There seems to a lot of recent backlash against legislators which seek to protect farmers from animal rights radicals. A lot of assumptions run hand in hand with this, but the short and simple of it is that there used to be a time when people pulled up your driveway at your farm and you were happy. Not happy because it meant an interruption to work, but at least happy in a curious sort of way, interested to see what this stranger would do to take your day out of the ordinary. And while a cordial visit with a stranger used to be ok, teaching them about what you do and where things are, now we're just skeptical. If a stranger shows up at our place, now my first thought is to get them out.
Even our little "farm" has had its fair share of unknown guests over the past few years, situated alone in a rapidly urbanizing community. These unwanted guests may or may not have been responsible for weird happenings at night over the years. Or it might just have easily been some pranking kids, but it leaves us suspicious and uninterested in sharing our life with other people anymore. What used to be a great outreach tool has just turned into a territorial defense against assumed perpetrators. And this is as much as anything because we don't have a lot of legal protection from randoms that might come wandering up. If you haven't guessed yet, I'm pretty strongly in favor of punishing undercover videographers.
This leads into another Farm Sanctuary blog post. I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing that the West Coast laws are really doing anything for animals. But if you look at the history of widespread animal "welfare" legislation, none of it has. So at least this legislation doesn't make matters worse. But the real stinger is the commentary about prosecuting activists. My comments as always won't get published. They are below...
"Gene,
"You neglect to mention that in the past one and a half years, at least 3 videos have included undercover activists personally abusing animals, paying workers to abuse animals and telling workers to abuse animals. This is also all caught on tape and this is exactly why farmers don't want activists on farms anymore.
"These activists you uphold and condone are responsible for causing the abuse which they then document and edit to pervert into an accusation of the farmer. This is exactly why it should be illegal and why they should be, and in some cases now are, going to jail."
Showing posts with label Farm Sanctuary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Farm Sanctuary. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Obesity and its Impact
A recent post by Gene Baur with Farm Sanctuary reverts to two of the oldest arguments in the book related to animal rights and veganism. First he http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifaddresses cancer research and what he deems to be a scarcity of results. Ask those who benefited from improved cancer treatments whether or not this has been worth it. Ask those kids who got to know their parents, those grandparents who got to hold their grandchild. And then try and tell me that cancer research isn't worth it. And then secondly, he addresses what he views as the main cause of cancer in humans. My thoughts on that are posted below, since he still has yet to acknowledge any of my comments, which I have kept very polite over the months.
"Gene,
"I'm disappointed that your link to "leading experts" is a promo for a highly biased, non-factual film focused on reducing national meat consumption. Why not give your readers links to true professionals, factual research and statistical evidence in favor of your point. If you did, your readers would see that there is no true evidence proving any of your points. If anything, your diet recommendation's only sound advice is use of it to limit obesity. And there is no shortage of evidence that obesity leads to a plethora of health issues so this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
"My family has grown, eaten and sold animal products in this country for over 200 years. During that time, we've worked hard raising food for the community around us and have no family history of cancer or other health problems, because healthy living is a much deeper issue than just what you eat. Animal products provide great nutrients that are not otherwise easily obtained in green food. These nutrients, combined with an active lifestyle can lead to happy, healthy living. But maybe you don't want your readers to know that?
"For example, I actively donate blood to the Red Cross, but every time I am there, there is a vegetarian or ovo-vegetarian who is denied blood donation because there hemeglobin levels are too low. Simple solution to this issue is to consume beef which provides a healthy amount of iron to the body, promoting blood health."
"Gene,
"I'm disappointed that your link to "leading experts" is a promo for a highly biased, non-factual film focused on reducing national meat consumption. Why not give your readers links to true professionals, factual research and statistical evidence in favor of your point. If you did, your readers would see that there is no true evidence proving any of your points. If anything, your diet recommendation's only sound advice is use of it to limit obesity. And there is no shortage of evidence that obesity leads to a plethora of health issues so this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
"My family has grown, eaten and sold animal products in this country for over 200 years. During that time, we've worked hard raising food for the community around us and have no family history of cancer or other health problems, because healthy living is a much deeper issue than just what you eat. Animal products provide great nutrients that are not otherwise easily obtained in green food. These nutrients, combined with an active lifestyle can lead to happy, healthy living. But maybe you don't want your readers to know that?
"For example, I actively donate blood to the Red Cross, but every time I am there, there is a vegetarian or ovo-vegetarian who is denied blood donation because there hemeglobin levels are too low. Simple solution to this issue is to consume beef which provides a healthy amount of iron to the body, promoting blood health."
Monday, January 17, 2011
FS's take on the new veterinary oath
Farm Sanctuary's blog had a thought provoking post about the new veterinary oath and previous "research" that they had conducted on the opinions of veterinarians. Their blog is worth the read if you're interested in this type of thing and since they never post my comments, I have included below:
"Gene,
"Curious, but when was 2% response rate on over 69,000 veterinarians considered an acceptable number to claim that "80% of veterinarians considered gestation crates objectionable"? Considering the fact that this was also a mail survey, that means that people who replied were likely highly opinionated participants and you didn't capture the true essence of the population.
"Secondly, I think you'll find if you conducted a qualified mail survey that veterinarians weren't objecting to adding "welfare" to their oaths for any reason other than fear that animal rights activists and supporters would mislead and misconstrue that oath to the public. Veterinarians have always had the implied obligation to protect an animal's welfare as it pertains to their health; as a health professional it is within their duty and they act on this responsibility. Adding "welfare" to their oath was in my own opinion overkill and unnecessary."
"Gene,
"Curious, but when was 2% response rate on over 69,000 veterinarians considered an acceptable number to claim that "80% of veterinarians considered gestation crates objectionable"? Considering the fact that this was also a mail survey, that means that people who replied were likely highly opinionated participants and you didn't capture the true essence of the population.
"Secondly, I think you'll find if you conducted a qualified mail survey that veterinarians weren't objecting to adding "welfare" to their oaths for any reason other than fear that animal rights activists and supporters would mislead and misconstrue that oath to the public. Veterinarians have always had the implied obligation to protect an animal's welfare as it pertains to their health; as a health professional it is within their duty and they act on this responsibility. Adding "welfare" to their oath was in my own opinion overkill and unnecessary."
Saturday, December 4, 2010
This is why I blog
Sometimes I blog because I want to share thoughts, but then other times, this same blog can serve as an outlet for my inner monologue, those thoughts that I want to shout out but better judgment helps me retain.
Such is the case today as I read the Farm Sanctuary's latest post. Frankly, I don't mind linking you to their posts because I think that their compassion for animals is admirable, and their efforts are almost reasonable enough that I would frankly rather them get the attention than other less deserving organizations. But what I do detest is the active use of a plethora of emotional words in their blog in order to blind the public from considering the rational truth of a topic.
Yes, there are farmers that fail to care for their animals in the way in which they should. But this aggravates the rest of the farming population as much or more than it does the people who complain to the media about it. And these same aggravated farmers are the ones who continue to care for their animals in the best way that they can, and the best way that science has shown them to, while they actively pursue the weeding out of those few bad egg farmers in the batch. Nobody wants to do business with a bad farmer, but just the same, none of us want to have a bunch of activists trying to cram lies down the throats of the public, which is why we'd rather fix the consumer concerns ourselves with proper self-regulation and research-proven techniques for better animal care.
Deceitful propaganda didn't end up serving the needs of it proponents in the past nor will it end with the success that animal activists are wishing for. In the end, the truth will be known for what it is, and it's best for animal activists to stop exaggerating their lies beyond reason.
But for today, I had this blog for my out-channel of frustration so I have included below what I decided not to post in a comment box:
"Merciless and violent slaughter? Your use of emotional words proves your inability to accurately, rationally and logically assess a situation, and/or it demonstrates your willingness to blow fact into the wind to drive readers toward your venomous embrace."
As an after-thought, I'm not sure I would actually even want to have a merciful employee on the slaughter line. If they were merciful, does that also mean they would be prone to regret and not do a proper job, thus leading to a more painful and incorrectly performed kill?
Such is the case today as I read the Farm Sanctuary's latest post. Frankly, I don't mind linking you to their posts because I think that their compassion for animals is admirable, and their efforts are almost reasonable enough that I would frankly rather them get the attention than other less deserving organizations. But what I do detest is the active use of a plethora of emotional words in their blog in order to blind the public from considering the rational truth of a topic.
Yes, there are farmers that fail to care for their animals in the way in which they should. But this aggravates the rest of the farming population as much or more than it does the people who complain to the media about it. And these same aggravated farmers are the ones who continue to care for their animals in the best way that they can, and the best way that science has shown them to, while they actively pursue the weeding out of those few bad egg farmers in the batch. Nobody wants to do business with a bad farmer, but just the same, none of us want to have a bunch of activists trying to cram lies down the throats of the public, which is why we'd rather fix the consumer concerns ourselves with proper self-regulation and research-proven techniques for better animal care.
Deceitful propaganda didn't end up serving the needs of it proponents in the past nor will it end with the success that animal activists are wishing for. In the end, the truth will be known for what it is, and it's best for animal activists to stop exaggerating their lies beyond reason.
But for today, I had this blog for my out-channel of frustration so I have included below what I decided not to post in a comment box:
"Merciless and violent slaughter? Your use of emotional words proves your inability to accurately, rationally and logically assess a situation, and/or it demonstrates your willingness to blow fact into the wind to drive readers toward your venomous embrace."
As an after-thought, I'm not sure I would actually even want to have a merciful employee on the slaughter line. If they were merciful, does that also mean they would be prone to regret and not do a proper job, thus leading to a more painful and incorrectly performed kill?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Pigs dead in Pennsylvania
This news just crossed my dashboard - approximately 1000 pigs found dead on an abandoned farm in Pennsylvania. So unlike most people I went searching for more reputable reporting. Trouble is, I couldn't find sites that we were actually reputable reporting this incident. I doubt it's a simple as mainstream media being too distracted by other stories, but maybe there's still some people holding out for the truth. Regardless, this headline is horrific and I can't avoid sharing my thoughts about it.
As irrational as most of the sites reporting this discovery seemed to be, including blogs by such names as "Barking Moonbat" and the National Examiner, I still think this is something that should be investigated fully. If this man is guilty of animal abuse or neglect, I fully support his prosecution and punishment. This is shameful, and nearly as shameful are the ignorant remarks of the real estate agent.
How could you be selling a facility you've never looked at? Especially one valued at well over a million dollars. If you were selling a house, you'd have check to see if drugs or a dead body were in it, how is this any different? I have to wonder if she didn't assume control of the place and just never bother to check and see if there were animals alive in the barn. Now that that's a moot point, I'd also like to know how she had no idea that there were nearly a thousand dead pigs on the place. That had to smell horrific, yet she said she expected there were animals dead around the place since it was a farm and never bothered to check any further than that. Ridiculous!!!
And then there is the debate about the animals being killed by a disease breakout. This really is possible, which is why farmers go to such lengths to keep their barns closed to outsiders, especially in the case of pigs and chickens. They aren't trying to hide something but rather are trying to protect their animals from killer diseases that strike faster than a flu epidemic and kill with vicious efficiency. Where I struggle with accepting this as a disease outbreak though is that the animals aren't disposed of. If that many animals had died of disease, somebody would've known about it and the bodies would've been taken care of to prevent further future spread of this disease.
The end story is that this is awful, if true, regardless of the cause. Further, investigators have a long way to go before they find the fault behind this huge incident and idiotic opinionated dimwits aren't helping with the progress of the investigations. Sit tight, wait and see what they find out.
As irrational as most of the sites reporting this discovery seemed to be, including blogs by such names as "Barking Moonbat" and the National Examiner, I still think this is something that should be investigated fully. If this man is guilty of animal abuse or neglect, I fully support his prosecution and punishment. This is shameful, and nearly as shameful are the ignorant remarks of the real estate agent.
How could you be selling a facility you've never looked at? Especially one valued at well over a million dollars. If you were selling a house, you'd have check to see if drugs or a dead body were in it, how is this any different? I have to wonder if she didn't assume control of the place and just never bother to check and see if there were animals alive in the barn. Now that that's a moot point, I'd also like to know how she had no idea that there were nearly a thousand dead pigs on the place. That had to smell horrific, yet she said she expected there were animals dead around the place since it was a farm and never bothered to check any further than that. Ridiculous!!!
And then there is the debate about the animals being killed by a disease breakout. This really is possible, which is why farmers go to such lengths to keep their barns closed to outsiders, especially in the case of pigs and chickens. They aren't trying to hide something but rather are trying to protect their animals from killer diseases that strike faster than a flu epidemic and kill with vicious efficiency. Where I struggle with accepting this as a disease outbreak though is that the animals aren't disposed of. If that many animals had died of disease, somebody would've known about it and the bodies would've been taken care of to prevent further future spread of this disease.
The end story is that this is awful, if true, regardless of the cause. Further, investigators have a long way to go before they find the fault behind this huge incident and idiotic opinionated dimwits aren't helping with the progress of the investigations. Sit tight, wait and see what they find out.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Animals in surgery practice
I can honestly say that I understand the viewpoint expressed in today's Farm Sanctuary blog. I posted a few thoughts of my own underneath that...
Just a thought, but the stress and pressure put on a medical surgeon during a real surgery where actual lives are at stake cannot be compared with any simulation. This is the same reason that pilots have to log actual flying hours before they are allowed to have their pilots license and independently operate planes.
I'm not justifying one viewpoint or the other on this issue (rare for me) but I am saying it's worth considering the benefit that live animal surgeries have for surgeons' confidence and skill improvement before they have to operate on you. There's nothing quite like hearing someone had a correspondence course or a simulated experience to prepare them for your life or death situation.
Just a thought, but the stress and pressure put on a medical surgeon during a real surgery where actual lives are at stake cannot be compared with any simulation. This is the same reason that pilots have to log actual flying hours before they are allowed to have their pilots license and independently operate planes.
I'm not justifying one viewpoint or the other on this issue (rare for me) but I am saying it's worth considering the benefit that live animal surgeries have for surgeons' confidence and skill improvement before they have to operate on you. There's nothing quite like hearing someone had a correspondence course or a simulated experience to prepare them for your life or death situation.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Turkey pardoning
Another post from Gene Baur today, outlining general ideas of bliss that makes him sound just like every other political ad right now on the TV. I've given up believing he will ever post my comments or respond to my questions. It's hard to force myself to use correct grammar anymore in my comments since I know they will always go to waste. But just in case, here was one more today...
Gene,
I thought today it would just be good if you outlined what truly happens to those turkeys which you "save". Are they "healthier"? Are they allowed to exhibit normal behaviors such as reproduction and fighting? How do you control overpopulation and disease? Or do you force the turkeys to live as you want them to exist, making you out to be the hypocrite?
Thanks,
-Benjamin
Gene,
I thought today it would just be good if you outlined what truly happens to those turkeys which you "save". Are they "healthier"? Are they allowed to exhibit normal behaviors such as reproduction and fighting? How do you control overpopulation and disease? Or do you force the turkeys to live as you want them to exist, making you out to be the hypocrite?
Thanks,
-Benjamin
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
HR 4733
I would like to specially thank Gene Baur for promoting HR 4733 in his blog. As a result, I have sent this letter to my representative. And Baur still hasn't posted my response to his blog the other week.
Dear Pat Tiberi,
Thank you for your continued support of agriculture and the farmers in the Delaware County area. Your presence at local fairs and your representation of our interests are greatly appreciated.
I was recently made aware of a radical legislative effort by animal protection groups to require the US government to "lead by example" in the purchase of only those animals which are certified to be raised humane. After reading HR 4733, it is apparent that this legislation is the same type of non-scientific, emotional and irresponsible legislation pushed on US farmers to control the method in which livestock is produced to feed the world.
US farmers are conscientious and caring about their livestock both out of ethical obligation and good will, but also out of interest for their own source of income. Care standards among farmers are scientifically based and should not be forced upon farmers by outside special-interest groups which have no interest in feeding America with animal products in the first place. This is a piece of legislation that does not belong in the US Congress and when I was requested to contact you in order to support the bill, I did the exact opposite because I believe that this issue should be both industry and consumer regulated while scientifically based. Please make sure that this bill is not passed.
Thank you,
Benjamin Wenner
Dear Pat Tiberi,
Thank you for your continued support of agriculture and the farmers in the Delaware County area. Your presence at local fairs and your representation of our interests are greatly appreciated.
I was recently made aware of a radical legislative effort by animal protection groups to require the US government to "lead by example" in the purchase of only those animals which are certified to be raised humane. After reading HR 4733, it is apparent that this legislation is the same type of non-scientific, emotional and irresponsible legislation pushed on US farmers to control the method in which livestock is produced to feed the world.
US farmers are conscientious and caring about their livestock both out of ethical obligation and good will, but also out of interest for their own source of income. Care standards among farmers are scientifically based and should not be forced upon farmers by outside special-interest groups which have no interest in feeding America with animal products in the first place. This is a piece of legislation that does not belong in the US Congress and when I was requested to contact you in order to support the bill, I did the exact opposite because I believe that this issue should be both industry and consumer regulated while scientifically based. Please make sure that this bill is not passed.
Thank you,
Benjamin Wenner
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Happy Sunday
Today, just like any day there are farmers out working the fields, repairing machinery, fretting about the weather and caring for their livestock. I encourage you to think about this as you go out for breakfast, sit at home with your family, or contribute to the American economy through weekend work. Regardless of your food preferences, American farmers are working hard today to feed you and your family, your friends and your neighbors.
Gene Baur's blog has again captured my attention through his criticism of farmers on "factory farms" for feeding "the bare minimum" to egg-laying chickens. On the contrary, farmers even in large systems still follow through on their responsibility to provide the adequate nutrition necessary for their hens to not only produce eggs (this is after all a means of income) but also to live healthy lives.
Since I doubt Gene's screeners will ever publish a comment from me, I have included it below. Thanks and have a great week!
"Gene,
You discuss feeding the "bare minimum". While that is an obvious misquote from the article and stands in stark contrast to the practice which exists in reality of feeding hens the amount that they need, I would like to pose a question to you.
Are you instead implying that you endorse the feeding ad libitum of hens on farms? Look at the American public for a great example of why this is such a bad idea. The American public is suffering from what the media prefers to call an "obesity epidemic" and this is not because they eat meat products. No, this is because the American consumer on average is over-consuming. They intake far more calories than they need for maintenance and other life functions and then suffer through an obesity struggle that could be avoided by consuming the amount they should've eaten in the first place. This is the exact reason why animals on farms are not fed beyond what they need because as the farmer we have a responsibility to provide a healthy existence to the animal and this includes controlling their diet to be balanced and wholesome. The feed given to chickens is scientifically proven to be precisely what the hens need on the farm in order to serve the purpose that they were raised for: laying eggs. "
Gene Baur's blog has again captured my attention through his criticism of farmers on "factory farms" for feeding "the bare minimum" to egg-laying chickens. On the contrary, farmers even in large systems still follow through on their responsibility to provide the adequate nutrition necessary for their hens to not only produce eggs (this is after all a means of income) but also to live healthy lives.
Since I doubt Gene's screeners will ever publish a comment from me, I have included it below. Thanks and have a great week!
"Gene,
You discuss feeding the "bare minimum". While that is an obvious misquote from the article and stands in stark contrast to the practice which exists in reality of feeding hens the amount that they need, I would like to pose a question to you.
Are you instead implying that you endorse the feeding ad libitum of hens on farms? Look at the American public for a great example of why this is such a bad idea. The American public is suffering from what the media prefers to call an "obesity epidemic" and this is not because they eat meat products. No, this is because the American consumer on average is over-consuming. They intake far more calories than they need for maintenance and other life functions and then suffer through an obesity struggle that could be avoided by consuming the amount they should've eaten in the first place. This is the exact reason why animals on farms are not fed beyond what they need because as the farmer we have a responsibility to provide a healthy existence to the animal and this includes controlling their diet to be balanced and wholesome. The feed given to chickens is scientifically proven to be precisely what the hens need on the farm in order to serve the purpose that they were raised for: laying eggs. "
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Farm Sanctuary Walks
For those of you interested in Farm Sanctuary and their effort to manipulate concerned citizens' emotions, you might also be interested in the location of their fundraising walks for this year. Now mind you, they're not the extreme aspect of the animal rights activist groups, but still they have some very harsh views towards animal agriculture and capitalize on people's emotions as they work towards their own goals of animal rights. I included the link to their walks just like I include the link to Gene Baur's blog because I encourage you to do the following: 1) read the information for yourself and make up your own mind about issues that are important to you - don't let other people tell you what to think or how to judge a situation, 2) tell other people what you think to get them interested in things that concern you and to spread information to other people to increase their awareness of what goes on in their world.
I'm also going to promote a new blog to read on the side of my blogsite. Please check out the Agriculture Proud blog for a look into a very active blog which is deeply concerned about agriculture. This will be replacing the Ag Ed blog which I have been recommending since it has become stagnant.
Also, Farm Bureau has posted a summary of yesterdays meeting including HSUS with the Livestock Care Standards Board. I recommend the read.
I'm also going to promote a new blog to read on the side of my blogsite. Please check out the Agriculture Proud blog for a look into a very active blog which is deeply concerned about agriculture. This will be replacing the Ag Ed blog which I have been recommending since it has become stagnant.
Also, Farm Bureau has posted a summary of yesterdays meeting including HSUS with the Livestock Care Standards Board. I recommend the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)