Myword wrote on Jan 10, 2007 10:37 PM:
" Thank you, Globe Gazette, for giving a platform to another radical, anti-livestock organization. Iowa farmers do not need a lecture on how to care for animals, especially from someone living on the East Coast involved with an organization that cares more about fundraising and publicity than it does about rural communities, the people who live there and the animals raised on millions of farms. If Mr. Shapiro is so concerned about the welfare of animals, then why may I ask does the HSUS not own or operate one animal shelter in the United States? Just what on earth does the organization do with its $120 million annual budget? Does it practice what it preaches when it comes to caring for animals? No, it leaves the hard work to local Humane Societies (not affiliated with the HSUS) and animal shelters while it travels to Florida and Arizona and invests millions of dollars in ballot initiatives aimed at reducing or eliminating production practices used by farmers (do you remember Prop 204 just passed last November in Arizona?). If Mr. Shapiro took a moment to visit the farms and farmers who feed 300 million people at home and billions more abroad, he would find that the husbandry practices used by farmers are best for the animals. Farmers of all farm sizes have used gestation and farrowing crates for generations as a way to reduce mortalities and enhance the well being of piglets. No, the HSUS is not interested in helping farmers or helping Iowa. It is an anti-livestock, pro-vegan organization that doesn't allow meat to be served at its organizational meals nor does it allow employees to include meat-related expenses on their expense reimbursement forms. Since the Globe Gazette has decided to "pile on" in advance of its townhall meeting on livestock farming slated for next Wednesday, may I suggest readers log on to activistcash.com and read all about the HSUS. May I also suggest that the paper allow some "equal time" when it comes to the issue of livestock farming. There are, afterall, two sides to this story. "
Reta wrote on Jan 10, 2007 2:58 PM:
" Thank you for publishing this guest opinion. As "higher beings" we have a duty to treat all of the natural world with respect and not inflict pain and suffering on those creatures that have no voice. We have failed miserably in that duty and someday mother nature will take a terrible revenge on us for cruelty and carelessness. "
DN wrote on Jan 10, 2007 2:52 PM:
" If my comments were misleading, I didn't mean them to be. I was saying that there are confining gestatation crates and that there are also reasonable alternatives, perhaps even more profitable ones, available so that there really is little need to use the confining crates.
The rest of the story appeared to think that gestation crates were the same as farrowing crates, I just wanted to clarify that there were differences. I hope that there is a moritorium on building these confinement gestation systems.
As far as Mr Wilson's comments, I disagree. There is nothing hypocritical about growing animals for consumption and yet caring about their comfort during their lifetime. Your objection could be analogized by saying that once someone is diagnosed with a terminal disease, we shouldn't make any effort to ease their plight since it would be hypocritical to waste the resources. Perhaps even more closely, your statement could be summed up as saying that those soldiers that are potentially to be sent into suicidal battle conditions to protect our lives shouldn't be cared for to the best of our ability because they will die for us. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Don't they deserve every comfort we can offer in the meantime? Domestic feed animals are under a death sentance, but that doesn't mean they should be disregarded in their lives. They don't know that they are only there to be food,they don't have that capacity, but they do know pain and frustration. We have the ability to make their lives nicer for a small statistical difference in profitability, as moral animals (Christian or not), how can we not at least go as far as we can without causing our own to suffer economically? We do have the capacity to know what is coming for them though it be necessary for our species to flourish. It is selfish of us, but their actual existance as animals is also at our whim. Like it or not, we are the top of the food chain with the awareness to realize it and make ethical decisions based on that awareness. "
Chris wrote on Jan 10, 2007 12:32 PM:
" DN's comment below is intentionally misleading. Mother pigs are kept in tiny crates, too small to turn around, for their entire lives (4-5 years) before they are killed. They are shifted back-and-forth between "gestation crates" and "farrowing crates" depending on where they are at in the breeding process, but both of these crates are essentially the same - metal bars around a cement floor making it impossible for the sow to move more than a step forwards or backwards.
These cages are beyond inhumane. This kind of animal abuse has no place in a Christian nation, and the producers who try to justify it should be ashamed. "
Ryan Wilson wrote on Jan 10, 2007 10:56 AM:
" To me there are two extremes: Eating animals and without regard to their environment and refusing to eat mean.
Catering to the animals you are about to eat is fundamentally hypocritical. Either you are going to butcher them, or you disagree with the idea of animals for human consumption. Anything else is rediculous. "
DN wrote on Jan 10, 2007 9:54 AM:
" The rest of the story, you are speaking of a farrowing crate, not a gestation crate. Apparently you aren't up on modern breeding practices. They really do put sows and guilts into feeding crates for months. There are some right here in this county, I have done chores for neighbors in them. These crates are just as confining as a farrowing crate. Why? So that each individual can be monitored and individually fed for optimized pig production without the hassle of actually monitoring a herd that is free to move about. There have been designs made that allow for movement and individualized feeding using identification implant technologies. (although that might ruffle the PETA pros too)
So, please, get the rest of the story. Learn about what's going on. "
The rest of the story... wrote on Jan 10, 2007 8:07 AM:
" If you knew anything about sows (a mother pig for those of you that don't know) you would know that these crates are designed for their comfort while giving birth. They are NOT in them for months. It is similiar to a woman lying on a hospital bed and having her legs in the stirrups. It doesn't look that comfortable but it helps her give birth. These crates keep the sow from laying on her babies and eating them. It also helps the farmer have easy access to pulling out the babies if she has problems delivering. Maybe people that want to judge these practices should actually be their sometime during birth and then they will see how they are helpful. By the way hog confinment buildings are also designed for pigs comfort. They are no different than keeping your pet in your house all winter and keeping them out of the cold. "
