PETA killing animals?

[Seaside]

The message that PETA sends out makes it appear like it's OK to kill if it's done without the victim doesn't suffer too much.

I can see the headlines coming:

"FBI gives Most Humane Weapon of The Year Award to al-Qaeda. Their new Drinking Water Induction System provides a peaceful death for US Citizens and even sends a text message to a local "controller" when the mission is completed. 'Whatever the situation will be with possible terrorist threats in the future', says George W. Bush: 'This innovative and thoughtful product could prevent thousands of Americans from suffering painful deaths'"


"The American Geriatric Society gives the Best Mass Euthanasia Method Award to a British doctor. 'Their new SGB's (Silent Gas Bomb) provides a brilliant way to put us to sleep, says the AGS leader - and it is only used on sleeping elders. It saves our society for a lot of expenses". This innovative and thoughtful product will prevent millions of Americans from having to deal with annoying, sick or senile parents, and ensures that elders from all countries will end their life without even knowing it."

"PETA gives the Best New Poultry Slaughtering Product to the Kentucky Fried Chicken's innovative R&D Department. 'Their new invention provides a brilliant way to put the chicken to sleep, says Ingrid Newkirk: 'It's so fast that the chicken won't notice that they are killed'. 'I'm now going to start eating chicken again', says another PETA spokeswoman - since KFC's chicken from now on are on pain killers from birth to death, and then slaughtered in a very humane way, chicken will never need to feel pain - ever. It's all about suffering, isn't it?' This innovative and thoughtful product will actually prevent chicken or any other animal from feeling anything at all."
:D :D :D

[TofuFooYung]

< noob to the forums!

IMHO, I don't agree with any killing whatsoever whether it's flies, cats, dogs, ants etc. No one has the right to kill a living creature.

To Geoff > I appreciate your difficult situation- but don't agree with what you did. Hopefully in the future you wont be put into a situation like that again, but if so, remember veganism is about compassion. You can't look a perfectly healthy, living animal in the face and sign its death warrant and maintain that stance. In the UK there are animal societies who will rehome wild feral cats by placing them in outdoor location colonies where they are controlled and cared for? Perhaps there is one not too far from you in Oz who you could liaise with? This would be far less hassle than having to rehome an animal, and would be keeping the animal in an outdoor, more natural environment.

With Peta... they're not perfect and obviously any pro-death stance sucks, but ultimately there is life being taken from all around us all the time. That isn't Peta's fault. It's society's. The reason we have over population of certain species is mostly because of the human race destroying the 'survival of the fittest' order of life.

I think Peta should be supported as much as possible for the good stuff they do, with the veggie folks putting their energy into educating people to neuter/spay/rehome animals and helping Peta correct these problems from the outside-in rather than wasting time simply hating them for it.

[geysir111]

Very wise opinion mate, what does mean IMHO????:confused:

Christophe

[Enchantress]

IMHO means "in my honest opinion".

[TofuFooYung]

I meant mine to mean 'humble opinion' but either way is cool ;-)

[dreama]

Dreama - ok - so less painful alternatives to traditional traps are not an improvement in your eyes. :

No because CO gas is NOT pain free. PLEASE READ MY LAST POST!!!You may think that they are better compaired to glue traps but that's not saying much is it.


Tell me - what activism are you taking part in to stop the trapping and poisoning of rats and mice? You certainly have an opinion about people trying to do it in a humane fashion; what are *you* doing about the barbaric techniques.

Yes, actually I am. I signed a Petiton against glue traps. It's still on my website. I also made a model in pottery with some rats in a vase. One of the rats is writing some grapheti on the vase she writes 'RENTOKILL MURDERED MY FAMILY'. It will let people know exactly cruel rentokill is. So now they can carry on murdering people's families with PETA's support. I will also tell people on my website that they should not support PETA after tahey suport such a cruel company and that CO is NOT painless. So what are you doing?



I will look up research on CO and CO2 killing. Your points may be correct but I won't know until I look.

If you are suggesting gassing humans then that is your perogative but if you are going to be serious about this, please stick to the point.

I AM sticking to the point. My point is that an animal right's charity should give Animal's RIGHTS. One of which is the right to life. I am trying to make a point here. The life of a feral cat is quite comparatable to the life of a homeless person yet no human rights person would DARE say they should all be killed yet I really cannot believe some people can claim to suport animal rights and then say I am not serious when I make compairisons to human rights. Are you saying animals should have less rights. Well plenty of people feel this way but they don't usually pretend to be in favor of animal rights.


When you have mice in a plague and they are eating *anything* because there is no food - how many die of starvation? Apparently that is okay - because it is natural. :confused:

So you think the solution is to murder them all. Very simplistic of you. Would you do the same to colombian street children I wonder. They have a pretty hard life too. But people don't kill them because human life is sacred. Why can't that be the case with animals too?

If I was a rat I would rather take my chances with a hard life then being murdered by some human. Plus hardly any human kills rats because they are being kind to them. They do so because they want to get rid of them. So the only humane rat trap is one that does NOT kill rats.

[dreama]

To Geoff > I appreciate your difficult situation- but don't agree with what you did. Hopefully in the future you wont be put into a situation like that again, but if so, remember veganism is about compassion. You can't look a perfectly healthy, living animal in the face and sign its death warrant and maintain that stance. In the UK there are animal societies who will rehome wild feral cats by placing them in outdoor location colonies where they are controlled and cared for? Perhaps there is one not too far from you in Oz who you could liaise with? This would be far less hassle than having to rehome an animal, and would be keeping the animal in an outdoor, more natural environment.

I agree totally.


With Peta... they're not perfect and obviously any pro-death stance sucks, but ultimately there is life being taken from all around us all the time. That isn't Peta's fault. It's society's. The reason we have over population of certain species is mostly because of the human race destroying the 'survival of the fittest' order of life.

I think Peta should be supported as much as possible for the good stuff they do, with the veggie folks putting their energy into educating people to neuter/spay/rehome animals and helping Peta correct these problems from the outside-in rather than wasting time simply hating them for it.

I know what you are saying, but there are other, much better groups out there that don't dish out awards to animal murderers.

[Korn]

unwanted cats Unwanted by humans, right? Maybe they want each other? Maybe they want themselves?

[TofuFooYung]

We all know that overpopulation of a singular species leads to disease and starvation etc, but that doesn't mean that extermination is the answer. The imbalance/overpopulation is there.... because of us in some form or another! And when it isn't because of us, there's are no natural predators to control the animals because we've wiped the majority out! Birds, cats and other small mammals can control mice and rats.... we take the predators out of the equation and/or domesticate them to the point where they lose that wild streak... Voila! Imbalance. How does the human race cure it? We kill the rodents for a problem caused by man's greed and selfishness. Either way you look at it, it isn't fair.

But how exactly do we solve this situations without causing another? i.e. Geoff's mice swarm. Do we box up the mice and drive them to different parts of the country and re-release them? Do we house feral cats locally to keep the numbers down- who could then go on to be a problem in themselves? Do we interfere with the cats by neutering/spaying them to stop them from breeding i.e. recreating nature's balance at a cost? What happens when the mice numbers are down and there's far less to eat and the cats starve? We feed them cat food and turn them from carnis into omnis? Then... we have to maybe find them homes? Waaaaaaaaaah.

When veganism has its day, there'll be so much sh*t to put right :mad:

[Korn]

Jeez - not you too!

Me? I'm trying to have as few opinions as possible. :)

There are people who are against killing animals, people who don't mind, and people who think that it's necessary in some situations, to help them not suffer. My concern with PETA is that IF they are against killing animals, if they are vegans, or even if they are against killing animals in most cases, they would be a lot better off if they would focus on the main message, which as far as I know is not to harm or kill animals. In a way I don't have any opinions about PETA as such, because they have created an organization which reflects their views, so they do what they feel is right. What I know is that many people won't support PETA, either because they seem to have links to 'eco-terrorism', because they are trying to create a more extreme image than they need to (have you seen Ingrid Newkirk's will (http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html)?), and because they seem to implement activities that maybe will make some non-vegans to like them, but will cause many vegans to not want to support them, like not using energy time on evaluating tools to kill animals, but to focus on it and give award to someone who has created a mouse trap better than other mouse traps. Maybe they'll give an a award next year to some guy who invented better slaughtering machines causing less pain door animals? If an animal should be killed, it's good if it can be done in an as painless way as possible - what I say, is that I think evaluating guns and slaughtering machines and mouse traps would be better off if done in another kind of organization. The side effect of linking Ethical Treatment of Animals with evaluating the best way to kill animals, is that it will look like they think it's OK to kill if it's done in certain ways.

Re. unwanted cats: I have seen many 'unwanted' humans in the streets of poor countries I have visited; kids with no legal rights, no home, no parents. They suffer. All I know is that if I was one of them, I'd rather suffer than die. I also know that if I was one of them, or a cat living in the streets, and a friendly pacifist was spending time on trying to kill me to save me from suffering, I'd want him to rather spend time and energy on influencing others not to harm or kill humans/animals than to save me from my own pain. Woody Allen said "I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens". I want to be there when it happens.

In short, if I come and visit you in Brisbane, I get sick, I suffer, and you don't want me there, please just don't kill me, OK? :) Throw me out of your house if you wish, but I'd rather just die alone in the forest when my heart stops beating than having someone shoot me or gas me with CO2.

Maybe I'm making this to complicated? Sorry if I am. So here's the short version: I don't support PETA. I would, if the PETA members who focus on best slaughtering method/best mouse trap would do it in another organization and skip some other things they do which I don't agree in. By narrowing the message, they'd get more support and still do a LOT for animals - probably more than they do now. But that's not what they want - and that's not any of my business. Who I support IS any of my business.

To take a similar example: I was a member of a Norwegian organization that focus on important environmental issues. Then they started to say things in public about animals' rights that I disagreed with, so I cancelled my membership. They would have gotten my support if they would narrow down their message to the main focus of their organization: environmental issues.

[veggiesosage]

I can see why PETA might want to encourage apparently non animal friendly organisations to IMPROVE the way they work in relation to how they treat animals. They accept that they can't persuade those organisations to remove all forms of cruelty so they have made the pragmatic decision to encourage them to reduce cruelty. I can accept that thats a positive step.

Likewise, I also feel a little uncomfortable with some of the things Geoff has described doing but he's in a different situation to the vast majority of us and has had to make real world decisions about situations few of us will have to face. If I ever find myself in such situations and find better solutions I may feel able to discuss it further with him but this is unlikely. However, if I were to just stick my head in the sand and say 'let nature take its course' that would be a cop out and is not a solution.

The Vegan Society's Articles of Association have this to say about the definition of veganism;

'In this Memorandum the word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.

In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.'

Note that phrase 'as far as is possible and practical'. The definition of veganism therefore accepts that we cannot always exclude all forms of cruelty or exploitation of animals. So in fact it is those of you who insist that we do eliminate all forms of cruelty and exploitation in all forms at all times with no exceptions, who are technically not the true vegans.

Sometimes we find ourselves almost having to make judgments rivalling Solomon's; what is the least worst solution? In New Zealand the possum was introduced by humans and with no natural predators has spread like wildfire. Because it eats the eggs of ground nesting flightless birds it has virtually wiped out the kiwi, their national symbol. Now we all know its the human's fault for introducing the possum and its not the possum's fault but its not the kiwi's either. Do we just sit by and watch the kiwi become extinct?

[dreama]

Geoff: Korn and Tofu have already said how I feel. Probably more elequently then I'm capable of. So I'd just be eccoing them really.

I would also add that I too care for animals. I have rescue rats and chinchilla's as well as having a guide dog. Sometimes they fall very sick and sadly I Euthanise them, however I only EVER use this as a last resort. Only when it may be morally acceptable (to some) to kill a human in the same condition. Although I have mixed feelings about this as human Euthanasia could and probably would be abused like it is with animals. To me it is the lesser of 2 evils only to be used on a dying/termally ill animal who suffers a lot of pain. Although I'll never really feel comfortable about taking a life however bad the animal's condition is. I always feel very guilty afterwards. After I Euthanised Yofu I had bad dreams about being a murderer. Another rat, Mitzy actually begged me not to Euthanise her (we communicated with thought speak) although others seemed to be giving me very mixed messages so I never knew what they really wanted. Maybe they didn't know either. One rat actually seemed to comunicate after death and said she was glad to have been Euthanased as her life was getting quite unbearable.

If their pain can be curbed with Metacam I do that. I also have a rat at the moment with hind leg paralises. She drags her back legs around so I've decided to invest in one of those 'dogon wheelchairs' for her. It cost me 200 pounds and I don't even know if she will take to it or even if she will still be alive in 3 weeks time when I get it.

If a Kangaroo has broken it's leg that leg should either be mended or amputated regarding how severe the break. Animals seem to manage coping with disabilities much better then most people as they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves. Something we can learn from them I feel. If a Kangaroo is totally done for with no help and suffering too much then, and only then, should Euthanasia be considered. Only I don't like the sound of bashing them over the head. If that's all you can offer maybe you should just let them die naturally.

As far as cat's go really can't stress this often enough, but if ferrals are just left to their own devices they would at least have a year to live. If I thought my chinchilla's would live this long in freedom I would probably release them.

[dreama]

as far as is possible and practical

There are actually quite a few interpretations on this. Some vegans it seems, interprete it differantly then others. They excuse themselves and certain curupt 'animal rights' groups on these grounds and being 'practical'/'realistic'.

Really, we don't have to be in Australia caring for ailing Kangaroo's to face moral dilema's. As I stated in my last post that caring for ailing rats and chinchilla's in Britain can pose equal moral dilema's.

So no I don't have my head in the sand. However I'm finding the words 'practical' and 'realistic' tend to get abused rather a lot. It is one thing to come into a situation where one genuinely is faced with a situation where both choices one could make are unethnical. Quite another to choose an unethnical choice where there IS a viable and more ethnical alternative already available such as humane traps for rats/mice, no kill shelters and SNR programes for feral cats which work perfectly well. Groups like PETA only make difficulties for the poor animals by claiming they don't.

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES. I suppose if PETA offered Proctor and Gamble an award you would excuse that too.

[veggiesosage]

Yes there are a few interpretations of that phrase but I object to your implication that your way of interpreting it is the only one.

For what its worth I wouldn't 'excuse' PETA for giving an award to P+G if it was for a real gain in animal welfare but I would understand why they might do so. Lets imagine that P+G found a way to reduce the number of animal experiments by 75%. You and me will probably still boycott them because they would still be carrying out a lot of animal experiments. However PETA, which as far as I know is not necessarily a vegan organisation, may feel it wise to recognise what would be a massive decrease in the number of experiments carried out workdwide. Doing this encourages P+G to carry on trying to eliminate animal experimentation and has practical benefits for thousands of individual animals.

Of course P+G should stop all experiments tomorrow but that simply isn't going to happen. If you do have a way of achieving this then please do it now. So its perfectly arguable that PETA's approach of recognising small steps, even if it sometimes seems as though they are jumping into bed with the enemy, can be a viable tactic.

As far as your criticisms of Geoff goes, you admit that you yourself sometimes euthanase animals as a last resort. I can't see how different this is to Geoff's position, he hardly seems to do it for fun. Your comment that you do not have to go to the outback of Australia to face moral dilemnas is a valid one but I would suggest that you need to at least talk to someone who has been there to understand the context in which those dilemnas are dealt with.

Remember that the distances you are talking about are huge; there probably isn't a vet within hundreds or maybe thousands of miles of where Geoff lives. Its not like Birmingham where there are probably 10s of vets surgeries within 20 miles. And I don't know a lot about kangaroos but I do know that one would be totally immobilised if one of its legs was amputated. I really don't know whether a broken leg would be treatable either, remember its only very recently that vets have been able to treat horses with broken legs, rather than euthanase them.

I also find it extraordinary that you feel that letting a kangaroo die 'naturally' rather than bashing it over the head is a better solution. It would probably die of dehydration which is a horrible way to die, with the pain from the broken leg all the time. Bashing an animal over the head until it is dead IS brutal but its got to be better than that. This seems to be more about your feelings than anything to do with the kangaroo's welfare.

So to conclude I object strongly to your instruction that I should 'open my eyes' as to me it is clear that my eyes are open far wider than yours (and my ears open as well) as I am able to look beyond my own little world, understand other people's viewpoints and recognise other ways of dealing with the same problems.

[Seaside]

Re. unwanted cats: I have seen many 'unwanted' humans in the streets of poor countries I have visited; kids with no legal rights, no home, no parents. They suffer. All I know is that if I was one of them, I'd rather suffer than die. I also know that if I was one of them, or a cat living in the streets, and a friendly pacifist was spending time on trying to kill me to save me from suffering, I'd want him to rather spend time and energy on influencing others not to harm or kill humans/animals than to save me from my own pain. Woody Allen said "I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens". I want to be there when it happens.
I think Geoff's point is not just about the suffering of the unwanted cats. Its a question of how many perhaps already endangered indigenous animals each feral cat is going to kill if it is left in the wild. If you were an unwanted human, Korn, who just minded your own business and wanted to be left alone it wouldn't be a problem. But if you were sneaking around at night breaking into people's homes and killing them because it was an unstoppable compulsion on your part somebody would eventually be forced to decide whether you should be allowed to continue. I myself have stated before that I do not agree even with euthanasia, but I can't judge someone in a postion like Geoff's. I have been faced with a couple of situations in which the animals probably should have been bashed in the head, but I couldn't make myself do it, and there was no one else around who could either, and I feel guilty over not being able to put them out of their misery (these were animals who had absolutely no chance of recovering from the massive damage inflicted on them). Obviously the feral cat problem in Australia is unlike anything I have ever experienced, and I am grateful that I am not there having to deal with it. Instead of judging and condemning we should all be praying that we may never find ourselves in a similar position to Geoff's and all the other folks in Australia who are being forced to make ugly decisions every day to solve problems that are ultimately the fault of humans.

[annabanana]

A little bit off topic but euthanasia is being mentioned.
Apparently a bill to make assisted suicide legal in the UK has already had it's first reading in parliament.

Feel like I have double standards on the issue really, I agree with putting an ill animal down if it is to release them from suffering, but I am totally opposed to euthanasia for humans. I work with a lot of old and ill people and there is absolutley no way I could concieve of allowing any of them to die, but quite a few do say they feel they are such a burden to their family that they would be better off dead.
It is really sad.

[annabanana]

If PETA have found it necessary to kill these animals, why don't they do something positive about it like campaigning for more responsible pet ownership and having animals neutered and spayed (or is it sprayed- I am never quite sure)

[Seaside]

Like we don't cause any damage to wild life ourselves. We are the BIGGEST preditors who do the MOST damage so we have a right nerve scapegoating other animals.
So since this is the case we should just give up all efforts to prevent unecessary destruction of endangered species in favor of those who are doing the destroying?:confused:
Its got nothing to do with scapegoating either. Recognizing that cats are carnivorous predators who kill to live is not scapegoating them. And I have four cats, so don't accuse me of not knowing about cats, or being prejudiced against them due to ignorance. One was rescued from an abusive household, one was abandoned at a vet hospital, one was stray, and one was feral. If I could take in more I would.
If you are ill reading about this, why don't you go to Australia and bring back 1000 of these cats and rehome them yourself? That's only a fraction of the numbers they deal with, so it should be easy for you, and make you feel much better. It would certainly be more constructive than continuing to judge others who are basically damned if they do and damned if they don't in this particular tragedy. Have you ever been in a position of having to make a decision that will go against your ethics no matter what you choose, of having no alternatives except bad or even more bad? What would you do dreama if you came home one day and found one of your rats or chinchillas in the jaws of a cat?

[dreama]

What would you do dreama if you came home one day and found one of your rats or chinchillas in the jaws of a cat?

Moonlight a mouse I once had was killed by my flatmates cat. I was very upset about it. For all I know the chinchilla's that escaped probably suffered the same fate. It is very sad but no cause to murder an innocent animal just because it is a carnivore. We act like we are carnivores (even though we arn't). Also lions and tigers. Should we keep all wildlife indoors?

The Australian welfare organisations who won't let feral cats stay in the wild like they are meant to are bringing their own problems on. As to scapegoating, it's not just my opion. I read it in an Australian cat website. I can link you to it if you like.

But humans DO do a lot of unneccesary killing. So an 'Animal rights' group decides to take part in this killing and nobody can see what is wrong. It's like I said earlier, Just like animal farm with PETA singing along the tune of '4 legs good, 2 legs better'. That is what makes me feel sick. Emotional tactics will get you nowhere.

[veggiesosage]

If PETA have found it necessary to kill these animals, why don't they do something positive about it like campaigning for more responsible pet ownership and having animals neutered and spayed (or is it sprayed- I am never quite sure)

The thing about PETA which I haven't quite worked out yet (and this was touched on by Kevster earlier) is that its not clear what they are about.

Campaigning organisations tend to to be split along a radical/responsible/pragmatist/compromising continuum.

It strikes me that PETA wants to be all these things. This could be seen as honourable but, in my opinion and especially looking at some of the opinions expressed on this thread, would appear to be a mistake as it sends out a confusing message to their supporters. people don't seem to know what they believe in.


My view on PETA is that they need to work out where they stand, If they did this I am sure they would be much more succesful at whatever stance they took. There would be room for other organisations to take up the space they leave behind.

[Korn]

I think Geoff's point is not just about the suffering of the unwanted cats. I didn't say that it was, I was responding to what he wrote. :)



If you were an unwanted human, Korn, who just minded your own business and wanted to be left alone it wouldn't be a problem. But if I had been a problem for someone, would you suggest that it would be OK to kill me? I entered this thread when the news about PETA giving an award to a man who made a mouse trap came up: as far as I know this mouse trap is an expensive, electronic trap not constructed to deal with 'thousands of mice'. (Mouse traps designed to catch many mice simultaneously without killing them already exist.)



But if you were sneaking around at night breaking into people's homes and killing them because it was an unstoppable compulsion on your part somebody would eventually be forced to decide whether you should be allowed to continue. Are you pro killing animals that are problematic, but against killing humans that are problematic? Just to make myself clear: I'm trying to understand what you mean here. I'm not stating an opinion, and I'm not discussing euthanasia. I remember that you in another thread wrote something that could be understood as you being against killing a human even in situations where that would prevent him from killing lots of other humans (ie. killing a pilot that was about to drop a bomb over a village), but I may have misunderstood you at some point.

[Korn]

Lets imagine that P+G found a way to reduce the number of animal experiments by 75%. You and me will probably still boycott them because they would still be carrying out a lot of animal experiments.

Let's be realistic. If P&G would get a PETA award, it would definitely mean an end to an effective boycott of them.

(FYI, I just removed some posts in this thread (and put a member on Delayed Posts). Please read the FAQ if you wonder why.)

[Seaside]

I think Geoff's point is not just about the suffering of the unwanted cats. Its a question of how many perhaps already endangered indigenous animals each feral cat is going to kill if it is left in the wild. If you were an unwanted human, Korn, who just minded your own business and wanted to be left alone it wouldn't be a problem. But if you were sneaking around at night breaking into people's homes and killing them because it was an unstoppable compulsion on your part somebody would eventually be forced to decide whether you should be allowed to continue. I myself have stated before that I do not agree even with euthanasia, but I can't judge someone in a postion like Geoff's.
Hi Korn, this is what I posted, and I am only asking ifs here, not making statements of my own beliefs, except for the part about euthanasia. I personally am not pro killing anything, and I have stated before that I am not capable of doing what these people are doing. The point is that I am lucky that I don't have to face what others are facing, and I think the judgemental folks in this thread are completely ignoring the question asked over and over again: What would you do if you were faced with tens of thousands of animals that cannot be placed in homes because no one will come forward to adopt them, and cannot be let loose in the wild to decimate indigenous endangered species? Does anybody have a constructive alternative solution to this problem?

[Seaside]

I love you Geoff! :)

[Korn]

What would you do if you were faced with tens of thousands of animals that cannot be placed in homes because no one will come forward to adopt them, and cannot be let loose in the wild to decimate indigenous endangered species? Does anybody have a constructive alternative solution to this problem? You want me to answer your questions, but you don't answer mine? Clever girl - but that trick doesn't work! :)

And by the way, I'm not discussing that topic, I'm discussing a related topic.

Being vegan is a very unique thing, vegans have viewpoints that are rare in our culture, respect for all life as such isn't a common value in the Western world.

I can easily imagine hundreds of animal related situations you and I or anyone else could be encountered with where our help would have an immense impact: Horses needing slightly larger stables, better slaughtering methods for chicken, more humane methods used in test labs and so on. It would be so brilliant for the meat industry if vegans would not focus on animals' right to live, but focus on animal welfare instead. They would be really happy if vegan sites and forums would spend more time on discussions like this instead, and if PETA would be giving awards to P&G or makers of weapons and traps instead of letting others know that veganism actually is about.

100 years ago, racists would be very happy if the anti-racist movement would rather give an award to a restaurant that would allow black people in a small section of their place (because it's better than allowing only white people). But the anti-racist movement wouldn't be happy with a 'Ten niggers allowed in our cafe', and they shouldn't, because such a policy would still send out a message that the rights of black people are not as important as the rights of white people.

WHen PETA says that certain mouse traps are better than others, and gives an award to the RADAR/Rentokil trap, they support a company that also makes tradition mouse traps, produces traditional rat poison etc. They're giving the act of killing animals a pretty face. Many people who have a minor problem with mice will buy their trap instead of a 'humane' mouse trap that will catch the mouse without hurting and killing it.

There are millions of people out there who are more than willing to kill animals that they find annoying, noisy, scary, ill, 'dying anyway', appetizing or whatever. I think it's sad if vegans join that crowd and spend their time on animal welfare rather than focusing on what's unique for vegans.