For animal people, Clinton and Obama are no-nos

From LA Animal Watch blog:

snip

CLINTON
Hillary Clinton helped make Don Tyson the nation's biggest butcher of cows, pigs and chickens. She invested in cattle futures. She has publicly endorsed the brutal
Heifer Int'l projects in which baby animals are shipped alone overseas to slavery and death. Clinton served on the animal abusing WalMart board. She has voted for vivisector money.

snip

BARACK OBAMA
Barack Obama like most Illinois politicians has a cozy relationship with unionbuster
McDonald's which he has praised. His wife is a spokesperson for vivisection as a VP
of Univ of Chicago Hospitals

snip

BIDEN:

WASHINGTON, DC – A key U.S. Senate panel gave its stamp of approval today to a bill that would ban the unsportsmanlike practice of hunting and killing exotic animals in fenced-in enclosures. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s (D-DE) Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act which seeks to prevent cruel and inhumane "canned hunts" by making it illegal to kill an exotic animal within the confines of a specified enclosure for trophy or sport.

snip

Biden has taken some strong pro animal stands, such as against canned hunting. Of course, that might be because Cheney shot a friend on one of these "hunts

snip

More... http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-picks-for-president.html

Though it's good to hear Biden is also good on animal issues.

Your point is?

It's about cruelty to animals.

nt

Can I be assured that had "Clinton" been the only name mentioned in the title, you would have attacked her for being against "animal rights"?

That was a rhetorical question. (so what'd I win)

have some specifics on this "voting for vivisection"?

Oh, btw, Tyson may be big, but compare them with the rest of the industry.

(Investing in cattle futures is a bad thing now, too?)

:kick:

Your post makes my mouth water for a juicy steak... Obama and Clinton Just secured my vote, if either of them are nominated. I am curious what sort of, "slavery," these baby animals are subjected to? Perhaps worked to death in a sweat shop or salt mine (picturing a hamster powered steel mill)?

*LOL*

Animals are simply that: animals. They have not evolved socially like humans have, only biologically.

Humans should also never feel morally wrong about eating both plants and animals. We are omnivores and we always have been.

but we are animals, too.

Insensitivity and a lack of understanding of the reality of animal-exploitation isn't much of a debate.

There are people who care about animal welfare. That does not mean they are judging you for eating meat..they just don't want to see animals abused.

Why you think it is acceptable behaviour to mock them is beyond me.

they make a good argument against Clinton from the perspective of an animal rights activist

:hi:

mindless groupie.

Animals don't need to be perfect in order to be defended. The same goes for people.

And while I doubt the Clintons drown puppies, I can't recall them ever championing any animal rights bills.

they teach people to love and respect animals, and to NOT kill them. They are used for milking in villages, and have doen amazing work. they don't ship calves to "slavery and death".

First of all, they do ship many animals (ranging from rabbits and guinea pigs on up sizewise) who are intended to be eaten primarily and not to provide reproductive tissues first and flesh second as cows and laying hens do, second those which are first exploited for eggs or milk will eventually be eaten when their production wanes- even in areas of plenty there is no quiet retirement for old dairy cows. They are promoting the exploitation of animals rather than sustainable alternatives, and often require that animals which are traditionally allowed to roam and forage instead be kept in small pens, which is both expensive to most third-world families (both in terms of the initial investment in the pen and the long-term food costs) and harmful to the animal. Finally, most animals Heifer sends off into the third world will never see a vet, and recipients do not receive even a minimal training in proper care, feeding or basic husbandry practices.

but this one is so full of misinformation, half-truths and outright lies that I won't devote more rebuttal.

Thanks. You're a real help there and a credit to the cause - I'm awed by your skills.

Animals are not “shipped”. They are purchased locally for a variety of very good reasons. These include avoidance of the stress associated with shipping. Another benefit is utilizing animals already acclimated to the area.

To complain that these animals will be eaten is the imposition of a personal set of philosophical choices onto people struggling with basic survival.



There is a saying in agriculture, that where there’s livestock, there’s deadstock. When an animal has reached the end of its productive life in terms of eggs or milk there remains a whole lot of protein. Shall we insist that these animals enter sanctuaries? In countries where the people are dying of starvation?




The incorporation of animals into agriculture IS a sustainable alternative. Many food problems are due to an overly starch-based diet. Lack of usable protein is a very real 3rd world problem. Unlike us, the recipients cannot run to Safeway for tofu. Utilization of the digestive magic of animals





Animals are kept penned when the alternative would entail contributing to soil erosion. It also enables collection of manure



Ruminants are magical animals. They possess a quality we monogastrics do not- they can synthesize protein. They do this on a diet of roughage that we could not hope to survive on. The magic is in the rumen, and the microbial populations there that break down the hemicelluloses and lignins monogastrics cannot use.

Heifer International specializes in ruminants. The cattle, sheep, goats, llamas are all ruminants. The hogs, poultry and rabbits also have special characteristics that make them adaptable to using a diet which does not compete with humans for scarce resources.



Wrong. In order to qualify for livestock a potential recipient must take and pass a course in husbandry.

And to address another point raised a bit lower in this thread, chickens do not lay an egg every month or so. Left to their own devices they typically lay an egg every 2 days. When a sufficient number has accumulated, and the hen feels like it, she may go broody and set on the eggs until they hatch. She may not, but she will continue to lay eggs.

Commercial egg barns in North America typically stock their barns with 17 week old pullets which lay until they are about 52 weeks old. She will produce about 225-230 eggs during that time. That’s about .9 eggs per day versus the .5 eggs per day she will produce on her own.

And to avoid any concerns anyone might have about my motives, I am the livestock specialist for a large Humane Society. Animal welfare is not just my avocation, it is my life, but I am believe that providing animals, plants and hope to hungry people is a good.

The Disneyfication of animals has done animal welfare some good and some bad.

You have the facts, and you made a great case.

I was a bit worried.

Our UU congregation selected Heifer for its donations for the quarter.

are you saying I am explointing them when I eat their unfertilized eggs that would otherwise sit there and rot?

and it leads to shorter lives than their wild predecessors, as their bodies can't handle the mineral loss. Animal sanctuaries feed the excess eggs back to the hens, to minimize the nutritional deficiencies that occur, but ultimately the point is that they've been bred into very unnatural and sickly beings and it doesn't make sense from an animal welfare standpoint to keep breeding more of a species bred to suffer for human wants.

sometimes less. It is normal cylce I believe. They get fed oyster shell for extra calcium. they are healthy as can be and get fed all kinds of goodies on top of their feed. They get fresh corn on the cob, forage for bugs and all kinds of scraps from the garden and they get watermelon and cantelope on hot days in the summer for a treat. They have the life of Reilly. When the days get shorter they lay less eggs. A human woman has a roughly monthly cycle of egg production, a chicken roughly daily.

health and ultimately their lifespan. I can't imagine any animal that maintains health while doing a complete reproductive cycle on a daily basis.

Do you have a link for that? I know at least since my great grandmother's time they have been laying an egg a day at times skipping a day. I'd love to read up on it. Thanks!

http://veganfreakradio.com/audio/veganfreak-2006-02-28-60355.mp3">Warning- long

and I am looking for a scientific reference.
I did find this article
http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodeggs.html
and it says eggs have been eaten at least from 6000bc.
Here is a scientific article that discusses it
http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgeneral%2Fans_072.html

My chickens lay as they will and the amt of eggs decreases in the winter and increases in the spring as the hours of daylight fluctuate.
They have evolved since their ancestors were dinosaurs and bred to be more prolific over generations.
They have been laying this way for generations and I don't have a problem with that. I doubt one could find a chicken(and there are multiple heirloom chickens available) that does not lay this way.

:shrug:

I think you're misunderstanding me. The jungle fowl chickens were bred from do not lay daily. That chickens do is not at issue (it's like arguing that udders so big that their infants can't nurse from them are normal because dairy cows have them, rather than recognizing that it's a trait bred in for human needs.)

and I appreciate the link. I hate battery chicken farming which is why I have my four hens. That way I know they are treated humanely. What I guess I am trying to say is the dilema is that you can't undo the breeding of generations. When my chickens get too old to lay they will still be well cared for.
I think they are wonderful if ruthless creatures and I enjoy them.

for the contention that dairy calves can't nurse from dairy cows? That they do not is because they are generally removed from the cow; that they cannot is a new one to me. I have seen many calves nursing dairy cows.

of United Poultry Concerns.

She sleeps with her chickens.

What the hell does that mean?

I have visited their website. I have seen nothing that supports the claims you have made against them. Their website stresses the training and care that is given.
--------

Heifer's Animal Welfare Guidelines

Heifer conducts training programs for para-vets, or Village Animal Health Workers (VAHW) when local professional veterinary care isn't available. It's one of several strictly-followed Animal Welfare Guidelines, which also include:

Giving preference to purchasing animals that are already acclimatized to the local area.


Providing full training to farmers before they receive any livestock.


Using appropriate shelter and separate pens for animals of different species.


Teaching zero grazing techniques, which enhances animal health and ensures that adequate food and water are provided.


Emphasizing nutrition, including clean water at least twice a day.


Encouraging indigenous breeds.


Providing project participants with all initial vaccinations.

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.183217/
-------

Do you have any links for the claims that have been made against them? If so, I would like to follow up on them. I think you may have been misinformed.

There's some more info in my journal, way back a ways.

I'm a member of http://www.humaneusa.org/

It's like the MoveOn for animal protection, and they kick congressional butt! For those interested in such legislation should sign up for their email list.

Warning: It's a bipartisan organization and sometimes they do endorse Republicans.

nt

the differences between good and evil "lobbying". There's lobbying for profit and lobbying for protection !

both the enviromental and animal treatment!
K&R!

I dream of the day when humankind judges us by the content of our character instead of the pigments on our hides

So like, Senator Biden, you think it's cool and kosher to shoot a Shiras bull moose in a pen??

thank you for the info.

I'm not alone, so you're entirely welcome!

I didn't know. I should check the mailbox, I'm sure they've hit me up for a donation by now. ;)

'Morning. :hug:

I haven't heard one way or another.

he evidently has never heard of PETA, which I find rather odd as they have been in the news a lot over the years.

<DERRY, N.H. -- Responding to a question at a bookstore here, John Edwards said he has never heard of PETA, the animal rights group.

"I can honestly say I have never heard of PETA," said Edwards. "They don't want people to eat meat? Well I am not in favor of that.">

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/06/edwards_has_nev.html

I'm not sure if I'd be inclined to believe he's never even heard of them. (????)

Love your photo by the way.

Your photo is rather dashing, also! :-)

There are so few left - possibly an endangered species.

Wish there were more like 'em for sure.

And less like the ones we have running (hijacking) the country nowadays.

You have to do more than talk a good game, you actually have to DO something.

He is a Republican, but he is a strong animal rights advocate.

I don't understand why in a country that is so obsessed with its pets, people turn a blind eye to blatant cruelty. People would be outraged if someone treated their "Fluffy" or "Spot" the way factory farmers, slaughter houses, and research laboratories treat animals.

I guess people become defensive, thinking all animal rights people want to turn the world into vegans. I know there are many people who will never give up meat and I understand that, but we have to realize the price of our consumption environmentally, health wise, and morally.

.

Thanks for this post.

Or these guys: