opinions

[LMMS]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Alrighty then. For those of you reading along for , get ready kids, cause, I'm a gonna

Proving a point that animal welfare people say that if an animal has the basics then its fine.

LA, I was reading through this and was keeping my cool until I saw the above. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there are certainly several definitions of the terms 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare'. However, in NO WAY are you allowed as someone who obviously cannot draw the line between them, make a statement such as this. I consider myself to be an animal 'welfarist'...

I have worked in biomedical research professionally for more than a decade and have done everything and anything in my power to ensure that animals utilized in research receive far MORE than the MINIMUM. I walked away from the PhD program to pursue vet med because I know as a veterinarian I will have more power to ensure that animals used within labs and the food industry are given what they all deserve for serving human kind: comfort, respect, and love. And here's a little something for you to chew on: my specialty is the most controversial species of them all: The non-human primate. Due to this, I have been called 'evil', been spit on entering my facility, have been harassed via phone and email, etc.. etc.. etc... by persons claiming to be animal 'rights' activists. I realize that these are the extremists; but when I see statements like yours, I cannot help but feel that you could be heading in that direction sometime in the future.

I have always maintained that there are people amongst us who may not 'understand' why certain things are done the way they are. Also, I understand that there are people who are against things for the proper reasons. I know there will always be people who believe that biomedical research, the food industry, zoos, and the like are completely wrong; and I'm OK with that. But, when these individuals toss out 'uneducated' remarks, I simply cannot tolerate it.

As an animal 'welfarist', I personally do not believe that any animal should be kept in a small baron cage (unless it is necessary to keep them from injuring themselves due to illness/injury)... I have always considered my pets as 'family members'... The way swine are held for market is distressing to me... Seeing polar bears pace in zoos makes me sad... Large sea creatures in small tanks makes me even sadder... Rather, I believe that each and every animal kept in captivity has the 'right' to perform species specific behavior. This means providing the 'proper' amount of space, conspecifics, manipulanda, etc... Additionally, no animal in captivity should be made to suffer physically or mentally. And if they ever show signs, action should be taken immediately to remedy the issue(s). These are the beliefs of animal welfare.

 

[JollyBlueJay4]

If I got a bad grade on my Micro exam tonight, it is largely due to this thread! I love it 😛

Surprised no one brought up the "five freedoms" as that's a pretty basic place to start on the welfare POV...
1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst
2. Freedom from Discomfort
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress

But I said it in the beginning and I'll reiterate it. Everyones entitled to their own opinion, so those that believe in animal welfare aren't "better" than animal rights or vice versa. What I don't really tolerate though is when people start to argue one side without seeming to understand the other... "Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think." - W.A. Ward. Stating your for something, but not wanting to elaborate. Then realizing maybe you didn't understand what you're for, or that you weren't for it entirely, or maybe not understanding what you're against throughout the thread, is all just a little silly.

You can believe whatever you want, but the way you go about sharing your belief largely dictates how people will listen and react. This thread may not have gone about the right way of doing it, but it's still relavent, fun, and extremely interesting debate, especially from a vet med perspective, which has a unique side to it all. Yea, there's the animal rights activists and the animal welfare-ists. But vets sort of have a foot in each boat, right? We love animals (obviously), but work with people that care for animals, and may or may not treat them ideally. I don't know if you can really be an 100% animal rights activist veterinarian; there's some juxtaposition in all that...

Hope some of this rambling struck a chord or two. Continue the debate!!!! =) 👍

And LMMS, I feel for you. I am a graduate student working with an USDA Animal Welfare unit and our labratory was nearly burned down by some animal rights activists several years ago! This, mixed with some anonymous threats every now and again, makes for a pretty interesting career 😀

 

[nuevaburra]

Crap! This is so not the thread I need before a Microbiology test!

Can't...look...away!

Yeah... any thread with the title "opinions" you know has got to be good!

And glad to see that someone brought up slavery, that always incites rational discourse. 😀 Keep it coming!

 

[awaring1]

Dogs have 0, I repeat 0, sense of tomorrow. They can't anticipate their own life the way humans do. I have wonders sometimes if they can anticipate anything much past knowing when the food bowl is picked up, that they anticipate it being set down with food inside it.

While I agree with the whole theme of your post, I do not agree with this.

I currently own a black lab. I've had him since he was 8 weeks old and I was raising him to be a guide dog. Due to medical reasons he was released from the program and I got to keep him. I am very hesitant about applying human emotions to animals but this dog continues to amaze me. He is so incredibly in-tune to my own actions and emotions that it blows my mind. He has an incredible sense of time and is always very aware of his surroundings. I sometimes leave him with my parents for a while (like during finals) and he hates that. (He loves my parents but is incredibly attached to me so he doesn't like being left.) When I am at my parents he can always tell when I am about to leave for a while. He sees a bag in my hand and practically attaches himself to my leg while giving me heart-wrenching pathetic stares. Why? Because he knows that tomorrow I will not be there, and maybe even the day after that. If he were short-sighted he would have no worries in the world. (Apparently after I leave there is about a 3 day moping period before he perks back up.)

He is obviously a special case since he has been specially bred by a program that has been producing amazing service dogs for many years. His bloodlines are designed to create a dog that is smart, compassionate and incredibly aware.

So yes, research animals can be justified if they are given a great life beforehand.

Don't underestimate dogs either. There may be some dull ones but there are also some really incredible ones. 😀

 

[awaring1]

Totally respect you. 👍

 

[Halebug]

Ok. So I am pretty sure you didn't want to start this huge rally of people shoving their opinions down you throat. I am thinking you just wanted to know how this opinion of yours was going to affect you in vet school and I will say this. There are a lot of schools that teach on live animals, well pretty much all of them. Mind you, you are in no way required to learn in this way. The school's that I have toured have talked about many students that won't work on live animals and they work with those students to find something that works. For example, Madison Vet School in Wisconsin said that there are some students that won't dissect animals and they are just required to observe. Minnesota also stated that the surgeries that end in euthanasia are optional and the decision is up to the student...the students that choose not to do them also just observe. You are perfectly capable of going through school with your viewpoint and I am sure you will be a great vet...don't let these people tell you otherwise.

 

[LetItSnow]

But I said it in the beginning and I'll reiterate it. Everyones entitled to their own opinion, so those that believe in animal welfare aren't "better" than animal rights or vice versa.

Buh? Since when does everyone's 'entitlement' to an opinion mean that one side can't be 'better' than the other?

No offense, but that sounds like po-mo nonsense. The fact is, some opinions are just plain inferior.

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you meant. 🙂

LetItSnow returns to his chair in the peanut gallery, snagging someone's popcorn on the way.

 

[breenie]

For example, Madison Vet School in Wisconsin said that there are some students that won't dissect animals and they are just required to observe.

I'm gonna go with "NO" on this one.

Also it's not "Madison Vet School". Why can't people call my university by its correct name?

 

[awaring1]

I'm gonna go with "NO" on this one.

Also it's not "Madison Vet School". Why can't people call my university by its correct name?

From what I have seen people from UW-Madison are incredibly picky about the name. Remember, most of us live on the other side of the country and do not hear it talked about on a daily basis. I don't think any schools are technically called "______ Vet School" it is how people refer to them. I worked at Cornell and I told people I worked "over at the vet school." I think people would have looked at me weird if I constantly said I work over at the "College of Veterinary Medicine."

At least she didn't call it UWM!

 

[HopefulAg]

People call Texas A&M just 'Texas', which is the antipodal of correct! Texas is our rival!! 😡😀

 

[luplodw]

Wild animals eat each other because they have to. Some animals strictly only eat meat. Humans do not have to eat meat, therefore why should we.

Anyway, I have a test to study for. I'm not going to post on here anymore.

I'm pretty sure that if we didn't eat meat then we would have severe nutritional deficiencies just like some animals would. You cannot use eating tofu as an excuse. People in certain parts of the world don't have such a luxury. Meat is their only option to fulfill these needs. Animals don't HAVE to eat meat if we provided them some nutritional equivalent....but then again this isn't possible.

That wasn't my point though...I was saying that eating meat is an animalistic behavior, so if animals and humans are equal...then we should be able to eat meat too

 

[hmk]

what i find interesting is that if anyone were to drive by a flattened skunk on the side of the road they wouldn't think twice about it. but what would happen if it were a human on the side of the road? as much as some want to argue that humans and animals should be treated equally, they aren't. they won't ever be, and i think this whole thing is silly. we are all here because we love animals and we want to help them, there is no doubt about that. but helping them and loving them isn't what led humans to remove the pancreas in dogs and discover insulin, or countless other examples. i think you have to take a realistic approach, we wouldn't have these advances in medicine without experimenting. that's where animal welfare comes into play and says that you do everything in a humane manner and don't make the animal suffer. i think animal rights is kind of like world peace...sure, idealistic (ehh, for some)...but incredibly unrealistic.

 

[awaring1]

I'm pretty sure that if we didn't eat meat then we would have severe nutritional deficiencies just like some animals would. You cannot use eating tofu as an excuse.

I am living proof that you are wrong in some of your assumptions. I have been a vegetarian my whole life and have never had nutritional problems. I eat like crap (typical college diet of pizza, pasta and ramen) and eat tofu at most every other week. I have always been healthy and a nutritional analysis showed that I am well balanced. I have never been anemic and currently I am training for a triathlon (yes, I know, I am starting to eat healthier). Most Americans exceed their protein requirements without knowing it.

Technically, very early humans ate very little meat. In Africa the meat was difficult to come by and there was often strong competition from dangerous predators. Neanderthals ate a largely meat diet but mostly because their cooler climate did not allow them to eat plants and they had a very large muscle mass that they needed to support. Our bodies were adapted to be able to eat meat when necessary, but not as a requirement.

I agree with the fact that meat is required for some areas of the world, but I do not like people saying that "we need to eat meat" or that vegetarians need to go way out of their way to keep healthy.

 

[breenie]

From what I have seen people from UW-Madison are incredibly picky about the name. Remember, most of us live on the other side of the country and do not hear it talked about on a daily basis. I don't think any schools are technically called "______ Vet School" it is how people refer to them. I worked at Cornell and I told people I worked "over at the vet school." I think people would have looked at me weird if I constantly said I work over at the "College of Veterinary Medicine."

At least she didn't call it UWM!

Why not just Wisconsin!? We don't even have a 'Wisconsin State' to get upset about it! I'm going to create a bad rap for Badgers will all my nit picking. Ahaha.

I'll probably be even more insulted next year when my friends/family try to pronounce "Mizzou". So far I've heard, "MEE-soo" "mizz-O"... Oi. 😛

 

[hmk]

Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908

the vet i worked with laughed when i told him my sister decided to become vegan. then he shared this with me. i found it interesting.

 

[awaring1]

Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908

the vet i worked with laughed when i told him my sister decided to become vegan. then he shared this with me. i found it interesting.

I know without meat we could not be where we are today, but technically we do not physically need it.

And I could never go vegan. Ever. I am far too obsessed with the high-calorie dairy products.

 

[nyanko]

I am living proof that you are wrong in some of your assumptions. I have been a vegetarian my whole life and have never had nutritional problems. I eat like crap (typical college diet of pizza, pasta and ramen) and eat tofu at most every other week. I have always been healthy and a nutritional analysis showed that I am well balanced. I have never been anemic and currently I am training for a triathlon (yes, I know, I am starting to eat healthier). Most Americans exceed their protein requirements without knowing it.

How old are you? And what sort of "nutritional analysis?"

I have a hard time believing that you are "well balanced" (what does that even mean) on what you yourself admit is a crappy diet.

And most Americans exceed their caloric requirements every day, what's the point of pointing out anything about protein?

edit: and to just be more contrary, because I'm in a bad mood due to an exam tomorrow (in Nutrition, ironically) I'm going to ask what the point of being vegetarian (for animal suffering reasons) is if you aren't going to go all out and be vegan?

 

[Savethewhales]

forgive me if this is a dumb question but....why have we evolved a biochemical pathway where we utilize nucleotides from meat sources as an alternative pathway to synthesizing our own nucleotides? I have often wondered this. Bacteria can't do this, yet we do and it would seem that it is an efficient way of obtaining nucleotides rather than starting from scratch.....anyone know more about this pathway???

 

[nyanko]

I'm going to assume you're talking about the nucleotide salvage pathway - but I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking why bacteria do not have a salvage pathway?

edit: Nucleotide salvage actually reduces the need to take in nucleotides from food...

 

[Savethewhales]

Yes I was talking about the nucleotide salvage pathway. I was mentioning how bacteria don't utilize this but we have evolved this....I think there was a comment earlier about humans not physically needing meat but I often wonder why we would have this pathway if we weren't "meant" to eat meat. Any thoughts?

 

[nyanko]

Yes I was talking about the nucleotide salvage pathway. I was mentioning how bacteria don't utilize this but we have evolved this....I think there was a comment earlier about humans not physically needing meat but I often wonder why we would have this pathway if we weren't "meant" to eat meat. Any thoughts?

Many types of bacteria utilize nucleotide salvage, particularly for pyrimidines.

Like I said, it actually reduces the need to take in extraneous nucleotides. I don't feel like it's a real good argument for any animal being "meant" to eat meat.

 

[Savethewhales]

haha...ok well oops on that one...I swear there was some organism that didnt use that pathway. I just wonder if thats an indicator that we should be eating meat....but I guess one could argue that we have an appendix and dont use that....sorry for the OT convo

 

[cwazy cat lady]

And 'I am living proof' that for optimal nutrition, humans need to be eating animal-derived products--preferably 100% pasture/naturally & humanely-raised meats and wild-sourced seafood. That's anecdotal, and I will spare you my story, but the evidence is mounting. Check out the following websites for some quick references and good discussions:

http://www.eatwild.com/references.html
http://www.westonaprice.org

You can subsist on a lot of things. Heck, just today I heard a woman supposedly ate nothing but potato chips for ten years:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979053349

According to the article, she says she is 'healthy' but 'suffers from brittle nails and gum disease' --two indicators of malnourishment. Who knows what is happening internally?! I'd love to see a work-up on her...

If my eating habits were based solely upon ethics, I would be a vegan. They are not, as I care first and foremost about optimal health. Fortunately, we can humanely raise/hunt/slaughter animals--in so doing, the environment is better off, the animals are better off, and we humans are better off, too.

One of the motivations for me in going to veterinary school is to help support the revolution in changing our (cruel and short-sighted) modern industrial farming practices to methods that are in harmony with the natural histories of the species we have so intimately been connected to for thousands of years--methods that are truly sustainable. I currently do my part as a conscious consumer and am eager to get more involved. 😉

 

[cwazy cat lady]

I know without meat we could not be where we are today, but technically we do not physically need it.

I guess I would be curious as to what constitutes 'need'--again, for optimization or for subsistence?

We certainly don't know everything there is to know about human biochemistry and metabolism. Combine what we do know, though, with our knowledge of human history, and I wouldn't put my money on a vegan or vegetarian diet.

 

[Dsmoody23]

I'm pretty sure that if we didn't eat meat then we would have severe nutritional deficiencies just like some animals would. You cannot use eating tofu as an excuse. People in certain parts of the world don't have such a luxury. Meat is their only option to fulfill these needs. Animals don't HAVE to eat meat if we provided them some nutritional equivalent....but then again this isn't possible.

That wasn't my point though...I was saying that eating meat is an animalistic behavior, so if animals and humans are equal...then we should be able to eat meat too

Huge sections of the eastern world would probably disagree with this. Outside of the industrialized world meat consumption is often a luxury, not a standard. India and China also have religious vegetarian subsets of their population which are larger than the entire American population.

Subbing meat out of a diet is probably one of the cheapest and easiest ways to improve your health. High cholesterol, blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and various cancers are all linked to regular meat consumption.

But, yeah. Humans don't need meat at all, and are probably worse off with it in the standard diet.

(This is probably it's own thread, but it does tie in, on some level.)

 

[luplodw]

Some people need meat to survive because they have little other source of food... you cannot argue with me here. They need it to survive because it's all they have. And YESSSSSSS didn't I say that tofu etc. can take the place of meat so therefore there are ways to get around it? Why are you arguing with me that vegetarians can't be healthy? I never said that. I was saying that some people don't have the luxury to eat foods that can replace meat.

But AGAIN this is not what i'm trying to argue. I am trying to make a separation between animals and humans. You can't call us equal without allowing us to eat meat since it is a basic behavior of animals

 

[nuevaburra]

So glad we got onto another volatile topic!

I'm enjoying watching the show from the sidelines here, but just wanted to chime in as another person who was vegetarian for 10 years, vegan for much of that, and got a clean bill of health from the doctor. Blood pressure and cholesterol as low as it can go without being actually kind of unhealthy (when bp got down to 70/40 one day I had trouble standing... but that is a family trait not a vegetarian one).

I only recently started eating sustainably caught fish in small amounts, but not because I thought I would be healthier.

And nothing we humans eat is very natural- what is natural about opening a can of salmon shipped from thousands of mile away? Or frozen peas?

Ok back to popcorn...

 

[luplodw]

So glad we got onto another volatile topic!

I'm enjoying watching the show from the sidelines here, but just wanted to chime in as another person who was vegetarian for 10 years, vegan for much of that, and got a clean bill of health from the doctor. Blood pressure and cholesterol as low as it can go without being actually kind of unhealthy (when bp got down to 70/40 one day I had trouble standing... but that is a family trait not a vegetarian one).

I only recently started eating sustainably caught fish in small amounts, but not because I thought I would be healthier.

And nothing we humans eat is very natural- what is natural about opening a can of salmon shipped from thousands of mile away? Or frozen peas?

Ok back to popcorn...

Yep... glad you're healthy as a lot of vegetarians are! No one said that vegetarians can't be in good health or have a balanced diet

 

[Dsmoody23]

Some people need meat to survive because they have little other source of food... you cannot argue with me here. They need it to survive because it's all they have. And YESSSSSSS didn't I say that tofu etc. can take the place of meat so therefore there are ways to get around it? Why are you arguing with me that vegetarians can't be healthy? I never said that. I was saying that some people don't have the luxury to eat foods that can replace meat.

But AGAIN this is not what i'm trying to argue. I am trying to make a separation between animals and humans. You can't call us equal without allowing us to eat meat since it is a basic behavior of animals

It's a basic behavior of meat eating animals.

And I'm arguing with you because this:

I'm pretty sure that if we didn't eat meat then we would have severe nutritional deficiencies just like some animals would.

is wrong.

I brought up the positive health aspects of vegetarianism to contrast the 'severe nutritional deficiencies' you conjured out of thin air like a wizard.

 

[awaring1]

How old are you? And what sort of "nutritional analysis?"

I have a hard time believing that you are "well balanced" (what does that even mean) on what you yourself admit is a crappy diet.

And most Americans exceed their caloric requirements every day, what's the point of pointing out anything about protein?

edit: and to just be more contrary, because I'm in a bad mood due to an exam tomorrow (in Nutrition, ironically) I'm going to ask what the point of being vegetarian (for animal suffering reasons) is if you aren't going to go all out and be vegan?

- I am 21 years old. I know a lot of my success can probably be attributed to my youth and things may get harder as I get older. My parents have been vegetarian for 30+ years and have never had any nutritional problems.

-I use the term "well balanced" for my diet loosely. I think "average" would probably be a better word for it. My point is more that it is not hugely different from any average person that eats meat (which people would expect).

- I took a Human Nutrition course and for the final we had to do a week-long detailed food journal and then have it analyzed by a professional dietitian. I wrote down exactly what I ate with no attempt to try to make myself look better. While I did not have a perfect diet, I was not lacking anything. Protein, iron, vitamins, minerals were all ok. (I was little high on salt, but most people are.) I could very easily have an amazing diet but healthy food tends to be more expensive and I do like my pizza. mmmmmmm....

-I was pointing out protein because I think people sometimes assume that we need more than we actually do (don't have exact numbers, sorry). This is a huge argument against vegetarians.

- I guess I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but not really. I do not like the thought of eating another animals flesh but I am not out to change the world. As I said in another thread, I was raised vegetarian so it is a large part of my identity. I also live in a rural area where there are not really any health food stores and the grocery stores are very limited so it would be incredibly hard to be vegan. I try to make up for that by buying milk that I know comes from local farmers and eggs from local free-range chickens. My brother (also raised veggie) went vegan when he went out to California but only because it was so easy and he was trying to lose weight anyway. (On a side note, my brother has always been veggie and is healthy as a horse. In college he was captain of the crew team and was always just as physically capable as the non-veggies.)

I don't like to preach about vegetarianism at all. If you want to eat meat, go for it. The only time I will stand up is when people say that vegetarians can't have a balanced diet or are unhealthy blah blah blah.

 

[JollyBlueJay4]

Buh? Since when does everyone's 'entitlement' to an opinion mean that one side can't be 'better' than the other?

No offense, but that sounds like po-mo nonsense. The fact is, some opinions are just plain inferior.

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you meant. 🙂

LetItSnow returns to his chair in the peanut gallery, snagging someone's popcorn on the way.

None offense taken! I think it's sorta about tolerance. Just because some peeps think that animals deserve to have equal opportunities as humans, collect welfare checks and not be touched by humans for anything ever ever ever no matter what, that doesn't make their opinion any worse than mine. I mean, yes, I can think my opinion is "better" for me because that's what having my own opinion is all about! But that doesn't mean I can judge another for thinking that the dog has every right to eat my meal off my plate when I'm not looking, because it's that pooch's right. And if people think the animals should all be let go and free to travel the country side, sure, I think that's lunacy since 99.99999% of them will all die within a month or so, but that doesn't make that person's belief any better or worse... Maybe worse from my perspective, and the majority of intelligent individuals, but by George, a lot of people think a lot of dumb, crazy things and I say let them! (Dare I bring up some political debates / presidental candidates? Ehhhhhhh not going there).

Of course it's simple to say let everyone have their own opinion and don't try to push your own agenda on another. Everyone gets to be happy within their own little worlds. But it gets fuzzy when laws and politics start coming around that will affect others. If some bonehead passes a bill that's contrary to my opinion, then we got ourselves a debate / possible riot!!

However, this stuff we're talking about right now is personal morality and ethical hooplah. As long as no one decides to bomb my car over it, I say let opinions be equal and judge naught. Or did I confuse everyone over all this... I think I confused myself...

 

[sumstorm]

there are populations where vegetarianism has never been typical or normal and would still be nearly impossible. At least my inuit friends would say so.

 

[nyanko]

However, this stuff we're talking about right now is personal morality and ethical hooplah. As long as no one decides to bomb my car over it, I say let opinions be equal and judge naught. Or did I confuse everyone over all this... I think I confused myself...

The problem is that people are deciding to bomb cars, houses, research facilities, etc and also pass laws based on this personal morality stuff. And that's where you DO have to be less wishy-washy about it.

 

[squirrelsrule]

Alrighty then. For those of you reading along for , get ready kids, cause, I'm a gonna



LA, I was reading through this and was keeping my cool until I saw the above. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there are certainly several definitions of the terms 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare'. However, in NO WAY are you allowed as someone who obviously cannot draw the line between them, make a statement such as this. I consider myself to be an animal 'welfarist'...

I have worked in biomedical research professionally for more than a decade and have done everything and anything in my power to ensure that animals utilized in research receive far MORE than the MINIMUM. I walked away from the PhD program to pursue vet med because I know as a veterinarian I will have more power to ensure that animals used within labs and the food industry are given what they all deserve for serving human kind: comfort, respect, and love. And here's a little something for you to chew on: my specialty is the most controversial species of them all: The non-human primate. Due to this, I have been called 'evil', been spit on entering my facility, have been harassed via phone and email, etc.. etc.. etc... by persons claiming to be animal 'rights' activists. I realize that these are the extremists; but when I see statements like yours, I cannot help but feel that you could be heading in that direction sometime in the future.

I have always maintained that there are people amongst us who may not 'understand' why certain things are done the way they are. Also, I understand that there are people who are against things for the proper reasons. I know there will always be people who believe that biomedical research, the food industry, zoos, and the like are completely wrong; and I'm OK with that. But, when these individuals toss out 'uneducated' remarks, I simply cannot tolerate it.

As an animal 'welfarist', I personally do not believe that any animal should be kept in a small baron cage (unless it is necessary to keep them from injuring themselves due to illness/injury)... I have always considered my pets as 'family members'... The way swine are held for market is distressing to me... Seeing polar bears pace in zoos makes me sad... Large sea creatures in small tanks makes me even sadder... Rather, I believe that each and every animal kept in captivity has the 'right' to perform species specific behavior. This means providing the 'proper' amount of space, conspecifics, manipulanda, etc... Additionally, no animal in captivity should be made to suffer physically or mentally. And if they ever show signs, action should be taken immediately to remedy the issue(s). These are the beliefs of animal welfare.

I am very grateful for people like you that are looking out for the research animals. I, personally couldn't handle it, but I know it needs to be done, so thank you for being one of the ones that are willing to and more importantly willing to do it right!

 

[KaibabVet]

I'd like to mention a a point that I haven't seen too much discussion on yet:

I noticed our original poster (and maybe a few others) believe that wild animals should be left alone and we should focus on the preservation of species (and thus, their environments). First I'd like to say that I respect this opinion, but as a former wildlife researcher for the government I'd like to add a counter-opinion.

The preservation of species is distinct from conservation. It is generally accepted that preservationists believe ecosystems are best left to take their natural course (i.e. "leaving wild animals alone"). Conservationists believe (in general) that our natural systems are here for our use (in fact, we can't live without them) and that ecosystems should be managed properly to ensure a constant, sustainable use.

For example, everyone uses toilet paper. Therefore, everyone has a use for paper and the tree farming industry. Currently, the government is trying to work with many tree farmers to encourage them to manage for endangered bird species. The same is true of farmlands. Although we have developed massive areas of land (created cities and metropolitan areas) we can try to mitigate some of our destruction through the cooperative use of lumber and farmlands.

Another example: National parks. They are a great example of preservation rather than conservation. Everyone on this board knows that wildfires are a natural part of our ecosystem. But since national parks are of limited area, the USDI tends to put the fires out before they spread too far and too hot (to avoid threatening nearby human establishments). The result is an "unnatural" landscape in the national park, since fire is not allowed to wreak its full havoc (certain plant species survive and come to dominate where they normally would have been killed back).

You will find, if you really begin to examine our US ecosystems, that there is no such thing as natural. Everything we do, through action and inaction, affects wild animals. "Leaving them alone" is still a management decision and can often be more harmful than intervention.

I'll give one last example: White-tailed deer over-abundance. In GA at least, we have been in situations where the DNR is paid to hunt as many deer as possible. Given the carrying capacity of the species, and since the population is too high in many counties (damaging other sensitive species), the over-abundant deer create terrible conditions that often lead to their own starvation. Everything from birth control to abortions have been tried, and unfortunately these methods are not effective because it requires the sterilization of over 90% of individuals to even level-off population growth (much less reduce the population size).

Would you say that these deer should not be shot by the government and hunters? What if it meant the deer would cause the extinction of other species? (songbirds and small mammals are the main concern with deer overpopulation) By the very fact that we exist on this continent, we are affecting wild animals. The protection of an endangered species can usually only occur at a cost to another species.

 

[Dsmoody23]

there are populations where vegetarianism has never been typical or normal and would still be nearly impossible. At least my inuit friends would say so.

Finding a minor exception to a general truth doesn't disprove it.

If I lock myself in the house with 200 bags of of beef jerky, it doesn't make me an obligate carnivore.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

The problem is that people are deciding to bomb cars, houses, research facilities, etc and also pass laws based on this personal morality stuff. And that's where you DO have to be less wishy-washy about it.

Agreed. I took a more active stance when our state slipped that "guardian" stuff in, essentially right under my nose. There was no press whatsoever (as far as I could see) until after the fact. People don't realize what the potential implications are.

I have no problems with it if someone personally wishes to espouse an AR philosophy and live their life in accordance with it. That's their prerogative. The intrusion of AR into public policy is what frightens me.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Finding a minor exception to a general truth doesn't disprove it.

If I lock myself in the house with 200 bags of of beef jerky, it doesn't make me an obligate carnivore.

By that same card, (just playing devil's advocate here), does the anecdotal evidence of a few vocal groups of vegetarians/vegans that "people don't need meat" or that "eating meat is completely unnecessary" make that so?

I've known a couple of people who worked very hard to make a vegan diet work for them, and it just wasn't happening. I just think it's a pretty big leap to go from "historically, there have been societies that don't eat meat and they're fine" and "my family doesn't eat meat and we're fine" to "meat isn't necessary for anyone's health or well-being".

 

[Dsmoody23]

By that same card, (just playing devil's advocate here), does the anecdotal evidence of a few vocal groups of vegetarians/vegans that "people don't need meat" or that "eating meat is completely unnecessary" make that so?

I've known a couple of people who worked very hard to make a vegan diet work for them, and it just wasn't happening. I just think it's a pretty big leap to go from "historically, there have been societies that don't eat meat and they're fine" and "my family doesn't eat meat and we're fine" to "meat isn't necessary for anyone's health or well-being".

I was referring to the 100s of millions of Indian and Chinese people, among many, many other cultural groups, who are vegetarians for religious or economic reasons.

That's hardly anecdotal evidence, or hearsay.

It seems strange to me that we have a group of predominantly biologists, all interested in health care, who are not universally aware that you can easily meet your nutritional needs without ingesting animal protein.

 

[sumstorm]

Finding a minor exception to a general truth doesn't disprove it.

If I lock myself in the house with 200 bags of of beef jerky, it doesn't make me an obligate carnivore.

Those minor exceptions are many smaller, less represented populations, and if you are a part of those populations that lose you basic ability to provide food within your community by folks who put rules and regulations in on the basis that we don't 'have' to do that (based on their personal morality), the impact is major...far more signficant than what you call yourself when you eat 200 bags of jerky. It isn't just about what if in vogue in the moment; native populations in the americas have a higher incidence of metabolic diseases from consumption of highly digestible carbs than the typical euro-asian decended populations. Genetics has an impact on what we can and can't handle. Some folks can probably function extremly well on a meatless diet, but anecdote =/= evidence either from a single population, or a single vegetarian/vegan or a signle family of vegetarians/vegans. I realize my point was too sublte: evolutionarily we have not all developed to consume the same foods and manage them metabolicly exactly the same. If that was the case, we wouldn't have differences in metabolism, food sensitivities, allergies, etc that often track within populations and within families.

I was vegetarian for 7 years; I don't object to it, but deciding vegetarianism is about moral/ethical issues of humans (ie it is ethically correct to not eat meat) is very developmentally and ethnically centric. I ate an MD nutritionist designed and monitored vegetarian diet (because my family didn't do vegetariansims) and I did suffer musculoskeletal issues resulting from a malnutrition. I suffered those same consequences again when I was doing research in Thailand and was on a veg diet because of the Thais I lived with (who were very healthy.) I lost a lot of hair and had massive disruptions in my nails (imagine finger nails that are flaky and wavy like a puff pastry) within 1 month of that diet, and I was eating the same things as my hosts (including protein rich items like tofu.) I'm not argueing that folks can't be healthy eating that way, I am argueing that not all folks can be; that there are differences between individuals.

To take this in a different direction, why are folks that are opposed to research and testing on animals willing to use products (like medications) that are the end result of testing and research on animals? Wouldn't the ethical move, by the theory that not using animals is an ethical decision, force individuals to abstain from products developed with the use of animal testing?

 

[Cautionary Tail]

I was referring to the 100s of millions of Indian and Chinese people, among many, many other cultural groups, who are vegetarians for religious or economic reasons.

That's hardly anecdotal evidence, or hearsay.

It seems strange to me that we have a group of predominantly biologists, all interested in health care, who are not universally aware that you can easily meet your nutritional needs without ingesting animal protein.

To be fair, I did acknowledge that there are societies where vegetarianism or veganism predominates and people clearly have no problems with it... but I don't know that you can necessarily extrapolate that to "humans do not require any animal protein", given the wide variety of conditions under which people live, and individual differences as well (those who thrive on meatless diets vs. those that don't). Someone else mentioned the Inuit earlier. You dismissed this as a "minor exception to a general truth", but if there are exceptions, (as in the Inuit and individuals who haven't fared well on meatless diets) then clearly it's not simply as black and white as "humans don't need meat". I think that's where the rub is for me. Semantics. "The majority of humans don't require animal protein"? This is probably true. But to me, there's a big difference between that statement and saying that "humans don't need meat".

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Well said, sumstorm. 👍

 

[KaibabVet]

Wild animals eat each other because they have to. Some animals strictly only eat meat. Humans do not have to eat meat, therefore why should we.

It's not that I disagree with this statement, but the wording bugs me. Animals do not feel emotions the same way people do, so it's wrong to personify. They may have the same emotions (like love, hate, anger) but they experience it in their own unique way.

It's wrong to characterize animals and ourselves based on what we HAVE to do. Animals that evolved to eat meat did so because there was an niche available that allowed them to thrive. In the perspective of evolutionary history, with the rise and decline of species, what a species "needs" can often be adapted.

My point is: wild animals (and people) didn't evolve the ability to consume meat "because they had to". They evolved to "eat each other" because it was OPTIMAL.

** Now, what we choose to do, morally, as responsible tenets of Earth with protein alternates available, is a different story.

 

[Dsmoody23]

I was vegetarian for 7 years; I don't object to it, but deciding vegetarianism is about moral/ethical issues of humans (ie it is ethically correct to not eat meat) is very developmentally and ethnically centric. I ate an MD nutritionist designed and monitored vegetarian diet (because my family didn't do vegetariansims) and I did suffer musculoskeletal issues resulting from a malnutrition. I suffered those same consequences again when I was doing research in Thailand and was on a veg diet because of the Thais I lived with (who were very healthy.) I lost a lot of hair and had massive disruptions in my nails (imagine finger nails that are flaky and wavy like a puff pastry) within 1 month of that diet, and I was eating the same things as my hosts (including protein rich items like tofu.) I'm not argueing that folks can't be healthy eating that way, I am argueing that not all folks can be; that there are differences between individuals.

It doesn't make sense to say "anecdote =/= evidence" and then follow it with an anecdote presented as evidence.

I'm using huge sections of the world practicing forms of Buddhism and Hinduism as evidence that those metabolic and nutritional disorders are the exception to the rule.

You're citing your personal experience with vegetarianism, and... Eskimos in an icy hellscape.

I'm going to go finish eating my jerky, so I can turn into a T. Rex.

 

[l2vet]

While I agree with the whole theme of your post, I do not agree with this.

I currently own a black lab. I've had him since he was 8 weeks old and I was raising him to be a guide dog. Due to medical reasons he was released from the program and I got to keep him. I am very hesitant about applying human emotions to animals but this dog continues to amaze me. He is so incredibly in-tune to my own actions and emotions that it blows my mind. He has an incredible sense of time and is always very aware of his surroundings. I sometimes leave him with my parents for a while (like during finals) and he hates that. (He loves my parents but is incredibly attached to me so he doesn't like being left.) When I am at my parents he can always tell when I am about to leave for a while. He sees a bag in my hand and practically attaches himself to my leg while giving me heart-wrenching pathetic stares. Why? Because he knows that tomorrow I will not be there, and maybe even the day after that. If he were short-sighted he would have no worries in the world. (Apparently after I leave there is about a 3 day moping period before he perks back up.)

He is obviously a special case since he has been specially bred by a program that has been producing amazing service dogs for many years. His bloodlines are designed to create a dog that is smart, compassionate and incredibly aware.

So yes, research animals can be justified if they are given a great life beforehand.

Don't underestimate dogs either. There may be some dull ones but there are also some really incredible ones. 😀

Skipping over everything else to just clarify one point (yeah, I said I wasn't going to post further, sue me).

What I would clarify is that animals have no sense of tomorrow the way humans (or primates, but I know very little on this subject) do. A dog cannot anticipate that you will return when you leave, but only connects that bag with a time that he will spend away from you. He can make connections in the present, but cannot anticipate the future. A beef cow quickly learns to anticipate that the truck driving down the feedlot row delivers lots of tasty feed, but cannot anticipate that in the future that truck may drive by and not deliver any feed, and doesn't understand why it is that the truck sometimes drives by and does not deliver feed. That's what I mean when animals have no sense of the future. They have no ability to extrapolate what *may* happen, but only understand what *has* happened.

For that reason, I said that it is no sadder to raise a dog for a terminal surgery than it is to raise an animal for research or for food. As long as these animals have their basic rights fulfilled (freedom from EXCESSIVE hunger, thirst, pain, and exposure, as long as those freedoms do not interfere with human freedoms, which will always supersede animal freedoms) they have no ability to extrapolate that their life will end what a human might consider prematurely--they have no concept of that. This is also the same reason that I believe it is terribly, terribly cruel to keep a companion animal alive for weeks when it is suffering so that "family can say goodbye." That animal cannot understand that it is suffering so that it can see its owners again, or play with a bone one last time (which is probably doesn't want to do, because it's miserable)--a human could make a conscious choice that suffering is acceptable if the human is able to achieve some goal. An animal does not understand this. It understands only that it hurts, and that the people who have always taken care of it before don't seem to notice that it hurts, and that animal doesn't understand. Just writing that makes me upset, and I've seen more than my share of this in the SA hospital where I work.

Treat animals like animals. To treat them like humans is cruel.

 

[LookingAhead]

Ok everyone just to let you all know there is nothing wrong with not eating meat. In my opinion it is morally wrong to eat meat.

Look everyone may disagree or whatever but that is just how the world works. I lost both my parents when I was really young and I have grown up in foster homes my whole life. I have come across many experiences and met many people in the multiple schools I have been in. I have been made fun of for my beliefs (Scientology) but in the end we just all have to hold up to our own beliefs.

I was accepted into two different vets schools the first time I applied. I know it was not because of my GPA its only a 3.6. And I only have around 1000 animal hours experience. The admissions committee clearly thinks that I will be a good vet, and I will be despite if everyone thinks my moral choices or beliefs are wrong.

There are many different kinds of vets in the world but there is a place for everyone.

 

[sumstorm]

It doesn't make sense to say "anecdote =/= evidence" and then follow it with an anecdote presented as evidence.

I'm using huge sections of the world practicing forms of Buddhism and Hinduism as evidence that those metabolic and nutritional disorders are the exception to the rule.

Umm.... my point is that not everyone does well on a vegetarian only diet; some folks do need to consume meat. Your point is that people do not need to eat meat and that some populations do not eat meat and are healthy.

We are NOT disagreeing that some populations don't need to eat meat.

We are disagreeing that all people can be vegetarians and remain healthy. Even a small population that requires meat consumption disproves that all people can be vegetarians and be healthy. IE anecdote can dispute a theory. I can say 'no humans ever been on the moon' (no one needs to eat meat) and it only takes one Neil Armstrong to make the statement false.

Even with all that, in the US, very few people are vegetarian. I believe that vegetarian times estimates the number at under 5%. How many of those non-vegetarains need meat? Anyone done an extensive study?

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Ok everyone just to let you all know there is nothing wrong with not eating meat. In my opinion it is morally wrong to eat meat.

Look everyone may disagree or whatever but that is just how the world works. I lost both my parents when I was really young and I have grown up in foster homes my whole life. I have come across many experiences and met many people in the multiple schools I have been in. I have been made fun of for my beliefs (Scientology) but in the end we just all have to hold up to our own beliefs.

I was accepted into two different vets schools the first time I applied. I know it was not because of my GPA its only a 3.6. And I only have around 1000 animal hours experience. The admissions committee clearly thinks that I will be a good vet, and I will be despite if everyone thinks my moral choices or beliefs are wrong.

There are many different kinds of vets in the world but there is a place for everyone.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't think there is anything wrong with someone making the personal decision not to eat meat. It was the blanket statements about meat being completely unnecessary for anyone that I took exception to. I think that's overly simplistic. (Sumstorm did a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts on the matter.)

All in all, as long as nobody's attempting to legislate my diet (or repeatedly hassling me about my choices), it's all good. Same goes for religious beliefs. As long as there's no attempt to impose them on me, I don't care what somebody else's religious views are. I have friends and family of all stripes.

I apologize if my posts have been perceived as disrespectful. They weren't intended as such. I certainly don't think someone with your views would be incapable of functioning in the profession. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't really understand the interest in becoming a companion animal veterinarian when one is morally opposed to the keeping of companion animals. I don't see how one can reconcile the two.

To me, it feels a bit like (again, not trying to be disrespectful here) being opposed to child labor and making the decision to oversee the assembly line in a sweatshop because you feel for the kids and want to help them. If keeping pets is morally wrong, is choosing a profession in which you are complicit in enabling others to do so truly "helpful"?

 

[l2vet]

Subbing meat out of a diet is probably one of the cheapest and easiest ways to improve your health. High cholesterol, blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and various cancers are all linked to regular meat consumption.

Can I say how ridiculous this statement is? People have been eating meat since they could kill it, and this obesity epidemic is recent to the last 30 years, at max.

High cholesterol, blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and various cancers are all linked to regular EXCESSIVE meat consumption.

Most people have absolutely no concept just how small a serving of meat is, what the fat or lean content is of a particular cut, and how many calories is in it.

Meat has become a staple of the American diet, rather than the luxury or addition that it once was. There are plenty of people out there that have bottomed out their cholesterol and BP and not only still eat meat, but still eat RED meat. They just don't eat veritable truckloads of it every day, like the average American does.

Everything in moderation, including moderation.
--Julia Child

 

[JollyBlueJay4]

I have no problems with it if someone personally wishes to espouse an AR philosophy and live their life in accordance with it. That's their prerogative. The intrusion of AR into public policy is what frightens me.

That's what I was goin for!