Horrifying "U.S. Meat Animal Research Center" practices exposed

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
That may be encouraging, but be cautious of the real motives here. When the devil saves a baby, consider what he wants from it in the end.

Tom Vilsack was recommended for Secretary of Agriculture by the HSUS Legislative Fund. Vilsack then hired Sarah Conant, former HSUS lawyer, as director of APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) enforcement.

You may want to ignore the tone of the hosting site (and the comments), but this article hits the high points, including HSUS's $500,000 campaign supporting Christie Vilsack's candidacy in Iowa. There was muttering of a Congressional investigation because of all this, but far as I recall it didn't go anywhere.

Also be aware that the Animal Welfare Act has already expanded from protecting laboratory animals (its original intent) to forbidding the sale of pets except under certain conditions (when you have to personally travel across the country to find the dog of your dreams, as is now the case for animals intended as pets, blame this latest feature-creep). Imagine this same expansion as applied to the animals we rely on if we want to continue to eat -- what if cattle buyers had to travel to the ranch and meet each and every steer first?? Mark my words, that will prove to be the ultimate intent of this whole episode. The devil is patient.

That link says nothing about forbidding the sale of animals - it says that breeders who engage in blind sales (as opposed to face-to-face sales) may now have to be licensed by Animal Welfare, same as pet stores.

Why am I supposed to be upset by that idea, exactly?
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,882
Reaction score
5,197
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
That may be encouraging, but be cautious of the real motives here. When the devil saves a baby, consider what he wants from it in the end.

Tom Vilsack was recommended for Secretary of Agriculture by the HSUS Legislative Fund. Vilsack then hired Sarah Conant, former HSUS lawyer, as director of APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) enforcement.

You may want to ignore the tone of the hosting site (and the comments), but this article hits the high points, including HSUS's $500,000 campaign supporting Christie Vilsack's candidacy in Iowa. There was muttering of a Congressional investigation because of all this, but far as I recall it didn't go anywhere.

Also be aware that the Animal Welfare Act has already expanded from protecting laboratory animals (its original intent) to forbidding the sale of pets except under certain conditions (when you have to personally travel across the country to find the dog of your dreams, as is now the case for animals intended as pets, blame this latest feature-creep). Imagine this same expansion as applied to the animals we rely on if we want to continue to eat -- what if cattle buyers had to travel to the ranch and meet each and every steer first?? Mark my words, that will prove to be the ultimate intent of this whole episode. The devil is patient.

I have to confess, my only associations with the Humane Society are good ones.

I don't see what's wrong about people associated with the Humane Society getting involved with animal health inspection.

I should think it would be a bonus if a Secretary of Agriculture has ties to the Humane Society.

We want our farming oversight to take into account the welfare of the animals. Don't we?

I am confused.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I think the Animal Welfare Act should cover all animals. The standards within the act are below what I would consider a decent minimum, but they would be a start.

Once that standard applied uniformly a reasonable discussion could be had about where inspection and enforcement dollars should be spent in each financial year--targeting those out of compliance and who had lost the public trust. Staring, perhaps, with federal facilities and puppy mills.

Right now the act does not even apply to all research animals, excluding all rodents and all farm species and all federal facilities. If anything folding in only farm species kept on federal facilities does not go far enough. But it is a start.

Regulatory creep happens because operators lose the public trust and so lose the license we as the general public give them to regulate themselves. When animal suffering is the result of their negligence, increased regulation is not a bad thing.
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
(when you have to personally travel across the country to find the dog of your dreams, as is now the case for animals intended as pets, blame this latest feature-creep).

Why would I adopt a dog I hadn't actually met in person? I would think that was inadvisable. How would I know whether our personalities matched? If I were letting someone adopt a dog, I would never ship the dog to them without vetting them and making sure they had met the dog... I don't understand what I'm supposed to be outraged about. That all sounded fine to me.

Imagine this same expansion as applied to the animals we rely on if we want to continue to eat -- what if cattle buyers had to travel to the ranch and meet each and every steer first?? Mark my words, that will prove to be the ultimate intent of this whole episode. The devil is patient.
Mmm... again, I'm not feeling outraged. What would this do, in your mind, to society? I feel like if I were a rancher, I would want to go look at the herds I'm buying... wouldn't I? The ranchers I've known do. I'm actually in favor of not treating living things as widgets you can just order in bulk for a plant. I'm not vegan and I understand the food chain, but I do think animals deserve plenty of consideration within that chain.

Alessandra Kelley said:
I don't see what's wrong about people associated with the Humane Society getting involved with animal health inspection.

I should think it would be a bonus if a Secretary of Agriculture has ties to the Humane Society.

Yeah, same here. And ditto, veinglory and Myrealana.

Reziac, I feel like you want me to be "oh noes!" about the references you've made, but I'm just "yay!" ... possibly because I don't understand what underlying upset you have over these things. The things, on their surface, look good to someone who wants animals treated humanely. So :Shrug:. I don't know how to address your objections; I don't think I fully understand them.
 

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
You may want to ignore the tone of the hosting site (and the comments), but this article hits the high points
Interesting that you're upset about "code words" in a New York Times article, but you link to a site that pops up with a "Hit Like if you think Islam is bad for America" window...

Totally the indicator of reasonable and well-sourced information... :rolleyes: