On the Two Prongs of Welfare Reform Consideration

First, I am disconcerted to report that my Barnes & Noble sold out of The Compassionate Carnivore in 24 hours.

No, thanks, you don't need to special order one for me.
Oh, they'll be more in next week? I'll come back then.

Borders is on my way to a meeting today so I'll check there. I won't have time to read all of it and I just might have to purchase it if it's compelling and contains sentiments, research or quotes I can't resist sharing.

I realize I may not have been as clear as I'd like regarding my thought process around the question of whether welfare reforms lead to abolition. The two prongs I look at are:

1.    Is the reform really a reform? Are the sentient nonhumans being used for food, clothing or research in fact significantly better off than pre-reform? This is where the Peaceful Prairie campaign comes in. We were led to believe that the notion of cage free necessarily meant a significant improvement in the well being of the hens. And in some cases, while the hens are alive (as humane slaughter is an oxymoron), they do indeed have lives that are substantially better than battery hens. However, you must consider the boys who are "disposed of" or "discarded" by way of maceration or gassing. You can't not consider that. And the same is true for milk. How can you not consider the calves who are taken from their mothers, and who will shortly be served as veal? I don't care how much grass the cow is permitted to eat under the California sun. If she is artificially inseminated and her babies are taken from her, I have a very, very difficult time being satisfied with the grazing-in-the-grass-under-the-sun part.

Then there are welfare reforms that I'm not sure why are called welfare reforms. Exhibit A: "The Agriculture Department on Tuesday proposed banning from the food supply all cows that are too sick or injured to walk, a long-sought victory for advocates of animal welfare."

I'm not sure why that's a welfare reform. Ceasing the endless cycle of forceful insemination followed by pregnancy after pregnancy, only to have your babies removed from you and slaughtered, and the physical toll all of that abuse involves, is what makes a downer cow. Eliminate all that (including the calf removal part), and perhaps there is indeed an improvement in welfare. But removing them from the food supply (and killing them anyway)? That sounds more like human welfare reform, as it's a food supply issue. How does that make a difference to the cows? Why should I put my time and money behind that campaign?

2.   How is the welfare reform an incremental step toward not using animals at all? I've read debates about the banning of the steel jaw leghold trap and whether it is/would be a demonstration of incremental abolition. I don't think it is. Banning fur is a step toward abolition as it ends the use of the animal. Banning the trap is like moving to controlled-atmosphere killing in my mind. Do you agree? I'd also say the same thing about the banning of veal crates. Tell me there's no more legal veal, and that "humanely-raised veal" isn't now the third most popular item at Wolfgang Puck's Spago, and perhaps I'd be inclined to believe that the absence of crates leads to not using the animal.

Because I'm always interested in financially (and otherwise) supporting organizations that campaign for initiatives that I believe in, I welcome any suggestions about campaigns or groups that I might be missing (and yes, I know all about Sea Shepherd and I'd like to hear your thoughts about them).

Finally, I like the idea of the Boston Vegan Association and perhaps that's the way we all need to go: veganizing our cities and towns and educating our communities. Perhaps if we had a coordinated, nationwide effort to veganize our own backyards, other benefits would result, such as vegans running for office, more vegan businesses, more options in restaurants, and changes in local policies that would actually end the use of animals (can you say Greyhound racing?).

Or not.

What do you think?

Comments

[johanna]

Maybe someone mentioned this previously, but if you don't want to give money to the author yet feel you need to own the book for reference, why not buy a used copy from Half.com, or from an independent used bookseller (tons are listed on abe.com)? If you have books you need to clear out & are willing to trade, you might even be able to score a copy for free from book-trading sites like Bookmooch.com.

And if you don't need to own the book, y'know, there's always that old-fangled place... the library. :)

[Mary Martin]

I'm sorry. I should've given more backstory. The book was just released and isn't on half.com. I believe housing works as a copy on the cheap, and my library system has one copy on order for each branch. I was going for the quick, free way (and without shipping) to buzz through the book (I hear it's not like reading Proust) so I could report back if there was anything interesting.

I do have a problem getting rid of books, I must admit. I hoard NOTHING. But when it comes to beloved books (at least not books in general), I am definitely challenged.

I haven't tried Bookmooch yet--thanks for the reminder!

[Eric Prescott]

Thanks for mentioning the BVA. I hope to see grassroots abolitionist vegan orgs sprouting up all over, and I am eager to help out with that however I can.

[Mitchell]

Thanks for posting this, it helps me begin to understand where the abolitionists are coming from.

My thoughts on your two criteria. First, is it really a reform? That I can certainly agree with. The reform has to make things better for animals or why should we expend effort backing it? But I think we are a little further apart on what make a reform a reform. I agree that the fate of male chicks is a travesty and needs to stop. But I am having trouble seeing why that means we can't make things better for the laying hens right now.

The point about banning 'downer' cattle from the food supply, you're absolutely right. That's not any sort of reform.

Your second point, does this move us toward eliminating animal use? Again, I certainly agree with the broad sentiment but we appear to differ on some of the details. Part of what getting rules and laws passed involves is education. If we can show people just what is being done to the animal that is the piece of veal on their plate, we can encourage to stop eating it. If we can force the veal producers to come forward and admit what goes on, we're a step closer to getting it stopped.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear your thoughts and those of your commenters. It may well be that I need to expand my thinking some more.

And I would definitely like to hear of some good charities.

[Lee]

With respect to Sea Shepherd, I think they are a wonderful organization that has done amazing work for decades. I realize that Paul Watson tends to be politically incorrect at times but without Sea Shepherd intervention I shudder to think what would happen to the whale populations.