Factory Farming

Sources: 

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/problems/

https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal-cruelty/what-factory-farm

My Take on Deep Sea Fishing

     When considering animal welfare, fish rarely come to mind. Maybe this is because fish are hardly similar to us or because we can't sense that they have feelings (physical or emotional pain). However, it is necessary to consider fish when discussing animal welfare because of our relationships with them. People fish for a variety of reasons: for food, for sport, and for relaxation are a few examples. I'd like to discuss deep sea fishing, a specific sector of fishing that I have some experience with.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/documents/ethical_angler_web.pdf

     I have gone deep sea fishing twice in my life. I was young and didn't do any actual fishing the first time, but I remember clearly the second time. My family went out on a charter boat with two fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico for six hours. First, we went out to sea and stopped to fish for our bait. We used little pieces of squid to catch the bait fish. After that, we sailed for about an hour to get to deeper waters. We used the bait fish to try to catch other fish. Grouper and snapper were what we caught most often. There were many regulations with our fishing. In order to keep our catch, it had to hit a certain weight and size limit. We were also limited on the number of fish we could keep. If a fish didn't meet the standards or if we had too many already, we would release the fish.

View of the incoming storm (and some of the bait)

     Having so many regulations on the charter fishing was definitely a positive boost for ensuring animal welfare. The boat we were on also ensured that we did not put trash into the water, helping to protect the environment. However, I noticed one large breach in protecting animal welfare - the fish we kept were thrown into a cooler of ice to die rather than being immediately killed. I believe this is inhumane. When we got back to land, the fishermen filleted the fish (I assume they were dead after being in a cooler for hours) so we could take it home for food. Because we ate nearly all the fish we caught rather than keeping the fish as trophies, I think our deep sea fishing excursion was morally acceptable. However, I wish the fish were killed sooner rather than being put into shock from freezing temperatures and slowly dying. Many people may disagree because of our purpose for fishing (mainly for leisure, even though we ate the fish) or because fish were harmed in the first place, but my stance on fishing is that it is acceptable as long as we protect the environment, regulate our fishing, and use proper practices.

Our catches in Florida

     For fishing like deep sea fishing to be acceptable, certain guidelines must be followed. All laws must be followed, and the people fishing must do all they can to keep the environment clean and safe. Listed below are some links to practices to promote ethical fishing that I believe should always enforced.
http://takemefishing.org/fishing/fishopedia/fishing-and-conservation/ethical-fishing-best-practices/
http://www.discoverboating.com/resources/article.aspx?id=160
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/documents/ethical_angler_web.pdf

"Humanity"?

http://www.quotes-central.com/wp-content/uploads/pliki/humanity_is_2014-05-20_12-49-41.jpg

      While discussing the hierarchy of oppression and where animals fit on the hierarchy, an idea dawned upon me. Typically when we are judging animals to see how much protection and respect they should receive, we look at how human they are. For example, most people say that a dog is more human than a rat. But what gives us the right to judge everything else based on levels of humanity? The word “humanity” itself is meant to define the human species, not to be used on other species. We don’t judge ourselves on something like “cow-ity” or “bird-ness,” so why do we judge animals based on our own species? It doesn’t make sense.

            To begin, all people have the same level of humanity. Typically in the hierarchy of oppression, some human groups are seen as being less human than others. “Humanity” defines the entire human species, not just a certain group within that species. Believing people can have different levels of humanity is a central flaw in thought and belief systems. Thinking one person is less human than another is the root of prejudice and hatred and should be targeted to change the patterns of oppression that have existed for hundreds of years.

            If saying one human is less human than another human isn’t a glaringly obvious flaw, comparing completely different species to ourselves based on a word we have created to describe ourselves is even more obvious. What gives us the right to say one animal should be killed if it enters our homes while another should not be killed under any circumstances? Or what gives us the right to say we should kill animals at all? Saying one animal is more human than another so it shouldn’t be killed does not give us that right. No other species is human, so we cannot define those species based on how human they are. We have put ourselves at the top of the hierarchy of species and therefore believe we should define all other beings based on how similar to us they are. This seems acceptable when choosing an animal for a pet; we want a pet that seems to experience emotions how we do, reacts to our actions and words in certain ways, and portrays love. However, when it comes to topics like hunting, experimentation, farming, and pests, what gives us the right to determine that an animal deserves to die and be tortured? Putting animals in an order based on humanity is wrong, and so is saying they have fewer rights because they aren’t human.

http://iqquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/animal-quotes-3.jpg

            This brings us to a moral quandary. Sure it is wrong to say an animal doesn’t deserve rights, but how do we convince the world that animals do deserve rights and respect? If we say animals deserve the same rights we do, it seems we are confusing what is important. There are many people who the world sees as less human than other people, so isn’t this the bigger issue? I think we should focus on ensuring that all people receive equal rights and are protected, but in the process we can begin to work on protecting animals too. If people are made aware of their faulty thinking in one area, it will be easier for them to change their thinking in another similar area. This is where we must start.

Hunting

     Hunting is a pretty controversial topic in the U.S. Sides are often taken quickly - hunting is beneficial, or hunting should be banned. I grew up in a family where my grandpa, dad, uncle, and brother all hunt. Personally, I don't think I could bring myself to shoot a deer or turkey, but the men of my family always had the tradition of going down to our cabin in Dent County and shooting during deer and turkey seasons. I have always been okay with it. They hardly ever brought anything back home, and when they did, we always used the animals for meat.

http://www.prohuntersjournal.com/img/articles/hunter@sunsetV3.jpg

     Where I draw the line with hunting is when the purpose becomes solely for enjoyment or recognition rather than for food or population control. I am very against trophy hunting. We have products of taxidermy in my house, but nearly all of the animals were used for meat before being stuffed and were not killed solely to be hung on the wall. When hunting, if the largest, most majestic creature is sought out to be killed, the purpose is likely to have a trophy animal. Hunters for population control do not seek out specific animals because of size, and hunters for meat often shoot larger animals but do not care if it the best specimen of the species. My moral structures are against killing another animal to make humans feel superior. My moral structures also tell me that eating meat from an animal that lived its life naturally in the wild is far better than eating meat from an animal that was raised inhumanely in a concrete building without anything that is natural to it.
     Hunting is helpful in situations where it provides food, regulates over-population, and prevents disease spread. Laws are in place to prevent too much hunting so that populations do not dwindle to extremely low levels. Other laws also regulate how and when people can hunt, protecting the populations of animals (http://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/regulations). However, illegal hunting is a serious issue that is killing too many animals and occasionally disregards the safety of humans. Hunting out of season, not using proper methods, and hunting on private property are all too common. It is often difficult to catch illegal hunters, and organizations like the Department of Conservation need to crack down on the issue more.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201210/EarthTalkLeadShotHunting.jpg

     Overall, I believe that hunting is beneficial to humans and to the environment. Without hunting, some people could not eat, overpopulation could cause environmental harm and threats to human safety, and diseases could become out of hand. Proper instruction must be given before anyone should be allowed to hunt, and hunters must be required to keep up with current laws and regulations. The negative effects of hunting, like questions of safety, could mostly be prevented with proper instruction and ensuring that regulations are followed. People against hunting may believe that it is downright immoral to kill animals, and that also is a valid viewpoint. However, my thoughts lead me to argue that humans and animals have hunted for survival all throughout history, and it appears to be a natural part of sustaining life. Hunting is only immoral in my mind when it is done for bragging rights, to witness suffering, or only to get thrill from the kill. Otherwise, hunting's benefits outweigh its negative effects, and hunting should be protected as long as it is regulated.

Testing on Mice and Rats

     It is no secret that animal testing can be a brutal process. Animals are put through significant torture in order to better the lives of humans (or other animals, in some cases). They are often genetically modified to be born with significant defects or diseases, injected with harmful substances, burned, shocked, and killed. Experimentation on animals has allowed huge medical breakthroughs to occur that have saved the lives of many humans. However, experimentation on animals has also been extremely overused, especially within the area of cosmetics. In my opinion and the opinions of many of my classmates, the world already has enough varieties of shampoo, mascara, and hairspray. There is absolutely no reason animal testing should continue for products no one truly needs, and there are other viable options for testing (such as using donated human corneas, computer-modeled techniques, or human volunteers). Even within the medical settings, animal testing is extremely overused. Animals should not have to be put through immense torture and suffering so another allergy medicine with one small alteration can be created, or so that one brand can master a drug that another brand already has.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Vacanti_mouse.jpg

     Within the United States alone, over one million animals are used for research per year. This number is shocking in itself; however, something more shocking is that this number excludes all mice, rats, and select other animals. An estimation of the number of mice and rats used in experiments per year within the U.S. alone is over 100 million (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/). The reason these animals are not regulated? According to Congress, specific species of mice and rats are not considered animals. Mice and rats are not protected under the Animal Welfare Act, which helps regulate the treatment of animals used in experimentation to some extent. Something even more shocking than the number of mice used in experiments is that, for every one mouse used in certain research, another ninety-nine will be killed because of low success in creating certain strains of mice (Hal Herzog's "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat").

     Far too many animals are used in animal experimentation. These animals feel emotions, experience pain, and need attention and proper treatment. They are more like us than many researchers and supporters of animal testing choose to believe. They are also much less like us than many researchers claim in ways important to research; genetically, many animals used in testing offer very unreliable results as to how certain drugs and cosmetics will affect humans. Experimenting on animals, while it has resulted in some important discoveries, is not as necessary as we are led to believe. So many animals are tortured and killed for our benefit, but are we benefitting to such a large extent where brutality toward animals is justified? I think not.
     Slow but positive change is occurring. Politicians are beginning to take a stand against animal testing. This movement has not been extremely popular within Congress yet, but it is starting. For example, one politician is asking for greater regulation of mice and rats within research (http://www.peta.org/blog/congress-member-takes-action-for-mice-and-rats-in-laboratories/). Additionally, animal rights supporters actively boycott animal testing by their words and actions. Something you can do to stand against animal research is buying products from companies that do not animal test. Google is a valuable tool in finding these companies, as well as listing companies that do animal test. The following picture shows some popular companies that animal test. Most likely, you use products from some of these companies. However, there are many natural alternatives to using these products that support the lives of animals.

http://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nTUy1Cq2cI1Y_9_GKdOEQU3Up394YML2Kyb94Of4Qfg.jpg   

Information about mice and rats in research: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-laboratories/mice-rats-laboratories/

Health Risks of Factory Farming

     Factory farming is detrimental to health of everyone involved. Animals, workers, consumers of meat, people who live near the farms... All are at risk for many harmful effects. 

     Beginning with animals. The internet is filled with undercover videos, many of them bloody and brutal. Here is a link to several videos revealing how factory farms treat their animals: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations. To put in simply, all animals in factory farms (chickens, cows, pigs, goats, sheep, turkeys, etc.) are treated in the most inhumane ways possible. Lack of sanitation, minimal space to move, forced rapid growth, and immediate removal of newborn animals are just a few of the injustices that occur within factory farms. Violence is often used toward these animals, as they are seen as having no rights. Many companies refuse to discuss the methods used to raise, collect, and slaughter the animals, so undercover film is necessary. A large amount of animals obtain health problems, including obesity, cardiovascular complications, leg damage, chronic pain from debeaking,  tail docking, and castration, and more. 

     Workers are treated cruelly as well. They are constantly in the unsanitary conditions of the factory farms, breathing ammonia-filled air even through their special masks. The machinery used, and constantly dealing with animals, often cause injury. Infections are common (Food Inc. describes infections that often occur in the fingernails of workers). Many factory farms hire illegal immigrants or people desperate for work, but care little about their health and see them as disposable. 

http://www.ourhenhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-11-at-10.13.28-AM-353x210.png

     Meat produced in factory farms is unhealthy on many levels for consumers. Meats contain high levels of fat, which is unhealthy in large amounts. Because the animals in factory farms are loaded with unnecessary antibiotics that breed resistant bacteria, humans are more likely to become sick with strains of antibiotic-resistant infections. The meats themselves from diseased animals can spread disease like Swine Flu to humans. Over 55% of uncooked chickens in supermarkets contain arsenic, toxic to humans and animals. Meat has been proven to cause certain kinds of cancer. There are countless harmful effects of factory farm meat, and some of these as well as greater elaboration of previously mentioned effects are listed on this very informational website: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/factory-farming-and-human-health/. 

 

http://files.cdn.ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-29-at-1.20.22-PM.png

     The waste produced by factory farms is horrible for the environment and for neighboring communities. Tons of manure are produced per day, which pollutes the environment and makes people sick. According to the website listed above, residents of communities next to factory farms have higher rates of respiratory, neurobehavioral, and mental illnesses. 

     For more information about factory farming and health, visit PETA's page, http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/health-risks-meat-industry/. Because factory farming causes so many risks to health to all people and animals involved, I suggest you take action against factory farming. Some options are buying fewer products contributed to by factory farms, buying locally-raised meat, raising awareness about the horrors of factory farms, protesting to the government, and pleading for more laws to be passed. Even the smallest actions can make a difference. 

Dog Meat – Cultural Taboos and Yulin

     The consumption of dog meat has been a widely debated topic in 2015. Many people, especially in Western cultures, wonder how someone could eat a dog, which is commonly seen as a pet worldwide. I know I could never eat dog meat. However, I understand that eating dog meat has been a part of some Asian cultures, especially in China, for centuries. While the idea of eating a dog is repulsive to me, eating meat of a cow is repulsive to others, like Hindus. All cultures have taboos for certain types of meat. Why is not always clear, but these taboos have existed for a very long time.

            

     Why is it acceptable to me to eat cows and pigs, acceptable to others to eat cockroaches, and acceptable to some to eat dogs? All of these creatures are edible. Culture has shaped our perceptions.

     Chinese history has had changing perceptions on whether dogs should be used for meat, and 2015 seems to be the year where the conflict has erupted into something much larger than it has been in the past. The Yulin Dog Meat Festival, occurring since 2009 (much more recently than most people believe), became a topic hotly debated that caused uprisings worldwide. At the Festival, approximately 10,000 dogs are killed and eaten to celebrate the Summer Solstice. Leading up to the festival, animal welfare activists began to speak out against the Festival for various reasons including dogs’ typical roles as pets, the inhumane methods of killing the dogs, and the ways of obtaining the dogs. What began as opposition within China spread to worldwide outrage, especially within the U.S. and United Kingdom.

http://collectivelyconscious.net/articles/chinese-woman-pays-1100-to-save-100-dogs-from-chinese-dog-eating-festival/

     The local governments of Yulin disconnected themselves from the Festival for a variety of reasons, and these reasons are also why so many people are against the Festival. Brutality is rampant in nearly all parts of the Festival. Dogs are often stolen from homes (many dogs arrive with collars) and are transported over 1,000 miles to Yulin, a process taking days and often lacking in providing food and water to the dogs. Safety for these dogs is obviously an issue, and the diseases that are spread cause a large safety hazard for those who handle and potentially for those who eat the dogs. The methods of killing the dogs are extremely violent and inhumane: dogs are beaten, occasionally knocking them unconscious, their throats are slit, not always killing them, and then they are skinned, sometimes alive. Little wonder that many people arrived at the Festival to protest. However, many of these animal activists were attacked, and in some instances undercover police had to step in.

     The main argument of supporters of the Festival is that many people eat different animals – why are dogs so different? This argument is valid – as I discussed before, there is a lot of talk around the taboos of meat eating, and logically, what makes eating dog so different from eating cow? The main issue I have with the Yulin Festival is not the fact that dogs are being eaten. The main issue is the violent, inhumane methods of acquiring and killing the dogs.

     Personally, I do not expect China to stop eating dog meat completely even though it is against my moral code. It has been a part of their culture for hundreds of years. However, the recent development of the Yulin Dog Meat Festival is unnecessary and horribly inhumane. Dogs should not be stolen from their human families to be mistreated and killed brutally. Hopefully, 2016 will be a year of change and promotion of animal welfare, especially for the dogs whose live are lost at the Yulin Festival.

Here are some interesting informational sources on the Yulin Festival: 

Chinese dog-eating festival outrages foreigners - http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-32965554

China Yulin dog meat festival under way despite outrage - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33220235

Chinese dog-meat dilemma: to eat or not to eat? - http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-27952543

Chinese City Defends Dog Meat Festival, Despite Scorn - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/world/asia/dog-eaters-in-yulin-china-unbowed-by-global-derision.html?_r=0

Friend or food? Dog meat trade divides China - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/opinions/china-yulin-dog-festival-peter-li/

China's Animal Activists Buy Dogs, Target Restaurant Owners - http://www.ibtimes.com/yulin-dog-meat-festival-2015-chinas-animal-activists-buy-dogs-target-restaurant-1977047