Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Karen Davis's Statement

This is the final post in our Animal Advocacy Strategies Blogversation Series leading up to the UPC Conference this weekend. I feel well prepared now to discuss this topic at the conference and I'm sure Gary would agree with me that this has proved to be a worthy exercise.

I'll be posting a follow-up after the weekend to wrap everything up and report back on all the conference happenings.

Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns: “If the public is told it can eat humanely raised and slaughtered animals, what incentive do people have to explore the range of delicious and nutritious vegan products on the market? Should animal advocates make it easier and more comfortable for people to consume meat, milk and eggs?”

Gary:

I agree: We don't want to give people the idea that it's acceptable to exploit and kill living beings for pleasure if it's done "humanely." We also don't want people to think that "cage-free" or "free-range" is humane. "Humane" is, among other things, refraining from exploitation.

At the same time, because the public is so deeply vested and addicted to eating animals (most people freak out at the concept of giving up meat, dairy, and eggs), we have an obligation, and are compelled by our compassion and kinship to other sentient beings, to give aid and comfort to the one trillion or more animals who will be unjustly imprisoned and killed until our society goes vegan. If we can end the worst tortures inflicted on them, and give them at least rudimentary opportunities to pursue happiness and engage in normal physical and social behaviors while they are wrongly incarcerated, and if we can do that without making the public more complacent about their exploitation, we should pursue that course of action with conviction.

That is the challenge: To end the exploitation of animals, and to ease the suffering of the innocent victims of that exploitation in the meantime. I believe we can and should try to accomplish both goals.

In my view, Karen Davis and UPC provide a model of how that may be done. UPC is unambiguous in its call for people to go vegan. Karen has authored many articles and books that describe the misery and wrongfulness of exploiting animals, and UPC offers abundant literature showing people how to prepare delicious animal-free meals. But Karen has also advocated for interim measures that would eliminate horrific tortures done to animals enslaved by the meat and egg industries. When she helped end forced starvation of laying hens, she played a role in reducing the suffering of perhaps billions of hens. But in no way was there any implication from Karen or UPC that hens would now be treated humanely, or that exploiting hens for their reproductive capabilities was in any way acceptable.

Perhaps in the UPC conference, we'll put our heads together and look at a panoply of approaches to cultivating compassion for animals, ending animal exploitation and cruelty, and giving relief to the current victims of those moral transgressions. I hope we will judge strategies with an open mind, and consider their respective virtues and positive potential as well as risks and limitations, and I hope we'll see how various tactics may work in synergy. (For example, I've personally seen people give up eggs after watching videos about the horror of battery cages, while other folks I know feel pangs of guilt after viewing such videos but don't change their egg-eating habits until they learn about male chick-killing or have serious discussions about the morality of and suffering caused by forcing hens to lay ten times more eggs than they would in the wild).

Often it takes a multitude of advocacy encounters before someone will have an "aha" moment, or modify their lifestyle. We don't know exactly what will cause the spark, or when, and I suspect that in most cases, the process of developing compassion and respect for animals and divesting from exploitative habits is cumulative and influenced by many experiences and outside points of view. It takes a village to raise awareness.

I hope that animal activists give each other the benefit of the doubt. We all are trying in earnest - and against formidable obstacles - to end human-caused animal suffering, abolish institutionalized animal exploitation, and create a world in which animals are treated with kindness and protected with justice. And I think we're making progress on all those fronts. I can see concrete as well as subtle signs that society is changing. It's a long and arduous yet ultimately glorious process. If we make sincere attempts to work cooperatively with each other, and give support and recognition to our fellow activists' efforts, I think that will help keep us sane and optimistic, enable us to be more creative, and increase our stamina in this "longest struggle." I'm looking forward to the conference and hope that as a participating attendee I can contribute in some way toward those lofty objectives.


Kim:

At this point, most people who are somewhat knowledgeable about factory farming are already aware of the "option" to purchase products from what they believe are more humanely raised animals. The "producers" seem to be doing a good job of promoting these notions to this group of consumers.

When I advocate to someone who is completely unaware of factory farming (just explaining where their food comes from tends to be new information), their immediate reaction is to seek out something less horrific. For the majority, their initial response isn't an instantaneous desire to stop eating animals and their excretions, but to rationalize a way to keep doing so without doing harm. (I know that's what I went through.)

I don't know many advocates that directly promote "humane" products. After being told that there is no "humane" alternative, most people still need the time to transition to the notion that they will no longer be participating in societal eating norms. So if they insist they cannot give up these products at this time, and they mention cage-free eggs, free-range beef or organic milk, most advocates I know will acknowledge that these options are better than the factory-farming alternative while explaining how complete avoidance is the only true humane option. In other words, the natural tendency to rationalize their behavior will lead them first to seek out something more "humane".

Can we stop farmers from selling these products or dismiss this option entirely when advocating? Or is the reality that until there are wholesale societal attitude changes, people will continue eating these things no matter what information we give them, so at least give the animals some relief? I tend to believe that is why some of the larger animal groups work with and support these "producers" - because the sooner we can get the animals out of the worst conditions imaginable, the better. As I've said before, I think it's a natural, inevitable progression - factory farming to "humane" farming to veganism. We should be telling people the facts while encouraging any changes in behavior (supporting reduction of consumption or "humane" options, with caveats).

In much the same way we ask people to spay and neuter companion animals, care for feral cat colonies or fight to enact companion animal legislation and abuse penalties, we can't ignore the suffering of the farmed animals, that are also the victims of being bred for profit, while we determine a way to put it to an end. Just because we don't take them into our homes, we can't dismiss the current conditions enforced by their oppressors. All animals - companion or otherwise - deserve the attention of their immediate "welfare" as we work to end the practices that landed them in their circumstances. Personally, my conscience won't allow anything else.