Animals

Paul, I'd like to head this conversation off before it gets started. I respect your religious beliefs and practice, but this same conversation has taken place on other dairy-related threads, and I'd like to avoid yet another repeat. Whether you acknowledge it or not, most people don't share your religious views. And regardless of whether we agree on the ethics of taking the milk for human use, the vast majority of people have neither the inclination nor the ability to properly care for a cow and any of her offspring for the animals' entire natural lives. People who do or can live the way you do are a tiny fraction of a percent, and for the rest of the population, it's no dairy or dairy the inherently cruel way. So I see no point in trying to advocate your rare way, based in your religion, as a realistic way for others whose spiritual beliefs and lifestyle do not match yours.

People who do or can live the way you do are a tiny fraction of a percent, and for the rest of the population, it's no dairy or dairy the inherently cruel way.

Why?  I think you're presenting an either/or situation that's false.  It'd be like someone saying, 40 years ago, that if we're going to have alcohol sold in bars and taverns, we must put up with drunk drivers.

But that wasn't true.  We have made huge inroads towards slowing and stopping drunk driving without telling everyone "we've got to close down all the establishments that sell alcohol" by focussing on the problem behavior, drunk driving.

The notion that I, or anyone else, who likes and enjoys dairy products has to either choose to give up those dairy products or we must accept calves being killed and dumped is a silly notion.

We CAN fix the problem behaviors.  We CAN make it illegal to dump calves.  We CAN require dairies to behave ethically in how they deal with calves.

In doing so, we can retain milk for those of us who enjoy it and still take care of the problem that you're talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that even taking milk is unethical and should be illegal, go for it... but please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that it's "either/or", and that if we insist on drinking milk we are agreeing to doing business in an inherently cruel manner.

The latter doesn't need to be true; we can fix that problem.  It's doable.

Paul, please forgive me if this comes out flustered. But I am flustered--because it's exhausting repeating the same information, over and over and over again, simply because people won't read and research carefully:

The problem isn't a few dairies "illegally" dumping calves! All dairies kill calves. That's how you get dairy, Paul. That's how the dairy industry works, the only way it can work, plain and simple: Impregnate cow so that she will produce milk. Take calf away from cow right after birth and kill calf so that calf can't drink the milk. Take milk for human consumption. Repeat. That's the system. Veal & dairy are inextricably linked. The only difference in the cases I noted here is that the calves were dumped rather than taken to auction and slaughterhouses.

Traumatically separating newborn calves is inherent to dairy production. Killing calves is inherent to dairy production. Killing cows when milk production declines is inherent to dairy production. Killing is essential to the dairy industry. It's what the whole system is predicated on, and it can't be changed, Paul, whether you like it or not. You buy milk, you kill calves. Period.

It doesn't follow from "viewing the cow as mother" that an "ideal relationship between humans and cows" would take the form of a human taking and drinking the cow's milk. If that followed, the reverse would have to be true: Ought we take the human animals' milk and give it to the baby cow? If not Paul, your argument is tautological.

Paul, I'm serious about this. Don't turn this into a discussion that's pertinent only to those who share your religious beliefs and lifestyle, or I'll just delete the comments. (Readers who aren't aware of how some of these such conversations have gone before, here and elsewhere, will probably think I'm overreacting here, and for that I'm sorry, but I'm trying to stop something before it gets started.)

Please assume, Paul, that when I write these posts, I'm not talking about you. But I'm not going to add to each dairy post a caveat about a tiny percentage of people who may interact with cows differently because of their spiritual beliefs but whose practices cannot be extended to common practice to meet other people's demand for dairy.

I always enjoy your comments Alex you aren't a lawyer by any chance are you? Your arguments are brilliant...if you aren't have you thought about going into law as an animal rights or enviro lawyer?

For the "human taking and drinking the cow's milk" to be an ideal relationship does not necessitate the reverse to be true at all for it to be true itself.

Then your reasoning is self-serving Zack, and not in keeping with what seems to be axiomatic ethical principles. Namely, treating like cases alike. Your response here begs the obvious question: Why is one-way exploitation "ideal," while the other way isn't?

What am I supposed to do?  I've been told that I'm not welcome here, but I'm still getting comments addressed to me.  Am I allowed to respond or not?
This is basically a discussion of ethics, and the principles of ethics have to be based in the Absolute, in other words, the Personality of Godhead, or they have no real basis.  Without reference to God, ethical principles would be determined according to whomever in the limited population is the best at argument.  Indeed I would say that without reference to the eternal spirit soul, life ultimately has no value because time reduces all material life to zero.   
If our standard is whatever contemporary science has to say, then ethical principles will change according to whatever science says; and if there is one thing consistent about science, it's that it is always subject to revision.  A science-based ethical rule would therefore be nothing but a social construction and have no real basis.
One may argue, for example, that evolution by natural selection indicates that selfishness is the ultimate principle.  If I am strong, then I should kill the weak or employ them in my service because that will preserve the best genes.  The goal in the game of life would be to win.  The principle of natural selection supports that, and it can be seen it all over nature.  Since the weak are naturally food for the strong, the only reason for arguing in favor of animal rights would be for some selfish motive such as gaining the support of the ignorant masses.  Or, maybe someone will come up with a better argument, but there that is no guarantee that it is correct.  
Furthermore, one cannot address the question of nature's intention without reference to God because from an atheistic perspective nature cannot have any intention.  It just is what it is.  Only a personality can have an intention.  
Still one may wonder why a cow can produce ten times the milk that its calf requires.  Why did nature make cows and humans so that the former would be easily domesticated by the latter?  We could come up with many questions along these lines.
High dairy consumption is one thing, but that is not the issue here.  In this blog, any consumption of dairy is condemned.  In present day materially developed countries, the diseases you list are problems, but historically poor nutrution and lack of food were much bigger problems.  Do you know of a better way to get food from grass and other inedible (to us) plants than by drinking milk?  
I have no problem with the objection to large-scale animal agriculture.  In fact I've been fiercely arguing against it for about fifteen years.  My problem is with the notion that there is no way to humanely employ animals.  In fact, I say that service is what gives value to life, including my own.  Why should we deprive animals of the opportunity to give service?  It was said above that there is no such thing as an ethical vegetarian, and I take offense at that.  Stephanie wants to minimize the Hare Krishna position, but our view is based on the same Vedic texts that form the basis for Hindu thought.  Since before Western history, the Vedic tradition viewed all life as equal on the spiritual platform.  It is the original animal rights movement, and it describes the ideal relationship between cows and humans with  emphasis on cow protection and the use of all the cow's products including dairy.  It is not only religion; there is also a great depth of science to it.  Perhaps you have heard of Ayurveda, the Science of Life.  It's more than I can get into here (especially since Stephanie already threatened to delete mycomments), but you might find a search of related to Ayurveda and milk to reveal some interesting results.
Now I'm going to "uncheck" the box for getting e-mail notices of responses, since these notices give incentive to check back here.  It's funny how over at the Sustainable Food blog here I'm almost banned because I'm persistently arguing the importance of animal rights in food sustainability; while on this blog I'm considered against animal rights and also told that my views are unwelcome.  I hope I'm not the only one who can see the irony.

Paul, I never once said you weren't welcome or that you were "against animal rights." Not once. I just said that I didn't want this to become yet another space for you to proselytize. Your entire argument revolves around your religious beliefs and implying that others should share your spiritual beliefs. This is a perfect example: "the principles of ethics have to be based in the Absolute, in other words, the Personality of Godhead, or they have no real basis." You say this as if it's a fact, an agreed-upon truth on which this conversation must be based, but this is your belief, not a belief that is or must be at the heart of this conversation. So the conversation becomes an argument about religious beliefs instead of a discussion of animal rights. And this isn't the place for that.

Gail's comment was not a response to your religion. She tried to steer this away from personal religious beliefs and back to objective discussion everyone could relate to, and you took it right back deep into your religion again. Please stop.

Paul, as someone of Indian ancestry who was raised a Hindu, I understand your perspective. Hindus revere the cow as a symbol of motherhood. Traditionally, milk products are consumed and used in religious ceremonies to "honor" the cow. Centuries ago, perhaps the cows in the rural villages of India may have received excellent care and respect. But the story is quite different now in India, the United States and all parts of the world. Animal agriculture is industrialized, and the animals are mere commodities. The beauty of Hinduism is that it encourages analysis, fluidity of thought and self-reflection. It is not dogmatic. The Hindu religion has also evolved over time, being influenced by Buddhism and Jainism. It is not stagnant, and Hindus need not blindly follow "tradition" -- in fact, Hinduism discourages that sort of numb devotion. I sob every time that I think of the suffering that mother cows and baby calves endure, all for selfish, misguided human beings' taste for the the milk of another species. Our Creator has provided the mother of each species with the purest sustenance -- for her baby. How dare we steal it from that infant? The animals are not consenting to "give" us their milk. We are stealing it from them, and we are literally raping them to do it. We are the only species who consumes the milk of another animal, beyond infancy, and we do it because we have power and arrogance. It is not necessary for nutrition. I suggest you do more research on the subject. PCRM has excellent information on the subject. A number of medical doctors (Neal Barnard, T. Colin Campbell, Michael Greger, Caldwell Esselstyn, John McDougall) advocate a vegan diet for health reasons. You might want to reevaluate what "cow protection" means to you. Does it include breeding cows and artificially impregnating them so that we can take their milk? Does it include killing their babies? If you believe a cow is happy to be of service to us, can you find one who will willingly approach you and give you her milk, while sacrificing the nourishment of her infant?

I recognize that it is often difficult to think outside the box when one feels compelled by loyalty to a religious community. But know that there are Hindus who are vegan BECAUSE it is consistent with their reverence for the cow.

In Ethics Paul, there is never a "guarantee" that you're correct. The reason why people assume a multiplicity of objective reference points for morality (and call them "god" in the short-hand) is rhetorical: it makes their case sound stronger.

However, too many problems arise when you assume such an objective source. It is tautological because it relies on "faith," which is definitionally irrational. It can be countered with the Euthyphro dilemma. And it's reductionist, inevitably confronted with the question: Prove to me the existence of your god.

Your fundamental principle seems to be summed up with: "We shouldn't deprive animals the opportunity to give service?" Service to whom Paul? My answer would be similar to that of human-human relationships. Service by choice seems reasonable. However, we cannot assume "consent" and therefore we ought not to act to exploit the service of another unless we are assured of their consent.

Cows cannot consent, neither can children nor the mentally handicapped. Therefore, it is self-serving to assume that they consent to serve you. That's mere dogmatism Paul.

In nature? The aurochs from which our cattle are descended are long extinct. More of the world drinks goat's milk than cow's milk and historically have milked many species. As far as the sense of drinking the milk of another animal goes, about 35% of humans produce lactase, the enzyme needed to break down lactose into galactose and glucose, beyond weaning into adulthood. Raw milk still contains lactase, which is destroyed by pasteurization. "Factory" milk along with other processed food with it's compromised nutrition, fertilizers and pesticides is what causes health problems. Heart disease is caused by hydrogenated oils (margarine) and homogenized dairy, not saturated fats, which the body needs to process proteins. Too much protein without the necessary fats causes osteoporosis. Whole, raw milk and it's products have been consumed by humans for more than 9,000 years and provide excellent nutrition, including vitamins A, B6, Folic acid, B12 and natural D. Oof, it's late, am I rambling? 

But it doesn't follow, Zack, that we must therefore consume "whole, raw milk." Which means that your reasoning begs the question: How do you justify the "choice" to exploit nonhuman animals for milk? You are assuming its justifiability. But that isn't self-evident or common sensically true.  

Consumption of goat's milk isn't any different from consumption of cow's milk as far as ethics are concerned. Baby goat kids are byproducts who are killed the same as baby calves.

And as tempting as it is to get sucked into a debate with you about nutrition and health and about veganism's ability to provide all the necessary nutrients (god, I get tired of having to repeat that), I'm not going to. Ultimately, that's not what this post is about--it's about the ethical problems with dairy, and nothing you say changes those ethical problems.

Also, Zack, you should be aware that anytime you try to promote anything that exploits animals on this blog to the extent that you even link to a company profiting from that exploitation and encourage support of it, that part of your comment is going to be deleted. I also noticed that you've been trolling through the blog in the last day, adding similar comments to various old posts. That makes me question your motives for being here at all -- intentional borderline spamming in an attempt to annoy isn't a tactic I recommend if you want any of your comments or participation to be taken seriously.

It can certainly be a challenge to guage the proximity to a post's core and how a moderator will react when deep in the reading therof. If I felt closer to off-topicness I also had the consideration that good nutrition does have ethical concerns and my nutrition-related posts stand on solid ground.
Be aware that in some places parents are being arrested for feeding their children vegan diets! I don't agree with this but find out what's going on in your locality so this doesn't happen more often.
I would say I was wandering rather than trolling.
I am not an extremely frequest blog-poster as most of my discussions are in real life so If I swing by every so often and respond here and there at odd times-of-day it is a function of my available time. My writing wanders too. My original motivation in coming to the animal rights blog was more related to the treatment of the animal we raise for food,and raw milk as opposed to factory milk, not the position of most here that killing them is unethical, which is entirely subjective anyway and most of the arguments just seem go around and around. My intention is not to annoy but that seems to be a side-effect when discussing the topic. It also seems that *any* consumption of animal products in any form is branded "exploitation" by most here, which could also be considered deliberately annoying and inflammatory.
The discussion of ethics and animals certainly branches out to various related considerations, including the strict logic and structure of arguments it seems. If I post a link to a certain commercial dairy it's because of that particular dairy's practices. If I post to an old post I may not have noticed it's age, it's all fresh when in front of me.

I may also be having some connection or browser issues so please excuse the "censorship" comment if that makes it on, my response to Alex was the purpose of that post.

'nuf for now, cheers.

Zack,
If the argument that killing animals for food is wrong is "subjective," then isn't your implied argument that factory farming is problematic, even wrong perhaps, equally subjective and therefore why are you even here wasting time? 

Or are you assuming that your ethical positions -- anti-sexism, I would presume, for example -- are "objective," while those you disagree with -- anti-speciesism -- are merely "subjective"? If that's the case, then you ought to engage animal rights at the level of ethical principles prior to engaging in the details of the various wrongs (e.g., exploitation for food) that follow from some of our conclusions.  

If you understood the animal rights position Zack, it would be self-evident why unnecessarily killing (or making them suffer) nonhuman animals for food, "whole milk" even, is in fact wrong. 

I strongly disagree. Factory farming provides lower cost food to the marketplace which in turn allows for more people at lower income levels to eat more nutritious diets then they would be able to otherwise.

Mike,

There are roughly one billion - that's one thousand million - human animals currently living in abject poverty around our world. One manifestation of this is global malnutrition. Given the waste inherent in turning nonhuman animals into food, the exact reverse of what you are saying is true.

If we were to take the 10-15 pounds of plant protein, and roughly 100 gallons of water, that is required to produce one edible pound flesh protein (from a cow), and give this food directly to human animals, we could end global hunger many times over. Given that the American Dietetic Association (ADA) argues that veganism is healthy at all stages of the life cycle, it stands to reason that nutrition is not a problem.

Furthermore, consider the evidence of low-income nutritional options. Processed food, the lack of vegetables and fruits, etc. is the norm, objectively and empirically validated. We are not providing the majority of human animals sound nutritional options. Indeed, we have "diseases of affluence" that plague our nation. This is undeniable.

Mike:
If I buy a gallon of milk, each gram of protein costs more than two cents.  If I buy roasted soynut halves, each gram of protein costs 1.4 cents.

Shell, I'm glad that your family is on such a healthy, mostly compassionate diet, but I'm afraid that you're missing much of the point of this post and others like it: even very small farms separate mother and young and send most of the calves and kids to slaughter. Dairies, whether with cows or with goats, can't be profitable if they keep the young and let the young drink their mothers' milk for very long at all. See the "Your Dairy Dollars at Work" post linked to above in this post, for example. And on the goat side of it, for example, see this guest post: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/jeremy_and_lenny_rescued_from_death_at_a_small_local_dairy

uh
Veganism is not a "type of vegetarianism." Veganism is a reaction to the inadequacy of "vegetarianism." A "vegetarian" should only eat plants, if you take it to its logical conclusion, but that's not what happened. Vegetarians can contribute just as much to animal abuse as meat-eaters. Vegetarianism is about "no kill," not "no abuse." Logically, vegetarians should be vegans if they follow for ethical reasons.

As for organic dairy: http://www.vegansociety.com/animals/exploitation/dairy_farming.php

Hi, P.A. As I just noted in my response to Shell above, the issue of the calves is present in all dairies--small or big, organic or conventional. Cows produce milk for their babies, just as human mothers produce milk for their babies (i.e., only for their babies--not at all times), so in order for that milk to then be taken--stolen, if we're going to be honest about it--for human consumption and for the dairy to get enough milk from the cow to make money, the calves have to go away. And nearly all of these calves go straight to slaughter as newborns or are kept confined for a short time before also going to slaughter, to become "veal." Click on the hyperlink in "bellowing, mourning mother cows" in the last line of the original post if you want one witness's insight into how awful this repeated separation is for mother and young.

For humans to have milk, cows must be repeatedly impregnated and must have their calves taken away from them shortly after birth. And the calves must be killed. It's a harsh truth that most aren't aware of. But it is the truth. And the cows don't live a happy or natural, long life either. When they stop producing enough milk to be profitable for the dairy, they too are sent to the same terrible slaughter that cattle raised for their flesh (i.e., "beef") are sent to--and this happens years before their lives naturally would have ended.

I don't mean to nitpick definitions, but I define vegetarians as people who don't eat meat, not only as people who consume dairy but not meat (though this is another type of vegetarian).   Some vegans do define themselves as vegetarians and some don't, and I accept either way.   However, I'm not trying to start an argument about definitions.  I also recognize that there are vegans who wish to distance themselves from those who don't eat meat but still consume dairy, so they don't self-identify as vegetarians, and I respect this.

"To those who are vegan or vegetarian, it is a significant difference. "
I'm one of those peope you're referring to "who are vegetarian or vegan" and as a vegan, I have self-identified as a vegetarian, though I respect that some vegans don't also I identify as vegetarians. I feel that I should be able to decide for myself what label(s) to identify by, and I feel the same way for other vegans.  I'm familiar with the lifestyle having lived it, so I'm well aware that vegans don't eat or wear animal products. Yet, I also realize there's a difference between a vegan and a lacto-vegetarian or other types of vegetarians, so I'm not collapsing all vegetarians and vegans together.  I think I'm just defining vegetarianism more broadly than some people are. 

Wasn't that the point of my statement in the first place?  We each identify with the label that suits us because there is a difference in the mindset behind each name?

Bickering amongst veg*ns is pointless. 

Paul-
A-How about havinga conversation without mentioning Krishna every other sentense. IMO, most people I know would roll their eyes as I do every time they read your proselytizing no matter what religion you'd be blathering on about.

B-If you are incapable, you will continue to sound like a religious fanatic and give non-AR folks more fuel to call us extreme.

C-How hard is it to understand what I believe Stephanie has said a million freaking times to you--How you live and how you treat your cows is very very very very rare. You spend so much time defending your way that you continually derail the conversation that is supposed to be about the millions of cows who are terribly abused. That is what this is about. You are talking about a few cow that are used (KEY WORD-used) "humanely." She/AR is talking about millions who are abused. Get over yourself.

Believe it or not, Paul, I don't have time to sit and respond in great detail to every point in every one of your long, detailed comments. I barely have time to respond to any. And my patience is so thin right now that I can barely even write this response calmly.

Say and believe whatever the hell you want about my opinion of your religious beliefs--all I've said is that this conversation is not about your religious beliefs and that because so few people share your religious beliefs and lifestyle, there's no point in trying to convince them to treat cows a certain way based on your involved religious beliefs--beliefs they don't and likely won't ever share.

This is a simplification, and you know it: "If the average person were given a choice between treating cows compassionately and getting some milk, versus treating cows compassionately but not getting any milk, what do you think they would choose?" The "average person" can't get milk from cows treated "compassionately."

If the choice is between (1) a person just not consuming dairy, which we don't need, and (2) every person moving to the country, taking personal responsibility for a specific cow and her offspring for their entire natural lives, in appropriate natural surroundings, and providing all those animals' care for literally decades, regardless of whether the cow does or does not produce milk, don't you think it would just a bit easier and more practical for the average person to just not consume dairy?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Paul. Your way requires everyone to convert to your spiritual beliefs and live in a way that simply is not possible for most people to live. Veganism, however, is something that can be easily undertaken.

You keep talking about how easy it is to get milk "compassionately" from cows, and that's downright deceptive. It blows my mind that you can seriously come here and imply that all people who want to consume dairy can--or should--just get their own cow, find a pasture for that cow and all her potential offspring, and care for them all their entire lives, in exchange for the wee bit of milk she'll be able to provide them. People aren't going to do this. If it works for you, Paul, and the cows you care for are happy, great. But I'm through letting you come here and talk about your way as if it's a practical solution for humans' current demand for dairy.

When you do this, people coming to the thread who aren't clear on your philosophy or what exactly it is you do could easily assume you're defending and describing all the so-called humane and organic and "small" dairies out there, when we both know that's not the case.

Dairies selling milk for profit, even the "local" ones, even the very rare truly "small" ones, separate mother & young and kill calves. And when the cows stop producing enough milk, they kill the cows too, years before the cows' lives naturally would have ended. Period. And most cows don't even get this life. The vast majority live a life of extreme suffering in terrible conditions. And that's the point we're trying to get people to understand. But because you're so defensive of your own practices and so intent on proselytizing, you start these long arguments and confuse the issue with suggestions that people do something they can't actually do.

You can write about and defend your rare--and for most people, impossible--practice somewhere else. But here? Here it's not about you. It's about trying to stop the unnecessary, extreme suffering and death of millions of animals. And if you can't see that, if you continue, despite requests, to keep making these conversations about you, your religion, and your practice that cannot and will not replace current practices, you need to stop commenting.

I just lost my temper. Obviously. And for that I'm sorry--to Paul and to all the others who had to read that rant.

Before you correct me, Paul, I would like to point out that I may have misrepresented your suggestion. I think you have been suggesting not just that people live as you do, but also that people try getting their milk from people who live as you do. But even if so, I stand firmly by my statement that this isn't possible: what comparatively very little milk can be taken from a cow this way--even if we agreed that it's ethical to take it at all, which we don't--could never, ever supply people with dairy in the way and quantities that they wish to consume it. There is a reason that the dairy industry--from the biggest dairies to the smallest--kill the calves and, when the cows stop being profitable, kill the cows too (in addition to doing all sorts of other horrible things to them along the way): that's the only way to get (steal) enough milk from the cows to make money.

Your way, Paul, though it may work for you, and though I would never call you inhumane or uncaring, is not a practical solution for ending the suffering and exploitation of cows. It's not possible. Veganism is. People can much more easily choose to abstain from the cruelties of dairy altogether (for which, one more time, they have no nutritional need) than they can properly care for their own cow for decades until she dies from old age or find a needle-in-a-haystack Hare Krishna farm that, even then, won't be able to provide them with all the milk they want.

Paul, Alex responded to the various problems with assuming the necessity of "god" as one's foundation for ethical premises above.  

That's a very good question; thanks for asking.  If you live in a city there will probably be no option to buy dairy products from protected cows.  An alternative then is to buy the best (from the cow's perspective) that's available to you and offset your purchase by donating to a cow protection program.

....

Some of the folks doing this calculated a few years back that the cost to protect a cow for its natural life duration works out to about $12 per gallon of milk it produces.  Since then, the price of hay has about doubled, so the cost would be somewhat more, maybe $16-$20 per gallon I would guess.  


One cow protection program in Poland is desperately in need of funds due to a recent fire that destroyed the barn and living quarters of the cowherds.

....

Since offering milk to Krishna is part of the religious duties of Hare Krishna devotees, and many devotees live in cities, this is an option that is standard practice and highly recommended.  Although the Vedic scriptures indicate that with the offering Krishna removes any sinful reactions involved in the milk (or vegetable) production, the duty to protect cows none the less remains.  Due to the circumstances of our national economy, these programs need this kind of outside support.  

It may seem to some vegans that drinking milk from an unprotected cow implicates a person in the killing that takes place in conventional dairy operations, however the benefit of one person obstaining from milk is only theoretical.  A vegan cannot normally identify any specific animal who is saved from harm by his abstaining from milk.  On the other hand, a person who offsets his involvement in the dairy industry by donating to a cow protection can actually say that he is doing something tangible for cow protection.  Although I'm not personally familiar with the details of all the programs listed in that article, I know at least some of them (and possibly all) will give you the name of the cow you're sponsoring along with a photo and other background information.  These are people who really care about what they're doing.  I know that for sure.  To me that seems better than an individual abstaining from milk and hoping it makes a difference.

With the knowledge that anyone subscribed to this thread has already received Paul's comment with links to and information on programs advocating/condoning the purchase of conventional, cruel dairy as long as a donation is made to a cow protection program, including the person who asked Paul about it, I'm deleting the section of the comment promoting the sale of animal products. Paul, this is not personal. As you may have noticed elsewhere in this thread, I deleted someone else's promotion of & link to a business profiting from animal exploitation as well.

The idea that people can prop up the inherently cruel dairy industry by purchasing milk that requires the abuse and slaughter of calves and cows but then be absolved of contribution to that cruelty by simply donating money to Hare Krishna program is wildly offensive to me. That it's "highly recommended" as a humane practice is outrageous. My guess is that the calves dragged into the slaughterhouse while crying for their mothers and the mothers who suffer physical and emotional agony for years before meeting the same fate wouldn't agree that the person ordering their suffering and death made up for it by throwing some money to a religious group to maybe support the care for a different cow and calf.

It may be Paul's belief that he's "required" to present cows' milk to his deity as a part of his religious practice, but those who don't hold his religious beliefs have no reason to follow Paul's recommendation. That's like saying that if you feel compelled to beat your child or spouse, it's OK to go ahead and do it as long as you donate to a domestic violence shelter that's protecting other people's spouses and children.

And finally, the idea that someone who financially supports the exploitation, suffering, and killing of cows and calves by the dairy industry does more to help cows because of a donation to Hare Krishnas than people who refuse to participate in the cruel system and contribute to the demand for dairy in the first place is absurd. Utterly absurd.

Stephanie wrote, "And it most certainly is not my duty to allow people to not only encourage the purchase of products for which animals are exploited but even promote where people can get them." 



For the record, the ghee that the Gita-nagari farm is selling is from two cows that were purchased from a local dairy farm where the farmer thought these two heiffers were infertile and were therefore just waiting to go to the slaughterhouse.  Our temple president bought them just to prevent them from being slaughtered, and everyone was surprised when after they were bought it was discovered that both the cows were pregnant.  No one is getting rich off of this.  Actually the chief cowherd is a celibate monk who lives a very simple and austere life dedicated to God.  The money from the ghee sales helps to fund the cows' lifetime maintenance.  Other than these two, I would estimate there are about 20 other cows and oxen on this farm, none of whom are producing milk, and several of which are elderly.  This is not an animal exploitation enterprise, and I am extremely offended that Stephanie would characterize it as such.

Oh, from a celibate monk who worships god...I know someone who buys ghee from a fornicating monk who worships Spock, but your way is clearly better.

Again, what you describe is extremely rare. How much dairy and to how many people can this situation actually supply, Paul?  I'll answer for you-Not too much.

But since you're okay with people feeding their dairy need by supporting factory farms ("An alternative then is to buy the best (from the cow's perspective) that's available to you and offset your purchase by donating to a cow protection program."--because to most, that's all that is available), then I can't take you and your supposed concern for cows seriously. Because you essentially say, get your dairy from this very rare situation and if that's not possible, go ahead and support abuse and explotation, because, for fuck's sake, you can't be asked to go without dairy. The mythical god I worship says it's okay. 

Lastly, "from the cow's perspective," you're kidding, right?

Paul, I respect that the farm, president, and monk you refer to take loving care of the cows you mention, including elderly cows who aren't producing milk. It's wonderful that they're doing this.

But that doesn't make it OK for you (or them) to actively condone people's financial support of the abuse and slaughter of other cows as long as people also donate money to them. And that was my chief reason for being so blown away by your comment. Saying "give these people your money to help these couple cows, and we'll pat you on the head and tell you it's OK to fund the unspeakable suffering of countless other cows" is not part of a humane, compassionate philosophy. And yes, it promotes and condones exploitation.

I'm going to ask that *everyone,* including those who want to voice disagreement with Paul, please let this part of the thread die out. We're clearly not all going to agree.

Barn goddess-Not sure why that matters. It doesn't take knowledge of how a farm "works" to recognize abuse and cruelty and exploitation. But, I will speak for Stephanie here-Yes, she grew up in a rural area and many, if not most of her family was involved in farming....some possibly even in borderline factory farms.

I also grew up in a rural area and have family members who farm.

But again, I don't need to live in Africa to have an opinion on genocide, now do I?

Barn Goddess:
Good question. My husband's late stepfather was a farmer. I spent some time there (but that hardly qualifies me as an expert), and my daughters spent summers there. He produced soybeans. (In fact, he introduced me to soy back in the 1960s.)  He started the farm back after WWII.

He "always" had two dogs (different dogs of course throughout the years). He bought a horse, Jim, who lived there for a long time and a sow, Lou, who also lived there for several years. Neither Jim nor Lou seemed to have responsibilities. But his only product was soy, so this might not be the kind of farm you meant.

Barn Goddess:

Some of the most powerful advocates the animal rights movement has are former farmers and slaughterhouse workers. Between former farmers and slaughterhouse workers, other firsthand observations (including investigations and rescues), and what is simple fact acknowledged by animal ag itself, yes, what we know is actually what we know, not what we think or assume. If you want to learn more about just a few of these former farmers turned animal advocates, check out the "Farmed Animal Experts Speak Out" section of HumaneMyth.org. Three former farmers/ranchers (Harold Brown, Howard Lyman, and Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis) are featured there: http://humanemyth.org/

If people want to donate money to really help cows, they can donate to any one of many farm animal sanctuaries or animal rights organizations working tirelessly not only to care for individual animals but also to end the exploitaiton and killing of all the ones still stuck in the system. There's no reason to donate money to an organization that encourages people to also send their money to the cruel industry when there are other sanctuaries in desperate need of money who are doing both necessary things--rescuing, protecting, and providing lifelong care for all the cows they can and trying to stop their exploitation and suffering in the first place.

Just a few examples: Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary (www.peacefulprairie.org), Maple Farm Sanctuary (www.maplefarmsanctuary.org), Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary (www.animalsanctuary.org), and Kindred Spirits Sanctuary (www.kindredspiritssanctuary.org).

Thank you for posting those; I am new to this cause and was unaware of them.

It can be almost overwhelming for the average person to realize the impact we all have by the purchases we make.  If you are eating candy made by Hershey's, Mars, or Nestle, you may be contributing to human trafficking or slave labor.  Same with buying candy bars from those school fund raisers.

Everything we do has an impact on animal and human suffering.  I guess the key is to find a balance, educate ourselves, and live as cruelty-free life as possible.  If you live in a small rural (dairy) town, like I do, options are limited, unless you want to starve to death, or spend your entire paycheck on food.

It's hard to eat healthy, on a budget, and support free-trade, anti-trafficking, and cruelty-free products when the only place you have to shop is Fred Meyer unless you want to drive over 70 miles each way to shop.  That said, I think we all do the best we can, and cutting out dairy is a good start.