps: it allows you to air TV commercials, hire lobbyists, and mass-produce brochures, among other things. And there’s nothing stopping any vegan group from engaging in as much fundraising as they want. I heartily support that.

If HSUS were to do nothing but vegan outreach would they fare better? Would animal suffering be reduced more quickly? Who knows? Campaigns against vivisection have been mostly abolitionist for over 150 years, and there’s more vivisection than ever. The fact is, HSUS has got the animal ag industry – which dwarfs HSUS – quaking in their boots as never before. Animal agriculture has never spent a fraction of the time and resources used against Prop 2 to fight any other activist campaign. We can talk about theory all we want, but HSUS is obviously doing something right.

What we vegan actvists should do is not try to derail Prop 2, which, I predict, will lead to a string of reforms that reduce anmal suffering. Instead, we should creatively capitalize on it. For instance:

- Let people know that, now that they’re interested in ending farmed animal cruelty, here’s how to go farther. “Hey, responsible Californians – did you know….”

- Constructively, politely criticize HSUS. I’ve done it and gotten results. Granted, they’re not going to radically change overnight. Ask them to be more forthcoming in their pro-reform sites about abuses that aren’t covered by the reform. Use emerging public interest in reform as jumping off points (e.g., web links) to vegan recipes, product recommendations, and FAQs about vegan food and slaughterhouses.

There are many ways that vegan activists can leverage the work of “mainstream” groups like HSUS. I think that’s a more productive use of our time than griping about salaries, or trying to stop a measure that will give hundreds of millions of animals some desperately needed bit of freedom from torture

I’m sorry you don’t find Francione’s arguments compelling. I think his is some of the clearest argumentation I have ever seen.

A large reason why veganism is so miniscule in this society, is because it is not being promoted enough. You can’t underfund vegan education like it done by the dominant organizations (who are all about this “veg” bullshit and giving awards to KFC, Wolfgang Puck and Temple Grandin), and then expect it to grow. Frankly, I’m surprised there are this many vegans given how severely underfunded and underdeveloped vegan education is.

Certainly, few meat eaters would give money to veganism-based campaigns, but do we really need their money? Perhaps if we change the kinds of campaigns that are being waged, and if we stop paying a guy in a pinstripe suit $300,000 / year to “lead” us out of his D.C headquarters, we’d not need that much money after all. (Gee, where did I hear this before?)

The animal rights movement is practically nonexistent in the States, but if we’d put our energies into building a vegan movement, we’d surely grow and become more influential over time. That is, in theory. We don’t know for sure, because we have never tried.

Funny that you claim you don’t have to defend Francione, after you did just that. Yes, he consistently advocates against other activists and their campaigns, regardless of the issue. He is coming at this with a long-standing bias. His primary audience is either students, other acacemics or those exposed to animal issues and veganism through the work of the very organizations he criticizes. He’s the opposite of a Sarah Palin, but in many ways just as bad. Someone who is ensconed in intellectual thought, but lacking the ability to connect with “regular” people. No true motivator of change can be so alienating.

Overall, I don’t find his arguments particularly compelling as they lack any basis in societal perceptions or reality. To put it in perspective, approx .02 – 1.3% of the population is vegan and of that, I don’t know if the number of “activist” vegans would even register as significant. Compare that with the billion+ budget of animal industries, and an entire society entrenched in animal use as the norm, and you start to get a picture of the challenge using “vegan outreach” exclusively. Where does the money come from that these larger groups use to run campaigns like Prop 2? Primarily welfare-based solicitations. Would the same donors give for vegan outreach campaigns? Will they donate for the abolition of animals as food? Where would that money come from exactly that you claim HSUS should be using for vegan outreach?

Barring a natural occurence or economic catastrophe causing the cessation of the animal industries, we’re going to need money to run campaigns to change perceptions. And Prop 2 is about perceptions probably more so than it is about the relief of suffering. If you live in California and you are voting against Prop 2, you better make sure you know what you might be voting against.

Um… As I stated in my first comment, the video is ANIMATED and made to support proposition 2. It was posted by Vegan Bits in the first blog about prop 2, and there is a link to that first post above – maybe check it out. There is nothing stomach-churning about the video, and if it made someone become vegan I’d be surprised.