Choices

I had a conversation with someone a few days ago (let's call him Joe) that slipped into a discussion about hunting. He was a friend of a friend's and as a few of us sat over coffee, someone brought up a story about an uncle's annual obsession with tracking down and killing deer. I noticed a change in his facial expression as he listened: his nose wrinkled just ever so perceptibly and a slight frown manifested itself as he crossed his arms. I asked Joe if he was against hunting and he said "no". A little surprised after having watched his facial expression and body language seem to indicate otherwise, I asked him if he hunted, himself. He told me that he hadn't in almost thirty years and that the last time he'd gone he'd been a teenager accompanying his grandfather. He told me that he's since had no interest in owning or using firearms of any sort and that even though many friends had invited him over the years to join them on hunting trips that he's declined. He told me that the story our table-mate had shared had disgusted him because "people who get off on killing are sick" and that he could never take pleasure in doing that. I paused, then told him that I was a bit befuddled over his fairly obvious reaction to our table-mate's hunting story and assertions of his own apparent disapproval of hunting, and yet of how he'd replied that he wasn't against hunting.

I had already been identified by our mutual friend as vegan, since my ordering soy for my coffee instead of the dairy default seemed to have warranted an explanation. I clarified my own stance for Joe briefly, stating that there's really no justification to treat a non-human animal as a thing existing for our use or pleasure, whether it involves hunting or other uses. "Wow. That's really judgmental of you. It's the height of arrogance for you to think that just because you feel a certain way about something that you have any right to extend that to others' behaviours or actions," he replied. "We all have freedom of choice and neither you nor I have a right to interfere with anyone else's freedom of choice just because we disagree with what they're doing."

Uh huh.

I pointed out to Joe that we all, each and every one of us, engage in extending our own ethical beliefs--even our less important simple likes and dislikes--to the people around us every day in every other aspect of our lives. "I don't," he insisted. "You animal rights types may try to do it, but you have no right to impose your will on everyone else."

So I asked him if he thought it was wrong to physically strike young children across the face. "Of course!" he replied indignantly. I asked him what he would do if he were walking down the street and saw an adult strike a three-year-old hard across the face--whether he'd do or say anything. "I'd give that person a talking to and try hard not to give him a taste of his own medicine," he insisted. I asked, gingerly, if he did not think that this would count as his extending guidelines he'd set for his own behaviour (i.e. to not strike young children across the face since he believes that doing so is wrong) to the actions of others. "That's different! It's hitting a kid," he explained. I asked, then, how he'd react if he saw a man walking a dog on a leash and then turning to kick the dog really hard. "Well, I'd say something there, too. It's not right to hurt animals like that." I asked him, then, why he thought that extending his own view of hunting to others amounted to merely interfering with their freedom of choice and as his imposing his will on others, when over and above causing physical harm to another, it involved taking that other's very life.

"Wow. You're really militant," Joe replied (with an emotional knee-jerk non-response). "You're obviously carrying a lot of hate towards other people if you're this aggressive about promoting your animal rights agenda." Our mutual friend and our other table-mate had long since stopped their own discussion to listen to us, and our mutual friend laughed, saying "Ha ha! She got you, Joe!" upon noting Joe's agitation over having gotten tripped up.

The thing is that it hadn't been an attempt at a "gotcha" moment. A conversation had evolved after I'd expressed curiosity about what had seemed like a contradiction and had tried to tease that contradiction out a bit so that we could both examine it. I regretted that others had overheard the discussion and had then poked fun at him, since my intent had not been to ridicule. I found it unfortunate that though Joe and I both recognized some of the same basic actions as inherently wrong that the fact that I did so as a vegan who felt no qualms about voicing that they weren't just wrong things for me to do--but that they were wrong in and of themselves--left Joe choosing to label me judgmental. The truth is that although he's kept it to himself, he's been doing a fair amount of judging of others who hunt, as well. Hopefully, taking it out of his bubble and placing it within a larger context will bring him around to understanding this and to his giving the whole matter of all animal use further thought. The choice, after all, is his.

Glorifying Killing

Canada's National Post featured a rather inappropriately titled article today ("Living by the gun") which caught my eye and managed to turn my stomach a little. The article includes a large photo of a smiling man holding the head of a dead deer up by the deer's antlers and it examines -- glorifies, even -- the recent interest in which city-dwellers have apparently been indulging themselves: Single-handedly killing other animals.

In the article, killing isn't killing -- it's "harvesting". Free-roaming non-domesticated animals are "wild meat". An individual sentient non-human animal is an "it". The article describes the practice as having been spurred by the "local food movement". And the humans engaging in this hands-on slaughter?

This group of ethical meat eaters are emerging from urban centres to take up the hunt, an age-old practice that has been on the decline for decades as young people have left rural communities and the traditions of their parents and grandparents.

These so-called ethical meat eaters are seeking escapism, the article tells us, but are purportedly proceeding from a

backlash against factory-farmed beef, pork and poultry, a food production practice that has faced intense scrutiny for being inhumane and environmentally damaging.

Jonathan Safran Foer and his lot would be proud, no? One would think so, as the article goes on to use familiar expressions used by yon happy meat advocates. Hunting down and killing animals is "being in touch with where your food comes from" and "caring about the ethics of the food you're eating". It's about "connection with nature" and "sustainability".

More telling, however, is when the actual bloodthirsty lure of hunting is revealed in various quotes in the article, couched in the aforementioned proclamations of wanting to be environmentally-friendly and of their wanting to disentangle themselves from what's portrayed as the unethical slaughter of animals we deem suitable to raise for slaughter:

"Part of it is the local food thing [... b]ut the other side is purely primal[.]"

"Having a freezer full of meat, it's empowering."

"I took the hunting class because I wanted to have [the] feeling of taking responsibility for [a non-human animal's] life and its death[.]"

"I thought I'd feel a little remorse when I did it, [...b]ut I actually felt very excited. I thanked the animal when I essentially slit its throat."

That terms like "humane" and "ethical eater" get woven around these statements leaves me asking: Why are some animal advocates still viewing animal welfare groups and promoters of "happy meat" as part of a process which will lead to the end of our using non-human animals? Why are some animal advocates endorsing the sort of mindset that leaves the general public viewing some forms of animal use better than others? Why aren't we putting more time and energy into educating others that animals aren't ours to use and that so-called ethical eating doesn't involve killing sentient beings, whether their bodies end up in slaughterhouses or the backs of pickup trucks?

Why not, indeed.

Wayne Pacelle of HSUS Makes It Clear That He's No Abolitionist

Just yesterday, AgriTalk (aka the "talk radio program for rural America and agriculture") aired an interview with Wayne Pacelle, a self-described vegan and the President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). For those of you who may have been rooting for HSUS, keeping your fingers crossed and hoping that maybe the animal slaughter industry's labelling of Pacelle or HSUS as having a so-called "vegan agenda" held the slightest bit of promise in terms of ending the use of animals in agriculture, please listen to this abridged version of the podcast.

The fact that Pacelle and HSUS have been standing firmly in the new welfarist camp was (yet again) made more than clear. In the interview, host Mike Adams of AgriTalk asked Pacelle where HSUS stood with regards to animal rights or animal welfare and Pacelle responded.

Adams: We have had a lot questions about where you come down on animal rights and welfare. The livestock industry and people I know believe in the humane treatment of animals. There is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights. How do you define the two? Are they same or different?

Pacelle: We at the Humane Society of the United States don’t talk about animal rights, but human responsibility. That places us more with the comments that you represent from the agriculture community. In almost al of our campaigns and activities, whether it’s Prop 2 in California or prior ballot measures in Florida or Arizona, or in our Hallmark/Westland investigation, where we exposed the terrible mistreatment at a cull cow slaughter plant of the spent dairy cows, or in some other campaigns, those fit squarely in the realm of animal welfare. They relate not whether animals should be used for food, but how they are treated during production, transport and slaughter. [...] We’ll have some disagreements depending on what your orientation is, but I don’t think anyone can reasonably claim that our work is moving in the direction of eliminating animal agriculture as some of the folks in the industry keep repeating.

Pacelle goes on to assert that it's his

core belief that Americans are going to continue to eat meat, milk and egg products. That is the way it is. These are long-standing cultural practices. Our diet has been at work for a long time with people and it will not change certainly not overnight and it’s not going to change over a decade or 50 years.

In the remainder of the interview, when asked about his veganism, Pacelle makes it clear that it's his personal choice and that it has no impact upon and nor does it reflect HSUS or its policies. He goes even further to emphasize how, in fact, very few of HSUS' volunteer board of directors are even vegetarian, as if not eating animals somehow leaves you incompetent to help determine their best interest. When asked if he's stated that he wishes to put an end to all sport hunting, he denies it firmly and then dodges a question about whether he opposes hunting in general, stating that HSUS merely focuses on its "worst abuses" such as "canned hunts, bear baiting, contest shoots, shooting of endangered species [and] pure trophy hunting". When asked if he supports the closure of zoos, he says no. He even calls farming a "noble profession". You can read a transcript of the full interview here.

I think it's important for vegans to be aware of these facts--of this reality. It concerns me when members of the vegan community come out in support of organisations like HSUS, defending them for making supposed small inroads for animal rights. The truth is that organisations like HSUS do absolutely nothing to benefit animal rights. They collect donations from the guilty and wage minor public relations campaigns. What they accomplish isn't merely insufficient; it actually sets animal rights considerations further back. These campaigns invariably end up making those same people who donate feel better about maintaining the status quo concerning society's treatment of non-human animals as property. Is that what the vegan community really wants? Is this man who the vegan community really wants to champion?

Todd Palin Says America's Core Values Are Hunting and Fishing

I found this article via the Huffington Post, which found it via this blog. Word gets around, I guess.

Todd Palin spoke at a gun club in Pennsylvania on Saturday and proclaimed to the 75 or so people present that "it is important to have a ticket that 'supports our core values -- hunting and fishing'".

How can fishing be a 'value'?

Sarah Palin: No friend to critters, is she

I just stumbled upon this piece at DawnWatch.com about Sarah Palin and her record on the treatment of animals. I'd read before that she's recently opposed listing polar bears as an endangered species and that she supports aerial hunting, but this piece explores her record in somewhat greater (and more graphic) detail.