I too read those comments on that piece, and was absolutely disgusted with some of the IGNORANT remarks about animals and animal protesters. One person even said that the article reminded them how hungry they were and they need to go eat a steak! IGNORANT...   God, I hate living in this world sometimes.  Why can't we all just love animals? I mean, where is the compassion?  Oh, wait, I know where the compassion is...hided behind pure ignorance.

Actually, yeah, they are wasting their time at slaughterhouses.  The industry knows that you wierdos are on their case, but you should be more worried about your pet animals reproducing.  I love dogs and own two, not a fan of cats but they don't bother me, and I have a rabbit.  All of my pets are fixed so they can't contribute to the overpopulated small animal world.  I love cows, horses, pigs, poultry, you name it.  But I also enjoy having them in my diet.... the protein keeps me healthy and strong.  So yeah, the majority of the world DOES love animals, but just because they eat them doesn't mean that they hate them.  I don't sit there and eat my steak for dinner and rip it to shreads like some monstrous carnivore, I enjoy it and the nutrients that it provides.  I love horses, and it is because I love them that I believe that horse slaughter should be reopened in the US.  Do you have any idea how many horses are neglected, abused, left to starve to death because their owner can't afford to feed them or afford to dispose of the body after they are humanely euthanized?  It's happening all over the country.  It costs approximately $500 to $1000 to properly dispose of a dead horse.  If owners had a better option and incentive to get rid of their unwanted horses we wouldn't have this problem.  I want horses to live healthy lives just like you guys do, but there are some situations that are just not adequate to keep a horse and slaughter is a perfect solution.  The carcass isn't left to rot under the ground causing run off that pollutes our water sources and kills fish.  It's just not practical or efficient to kill a horse and let it "rest in peace".  Doing that takes up a massive amount of ground space, plus you have to put them under the ground at least 8 to 10 feet, times that by the thousands of horses in the country, do the math, that is a lot of freaking graveyard space for dead horses.  So yeah, you should be working hard to prevent horses from being overbred because they clearly are.  And the more horses that are being bred, the more that are born, and our unwanted horse population just worsens.  So either stop breeding horses for a few years, or re-open slaughter.  You decide.

I know eating animals is natural cowgirl, but these days its just mass slaughterings and is not done humanely. Eating animals was an important part of human evolution but if you think about it they would kill a few ones out in the wild and feed whole families with it - and it was something they wouldn't have taken for granted. Now people just go to the shops, buy a dead animal thats all wrapped up nicely for them and would hardly give a thought to the fact that an innocent animal had its LIFE taken away from them and potentially had a life of suffering just so we could have a tasty meal. Meat is not even necessary these days for us, theres plenty of alternatives - Just open your eyes. And this animal population problem your talking about, for starters horses have always died naturally in nature and their bodies decompose as every other life does, so whats this about pollution? :| thats strange, theyve been dying for thousands of yrs, dont see why it could be a problem now? God but even if they did, humans cause like 99% of pollution then along comes a horse causing about 0.001% and ur just like bloody send em to a slaughterhouse.. ok not exact figures haha but you get my drift. Anyway in answer to your question, im sure the smarter answer would be stop breeding them for a few years. Unless pple want to breed them for the sake of keeping them of course. If pple r breeding unwanted horses then wtf?! Don't just send them all off to slaughterhouses to justify them doing so. Sorry I dont know much about this problem coz theres nothing like that here in oz, but im sure theres pple out there like RSPCAS that would put them down humanely if they must and bury then rather than handing them over to slaughterhouses - it may be a tough job but there are good pple out there that would rather do that than leave it to the alternative.  Arghh slaughterhouses put shame on being human  .

 And im sure no ones saying all pple who eat meat hate animaals, but if they actually do care about them its a lot easier to make excuses than change behaviour. isn't it? A lot more settling for the mind...

Hi there, Mark. I'm sincerely sorry if my post gave the impression that this protest itself was against veal; I understood that it wasn't. I'll add a note to make sure this is clear.

Daniel, you made some good points. Iwill argue them though. :)

If an alocoholic came to me and proudly announced that he had cut back on drinking, I would congratulate him. I would suggest he cut alcohol out completely, but I wouldn't say anything like, "Well, yeah, but you still drink so it doesn't even count." I would encourage his journey toward the better side of the spectrum.

As for the child abuse analogy, unfortunately the majority of people don't recognize parallels between beating a child and eating an animal. I think a better analogy would be people who purchase clothing made in sweatshops. I would pat someone on the back for buying less of their clothing from sweatshops. As with veganism, buying sweatshop-free clothing is a road filled with learning, then changing; learning, then changing. We can't expect people to instantly learn everything wrong with sweatshops and all the brands of clothing that are made at those places. Just like we can't expect people to instantly learn everything wrong with farming and all the products that are made at (or because of) those places.

I definitely see the point of your post: that we can never condone cruelty. And while I don't condone eating or using animal products, I do believe that a positive, encouraging approach fosters learning and change much faster than a holier-than-thou, abolitionist one. (Not to say that everyone on the other side of the argument here is "holier-than-thou." Please don't take it that way.

One point I wanted to make and perhaps did not make clearly, at least in this particular post, is that an encouraging approach and an honest approach aren't mutually exclusive. Not sugarcoating and not misleading and not being selectively truthful doesn't equate to attacking or dismissing people's efforts. We're talking about a difference, for example, between (1) saying "Switch to cage-free eggs! Battery-caged eggs are cruel!" while remaining conspicuously (and, frankly, dishonestly) silent on how cruel cage-free eggs are too, and (2) saying to someone who has made that switch or who is considering it, "That's really wonderful that you care, and I am so glad that you're trying to make a compassionate difference. But let me tell you the truth about this..."

Being honest and unequivocal in our advocating for all animals also doesn't mean demanding someone go 100% vegan overnight. Again, there is a difference between (1) offering someone encouragement as he or she makes gradual, step-by-step changes, while still being consistently (and compassionately) honest with that person, and (2) praising and *advocating for* a switch to "grass-fed beef" or "cage-free eggs" as if those are ultimate goals or even significant changes for the animals, while remaining deceptively silent about the exploitation, suffering, and brutal killing inherent in those choices too.

"Lisa, we wouldn't pat someone on the back if they cut down on their child abuse or eliminated some of the more gruesome forms of child abuse"

Why wouldn't we pat them on the back?  You are using the Gary Francione argument with which I disagree and do not understand.  Let me even help you go even further to the "rape" analogy Gary likes to use.  "We wouldn't congratulate someone for raping less harshly would we?"  Why wouldn't we?  Especially if we lived in a world where 99% of the people living in it raped each other, and a world where rape was completely accepted by nearly everyone.  (this is the case in our current world with respect to causing animals suffering).  If, in this world of rape, where violence and lack of compassion was at an absolute extreme, we found some people who were raping in a manner that was somehow less cruel due to some found compassion for their prey, why would we not congratulate them for taking this step?  For causing less pain and suffering in the world?  For taking that crucial step in opening their minds to the very possibility that their actions are wrong?

Proponents of this fundamentalist abolitionist viewpoint seem to believe that congratulating people for taking positive steps must mean we are also congratulating them for the suffering they still cause.  It does not.  Or they believe that somehow by advocating for positive welfare steps we can't also advocate for vegan education and abolition at the same time.  It does not.

"I'm convinced that the happy meat campaigns will only make people feel better about eating animals and actually increase, not decrease, the number of animals killed for their flesh."

This is another of the Gary Francione arguments.  That advocating for better treatment will make people feel better about eating meat and thus will lead to more suffering.  Where are these people who never ate meat before because it was too cruel to the animals but now that there are happy meat alternatives are now coming out of the woodwork to gorge?  Where are these people who used to eat meat in moderation because of their compassion, but now that there are humane alternatives take an extra cheeseburger each day with gusto?  Does anyone here know of one?  Does it even seem realistic?  It certainly seems possible, I won't deny that, but also seems unlikely.  The idea that this will cause MORE suffering seems far fetched. 

And yes, with better treatment, some people will feel better about the meat they eat.  But they were already eating meat!  Others will be (re)awakened to the fact that their meat comes from sentient beings who are suffering.  And why shouldn't they feel at least somewhat better?  Their actions ARE somewhat better!  The fight for better conditions serve not only to lessen the suffering of animals, but also as AR education in themselves.  And there is no reason why we can't also advocate for abolitionist vegan education at the same time.

Thanks for joining the discussion, Eric. I respect your opinions, but I have to admit, first, that it drives me bonkers when people classify others' arguments as merely "a [or the] Gary Francione argument," as if that's a way of countering the argument. That Francione argues something doesn't mean everyone else who argues it is just repeating and falling in line, and it also doesn't mean that the position is without merit just because it's similar to something Francione argues and some disagree with Francione in general. I can't speak for Daniel, but I know that I'm not in anyone's camp, and I'm certainly not anyone's follower, so I think it's better to discuss the actual arguments than to categorize and seemingly dismiss them this way.

As for one of your questions, there are absolutely former vegetarians and vegans out there who've gone back to eating animals because they've let themselves be convinced it's "humane" now. Beyond here-and-there conversations and blog posts many of us have had and read, we know this because they've also written op-eds. They've published whole books.

Perhaps more important, though, Eric, are the people who would possibly start moving toward veganism if they were given full, honest information but who instead get deceptive, half-truth campaigns. Again, my problem with many welfare-reform campaigns remains the dishonesty or intentional withholding of information in many of the campaigns themselves -- and it is that dishonesty that leads people to think that oh, they don't really have to give up meat or dairy or eggs; they only have to buy the "humane" kind that Big Welfare Org is telling them is so much better. So one of my problems is, for example, with not telling people the whole truth, with telling them only half-truths in order to get weak laws passed, rather than telling them whole truths in order to get them to make substantive changes.

The way the Prop 2 campaign was handled was a glaring example. People were told they could "stop cruelty" -- actually stop it! -- just by voting for a proposition that in reality barely makes a dent in the cruelty. And Pacelle & Co. passed up every chance they were given -- including on national television -- to tell people the truth about what happens to animals, deciding instead to imply to people that Prop 2 would bring about conditions reminiscent of small-scale free-range farms, while knowing that was a lie. They needed a good and an evil to get that proposition passed, and the truth got tossed out the window. In some cases, the public truly was outright lied to. And yeah, there are people who, given the truth, might have just stopped eating eggs, but who, having been mislead, are now just patting themselves on the back for eating cage-free eggs or expressing relief that California's systems will now be "humane," oblivious to how they're still contributing to most of the same cruelties and all of the killing.

This isn't just about the welfare reforms themselves. It's how they're advocated for; the lies and omissions too often used to gain support for them do not show respect for the people with whom we're communicating, do not gain us credibility when people find out we weren't honest, and do not help the animals whose suffering and death we gloss over, ignore, or lie about in order to gain support for what are in reality only minor changes.

Whew. I've been meaning to write a post about this for 9 months. Maybe it's time.

Ahh, this is such a tough issue for me. I am thankful to the commenters here for helping me work it out. Keep it coming, please!

I agree that we shouldn't call half-ass measures "stopping cruelty," as was done for the Prop 2 campaign in California. But, as a marketing professional, I also see the reasoning behind it. It'd be pretty difficult to get the majority on board if your slogan was "Put a tiny dent in cruelty." It's also difficult to gain/keep credibility with the majority of Americans by advocating solely for veganism and total animal rights. Is it better to push for smaller changes and work our way to animal rights? Sadly, most people have a negative perception of anything/anyone associated with the animal rights movement (cough cough thanks to PETA cough). Is it to our advantage to use the word "welfare" instead, as not to scare people off? Or is it just plain lying?

I'm not in anyone's "camp" either. Each time I read a book or hear a speaker, I decide whether or not they are in *MY* "camp." :-). That is, whether they meet *MY* criteria for radical, independent thought, for consistency of word and deed, for doing the most good and no harm. 

Ever since reading Gary Francione's books a couple of years ago, I have found his arguments compelling, sensible, rational, progressive. 

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Gary lecture. I was very impressed. Everything he said confirmed for me why I am *ALREADY* inherently a supporter of "rights" logic, of ahimsa, of the economic argument that exploitation of animals is demand-driven and not supply-driven, and of the necessity for advocating against all "isms."

In other words, Gary's books and speech conformed to my existing intuition that there is no meaning or merit in the welfarist approach (HSUS, for example), in direct-action violence (ALF and its kind) or in sexualizing women (PETA's stock in trade).

What I appreciate about Gary is that he is not afraid to question the movement. He asks everyone to think for themselves, to be their own leader, to form their own grassroots groups, and to *NOT* follow others -- including him -- blindly. Better yet, he practices what he preaches.

Equally, I value that he refuses to take a dime for his work on behalf of animals. (The profits from his book sales go to animal non-profits -- sanctuaries and other 501(c)3s committed to peaceful advocacy of abolition.) He explained how easily people -- even well-intended animal protectors -- can be influenced away from their principles when they listen to the siren call of money. They get sucked into compromising their values, just like the employees of the very animal-oppressing institutions they are opposing.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off-track here, so I'll wrap this up by saying that it's unfair to point a finger at people who respect Francione's philosophy and body of work and imply that they are following some cult figure. However, if I ever did decide to become a cult member (fat chance, considering how I treasure my independence), I could do a lot worse than join his "camp." :-)

I consider myself an abolitionist myself, and I respect Gary's commitment and passion.  My only issue is his flat dismissal of all movements, ideas and people that would better the conditions of animals in their current state as commodities.  His refusal to acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY that a welfare reform could benefit animals, could educate people, could open someone's mind who had previously never given animal rights a second thought.  The truth is, none of us have this information, that is, the results of surveys or studies to truly know what works in getting people to eat less or no meat, whether they do eat less or no meat or whether animals suffer less from welfare reforms. So all of us are guessing.  Let us at least consider the possibility that in a world where the only tool we used was vegan education, it might be less effective, take longer, more animals would die in worse conditions than in a world where we used both welfare reforms and vegan education (the current one).  And even if a welfare reform in actuality did nothing for animal cruelty (though we may believe it does), and even if turning someone into a vegetarian instead of vegan causes no less suffering bc people fully replace meat with an EQUIVALENT amount of fish and dairy (which again is possibile but we have no evidence of) even if all this is true (which again we don't know)... I still say there is the distinct possibility that the value of the psychological step alone, the step of one giving an animal's inherent value a spot in their minds where there was no spot previously, is of vastly great significance and may open a door to even greater change in the future.

I make no claims that the wefare plus vegan education approach IS better (we'd need surveys and studies to know this), I simply take issue with someone who is sooooooooo sure with so little evidence, so unwilling to entertain any other ideas and who so often uses his status to put down those who disagree (join twitter and follow gary if you are not familiar with this side of him).  As much as I respect his passion, such a closed mind and such dismissal of others with noble intent are red flags to me.  I will still be here with my own openess to listen to his arguments however, and I still maintain that he certainly could be right.

Thanks for your further explanation, Eric. I appreciate your even-handedness and understand the points you raise.  

Probably, like all of us, GF is still evolving, not only in his philosophy and in discovering how to make it practical, but also in how he relates to others.

It sounds like we're all aiming to: keep our minds open ... listen to others (and to our internal highest sense of right, which inevitably advances) ... challenge ourselves ... become more gracious and humble ... outgrow selfishness ... appreciate the good in others. And more.

I don't tweet; the chance to track GF on Twitter isn't inducement enough to start, sorry to say!!!! :-)     

This thread reminds me of a snippet I read today in the e-news update from Responsible Policies for Animals' David Cantor. He refers to "... animal porn preventing progress toward animal rights by keeping caring people focused on horrors rather than the basic right of all animals not to be used no matter how much suffering they endure."

Ugggghhh. Looks like I have a post topic for sometime in the next couple days.

I was kinda sorta hoping so. :)  I may write to NPR.

Thanks for pointing out this backwards-sign-of-the-times article on NPR, Lisa R. I made a comment under the article. In it, I asked readers to search for SHARK videos of rodeo on YouTube to see what that "sport" is really all about.  

We wear really tall boots because their sexy and ideal for cow wrangling!  Peace out y'all!

You are one crazy tree hugging bitch!  I can't believe that you would even accuse me of not loving animals?!  Yeah, I know where those horses go, they go into dog food!!!!!!  It's a fact of life, animals eat animals!  It's survival of the fittest!  Let's let all of the cows run free and see how well they survive.  Truth is they won't.  They'll all die.  They've relied on human care for too long that they have lost thier instinct to survive on their own.  I don't need to justify anything to you moronic lunatics!  You're not worth my time or energy.  Yeah, my little black angus calf is going to be someone's dinner one day, but that doesn't mean we don't care for him while he alive.  You people have lost hold of reality.  Animal production will NEVER stop!  People will always want meat.  McDonald's will NEVER stop!  And NO, it's NOT McDonald's and hamburgers making people fat, it's the people who eat it every night and eat TOO MUCH OF IT THAT MAKE THEMSELVES FAT!!!!  So go grow your tomatos in your garden, use your own feces for fertilizer, and ship yourself to another fucking planet where us sensible people don't have to listen to your bull shit!!!  BAN ME PLEASE MY WORK HERE IS DONE!!!  You people have given me WAY more than I needed for my research project, thank you very much for all that you have helped me with.

"Cow Girl," this blog has seen several thousand comments in the last year, and your tirades from the last day have included some of the most unevolved, immature, abusive remarks and personal attacks and unwarranted name-calling of the crowd. Civil conversation and objective thought and consideration are things you're clearly not interested in, and it's interesting that you refuse to even attach your name to your vitriolic rantings. I initially planned to delete these comments because they are abusive and completely unproductive, but I've decided to leave them. They reflect more negatively on you, your anger issues, and the injustices you defend than on anything else.

Oh Cow Girl, you have so much growing up to do. You mught have something worthwhile to say,(I seriously doubt it) but it gets lost among the  belligerence hostility and abuse. You sound like constipated two year old, the traditional treatment for which is a dose of cator oil and going to bed without supper. We will wlecome you it you ever feel like joining the human race, until then spread you pollution somewhere else.

Well, you obviously think I'm a hick from bum fuck egypt so why not talk like one?!