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 Gene Baur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gene Baur. 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?
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
Friday, October 15, 2010
Manure production
Gene Baur pushed my limit today with his blog entry. I have a short fuse because Mabel stopped running this morning and I'm liable to not take anti-livestock agriculture sentiments well today.
My apologies, but my blog comment will be a summary instead. Gene, you spend so much time trying to pin livestock agriculture as the proverbial tail on a donkey of fault for the world's problems. You'd probably do better if you weren't distracted by the ass in your own mirror.
It didn't take me long to find some reputable information about the waste produced in the US. 4 lbs. every day x 300.000.000 people in the US adds up to a lot of waste every day. The waste production is a much larger problem than that of manure production in the US, besides the fact that manure is recycled by farmers whereas garbage is just dumped. Per a news article this summer about the mess the Mississippi River is experiencing, and topped by a slight BP spill this summer, I think Gene is out of turn in accusing the Gulf of Mexico's problems as the fault of livestock agriculture. The gulf has a significant problem, but this is the combined fault of many factors not the least of which is the wastefulness of Americans. Spend your time figuring out how to better reduce and reuse your own impact on the earth and please spend less time pointing fingers at environmentally responsible, governmentally regulated and audited farmers. We are doing our part to feed the world and care for the environment, what are you doing?
Do livestock farmers use a lot of water? Sure, but the water is recycled (something the Columbus Dispatch also conveniently neglected to mention in their despicable article on Sunday). Farmers are some of nature's recyclers and they use their water over and over again to help feed America and the world. Is the same true for that ridiculous oasis in the desert, Las Vegas?
For your mild entertainment I have included a video of some farmers who had a unique approach to telling people about their care for the environment.
My apologies, but my blog comment will be a summary instead. Gene, you spend so much time trying to pin livestock agriculture as the proverbial tail on a donkey of fault for the world's problems. You'd probably do better if you weren't distracted by the ass in your own mirror.
It didn't take me long to find some reputable information about the waste produced in the US. 4 lbs. every day x 300.000.000 people in the US adds up to a lot of waste every day. The waste production is a much larger problem than that of manure production in the US, besides the fact that manure is recycled by farmers whereas garbage is just dumped. Per a news article this summer about the mess the Mississippi River is experiencing, and topped by a slight BP spill this summer, I think Gene is out of turn in accusing the Gulf of Mexico's problems as the fault of livestock agriculture. The gulf has a significant problem, but this is the combined fault of many factors not the least of which is the wastefulness of Americans. Spend your time figuring out how to better reduce and reuse your own impact on the earth and please spend less time pointing fingers at environmentally responsible, governmentally regulated and audited farmers. We are doing our part to feed the world and care for the environment, what are you doing?
Do livestock farmers use a lot of water? Sure, but the water is recycled (something the Columbus Dispatch also conveniently neglected to mention in their despicable article on Sunday). Farmers are some of nature's recyclers and they use their water over and over again to help feed America and the world. Is the same true for that ridiculous oasis in the desert, Las Vegas?
For your mild entertainment I have included a video of some farmers who had a unique approach to telling people about their care for the environment.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Comments
In my opinion, it is commenting on other people's work and ideas that both challenges and strengthens their positions and arguments. Additionally it is through these challenges that other people are led to make up their own minds about critical issues in the world around us. This leads to a two-fold point on commenting on blogs.
Firstly, it is absolutely vital to comment only with true facts. Too many times there are extremists on either side of the issue who let their feelings get the better of them and then they end up just spouting off a bunch of over-exaggerations which serve only to promote greater intellectual chaos among the new faces to a debate. This is not helpful and can often be even worse than the obvious falsities promoted by extremists in their blogs to start with. If you can't make a point with sure facts and strong arguments, then please don't waste my time by moving your mouth or typing a lot.
Secondly, censored comments have a good ideal at their origin. However, if you over-censor comments such as the Making Hay blog does, then it destroys the point of your article in the first place, that is, if you were actually interested in debate. However, both Wayne Pacelle and Gene Baur have proven time and again that they are not truly interested in debate. It seems that they would rather force their opinion down the throats of intelligent people by first mis-educating the masses about the "truths" that they would like to share about animal agriculture. Is there truth to what they say? Sure, there is some truth to what they say, but not enough.
There must always be truth to something that people will believe, but in a radical rights movement such as theirs, misleading information will propagate their position much quicker and easier than debating facts. The facts would lead too many people to be moderates, thus causing too many people to be willing to work things out between groups. Instead, Pacelle, Baur, and their colleagues use their propaganda to trick people into a much faster ideological movement. The thing about movements is that they run out of time and energy. If you can't find something new to lie about, then you will finally run out of steam. What's amazing is how good HSUS and their groupies have been about coming up with misinformation to keep their groups on the move.
This is where I get back to my second point on commenting. If you have to go to the effort to block my IP address from even loading up the comment option on your blog, doesn't that mean you're scared to discuss the issue with me? It was bad enough when you deleted my comments during the censoring phase, but now you've cut straight to the greater efficiency and stopped me from being able to even submit my comments in the first place.
It's a shame that you're scared of people seeing the other side of an issue. People are smart enough to think for themselves; you don't need to be doing that for them. What's even more shameful is your blatant fear of my comments which have been posted here in my blogs for people to see since they would never be published on your blog. There is no foul language or hate for your organization proposed in my comments; I've even bordered on over-conciliation at times. Yet, you continue to dodge the obviously less-experienced and thus poorer equipped debater of the two of us.
If you're too scared to speak up for what you "believe in", then you'd better find a new cause to support.
Firstly, it is absolutely vital to comment only with true facts. Too many times there are extremists on either side of the issue who let their feelings get the better of them and then they end up just spouting off a bunch of over-exaggerations which serve only to promote greater intellectual chaos among the new faces to a debate. This is not helpful and can often be even worse than the obvious falsities promoted by extremists in their blogs to start with. If you can't make a point with sure facts and strong arguments, then please don't waste my time by moving your mouth or typing a lot.
Secondly, censored comments have a good ideal at their origin. However, if you over-censor comments such as the Making Hay blog does, then it destroys the point of your article in the first place, that is, if you were actually interested in debate. However, both Wayne Pacelle and Gene Baur have proven time and again that they are not truly interested in debate. It seems that they would rather force their opinion down the throats of intelligent people by first mis-educating the masses about the "truths" that they would like to share about animal agriculture. Is there truth to what they say? Sure, there is some truth to what they say, but not enough.
There must always be truth to something that people will believe, but in a radical rights movement such as theirs, misleading information will propagate their position much quicker and easier than debating facts. The facts would lead too many people to be moderates, thus causing too many people to be willing to work things out between groups. Instead, Pacelle, Baur, and their colleagues use their propaganda to trick people into a much faster ideological movement. The thing about movements is that they run out of time and energy. If you can't find something new to lie about, then you will finally run out of steam. What's amazing is how good HSUS and their groupies have been about coming up with misinformation to keep their groups on the move.
This is where I get back to my second point on commenting. If you have to go to the effort to block my IP address from even loading up the comment option on your blog, doesn't that mean you're scared to discuss the issue with me? It was bad enough when you deleted my comments during the censoring phase, but now you've cut straight to the greater efficiency and stopped me from being able to even submit my comments in the first place.
It's a shame that you're scared of people seeing the other side of an issue. People are smart enough to think for themselves; you don't need to be doing that for them. What's even more shameful is your blatant fear of my comments which have been posted here in my blogs for people to see since they would never be published on your blog. There is no foul language or hate for your organization proposed in my comments; I've even bordered on over-conciliation at times. Yet, you continue to dodge the obviously less-experienced and thus poorer equipped debater of the two of us.
If you're too scared to speak up for what you "believe in", then you'd better find a new cause to support.
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. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)