ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

I found a post on the main ARCO site about legally re-homeing 13,500 chickens. I was wondering what action was about; here's what I found:

In spring 2005 4000 chickens were legally rescued from slaughter after an agreement was made with the farmer to let us re-home them once their “productivity” had ended. Chickens are considered, by farmers, to have an egg laying productivity of only 72 weeks; after which they are sent to slaughter. In fact chickens continue to lay eggs for months, even years, after this time. The chickens we rescued are now living out the rest of their natural span in sanctuaries and caring homes across the south.

Brighton Animal Action - Legal Liberations

This year they're looking to give sanctuary to 13,500 chickens. I'm wondering what you all think of this type of direct action. Completely legal and non-violent, but resource-intensive. What about rescue operations in general? Things to consider:

*impression of animal rights activists as ridiculous & out-of-touch w/reality;
*declaration that even chickens are sentient individuals;
*supporting a sanctuary vs. supporting liberation operations;
*supporting dog/cat rescue, i.e. no-kill but re-enforcing speciesm.

Discuss.

I think that running a sanctuary and allowing people to interact with the animals is a great form of animal rights activism in the sense that it is a very effective way of making our message intelligible to people. So I don't think there's any need to set sanctuary work against vegan outreach -- to say that that the former takes away (e.g., resources) from the latter. They are, in my view, two sides of the same coin.

Having said that, I think the most most effective activism I, as an individual, can engage in is that which aims to fundamentally change thinking and relating -- the way people think about, and relate to, the other sentient beings on the planet. That is why I always choose to promote veganism.

I'd say there are. But perhaps I'm bias. I got 26 hens from the last BAA legal liberation, and whilst I did have issues with the whole 'legal' help-out-the-farmer-because-it-says-him/her-money approach (apparently it's cheaper to have activists come and collect them than to get the slaughter vans), I couldn't exactly say no knowing what the hens would face.
My vet also recently asked me if I could home any more hens because she's trying to rehome the ones her father (chicken farmer) is about to send off to slaughter.

I can't really think of an action more direct in making the lives of animals better than saving them from being murdered. The more militant in me is unhappy about pretty much helping the exploiters (as opposed to the route of nonviolent illegal liberations), however at least these actions have none of the bad stigma associated with ALF style ones.

All in all, I'd be pretty shocked if an abolitionist said they're not worth it. But then, personally, I need only go look at my hens to see why these type of actions are worth it.

I certainly don't mean to denigrate rescue efforts; after all, each individual who is given sanctuary is fully part of our struggle to end their exploitation. As you said, it's hard to pass up the opportunity to save someone from being murdered!

Something about the scale of the operation struck me, though. There's such a great need for practical help, and anytime I see requests for donations, I always wonder about the "zero sum" aspect of our efforts. To be sure, sanctuary residents are effective ambassadors and thus are part of effective outreach. But how long will it be possible to re-home tens of thousands of chickens? Will the difficulty of doing so end up reinforcing the notion that the system only works if you slaughter the animals? "See what happens when those activists try to deal with reality" that sort of thing. Or will it even become part of the industry itself, since so many people ask activists, "wouldn't it be OK to purchase eggs if the chickens aren't slaughtered afterwards?"

Personally, I don't think it matters that you were helping that farmer save money. But if it does become part of an accepted system, I think that's problematic.

This is not something I have set views on; it just struck me that if I have questions about it, there might be others who do as well. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere else.

I also feel this way about things like Katrina dog/cat rescue efforts, or general dog/cat rescue efforts. On the one hand, those individuals need our help. But to pour resources into rescuing them takes away from vegan outreach. In fact, it seems to me that they re-enforce a speciesist mindset. Perhaps a key difference among rescue efforts is the very fact that some of them put the spotlight on animals traditionally seen as food animals. Valuing the lives of chickens directly challenges a speciesist mindset.

Hello everyone:

I think we have to think about what the question means.

If by "Are they worth it?" we mean "for the animals that are rescued", then obviously. But if we mean "for the 'movement'", then I woudn't say so.

If we consider the feelings of the animals that are rescued, I'm pretty sure they'll be grateful to have their life spared. Any animal would be reliefed to scape death, but surely that doesn't mean that we are moving pass their property status.
Remember that when we rescue an animal from death s/he's still our property (i.e. s/he's still a slave). Then true animal liberation can never happen for them. So, you may save their lives but it doesn't mean that "the movement" is moving forward since it is an animal liberation movement and they're still slaves.

Having said that, we should remember that when we choose to do something we are inmediately choosing not to do something else. I think today the more effective way to save animals is to educate about veganism in non-violent and creative ways. And by doing that we are building the movement, we are moving forward. We cannot do everything, in fact we can do very little (time wise) so, at least in my case, I choose to do vegan education.

If it were up to me, I would use all those resources spent in sanctuaries and use them on vegan education. I imagine we would save many animals from becoming slaves in the first place.

Finally, I agree with what Panthera says. Specially this:

"But how long will it be possible to re-home tens of thousands of chickens? "

See ya

Veganomante wrote:Hello everyone:

I think we have to think about what the question means.

If by "Are they worth it?" we mean "for the animals that are rescued", then obviously. But if we mean "for the 'movement'", then I woudn't say so.

Surely the movement for animal liberation would class any actions that actually rescue individual animals from slavery as worth it?

Veganomante wrote:If we consider the feelings of the animals that are rescued, I'm pretty sure they'll be grateful to have their life spared. Any animal would be reliefed to scape death, but surely that doesn't mean that we are moving pass their property status.
Remember that when we rescue an animal from death s/he's still our property (i.e. s/he's still a slave). Then true animal liberation can never happen for them. So, you may save their lives but it doesn't mean that "the movement" is moving forward since it is an animal liberation movement and they're still slaves.

I disagree. The hens I homed are not my property. I can't think of a better way to show people that animals aren't property than to care for rescues and let them be as free as possible (because obviously, being domesticated, they can't just be released into the wild, but my hen friends have a whole field to roam around). They're not property, they're refugees.

Veganomante wrote:Having said that, we should remember that when we choose to do something we are inmediately choosing not to do something else. I think today the more effective way to save animals is to educate about veganism in non-violent and creative ways. And by doing that we are building the movement, we are moving forward. We cannot do everything, in fact we can do very little (time wise) so, at least in my case, I choose to do vegan education.

Using myself as an example, when I chose to care for some hens from the last liberation it didn't mean I somehow forfeited my ability to do vegan outreach. I still can do stalls in town and all. Plus, when I have people over and take them in the field with my hens, don't you think that's a fantastic 'creative and non-violent' way to educate people about veganism? I do. Not everyone wants to care for rescued animals, and equally, not everyone wants to do vegan outreach every Saturday. But there are, however, many people who manage to do both. And some do them at the same time.

Veganomante wrote:If it were up to me, I would use all those resources spent in sanctuaries and use them on vegan education. I imagine we would save many animals from becoming slaves in the first place.

I find this plain ridiculous. We have as much a duty to care for the animals in existence now as we do to do our best to save others from getting into their situation. Sanctuaries are vital, and are obviously an excellent use of our precious resources.

Veganomante wrote:Finally, I agree with what Panthera says. Specially this:

"But how long will it be possible to re-home tens of thousands of chickens? "

See ya

[/quote]

You'd be surprised how fast they got homes down. In fact, a few people got told they'd have to wait until next year.

What I do think is an issue with this kind of thing is people taking the hens eggs. Some people advertised this rescues as a way for people to get free, ethical eggs every morning. That is clearly problematic and needs addressing.

Hi, there:

I think that, whether we like it or not, those animals, those refugees, are still property. They are dependent from us, they can't live in the wild, as you say. They are artifically constructed creatures, we've taken from them everything. There's no turning back for them. That was my whole point. They can't be free so they can't be freed.

This is not a simplification ot the issue. I know it is better fro them to live than to die. I know they are sentient, I know they have feelings, I know they are taken care of. The thing is I don't see how this changes what people think about other animals.

When educating about veganism people ask me if I think that the cat that lives with me is my slave. I say that of course she is. I may not see her like that; I surely think she's my family. But she's mine. This is because it doesn't matter how I treat her, the problem is that she's mine. This is the point about the property status. I rescued my cat when I was non-vegan (actually, I wasn't veggie yet) and she's still with me. I woudn't rescue any more nh animals because the time that I have to spend with them is proportional to the number of them. And as it is, Most of my time is busy with vegan education. So it would mean to take time away from it to spend it with those hypothetical animals.

I think it comes down to what Panthera says: the "scale of the operation".

I my opinion, we shouldn't be seen as the protectores or the guardians of other animals. We should express that we ought to leave them alone. If being free means anything to them it means that we don't mess with them.

Well, I'm happy that there's people out there that can do as much vegan outreach having refugees as if they had no refugees at all... Personally, because of what I have stated above, I woudn't be able to.

I'm sorry you find my argument ridiculous, too. I'll try to do better next time.

I have the feeling that the views expressed here will not be very well recieved... Please, be gentle.

Ok, see ya...

Liberación-Igualdad: Just post already, dude! Hahaha...

This is an obvious question, for which I have not found an obvious answer.

Veganomante wrote:If by "Are they worth it?" we mean "for the animals that are rescued", then obviously. But if we mean "for the 'movement'", then I woudn't say so.

I see what you're getting at, but this sort of thinking leaves a bitter utilitarian taste in my mouth.

In a way, my home is a "sanctuary". We live with four rescued cats. With some of them, we have gone through quite a bit of effort to "liberate" them and (in the case of one) to nurse him back to health. Every day we spend time and money to care for these animals. Strictly speaking, I guess if we would spend all that time and money towards vegan educational means, then we could be contributing more to the cause. But is this a good way of seeing this issue? I have no doubts that I should be rescuing and caring for animals to the best of my abilities, and that I will be doing so for the rest of my life. I also think that sanctuaries like Peaceful Prairie are a great thing, and have their place in the animal rights ecosystem. They are pretty much the only thing I would donate money to these days (apart from "donating" to my own activism efforts, which always revolve around vegan education). I guess not everything is about time and money spent, at least not to me.

Hi:

The utilitarian comment went through my heart like an arrow as if your were saying "welfarist", haha. But anyway, though I see myself as a deontological person I cannot be deontological all the time. So maybe you're right... I'll have to think about it.

Veganomante wrote:I think that, whether we like it or not, those animals, those refugees, are still property. They are dependent from us, they can't live in the wild, as you say. They are artifically constructed creatures, we've taken from them everything. There's no turning back for them. That was my whole point. They can't be free so they can't be freed.

Now this is interesting. I'm not really sure what I think about this. My initial reaction is 'they should be as free as possible', but wrt the deeper philosophical question of whatever domesticated animals can ever actually be freed, I'm not sure. Either way, I still think they can be freed from some oppression, (i.e. taken from farms, labs, zoos etc and taken to sanctuaries). Perhaps that counts as 'liberation', but not in the way we would define the end goal of 'animal liberation'. I guess there's a short term (saving individual animals right now) and a long term (emancipating nonhumans from human tyranny).

Veganomante wrote:This is not a simplification ot the issue. I know it is better fro them to live than to die. I know they are sentient, I know they have feelings, I know they are taken care of. The thing is I don't see how this changes what people think about other animals.

Well it can change what humans think about other animals. See, when I talk to people about my hens (especially if they're in the field with me) they can really see how it is to respect other sentient beings, and treat them as persons. Plus, it can help bust any myths/misconceptions humans have about other animals. When they see they're not stupid, dumb animals etc. Most of all, people can realise that the animals are individuals. Which, I feel, is very important to see if one is to take animals seriously.

Veganomante wrote:When educating about veganism people ask me if I think that the cat that lives with me is my slave. I say that of course she is. I may not see her like that; I surely think she's my family. But she shoudn't be with me. This is because it doesn't matter how I treat her, the problem is that she's with me. This is the point about the property status. I rescued my cat when I was non-vegan (actually, I wasn't veggie yet) and she's still with me.

I also find this interesting. I mean, I see that my dog and my hens are pretty much my slaves. Especially my dog. I'm in control of every aspect of his life. Even when he goes to the toilet, and when he eats. So that's surely slavery. I've often wondered what we can do about that really, how we could possibly deconstruct this extremely oppressive relationship. I don't see it as much with hens, because aside from cleaning their home, feeding them and locking the door at night (and taking them to vets, etc), they pretty much do their own thing in the field(s). But I guess the issue is still there. Hmmmmm..

Veganomante wrote:I my opinion, we have no duty to take care for other animals if by that you mean that we should dedicate our time to make sure they are comfortable or something like that. We are not the protectores or the guardians of other animals. We should just let them alone. If being free means anything to them it means that we don't mess with them.

Well, I'm talking about domesticated animals. And I believe we, as nonspeciesists and people dedicated to animal liberation, are their protectors; their guardians. I believe we have an obligation to care for all the domesticated animals in existence right now, and s/n them, because they can never go back to the wild, as they are, as you said before, 'artificially constructed creatures'. I do agree with your sentiments when it comes to wild animals, though.

Veganomante wrote:I'm sorry you find my argument ridiculous, too. I'll try to do better next time.

I have the feeling that the views expressed here will not be very well recieved... Please, be gentle.

Ok, see ya...

I just want to say, I'm not attacking you, or aiming to be harsh or whatever. So don't take it that way. By the very fact you're posting on this board, I can see you're an ally, and just because we have a difference of opinion on this issue doesn't lower my opinion of you or whatever. Peace out, comrade.