Animal Rights Activists Like Wolves Picking Off the Weaklings of the Herd
I write often here about animal rights, most often to decry the violence in the movement. But we shouldn't lose sight of the perfectly legal methods liberationists also apply to end the domestic use of all animals.
One of the most effective, is to focus attention on a few discreet alleged "abuses" of animals at a time. This is smart. Animal products are so ubiquitous that railing against them all would be to disburse the movement's energies and render it impotent. So liberationists choose a few primary enemies at at time, allowing all aspects of the movement from the theorists, to the lawyers, to the political activists, to the terrorists, to concentrates their attention like a knife point and do real damage.
This is why the movement is now so focused on foie gras--the product made from overfed duck and goose livers--with a national effort underway to legally outlaw foie gras. It worked in California. And now, there is an attempt in Maryland to legally ban the sale of foie gras even though none is made in the state. From the story:
This seems an odd choice because far fewer birds are killed in fois gras manufacture than are chickens or turkeys. But it makes good tactical sense: First, it is a delicacy, so unlike, say milk, few people consume it and thus will not respond defensively to the criticisms. Second, the method of fattening the livers of the birds--forced feeding through a tube--allows liberationists to claim that foie gras is especially cruel in both the method of swelling the birds' livers and the alleged suffering thereby caused. Foie fras producers scoff. They claim that the birds don't mind being overfed at all, that birds in the wild stuff themselves in preparation for winter, and moreover, that at least one study shows no increased stress in the birds having food poured through a pipe down their gullets. But empirical analysis isn't the point of the liberationists' attack--by hook or by crook they seek the destruction of all meat industries.The Senate's education, health and environment committee, accustomed to debating global warming, septic systems and high-school dropout rates, heard two hours of testimony on the durability of goose gullets and whether a duck feels pain as its liver is fattened up...
The point of this post isn't to defend foie gras but to note that animal liberationists are like wolves picking off the weakling in the herd. It went after sow gestation crates in Florida because there are very few pig farmers in that state, and they knew the pork industry would be too shortsighted to spend sufficient resources to defend the use of crates in Florida. Now, it is attacking foie gras producers, which are few and far between in this country, knowing that other food industries are unlikely to rally to that small industry's defense. And slowly but surely, various meat products and practices are being constrained.
Credit where credit is due: This is effective advocacy and smart politics.
Labels: Animal Rights. Political Tactics
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:00 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Very well said. Animal agriculture should stay together. To take the wolf analogy further, not supporting the weaker members looks a little like throwing them out of the back of the sleigh. But you run out of weaker members as the pack gets stronger and their efforts concentrate more on the survivors.
Fortunately, there are many responsible legislators. The Associated Press reports that "Gourmands who favor duck liver delicacies can keep eating. A proposal to ban foie gras in Maryland is headed toward rejection".
At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, foie gras producers and Maryland businessmen and women who toured Hudson Valley Foie Gras made a strong presentation, which seems to have convinced the bill sponsor to put aside any further action on the bill, in the face of a group of national-level animal rights activists.
Rumor in Annapolis is that the House sponsor of the companion bill may also be withdrawing her support.
There is some justice, and open-minded, competent legislators.
The birds don't feel any added stress by having a pipe shoved down their throats and eating way past the point of being full? You people are so heartless.
Animal lover. I said there was a scientific study showing that. And the birds flock to be fed. They aren't like humans. It isn't like shoving a pipe down a human throat. Remember, they swallow fish whole.
Foie gras is loathed not because of the forced feeding but because birds are killed. The feeding and large livers are just the pretext for a gang jump.
But as I wrote: My purpose wasn't to defend foie gras. It was to point out the tactic.
Though the Maryland legislature may have pulled the bill, rest assured it is only temporary. These people, whether they be animal rights advocates, enviromentalists, whatever (anti liberty), are relentless. They spent decades incrementally in their crusade against tobacco and would have had it banned were it not for the money it generates.
Fascists, communists, socialists...call them what you will as it's all the same result. Tyranny.
Mort (who wouldn't eat foie gras on a bet)
Birds sometimes eat themselves to death. I'm not talking wild birds that have to work off the excess weight, I'm talking domestic animals. They're programmed by God to fatten themselves up, but they don't do all the work that they normally would do in the wild, so they will eat and eat and eat and eventually can't eat anymore. It's not often - you're more likely to see, say, rats do it, or other rodents (again, programmed to fatten up, but given an unlimited supply of food, will gorge themselves). And sharks will eat in a frenzy until they vomit, then go right back to eating.
...I hope nobody was eating when he read this.
Anyway, foie gras grosses people out - for a while I was opposed to it myself, until I read about the feeding frenzies and rats eating themselves to death. Animals aren't the brightest lightbulbs on the Christmas tree. They sometimes do stupid things because they don't know any better. If a duck can eat itself to death, and instead is being monitored by people who only give X amount to the animal to ensure a fat liver and not to the point of killing the bird, and if they're being housed in a clean environment where snotty kids can't come over and randomly beat on the birds, or people use them for fighting, or other insane things, then I cannot complain.
...but yanno, I eat sushi like it was going out of style, and I won't eat foie gras if you *pay* me!
HSUS, PETA, and all of the other liars and frauds in the animal rights movement need to be dragged out into the open and their extremist agenda exposed.
NOBODY in his or her right mind would contribute to these organizations if they knew just what these groups stand for.
That's my plan, Susan.
You're right, animal rights activists are effective. But you haven't identified the real reason. The reason isn't the particular tactics used here and there. The reason is because normal, healthy humans have respect and compassion for animals.
Elaine: Thanks for stopping by.
Of course normal human beings have respect and compassion for animals. It is part of our exceptional nature.
But rightists say we shouldn't eat meat. Most of us do. We should't wear leather, yet few of us are vegan. We shouldn't permit medical research with animals, but it is very widely supported because of the great good it brings.
I would say and hope that all people believe in animal welfare, but most of us utterly reject animal rights, properly understood.
Not everyone believes in animal welfare - there's a jerk in my neighborhood that raises roosters for cockfighting. Sick duck like that needs to be smacked - with a fine and time in jail. It's cruel and stupid and doesn't contribute to the human good, so should be punished to the full extent of the law. And this from me, who hates chickens.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home