Veganism

TheBigBean

You can't just stun and kill cattle either. There's a process involved.

angry_bird

TheBigBean wrote:

You can't just stun and kill cattle either. There's a process involved.

Well, there’s process involved if they’re going into the food chain. Beyond that as long as livestock are killed humanely there’s not a lot of process.

hamish_mctavish

You absolutely can kill huge numbers of animals. There are laws around the killing of certain specific animals but most can be killed with no problems whatsoever. I can by the tools to kill rats, mice, slugs, snails and any number of insects in my local supermarket.

TheBigBean

Angry Bird wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

You can't just stun and kill cattle either. There's a process involved.

Well, there’s process involved if they’re going into the food chain. Beyond that as long as livestock are killed humanely there’s not a lot of process.

Not my area of expertise, but presumably a knacker man / vet still involves some form of process. Admittedly, with the risk of food chain contamination removed, the process is a bit more blunt.

angry_bird

TheBigBean wrote:

Angry Bird wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

You can't just stun and kill cattle either. There's a process involved.

Well, there’s process involved if they’re going into the food chain. Beyond that as long as livestock are killed humanely there’s not a lot of process.

Not my area of expertise, but presumably a knacker man / vet still involves some form of process. Admittedly, with the risk of food chain contamination removed, the process is a bit more blunt.

Not necessary for them to be involved, they often are for convinience but a farmer is perfectly entitled to sort it themself.

rjsterry

JoeNobody wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

More general coverage here.

http://www.animal-law.co.uk/the-law.html

Ok, so this is what I was getting at:

The Animal Welfare Act 2006: Prevention of harm, section 4 - Unecessary suffering wrote:

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is responsible for an animal, (b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary.

Let's take my dog as the example. I'd probably get away with it if no-one found out about it, but if I killed (stunned and slit the throat of) my otherwise healthy dog and someone reported me for it, this looks like a relevant piece of legislation. I might still get away with it, but I'd probably have to prove that there was no suffering, or that the suffering was necessary. The vegan view is that killing an animal is causing it to suffer, and doing so for food is unnecessary suffering. It follows logically from that belief that it ought to apply to all animals. Of course, it doesn't follow logically if you don't hold that view.

As far as the law is concerned, the vegan or indeed non-vegan view is immaterial. There is a good deal of research on the sensibility of animals after stunning, and measurable indicators of a pain response, so from that point of view it is possible to establish to some degree whether pain and hence suffering has/was likely to have occurred. It is for the Crown to prove that suffering was inflicted, but they would probably call a vet or similar as an expert witness, who would be able to give a pretty straight answer on the likelihood if not a definitive statement. Crudely if you kill the dog with a brick, I think you'd struggle to avoid a conviction, but a shot to the head (assuming the appropriate gun license) would be difficult to show as suffering.

Pross

JoeNobody wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

More general coverage here.

http://www.animal-law.co.uk/the-law.html

Ok, so this is what I was getting at:

The Animal Welfare Act 2006: Prevention of harm, section 4 - Unecessary suffering wrote:

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is responsible for an animal, (b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary.

Let's take my dog as the example. I'd probably get away with it if no-one found out about it, but if I killed (stunned and slit the throat of) my otherwise healthy dog and someone reported me for it, this looks like a relevant piece of legislation. I might still get away with it, but I'd probably have to prove that there was no suffering, or that the suffering was necessary. The vegan view is that killing an animal is causing it to suffer, and doing so for food is unnecessary suffering. It follows logically from that belief that it ought to apply to all animals. Of course, it doesn't follow logically if you don't hold that view.

Out if interest, what would be your view on killing an animal that is in pain? For example, I once saw a cat get hit by a car when I was cycling. It appeared to have its back broken and dragged itself into a hedge with its front paws. I assume it would have died afterwards either directly from the injuries, getting attacked by a predator or starving to death. If I'd been able to I would have killed it humanely (single blow to the head or a shot).

I don't think any of that law quoted would stop you killing a non-protected wild animal or pet providing it was done without causing suffering so a bolt or shot to the head for example. You might interpret that as causing suffering and I can understand that point but in the eyes of the law a quick death is unlikely to breach that legislation (I'm not sure if treatment of the animals body is covered).

angry_bird

If you can kill it in such a way that you feel the short term compromise of welfare outweighs the the current suffering then from that point of view it may be justifiable. However if that animal is someone’s property, and it’s being done without their permission, whether it be a cat, sheep or elephant then you’d could potentially be committing a crime by destroying it.

That being said, I have on many occasions euthanised pets a long with a few sheep when the owner has been unidentifiable or uncontactable without having their permission.

aberdeen_lune

The more I read this thread the more I want to be a vegan.

chris_bass

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

ballysmate

Chris Bass wrote:

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

Make no bones about it. I have often said that I would find it difficult to kill my own food. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably.
But I don't have to kill anything so the point is moot.

rjsterry

Chris Bass wrote:

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

Fair point. Certainly not something to be taken lightly, and I suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to. I think a lack of familiarity is partly behind that. These days it's not something many people are exposed to, or have the opportunity to witness.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

Fair point. Honest answer is I don't know for sure as I've not had to put it to the test, but I think I could. From a fairly young age I was made aware of how meat was produced and more generally what happens to animals at the end of their lives. Certainly not something to be taken lightly, though.

Not sure if it is a totally fair point - there are many things that many of us would find very hard to do, out of revulsion or sqeamishness (e.g. surgery, or killing people as a member of the armed forces, or even putting down pets), but we don't question the morality of those actions for either of those reasons.

Pross

Chris Bass wrote:

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

No problem in theory providing I had the right tools and environment to do it quickly and cleanly. I've caught and killed fish to eat on plenty of occasions. I would shoot a deer in areas where culling is necessary providing the meat was being used (assuming I was confident of making a successful hit, I've only ever shot clays and my eyesight isn't great for accuracy!). My problem would be with the hassle of cleaning, skinning / plucking and butchering the carcass as it is difficult and messy (I've always hated gutting and de-scaling fish).

briantrumpet

Pross wrote:

My problem would be with the hassle of cleaning, skinning / plucking and butchering the carcass as it is difficult and messy (I've always hated gutting and de-scaling fish).

I'm fine with that bit - when I was living in the country and travelling back roads at bizarre times, roadkill occasionally was on my menu. Squirrel was the hardest one to skin. Nice flavour once casseroled though.

mouth

Hamish McTavish wrote:

You absolutely can kill huge numbers of animals. There are laws around the killing of certain specific animals but most can be killed with no problems whatsoever. I can by the tools to kill rats, mice, slugs, snails and any number of insects in my local supermarket.

In the States I can buy all manner of weapons in my local supermarket to kill anything from you, to a deer, bison or grizzly bear. Does that make it right?

Admittedly they also sell all of the food groups without having to personally make a kill, and at very reasonable prices too. That would be where we exercise our own choices.

TheBigBean

Chris Bass wrote:

what proportion of meat eaters (general population not anecdotal or personal opinion of forum members) would eat eat if they had to kill it themselves?

genuine question, i know when i ate meat i definitely wouldn't have

If everyone had to kill in order to eat meat, then the process would be considered completely normal by society, so I would suspect, with history as evidence, that the figure would be very high.

If you are asking what percentage would do it when the rest of population continues to use the supermarket shelf, then answer would be a lot lower. But that would not be a reasonable question.

rick_chasey

I’ve wrung a chicken’s head before.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’ve wrung a chicken’s head before.

Just for sh1ts and giggles?

fat daddy

Angry Bird wrote:

That being said, I have on many occasions euthanised pets

Pah thats nothing ...... I have used pest spray on my home grown vegetables ... killed loads of animals that wanted to live .... murdered hundreds of caterpillas and slugs and snails that are trying to eat my food ... the ones that get away probably poison fish and birds as well

Although I do try and be organic and not use chemicals .. only when I have to .. unfortunately the Organic fertilizers are mostly animal produce as regular left over veg compost isnt created quick enough for the amount you need.


Actually how do Vegans think the world can be vegan without the use of animal based fertilizers or chemical pest killers ? ... sure you can get by on a small scale, but no way can you produce mass agriculture without these ?

rick_chasey

Shortfall wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’ve wrung a chicken’s head before.

Just for sh1ts and giggles?

Was a kid in France on holiday. We were on some agriturismo type place. Guy wanted to cook us dinner, but insisted we pick our chicken to eat.

joenobody

Pross wrote:

Out if interest, what would be your view on killing an animal that is in pain?

Good question. I'm not sure I could do it. A few years ago we kept chickens, and one was ill and looking decidedly terminal. We talked about wringing its neck to curtail its suffering, but instead we took it to the vet, got some drugs and essentially nursed it until it died naturally. Mind you, it was clear she was in pain, as such. Certainly it wasn't like when one of our cats got hit by a car when I was a kid. I didn't see the cat, but I heard the noise he was making, and he was quite clearly in pain. My dad took him to the vet to see if anything could be done. He didn't come back... (the cat, not my dad )

I have killed fish I've caught in the past though - a swift blow to the head with a blunt instrument. Not sure why I felt able to do that when I wouldn't for another animal. I suppose it's the whole pet attachment thing.

hamish_mctavish

Mouth wrote:

Hamish McTavish wrote:

You absolutely can kill huge numbers of animals. There are laws around the killing of certain specific animals but most can be killed with no problems whatsoever. I can by the tools to kill rats, mice, slugs, snails and any number of insects in my local supermarket.

In the States I can buy all manner of weapons in my local supermarket to kill anything from you, to a deer, bison or grizzly bear. Does that make it right?

Admittedly they also sell all of the food groups without having to personally make a kill, and at very reasonable prices too. That would be where we exercise our own choices.

The discussion at the point that I commented was around the legality of killing animals, not the morality.

drlodge

JoeNobody wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I think its much better to rear animals for food (on the condition they have a good quality of life and are humanely killed) than not to raise them at all.

Why? What problem does not raising them cause?

It doesn't cause a problem. My point being that its better for the animals to have a net positive life experience with death at the end (humanely done) than to have no life at all.

Ben6899

drlodge wrote:

JoeNobody wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I think its much better to rear animals for food (on the condition they have a good quality of life and are humanely killed) than not to raise them at all.

Why? What problem does not raising them cause?

It doesn't cause a problem. My point being that its better for the animals to have a net positive life experience with death at the end (humanely done) than to have no life at all.

We're blurring into existentialism, now.

Paulie W

I'm a level 5 vegan: I wont eat anything that casts a shadow.

joey54321

fat daddy wrote:

Angry Bird wrote:

Actually how do Vegans think the world can be vegan without the use of animal based fertilizers or chemical pest killers ? ... sure you can get by on a small scale, but no way can you produce mass agriculture without these ?

Goes beyond that too, as far as I remember there is no vegan-friendly tyre currently on the market. So people who travel or consume/wear/eat anything that has been transported by car count as non-vegan? (This may have changed recently but was certainly true a few years ago, and even if tyres are vegan there is a whole load of other oils and parts in cars which aren't).

Ultimately, I think most vegans just try and do the best they can do and go as far as their morals/practicality/knowledge will let them.

bompington

I think to count as a Proper Vegan you should follow the Jain tradition of wearing a muslin cloth over your mouth in case you accidentally swallow a fly.

lesfirth

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’ve wrung a chicken’s head before.

You would have found it much easier if you had wrung its neck.

Thick Mike

joey54321 wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

Angry Bird wrote:

Actually how do Vegans think the world can be vegan without the use of animal based fertilizers or chemical pest killers ? ... sure you can get by on a small scale, but no way can you produce mass agriculture without these ?

Goes beyond that too, as far as I remember there is no vegan-friendly tyre currently on the market. So people who travel or consume/wear/eat anything that has been transported by car count as non-vegan? (This may have changed recently but was certainly true a few years ago, and even if tyres are vegan there is a whole load of other oils and parts in cars which aren't).

Ultimately, I think most vegans just try and do the best they can do and go as far as their morals/practicality/knowledge will let them.

Apparently Michelin tyres are vegan...

http://thriftyveganliving.blogspot.co.u ... tyres.html