Dog fighting, Religion and Mr Vick

[madurobob]

I hoping to hear your thoughts/opinions on two questions I've been tossing around for a few days now. I know this issue was touched on already in the forums, but not necessarily from this angle. Feel free to redirect if this belongs elsewhere.

1. What do the major religions say about treatment of animals?
To hear my TV tell it, nearly everyone in the world is aghast and appalled at Michael Vick for supporting such an archaic and barbaric activity as dog fighting. In true cliche form, and facing the wrath of millions (including the judge that will sentence him based on his plea) Vick now says dog fighting is terrible and that he has asked for forgiveness and turned his life over to God.

(cannot post linky)

My reaction: "huh?" Where exactly does God fall on the whole dog fighting issue? I'm no biblical scholar (sorry - I'm assuming Vick meant xtian God), but I don't remember any old or new testament directions on the treatment of animals other than when cooked over a fire they make an odor pleasing to God. I realize that Vick is simply making a popular appeal and not claiming that God actually says cruelty to animals is wrong. But, do any of the major religions actually address treatment of animals? I know Hinduism has concerns with reincarnation, but I don't think all Hindus are vegetarian either.

2. How do we determine what cruelty is OK?
Whether religion takes a stance or not, we know there are varying degrees of animal cruelty that are commonplace; some accepted as OK and some, like dog fighting, vilified.

A few come to mind:

• Large scale farming operations treat chickens cows and pigs with extreme cruelty. The end result is certainly not different than dog fighting from the animal's perspective.
• Dog racing has all of the cruelty of dog fighting with the real difference being the verb ("fight" vs "race"). The dogs are treated poorly, used until they can no longer perform, then euthanized or abandoned
• Beasts of burden are worked to the extremes of their endurance with little regard for the comfort of the animal
• The only case I can think of where there is a true symbiotic relationship between man and the animals he keeps is bees.

I guess the real crux of my quandary here is "what's the difference?" Why does some cruelty get a pass and some not? I expect some reasoning to follow the form of a "greater good" argument. That is, we tolerate some level of cruelty since the outcome serves the greater good. Livestock farming provides a high-protein diet to a large number of people and maybe that makes the cruelty OK. Vick's dogfighting did nothing but line his pockets and inflate the twisted egos of him and his buddies and that makes the cruelty unacceptable. But how does the line get drawn and how generally aware are we of this apparent compromise of our integrity?

Or, do you see no compromise?

 

[strathmeyer]

[*]Large scale farming operations treat chickens cows and pigs with extreme cruelty. The end result is certainly not different than dog fighting from the animal's perspective.

Uh, no, if you can't tell the difference between humanely farming animals for food and forcing them to fight for your pleasure, I don't see much future in having a conversation with you.

[*]Dog racing has all of the cruelty of dog fighting with the real difference being the verb ("fight" vs "race"). The dogs are treated poorly, used until they can no longer perform, then euthanized or abandoned

Again, you don't see the difference between racing and fighting? See also the many organizations trying to end dog racing.

[*]Beasts of burden are worked to the extremes of their endurance with little regard for the comfort of the animal

Uhh... if you want someone to work for you, wouldn't you want to make them comfortable so that they preform more work? This doesn't make much sense.

[*]The only case I can think of where there is a true symbiotic relationship between man and the animals he keeps is bees.

Perhaps if you would've provided actual explanations or explained your reasoning there wouldn't be a need to make you feel so antagonized. Why is keeping animals as slaves alright in some regards but not others? Why do we have a symbiotic relationship with bees but not other animals we raise and care for?

 

[drkitten]

My reaction: "huh?" Where exactly does God fall on the whole dog fighting issue?

He's agin' it.

I'm no biblical scholar but I don't remember any old or new testament directions on the treatment of animals other than when cooked over a fire they make an odor pleasing to God.

No, they're in it (mostly in the Old Testament), and tradition has added lots more as well.

Some examples among many:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" (Deuteronomy 25:4)
"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deuteronomy 22:10)
"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs." (Proverbs 12:10)
"When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him" (Exodus 23:5)

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

I hoping to hear your thoughts/opinions on
[*]The only case I can think of where there is a true symbiotic relationship between man and the animals he keeps is bees.

Cats. They hang around, sometime catching mice, sleeping on your beds, provide comfort to some, and such. (At least one I've heard of causes death at some Nursing Home...)

I guess the real crux of my quandary here is "what's the difference?" Why does some cruelty get a pass and some not?

This is a good question. Any suffering, whether it's animal or human, is hit or miss on whether it gets noticed. Dog fights, starvation in Africa, animals used for research, displacement in New Orleans - this goes on and on... And I feel the problem is the news has 22 minutes of every 30 to present things that are intended to inform, but are really just "eye catchers" or "brain candy". How else would you explain the 24/7 coverage of Paris Hilton? It's pitiful.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, I think there is a big difference between raising animals for food and raising them for dog fighting.

People have to eat. Yes, farms should be as humane as humanly possible but I see nothing wrong with eating animals (if done responsibly).

Dog fighting on the other hand, is incredibly barbaric. There's no way to do it with minimal damage done to the dogs; it depends on abusing animals.

 

[Complexity]

Where exactly does God fall on the whole dog fighting issue?

I'm agin' it.

 

[madurobob]

Uh, no, if you can't tell the difference between humanely farming animals for food and forcing them to fight for your pleasure, I don't see much future in having a conversation with you.

How many large beef/chicken/pork producing farms have you visited? I've only ben to a few but I can attest to the fact that there was nothing humane in the farming of those animals. I have visited small local farms that are very humane, but the larger operations I've visited here in NC are quite nasty.

Again, you don't see the difference between racing and fighting? See also the many organizations trying to end dog racing.

Yes, many organizations trying to end racing, nonetheless it is legal. I think both dog racing and dog fighting are wrong, but I see you put them at very different positions of relative cruelty. Thanks - thats just what I'm getting at! In terms of treatment of the dogs, what is it specifically about racing that is so much less "bad"? This is necessarily a value judgment - your value judgment I am interested in.

Uhh... if you want someone to work for you, wouldn't you want to make them comfortable so that they preform more work? This doesn't make much sense.

My point is in the consideration of the animal. I take very good care of my car, I wash it, change its oil, etc... but only because I want it to last a long time because it is a significant monetary investment. This is the level of concern sometimes given to beasts of burden, as opposed to the love shown pets. If I had the choice if my car burning in the garage or my cat in the house, I'd save the cat. The car can be replaced. So, is it cruel to have the ox pull the plow for six hours every day? Probably. Is it acceptable? apparently. So, at what point does the cruelty become too much?

Perhaps if you would've provided actual explanations or explained your reasoning there wouldn't be a need to make you feel so antagonized. Why is keeping animals as slaves alright in some regards but not others? Why do we have a symbiotic relationship with bees but not other animals we raise and care for?

Don't worry - I'm pretty thick skinned and do not feel antagonized. Bees get as much out of the relationship as they give. They can (sometimes do) leave whenever they wish, fly as far as they wish, and gather nectar from whatever they wish. Quit a contrast to the pig who lives his entire life in a pen that prevents him from lying down, eating only the feed the farmer gives him, and awaiting nothing more than a bolt to the head when he is "ready".

 

[madurobob]

No, they're in it (mostly in the Old Testament), and tradition has added lots more as well.

Some examples among many:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" (Deuteronomy 25:4)
"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deuteronomy 22:10)
"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs." (Proverbs 12:10)
"When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him" (Exodus 23:5)

Thanks for that. Now that I see it again, I remember reading the first one years ago and enjoying the idea that the ox gets to eat seom corn, too. But, whats with th second one? Is this as silly as not mixing textiles in clothes, or is there some animal husbandry point here I am missing?

 

[madurobob]

Cats. They hang around, sometime catching mice, sleeping on your beds, provide comfort to some, and such. (At least one I've heard of causes death at some Nursing Home...)

DOH! I forgot to exclude pets. Perhaps I, like many, tend to view my pets not always as animals but as family. Lots of symbiosis in being adopted by a cat.

 

[madurobob]

Well, I think there is a big difference between raising animals for food and raising them for dog fighting.

People have to eat. Yes, farms should be as humane as humanly possible but I see nothing wrong with eating animals (if done responsibly).

Dog fighting on the other hand, is incredibly barbaric. There's no way to do it with minimal damage done to the dogs; it depends on abusing animals.

I agree. Dog fighting is much worse and farming can be done relatively humanely. My point is that animals suffer in both, so at what point is the suffering too much? Is the Vick issue so big simply because we also keep dogs as pets so we generally have more emotional attachment to dogs? Do we and should we care less about the animals we farm?

For the record, I'm a vegetarian. But, it doesn't bother me one bit that people eat animals. I think its necessary. Heck, I feed my kids meat. I know this will drive some people batty, but I see less of a problem with hunting than I do with the large scale, inhumane cattle/pig/chicken farms I've visited. At least that deer had a chance to live in the wild and a few good years doing it before being cut down.

 

[drkitten]

Is this as silly as not mixing textiles in clothes, or is there some animal husbandry point here I am missing?

No, it's an animal husbandry point. An ox is considerably stronger than an ass, and the strength differential if you harnessed both animals to the same equipment is likely to hurt one or both of them. There are anatomical differences as well -- putting an ass into an "ox collar" is likely to break its neck. The point, of course, being that an ox and an ass together are of course stronger than either separately,... but only at the risk of injury, which God apparently considers to be unacceptable.

 

[baron]

1. What do the major religions say about treatment of animals?
To hear my TV tell it, nearly everyone in the world is aghast and appalled at Michael Vick for supporting such an archaic and barbaric activity as dog fighting. In true cliche form, and facing the wrath of millions (including the judge that will sentence him based on his plea) Vick now says dog fighting is terrible and that he has asked for forgiveness and turned his life over to God.

What has religion to do with it? Maybe this is what you were getting at. The only connection I can see is that this piece of human scum thought it might get people back on his side. And unfortunately, it probably will.

My reaction: "huh?" Where exactly does God fall on the whole dog fighting issue?

I really must learn to read the full post before quoting from it.

Somewhere in the Bible I recall it says something along the lines of God put animals on the earth for man's benefit, although I can't recall it advocating that man torture them.

2. How do we determine what cruelty is OK?

Common sense, plain and simple. There's no rule book or equation that will give you the answer.

• Large scale farming operations treat chickens cows and pigs with extreme cruelty.

Yep, that can be cruel. Rarely does it approach dog-fighting, unless you're looking at the Chinese and their delightful approach to cat "farming".

• The end result is certainly not different than dog fighting from the animal's perspective.

Have you ever seen a dog fight?

• Dog racing has all of the cruelty of dog fighting with the real difference being the verb ("fight" vs "race"). The dogs are treated poorly, used until they can no longer perform, then euthanized or abandoned

Where's the comparison? Yes, greyhounds are often put down at the end of their useful career. Sometimes by injection, sometimes by gun-shot. They are not kicked or stabbed to death or tortured, nor are they forced to perform until they die of a heart attack, blood loss or other major trauma. Yes, they are bred to race. No, they do not tear flesh, eyes and limbs from each other for hours at a time. Yes, greyhound racing can be considered cruel, but that's pretty much all the comparison that can reasonably be drawn.

• Beasts of burden are worked to the extremes of their endurance with little regard for the comfort of the animal

No comparison.

I guess the real crux of my quandary here is "what's the difference?" Why does some cruelty get a pass and some not?

Sorry, I don't understand your point. How can this be a quandry to you? Given the choice between me punching you on the arm or knocking you to the ground, gouging out your eyes and slicing your belly open, are you in a quandry as to which one is preferable simply because both are violent acts?

I expect some reasoning to follow the form of a "greater good" argument. That is, we tolerate some level of cruelty since the outcome serves the greater good.

We don't even need to go that far.

Livestock farming provides a high-protein diet to a large number of people and maybe that makes the cruelty OK. Vick's dogfighting did nothing but line his pockets and inflate the twisted egos of him and his buddies and that makes the cruelty unacceptable. But how does the line get drawn and how generally aware are we of this apparent compromise of our integrity?

You need to clarify your thinking because I don't understand your point at all.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree. Dog fighting is much worse and farming can be done relatively humanely. My point is that animals suffer in both, so at what point is the suffering too much? Is the Vick issue so big simply because we also keep dogs as pets so we generally have more emotional attachment to dogs? Do we and should we care less about the animals we farm?

For the record, I'm a vegetarian. But, it doesn't bother me one bit that people eat animals. I think its necessary. Heck, I feed my kids meat. I know this will drive some people batty, but I see less of a problem with hunting than I do with the large scale, inhumane cattle/pig/chicken farms I've visited. At least that deer had a chance to live in the wild and a few good years doing it before being cut down.

Oh, I'm glad you agree.

I think the line should be drawn at what you can't avoid. Glue needs to be produced, medicine needs to be tested and food needs to be produced. Except for veal, veal does not need to be produced and animal fighting does not have to be around. Dog races I'm not sure about.

I'm with you. We react with disgust when we hear of Koreans eating dogs and immediatly want to book them with cruelty to pets but we eat everything but dogs and kill animals in ways equally cruel. What's the difference between a dog and a pig, anyway? Neither can do calculus.

You know, I've said the same thing. I'm pro-gun to a certain extent cause I understand people need them to hunt and whenever I mention it, I get a remark like "Hunting down innocent animals! Barbaric!". My response is that it's much more humane than half of what goes on at KFC. Hunting is much more small scale, too.

 

[roger]

Yes, many organizations trying to end racing, nonetheless it is legal. I think both dog racing and dog fighting are wrong, but I see you put them at very different positions of relative cruelty. Thanks - thats just what I'm getting at! In terms of treatment of the dogs, what is it specifically about racing that is so much less "bad"? This is necessarily a value judgment - your value judgment I am interested in.

Either you are very unaware of what goes on in dog fighting, or I am very unaware of what goes on in racing. So, let's find out.

To train dogs to fight, it is common to:

insert glass under their skin
burn them with cigarettes
inject gunpowder into their blood
grind their teeth to razor points with electric grinders

Training dogs are created by grinding down their teeth to nubs so they cannot inflict serious injury.

Fights last 45 minutes to an hour, during which one or both dogs are ripped to shreds. I will not post the images, but google is your friend here. "pit bull fight " (without the quotes) in google images should be enough to literally cause your gorge to rise - it does mine. No such terrible images pop up with"dog race" or the such. Dogs that lose do not receive vet care. It is common in dog fighting areas to find the dogs abandoned beside the road, on mesas, in dumpsters, still alive, or brutally killed. A few lucky ones die by injection. Dogs have their ears cut off with office scissors, are starved, etc.

On top of this you have the normal stuff like steroid enhancement, a rigorous training regiman (I don't consider this part cruel - working dogs like to work), etc, which I assume is about the same for both racing dogs and fighting dogs.



Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101997_4.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/sadreality.php
- this one has very unpleasant images, beware

http://www.workingpitbull.com/dogfighting.htm
- more unpleasant pictures

I don't condone cruelty in general, and of course agree there is a continuum between humanely raising animals for food and full-out torture. I submit that dog fighting is very, very close to the full-out torture end of the spectrum. It fails at being all the way there only because winning dogs mean money for the owners, so they strive to avoid permanent, debilitating injuries to their best dogs. The "not best" dogs - pretty much tortured.

I'm not aware of anything close to this happening in racing. I'm sure there are less than savory owners who do not treat losers well; but the act (racing) itself hardly counts as cruel, unlike in fighting, and the training I do not believe is anywhere near as brutal. A dog in pain isn't going to win a race, I suspect. I welcome evidence to the contrary.

 

[madurobob]

Yep, that can be cruel. Rarely does it approach dog-fighting, unless you're looking at the Chinese and their delightful approach to cat "farming".

Chinese cat farming? Yikes - had to google that one. Had no idea. Kinda points out that there is a wide range of animal cruelty that goes on around us that we may know nothing about.

Have you ever seen a dog fight?

I have not seen a Dog Fight, but have seen dogs fight nearly to the death. All the while my 8 yr old self was screaming, hitting with sticks, etc.. trying to break it up. Very ugly indeed.

Where's the comparison? Yes, greyhounds are often put down at the end of their useful career. Sometimes by injection, sometimes by gun-shot. They are not kicked or stabbed to death or tortured, nor are they forced to perform until they die of a heart attack, blood loss or other major trauma. Yes, they are bred to race. No, they do not tear flesh, eyes and limbs from each other for hours at a time. Yes, greyhound racing can be considered cruel, but that's pretty much all the comparison that can reasonably be drawn.

Ok, admitted hyperbole on my part. But it was intentional. I want to know why its OK to abuse dogs in one way, not in another. BTW - my friends who rescue greyhounds would disagree with your glossing over the plight of the racing dogs. The end of their careers is not always as clean as a bullet to the head. But, at least sometimes it can be positive.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. How can this be a quandry to you? Given the choice between me punching you on the arm or knocking you to the ground, gouging out your eyes and slicing your belly open, are you in a quandry as to which one is preferable simply because both are violent acts?

Not the dichotomy as I see it. To me, its between living a happy, relatively peaceful existence and being brutalized. The degree of brutalization is secondary.

The quandary to me is that some brutality is overlooked and some is vilified. The pig farm I visited in eastern NC several years ago was no less brutal for the pigs than a life of dogfighting for a dog - at least as far as I see it. The key difference is that pigs are food, dogs are pets. why is the brutality visited on the pig less evil that that visited on the dog?

 

[baron]

Chinese cat farming? Yikes - had to google that one. Had no idea. Kinda points out that there is a wide range of animal cruelty that goes on around us that we may know nothing about.

Yep, not pleasant. I saw a video where the cats were strung up and beaten savagely with sticks because their captors believed the andrenaline released would flavour the meat.

I have not seen a Dog Fight, but have seen dogs fight nearly to the death. All the while my 8 yr old self was screaming, hitting with sticks, etc.. trying to break it up. Very ugly indeed.

It's not just the fighting. I suggest you read up on how the dogs are "trained"; not just the cruelty to the dogs themselves but the live cats that they throw in with them to increase their blood-lust.

Ok, admitted hyperbole on my part. But it was intentional. I want to know why its OK to abuse dogs in one way, not in another. BTW - my friends who rescue greyhounds would disagree with your glossing over the plight of the racing dogs. The end of their careers is not always as clean as a bullet to the head. But, at least sometimes it can be positive.

I'm not glossing over their plight, I'm just saying it doesn't compare.

Not the dichotomy as I see it. To me, its between living a happy, relatively peaceful existence and being brutalized. The degree of brutalization is secondary.

I don't see how it can be secondary unless you envisage a world without any animal suffering at all.

The pig farm I visited in eastern NC several years ago was no less brutal for the pigs than a life of dogfighting for a dog - at least as far as I see it.

You need to provide me with some evidence (anecdotal is fine) because otherwise I don't believe you.

 

[roger]

The quandary to me is that some brutality is overlooked and some is vilified. The pig farm I visited in eastern NC several years ago was no less brutal for the pigs than a life of dogfighting for a dog - at least as far as I see it. The key difference is that pigs are food, dogs are pets. why is the brutality visited on the pig less evil that that visited on the dog?

Would you be interested in sharing some of this information? A few years ago we had a rip roaring thread on animal husbandry, where a poser, Kevin Lowe, who farms animals, disputed all reports we could scare up on the internet about how chickens, hogs, etc are treated in industrial farming. I would like to hear first hand about the conditions.

We try to buy our meat from local farms where we know the animals have a decent life and humane death, but must admit most of our meat comes from Costco and such.

 

[Yiab]

1. What do the major religions say about treatment of animals?

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Adam was given dominion over the animals but asked to treat them kindly. I think this is usually interpreted as "do what you want to animals, but try not to be cruel about it". Of course, I've heard that some aspects of kosher animal slaughtering are considered cruel these days, so I can't really say what's being thought about it.
I would guess that Islam follows with this "do what you want but try not to be cruel" policy towards animals, but I've never read the Qur'an so I can't say with any certainty.

Buddhism's position on animal cruelty is, as with so many other things,. different for monks than it is for everyone else. As a lay Buddhist, you are under no restrictions with regard to animals, I think. As a monk, you are encouraged to develop compassion for all living things and are specifically not allowed to eat meat that was killed or prepared for you to eat (i.e. you can eat leftovers but if someone prepares you a steak you can't eat it).

The only religion I know of which has total and strict prohibitions against animal cruelty is Jainism, but their central tenet is total pacifism so it makes sense.

2. How do we determine what cruelty is OK?

Generally, it's a fairly vague cost-benefit analysis where the cruelty of a practice to animals is weighed against the suffering induced in humans to withhold from it.
This is why we find it acceptable to mass-produce chicken, pork and beef, since they are fairly basic meats and if, as omnivores, we don't eat any meat it becomes very difficult to maintain our health (yes, I know it's not nearly as difficult as it was a thousand years ago and for those of us in western countries and not impoverished it really isn't beyond our means, but it remains significantly easier to get our necessary nutrients from meat). This is also why we desire our procedures of production and slaughter to be as painless as possible for the animals, without sacrificing the health or safety of the humans who eat their meat - we understand that some cruelty may be necessary to maintain ourselves, but we try to minimize it.
On the other hand, the "benefits" of dog-fighting (i.e. entertainment for onlookers people) are increased with the violence and pain of the canine participants, so cruelty is increased as part of its form. Additionally, the cruelty of forcing animals to grow up in violent settings and teaching them just to fight and kill others of their kind is cruelty above and beyond the physical abuse these dogs endure over their lives and the consequences if dog-fighting were to end are not damaging in any serious way to peoples' lifestyle let alone health or safety, so the "benefits" are extremely small while the costs are unacceptably large.

Of course, if some computer graphics expert wants to create a computer-generated movie of a virtual dog-fight, I have no ethical problem with this being produced, sold and watched since there is no actual suffering involved (just don't expect me to watch it).

[*]Dog racing has all of the cruelty of dog fighting with the real difference being the verb ("fight" vs "race"). The dogs are treated poorly, used until they can no longer perform, then euthanized or abandoned

Actually, there are many places which take old racing dogs and give them to good homes. Apparently they're usually quite calm and obedient and good with children.
I'm not saying that this excuses the abuses of their training, but it is a pleasant alternative to death or abandonment.

[*]The only case I can think of where there is a true symbiotic relationship between man and the animals he keeps is bees.

It is more difficult to see truly symbiotic relationships between humans and animals in modern times since we have made many of our animals obsolete for their old roles.

Dogs, in tribal cultures, served as a useful part of the family. They would help in hunting, aid in defense of the tribe against any intruders (human or animal) and help to rouse others if there is a threat in the night. In return, they depended on us for food and affection.
In modern times it is rare to see a symbiotic relationship with a dog, typically the dog will either be simply a dependent (i.e. a family pet) or simply a tool (like a guard dog), but before we learned to farm cows and cluster together by the thousands we needed dogs as much as they had come to depend on us.

Once agriculture became fairly prevalent some places began to farm a surplus of their crops. This was particularly useful since we could then store our surplus so we would have food to eat during those times when there was a shortage. Our main difficulty with this was that rodents liked to eat our stored food and they were essentially impossible to keep out. Our solution was to befriend a species of small cat who enjoyed hunting rodents around our grains (didn't want the grain for itself) and who we, in turn, protected from larger carnivores. Of course, now that we have mousetraps, we don't really need the cats much anymore, but they still come in useful on occasion. They still depend on us for food and affection, though.

Horses, once domesticated, were useful in hunting and in warfare and we, as with cats and dogs, helped protect them from their natural predators. Only since the invention of the shotgun and the tank have horses really become dependents instead of partners in our inter-species relationship.

Then, of course, there are the animals we raise for food such as cows, pigs and chickens. These animals have become so sedentary under our ministrations that, for the most part, they would not be able to survive in the wild in reasonable numbers. We feed them and we eat them - is there any more fundamental symbiosis?
Once again, I am not saying that any of this justifies cruelty to these animals, I am simply pointing out that they do, in fact, depend on us to a large degree (which is one reason I dislike animal rights advocates who say we should simply set all the animals loose. If their ethical arguments are valid - and I'm not saying they are - then we should wean domesticated species back into wild situations over the course of several hundred generations).

 

[madurobob]

Would you be interested in sharing some of this information? A few years ago we had a rip roaring thread on animal husbandry, where a poser, Kevin Lowe, who farms animals, disputed all reports we could scare up on the internet about how chickens, hogs, etc are treated in industrial farming. I would like to hear first hand about the conditions.

OK, I don't want this to turn into an industrial farming flame war, but here is my most recent pig farm experience 8 or so years ago.

We were with a group of middle-school students on a typical end-of-the-year fild trip. After a lot of walking around outdoors where there were no pigs nor signs of pigs other than the large wast lagoons, we entered the first or several large steel building on concrete slabs. The stench was amazing. In this building were two rows of pigs in small pens, each pen about as big as the pig. a main aisle in the center allowed us to walk down through the sea of pigs, a trough on either sid of the aisle, and along the outside walls brought in food. The pens were a few inches above the concrete slab, allowing the farmer to wash out the waste with water and flush it into the waste lagoon. We stayed several minutes inside the building but the kids didn't like the noise or the smell and wouldn't stay longer.

Once back outside the kids asked questions. We learned that:

• The pigs lived virtually all of their life in the one pen. They were put there once weaned and lived their entir life in one small pen about 3 feet wide and 5 feet deep.
• Life span from piglet to ham was just several months - far quicker than pigs from a generation ago.
• The pigs lived virtually all of their life in the one pen. They were put there once weaned and lived their entir life in one small pen about 3 feet wide and 5 feet deep.
• Life span from piglet to ham was just several months - far quicker than pigs from a generation ago.
• Pregnant and nursing pigs lived in even smaller pens, preventing nearly all movement to protect the piglets
• There was very little disease due to the medicine in the food, but there was occasional "pen sores" that would not heal
• Pigs would sometimes die in the pens, but they were usually removed within one day and regulations required some reporting of this to local agencies.

Doesn't sounds so bad? It looked terrible and became worse the more we watched and thought about it. The pigs had nothing to do their entire lives but eat and poop and grow immense. Although the farmer was very positive and bright, all the kids came away with the same icky feeling that they had just witnessed a crime. The brutality was not as "in your face" as a dog fight nor as blatantly intentional, but was there nonetheless.

We try to buy our meat from local farms where we know the animals have a decent life and humane death, but must admit most of our meat comes from Costco and such.

Yep - sadly, ditto here.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Don't worry - I'm pretty thick skinned and do not feel antagonized. Bees get as much out of the relationship as they give. They can (sometimes do) leave whenever they wish, fly as far as they wish, and gather nectar from whatever they wish. Quit a contrast to the pig who lives his entire life in a pen that prevents him from lying down, eating only the feed the farmer gives him, and awaiting nothing more than a bolt to the head when he is "ready".

Do you think the pig really knows that's coming? As far as he's concerned, he lives a pleasant life with plenty of food he doesn't have to root for and all the mud he can wallow in. I wouldn't mind that type of life myself, come to think of it.

And how about dogs? They give us love and devotion and guard duty, and we give them the opportunity to not have to hunt and starve in packs and succumb to dysentery.

And parakeets, who would otherwise be eaten by vultures.

And mice, who would otherwise be eaten by cats.

And cats.....


All in all, pets have a pretty sweet deal, considering the alternative.