The shades of Animal concern.

[Alistair]

Here in South Australia, the RSPCA is empowered by the government to defend the interests of animals. It is a charity organisation with limited funding; largely using donations and bequests to run it's operations. It gets an annual amount from the government of $500,000 but the rest of the money to run shelters and fund inspectors is all through donations.

This means that it has to cut costs where it can so you find the RSPCA focusing on issues of companion animal care but when it comes to the much larger amount of animals in ''agriculture'', it does not have the resources to fulfill it's charter ''For all creatures great and small...''

The RSPCA and Animal Liberation (SA) have a thorny relationship where we often find it lacking in the will and ability to make serious change for animals used for food. We contend that it regularly lets these animals down, for reasons of it's own.

This may be the reason that the RSPCA is so keen on making the connection of Animal Liberation with Animal Liberation Front (ALF). We are a formal organisation that have nothing to do with ALF, yet the RSPCA have decided, in their wisdom, that it is in the interest of animals and themselves to advertise on their website the fact that the ALF in some international website, has referred to actions of activists here in South Australia where a peaceful group of people locked themselves to sow stalls that are undersize - to draw attention to the terrible plight of the pigs locked within.

What good this does for the animals - I am not sure. What good it does for them? Just makes them look foolish and petty.

It's really about time that they looked at the big picture and figured out where their priorities lay. I fear, however, they may already have done as such... $...

The link is here. (http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/2007/01/12/animal-liberation-front/)

[thevegantwins]

The comments were most interesting since they referred to ALF's actions as violent and unethical. How is it violent to liberate animals? How is it unethical to care for non-human animals so much that one will risk their own life to save the animals from their horrible plight?

:dizzy: Am I missing something?

[Gliondrach]

As we know, the real violence takes place in slaughter houses, the decks of trawlers and in vivisection laboratories.

Many large animal welfare organisations will have been taken over by the animal abusing industries. They are happy for them to rescue dogs and to call for improvements in farming but there's never a call for real change. That would mean calling for the outlawing of meat eating and vivisection.

[thevegantwins]

I read an article recently that even Farm Sanctuary (www.farmsanctuary.org) supported an American politician who was pro-Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and very much in the pocket of the meat and dairy industry. I agree, Gliondrach, that many of the larger organizations, especially those who receive any sort of government funding like the RSPCA/ASPCA really only seem to care about dogs and cats and only to a certain extent.

[Keykeypie]

I read an article recently that even Farm Sanctuary (www.farmsanctuary.org) supported an American politician who was pro-Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and very much in the pocket of the meat and dairy industry. I agree, Gliondrach, that many of the larger organizations, especially those who receive any sort of government funding like the RSPCA/ASPCA really only seem to care about dogs and cats and only to a certain extent.

Oh...that's troubling....who was the politian? I'm a long time supporter
of FS....but as we all know......things change.

Do you know anything about why Gene & Lorri broke up?

[thevegantwins]

I read about it in a recent Satya magazine. I just gave the mag away to a health food store. I can not remember the politician's name unfortunately.

A vegan friend of mine heard that Lori was an alcholic and had been caught by some interns at the sanctuary abusing some of the animals. I don't know how true the story is, I hope it's not especially since she just opened her own sanctuary in CA.

[Oracl]

The hypocrisy of the RSPCA and its supporters has always troubled me. They used to have 'sausage sizzles' to celebrate at events or raise funds in the past. I imagine they still do. :confused: :(

[Alistair]

RSPCA in the UK have voted overwhelmingly to have vego (vegan) food at events. I feel the trend will move here also as it's hardly rocket science to make the connection - and since the RSPCA is finally following the line of the animal welfare organisations and campaigning on farmed animal issues.

The cynic in me thinks that that is actually an effort on their behalf to channel the funds that arise from public sympathy about this, into their own coffers while at the same time doing bugger all.

[Gliondrach]

I wish the RSPCA would really speak out about cruelty.

[Oracl]

I feel the trend will move here also as it's hardly rocket science to make the connection
But people don't want to make the connection. I know so many people who claim to 'love animals' yet still won't give up eating them. It's really sad. :(

[Bowwowmeow]

I think I agree with what Gary Francione says about this subject. As long as animals are classified as property, they cannot be recognized as having any interests to protect, so the efforts of organizations like the RSPCA are futile, at least in terms of helping the animals. Someone is being helped by all the revenue being generated in the name of humane treatment of animals, but its not the animals. :( :hbang:

[Oracl]

I think I agree with what Gary Francione says about this subject.
I find his views on animal rights very compelling and I find myself agreeing with many of his statements about Peter Singer, even though it was Singer who was instrumental in my becoming a vegan. :rubchin:

[Bowwowmeow]

I'm in the exact same postion as you, Oracl. I'm grateful to Singer for opening my eyes to the need to go beyond being a vegetarian, but Francione reflects my own thinking much better now. :agree:

[dreamer]

Here's a link to a site that details Francione's views (and others who agree with him)...I too find his arguments more persuasive than those who largely argue for animal welfare as opposed to animal liberation:
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/index.shtml

As is mentioned on this website, I'm disappointed by those who espouse beliefs in animal rights, yet point to how it would be OK to "use" animals if we just treated them better. (Like Singer supposedly saying that animals don't mind dying for us--as they aren't aware of wanting to live, they'd just rather not suffer in life and the process of dying!?) Or people who say it'd be OK to use in-vitro meat because at least in the end--the flesh in the test tube--there is no suffering of that disembodied flesh (also discussed on that website)?

[Gliondrach]

The article by Colleen McDuling, 'What I Have Seen in a Vivisection Laboratory' is very good. But the descriptions of the torture is not recommended.

[Oracl]

The article by Colleen McDuling, 'What I Have Seen in a Vivisection Laboratory' is very good. But the descriptions of the torture is not recommended.
Yes, I started reading that and had to stop. It was too upsetting. :(