Hey Stephanie,

This is interesting.  I'm a bit conflicted, like the other Mike (Mike Smith and now Mike Jones both comment!  Let's see if we can find a Mike Brown...), because I've given gifts through Heifer before, specifically they're tree seedlings. 

Thanks for posting!  Definitely lots to think about.

Cheers,
Mike

I recently wrote to an org about this- I think Mercycorps- telling them that, if they really wanted to feed people, they should give them a gardening kit and/or a well system.

They told me they also offered gardening things. I wish I know why they only advertised the animal one...

I think Mercycorps also do a lot of humanitarian relief work, so sometimes they have respond to short term emergencies with food.

They do feature a "family garden" and general health gifts quite prominently on their website.

A few Christmases ago, my in-laws thought that donating to Heifer in my name would be something i would LIKE!  I was so upset... I politely said thanks, then just happened to leave the folder of info at their house.  My husband was nice enough to explain to them later why giving live cows to people for food might upset his vegetarian wife.

Friends, thanks for your thoughts. It was never my intention to decry the organizations in general or to ignore, for example, the great work Oxfam does through other efforts. My issue is with these specific kinds of campaigns because of the harm they do to humans, nonhuman animals, and the environment alike. My original reference to "these programs" (now changed to "these animal-giving programs" for clarity) did indeed refer to the specific campaigns, not to organizations as a whole.

What an uncomfortable moment that must have been for you, Lisa. :) I'm glad your husband straightened it out!

Wow, I've never heard about this practice before. Sending an animal for X-mas. That's for informing people about these animal-giving programs.

This is a topic that interests me a lot "for religious reasons"....

Here are a few disjointed thoughts.  It may be too long. If you don't feel like reading through the whole thing, at least page down to check out the link to my collection of "humane humanitarian" charities.  There are so many things people can support, to help people without harming animals.  It's just a matter of letting them know what's out there.

I'm surprised that Frances Moore Lappe supports HPI, because of the title of her book alone.  But I really shouldn't be, because I know vegans who do, too.  Maybe they don't know about the alternatives.

Here's an article by Gary Kowalski (former President of the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and author of books like "The Bible According to Noah:  Theology as if Animals Mattered", whose title I love)  http://www25.uua.org/ufeta/heiferproject.htm


The church leaders of my denomination are very serious about supporting the Millenium Development Goals.  But I think that when people of good will think about hunger issues, livestock is the first thing that comes to mind.  Maybe they want others to have what they have.  And the pictures of the children hugging the animals conveys a warm, fuzzy "humaneness" that has some appeal to anyone who doesn't really think too much about the future of the animal they're buying.  

Luckily, some of the church leaders are also interested in environmental issues, including Global Warming.  Here's an example:  http://greenlent.blogspot.com/2008/03/beef-and-environment.html  So there's some hope that there could be a trend to steer members toward humanitarian causes that help people without harming animals or the environment.  

A couple of years ago, a priest on a listserv I read had a signature quote that tells how many people (don't know where he got the numbers) die of poverty-related causes during the time of an average sermon and also during a typical hour-long church service.  He posted something to the listserv about how much Americans spend on Christmas, and how a fraction of that could lift the very poor on a sustainable road.  I wrote to him to see if he had any ideas for charities that don't exploit animals (hoping to show some support while nipping any livestock idea in the bud), and it so happened that two missionaries at his church are working on various projects in Kenya that excited me a lot.  He told me some things that I was given "permission to post", but I'll refer you to my blog instead of posting them here http://episcoveg.weblogger.com/2005/12/14/a-fraction-of-what-americans-spend-on-christmas-could-lift-the-very-poor-onto-a-sustainable-road . One thing I quoted was an amazing statement for someone who is a non-vegetarian.  (Check out the quote.  But this is about the "poorest of the poor", not the "relatively poor" that an animal agriculture-based economy might be more attractive.)

I added his missionaries' charity to my growing list of "humane humanitarian" charities that don't ostensibly exploit or kill animals.  There are all types, but some are focused on hunger-related issues, most are related to economic development, and not simply temporary disaster relief:http://episcoveg.weblogger.com/2005/01/28/mdgs-a-few-cruelty-free-international-relief-and-development-organizations 
 
If you know of any humanitarians, please pass that link along.

If you belong to a church that donates to a charity that focuses on giving "gifts" of livestock, please ask them if they would designate their donation to go toward one of the charity's non-animal projects (that might be hidden away toward the back of the catalog).  

When I made a stink one year about what my church was supporting, one lady who is a meat-eater thanked me.  She said when she was little, someone gave her a couple of Easter bunnies.  They ended up reproducing so much that they had a wall full of hutches in their garage.  She was traumatized when she found out her rabbits were gone, because her father, who owned a restaurant, had slaughtered them for rabbit stew for his customers.

And speaking of "rabbit stew", there's this story:  http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Heifer-Controversy/MNAfQbozckezIPskcjAzsg.cspx 

Unfortunately, the Humane Society of the United States put a stop to horse slaughter in the US for foreign human consumption.
 Now we have horses all over the place because they are unwanted & have no place to go ~ unfortunatly many unwanted 'horses are not fed because of the hay prices & economic downturn ~ they get to slowly starve to death as opposed to a
rapid dispatch in the slaughter house.  Why can't the ASPCA & the HSUS enforce strict humane laws regarding these horses; you know, surprise visits to the plant, transportation laws enforced ~ maximum hours can be hauled at a stretch; soundness & condition of transportees; when to water them etc.
The horses that are slaughtered in foreign countries are very
unfortunate.  Why not reestablish slaughter but for pet food?

Oh, one argument I hear from people who prefer to give livestock is that there are parts of the world where growing crops are too difficult either because of the terrain or because of drought.
I found some interesting ideas that might address those problems.
One is growing food in Earth Boxes (used by "The Growing Connection", something that the UN is involved with).  Another is Square Foot Gardening that grows a lot of food in a small space.  And a third was something I read about Israel, when a huge number of people moved there back in the late '40's, and food growing was suddenly a challenge.  They used straw to grow their crops in -- on the ground, instead of in it.  I thought that was pretty cool, and the straw could be used at the end of the season for compost.  (Or maybe countries in warm climates can grow food year round?)

Gloria, I found a YouTube video of an undercover video the HSUS took at a horse slaughter house.  That works for a while, when something like that hits the media, and is sent to the political leaders.  But it really doesn't change anything.  And one problem with undercover investigations is that the animals have already suffered horribly. 
In case this one doesn't show up, you can try the link  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpx5x3ks_qw
</param></param></param></embed>

If you don't believe in eating animals (if your a veg*n of any stripe) then sending animals to others to eat goes against your personal ethics.  I like to give to charities that help people get ahead without sending animals to their death (like Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International).

If my family or friends don't care, they can give money to whatever they want, but I hope they have learned to respect my personal beliefs on the issue and in the future I'll no longer be surprised with gifts that go against my own beliefs.

Boston Phoenix, January 2, 2008:
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/53875-Fine-dont-goat-for-it/

and more...

Recently, I received some junk mail from an organization called the Heifer Project International. There were misleading testimonials in the brochure from progressive people like Walter Cronkite, Susan Sarandon, and Jimmy Carter.  However, a more careful look at the mission of the project made it clear that their mission was less than honorable. 
 
There are three incredibly crucial ideas to understand before someone donates to an organization like this: 
 
1.)    It is not earth-friendly to perpetuate the meat/dairy industry.  As it is now, we are ruining the Earth's biodiversity, wasting resources (by feeding farm animals soy and water that could be going directly to poor people), polluting the land and water (from animal waste that is not properly disposed of or filtered), and helping add to global climate change by helping to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (in fact, the meat/dairy industry has been called the biggest culprit adding to global warming according to a recent UN Report, even when compared with transportation).  Farming animals is a very inefficient, expensive, and environmentally destructive way of producing food and money.   With charities like this comes an addiction to high capital input systems, additional stresses on precious water supplies, a loss of control over the means of production, bad health, a nightmare animal-welfare scenario and more human poverty and malnourishment.

2.)    Why would it make anyone feel good to give an animal away as if it is an object? Why do we see exploiting an animal for economic gain an answer to poverty?  If we are really looking for sustainable answers to poverty, lack of clean water, and malnutrition - there are many better options than giving money to perpetuate something so horrible and so inhumane. Groups that give away animals like Heifer International are dangerous because they promote violence and "KIDnapping" while labeling it doing good. Meanwhile, the animals seem invisible, except for use as tools for labor, reproduction, transportation, cash crops (selling offspring and wool), and for selling their flesh or eggs.

3.)  After WWII, Japan was suffering from a devastated economy.  Poverty, hunger, and unemployment were widespread.  Lots of international organizations sought to help out, including Heifer International.  They donated lots of cows to poor families.  It must be noted that before this time, Japan’s food industry and diet was largely based on a non-meat and non-dairy paradigm.  Of course, they did eat some animal products - but the addiction to a high-input diet was certainly not widespread.  With the free cows coming in though, how could they refuse?  In this way, Heifer International slowly created a dependency in Japan for these products.  The effects of this changeover are enormous for modern Japan - including environmental degradation (air and water quality), unhealthy diets (rising obesity), and inefficient farming practices (it takes 12 pounds of soy to create 1 pound of beef - because you have to feed the cow throughout its life). Heifer International is now replicating this pattern in developing countries all around the world - developing a dependency on meat and dairy products.  At this point, all that can be proven and witnessed is a trend (and not a conspiracy); however, it is important for people to know what the unintended consequences of their actions truly are.

It is certainly commendable to try to work toward ending world hunger. However, it is unrealistic to believe that creating a dependency on such an incredibly inefficient way of creating food and money is going to help these families. In fact, as World Land Trust director John Burton points out, a campaign like this “may be a pleasing gift and a short-term fix for milk and meat for a few individuals, but in the long term the quality of life for these people will slowly be reduced with devastating effect."

Let's use the holiday season and spirit for something better than torturing, caging, and killing animals. Let's use it as a time to really take a look at the world as a whole - to see what we can do for each other, the animal kingdom, and the environment.  Consider donating to an organization that promotes sustainable agriculture (like Sustainable Harvest International), which is a much better way to address the growing problems of malnutrition and poverty.

For more information, please go to: www.worldlandtrust.org/, www.peta.org, and www.sustainableharvest.org.

Someone posted this video of Obama responding to a vegan's question on this site's idea about schools offering vegan options.  I think some of it relates to the topic of world food supplies and hunger issues, too, directly and indirectly on a number of levels.  So I thought I'd post the link here, too, FWIW:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt56ER4TSqc

Just in case you did not know, when you click to send an animal (a flock of ducks. or even a cow) you are not actually sending a cow or a sheep you are giving the money to the organization so they can determine what type of program the money is best used for, they may not end up sending an animal at all. The idea is that you are helping the less fortunate in other countries in a way that will be more sustainable then just handing them money.

Somehow, a Heifer catalog ended up in my mailbox a few weeks ago.  I called and requested that this never happen again.

I was physically shaking by the time I had finished reading through it and couldn't get it into the shredder and recycling bin fast enough.  I felt as if I'd been handling some sort of 18th century slave catalog.  I was particularly disgusted by the misinformation about cow's milk being nutritionally advantageous to children...

C'mon, now.  It may be the Third World, but it's not another planet.