Why You Cant Always Believe What You Read
Today while reading another Monroenews.com blog, I was reminded of the fact that you can’t always believe what people say in the media. Take for instance, medical studies. Depending on who is funding the research, the conclusions can range all the way from the drug is a miracle pill, to it doesnt really work for the condition it was developed for and it has nasty side effects. It all depends on the person doing the research, the people intrepreting the numbers, and the reporter who is trying to make the news fit an agenda.
Such is the case in the animal welfare debate. Because most people do not have a animal behavior background, trying to rationally access animal pain and distress can be difficult. Then you have all the propaganda out there trying to convince you that either the problem is wide spread and rampant (like monkeys being tortured in labs), to professionals who will tell you that monkeys are NEVER abused in labs.
Want the real truth? Its somewhere in the middle. That is what makes animal welfare zealots so valuable to us as a society. They bring awareness to issues and if there is a problem, it gets the oversight of many, many people to bring it back to acceptable measures.
And unfortunately, you can not always trust veterinarians either. While doing animal welfare inspections for the USDA I had to cite many of them for doing research without the mandated practice of providing pain relief to their subjects. Even though it was required, and it was available, many did not believe it was beneficial to the animal. Since when is pain relief ever NOT beneficial??
So yes, Virgina, lots of people say lots of things. Most of it needs to be sifted through–throw out the stuff that just doesnt make any sense, and keep the stuff that rings true to your beliefs.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:01 am
That is what makes animal welfare zealots so valuable to us as a society. They bring awareness to issues and if there is a problem, it gets the oversight of many, many people to bring it back to acceptable measures.
I honestly wish this were true. But as these groups would rather promote both misinformation and violence, not having “acceptable measures” of their own, I for one will never listen to them. Yes, violence. From The Press Democrat:
“The vandalism, which brought international attention to Sonoma and sent a shockwave through the area’s elite culinary world, is the latest in a series of attacks involving animal rights groups in Sonoma County dating to the late 1990s that have caused upwards of $1 million in damage. These attacks include arson fires at a Santa Rosa chicken processing plant, a meatpacking plant and an egg farm in Petaluma, as well as a burglary at the Farm Bureau. No one has ever been arrested for these crimes, and authorities say they doubt they will find those responsible for recent attacks.”
This is the kind of thing that rings true to me … the far too many reasons why I will never trust any so-called “animal rights activist”.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:32 am
I never said I would trust animal rights activists. Nor did I say that I endorse any violence that they use to achieve their goals. Why, they even hurt the animals they are out to “save” at times–Now how can anybody rationalize that?
What I did say was that I value their impact on the animal welfare issue. Because of them we have come a long way in improving the life of animals, both on the farm and in the labs.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:36 am
“I never said I would trust animal rights activists.”
Ah, that’s right, you didn’t.
As to their impact, I still have a problem with that. There’s so much negative press about the things they do people tend to ignore them. At least, I know I do because of it. Of course, in my mind, PETA is the worst offender of all as they seem to jump on every conceivable event. When the petting zoo in Temperance lost their barn last year, the group jumped on the USDA to do more. As if the Evola family and the animals themselves hadn’t suffered enough.
That’s exactly the kind of nonsense that turns me, and possibly others, off from these groups.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I think groups like PETA are almost forced to be extreme. Would people know PETA or Greenpeace if they weren’t so extreme?
April 5th, 2007 at 3:55 am
That is the point. The extreme people bring the issues to the fore front and then the rest of the community will finally pay attention and hopefully do something– if they think action is necessary. If not, they ignore it and go back to watching their lives.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:04 am
And don’t get me started about the government and especially the USDA! If I could tell you the things I know, I would be fired from my job immediately. They do things because of politics–not what is good for the public, animals or society. Only what makes the president and his cronies happy. My friends and relatives work in other areas of the gov’t and they are saying the same things–FDA, DHS, CBP, ATF all are agencies working “at the pleasure” of the president, and not doing what is best for the country or the people in it. It is a disgrace.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:32 am
However, this is part of why Bourdain calls them “food terrorists”. This is exactly how a terrorist does his “job” as well. The ones who resort to violence only make the rest look bad.
(And with that, Dave finally crawls down off his soap box and heads for the kitchen …)