So recently we heard from another local animal sanctuary. They said some of their members had come to them and were expressing outrage at our participating in the ASPCA Challenge when we have spoken out so vehemently against the ASPCA in the past.
Are we hypocrites for being willing to take the ASPCA’s money?
I don’t think so.
YES. We have GREAT issues with SOME of the things that the ASPCA has done – namely, or course, killing Oreo. However, we also strongly support many of their other programs and the progresses they have made in their behalf. Their low or no cost spay/neuter vans have been excellent in NYC – helping countless numbers of animals and helping to prevent more from coming into shelters. Their fighting against puppy mills has been well received and respected, and their pit bull awareness, pit bull programs, and trying to change the image of pits has been a great start in changing the public’s views on these great dogs. There are MANY things they do well and some they do terribly. We always speak out against the things we can’t tolerate and publicly insist that they fix.
The same with Best Friends. We were loud and obnoxious in our attack in regards to them not supporting Oreo’s Law – the number one no-kill sanctuary in the U.S not supporting it??? – and we will continue to be vocal and angry about this until they get the facts straight, stop sending out misleading and incorrect statements, and face the facts that they are WRONG about this issue.
But that DOESN’T mean we won’t work with them. Even after these arguments directed at them, we STILL did the Beagle Rescue with them and saved 120 beagles from a testing lab. We STILL talked to them about helping at Elmsford/Pets Alive Westchester, and if they asked we would CONTINUE to work with them if it meant saving lives.
We will not let politics get in the way of saving lives or helping animals that we have the power to help. But we will always speak out against them, or the ASPCA, or any other organization that we think are wrong. Always. But that doesn’t mean we won’t work with them.
I can even say that PETA, an organization that has completely lost their way and now is more murderer than savior, was actually a critical force in bringing to the public eye the abuses that animals suffer. It is thanks to them, back in the 70s and 80’s that I (and many other people) first learned about real animal issues. So while I can hate what they are doing NOW and the animals they are killing, I can strongly support the violations they uncover and respect how much they have done to get the public aware of the atrocities in our midst.
So people, is it hypocritical to participate in the ASPCA $100,000 Challenge? I do not think so. If their money will help us save more lives, then I am all in. I can certainly respect and appreciate the people that work there and ARE trying and DO make a difference for animals, every day. That get up every day and fight the good fight to change things for the better.
So yes, Pets Alive speaks out against things we see as failures or deviation from their missions statements, but that doesn’t mean we won’t help animals, work with these groups or put our differences aside if it means that we can save more lives.
And hey, there is still a chance that Best Friends, and the ASPCA will see the error of their ways, and support Oreo’s Law. That is really the only major issue we have with them, but again – that does NOT mean we wouldn’t step up to the plate and help if they asked us, nor do I expect them to not do the same if we asked them.
The animal welfare community is big enough where organizations like Pets Alive and the ASPCA can disagree on matters of philosophy and still shake hands and share resources and work together toward the same goals – to improve the lives of companion animals. No matter how heated the debate gets we know we are all on the same side.
So now on to the more controversial issue that we are faced with this month.
Should Pets Alive serve any animal products at our fundraisers or events?
This is an issue that we have talked about for many years here. As Pets Alive continues to grow larger, and be looked to more as a leader in the animal movement, it is an issue we need to face, discuss and make a judgment on.
You will not be surprised to learn that this issue is both controversial OUTSIDE Pets Alive, as well as internally. We all have very different opinions.
At Pets Alive our staff is made up of meat eaters, vegetarians and vegans. We have some that believe recycling is critical, leather wearing is unacceptable and of course, I think universal, is that fur is abominable. But yet we also have staff that feels their diet is their decision and should not be dictated. That they do their part for animals when and where they can, and that their diet is a personal choice.
I actually agree with both sides.
At every event we have, we make absolutely sure there is a vegetarian/vegan option. Is that enough? Should our events be entirely vegan?
Let’s play both sides of the argument.
If we decide that is so, then where should we stop?
Should we not allow anyone that wears leather to volunteer here? If you have leather shoes or a belt, should you be sent home?
Well, that sounds absurd, but what if you showed up to volunteer and were wearing a fur jacket? Is THAT the boundary then? Or is it the leather? What about products TESTED on animals? What about medical testing of drugs on animals?
What about our dogs and cats? Should we ONLY feed vegan diets to them? Is it hypocritical to feed them meat based diets as well?
There are so many issues out there, so many things to debate, and so many points to make. Do we fight them all? Do we take a stand on every one of them?
Or do we stick to our mission statement, help as many as we can and hope that the rest of you will do the same as you see fit and live your lives as best you can?
I honestly don’t know. We have talked about this a lot here. Everyone has a different opinion.
We all have eaten meat, do eat meat, or know people that eat meat. Are they horrible people? Do we have a right to dictate to them how they should live their lives? Or do we respect that they are here, doing their part in any way that they can – and be very happy that thy are?
One time in the past we were attacked by members of an animal rights list, in regards to this issue. Many said they would no longer support us if we continued along this path.
Every one that complained, I looked up in our database. There was not even a single one that had ever donated a dime here, or spent even a day volunteering here. So to me, they are discounted. I’m sorry, but they are. However, if you, our loyal readers and supporters feel differently then let us know. Are we making a mistake? Should we change this policy? We want to hear from you. We respect YOUR opinion. YOU are our life force and YOU are our supporters. We are here because of you and when YOU talk to us, we will listen.
We also don’t want to lose site of our mission statement and our goals. We can’t take on and tackle all the animal issues that exist out there. We do our best to tackle the ones we can.
We hope that those of you that are perhaps more enlightened in this area, will take the time to discuss and share why you feel the way you do with others at our events. Pets Alive certainly applauds those whose lifestyle does not include eating animals, but currently our policy is that we don’t feel that we have the right to tell people what to eat. For those who are vegetarians and vegans there will ALWAYS be appropriate food at all of our fundraisers.
We welcome you all. Vegans. Vegetarians. Meat eaters.
I’m not so sure you fur wearers would be well received though. 🙂
Oops – correct link for that Gary Francione video that is really cool:
http://vimeo.com/23001319
(the other link was a really great animal rescue chat/message board, Friends Not Food, where I had also posted the Francione video link. Anyone can join that group if you want to – it is for people who love all animals and want to learn how to help as many of them as possible! It was started by a really nice trucker and his wife who went vegan after coming to take tours and volunteer at Woodstock Sanctuary.)
Whoa, religious debate, NOT going there and not on point.
Linda, well said in comment number 41.
Jim, I recognize, respect, and agree with your point about so called “humane killing”. I am not talking about that. I am talking about humane killing that is actually humane. I don’t believe that is innately contradictory as you do. Case in point, almost everyone agrees that killing an animal that is suffering and can’t get well is humane. Obviously, that is NOT the same thing as killing for food, but you get my point. There ARE circumstances in which killing is humane. We disagree on what those circumstances are.
Robert, the EXACT point I would have made about humane killing.
Rebecca, thank you for remaining courteous and through love trying to enlighten me (I’d love having an actual conversation, I hate typing and I enjoy people who disagree with me intelligently. I can’t learn anything from people who think exactly the way I do). Also, thank you for recognizing that there are many ways in which we agree. I’ll give you one more. ONE meal shouldn’t and doesn’t make a significant difference to me. I said I’d be disappointed, not that I wouldn’t attend because of a meal.
However, I am not everybody and I don’t speak for everybody. And we are not discussing “one meal”. We are discussing a principle. Kerry asked “whether PA functions should be vegetarian and why”.
On to the actual topic. I reiterate that meat eaters vastly outnumber vegetarians and vegans put together. Veganism is NOT the “most inclusive”. Like it or not, fundraising is POLITICAL. I applaud Kerry’s integrity and do NOT even slightly suggest that her decisions are not principled. I KNOW that they are. I also know she’s an extremely intelligent savvy lady. It’s a simple point, really. It’s awfully hard to get money from people after you criticize them. And you can be as subtle as you want but some folks recognize criticism even when it is subtle.
Having vegan and vegetarian choices at functions is great. I’m all for that. Hell, have a booth and open a few eyes. But don’t shove it down people’s throats. Pardon the pun. Yes, people can support multiple causes but institutions dependent on charity cannot afford to stray very far in the political arena. And it IS political. The discussion we are currently having demonstrates this point perfectly. And it has the potential to be divisive. Again, this discussion proves that. I personally think not eating meat and eating meat are both moral valid choices.
Jim, I agree it CAN be a choice but I don’t think it always is. You can tell me veganism is cheap until you’re blue in the face. Cheap is not free and some people can only afford free. Forgive my presumption but I don’t think you are one of those folks. You sound too intelligent and too well educated. My brothers and I learned to hunt with a traditional bow and compound bow because we couldn’t afford the nickle (I’m guessing, I don’t actually remember) that a bullet cost. Arrows could be reused.
Before I get angry comments, I do not hunt, even though I was trained. But I do not condemn hunting. I also don’t condemn fishing but I don’t do that either. I don’t often eat meat. I wouldn’t eat meat at all if I had to kill it myself. I sometimes wonder if we hurt broccoli and are just too stupid to detect and know it. It’s ironic that I’m defending the meat eaters. I am not a representative sample. Additionally I said earlier that I would not debate the morality of eating meat because I thought both choices were valid but here I am. This side seemed to need help. But let’s keep in mind that morality is only tangentially relevant.
Vegans would like to make it the central issue but it isn’t. The issue is whether or not PA should go vegetarian at functions and why. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I understand correctly, vegans would like PA to step up and be a moral leader to save animals, all animals, and the natural extension of PA’s mission would be to embrace and endorse veganism. Following that reasoning, one could say that PA should start taking in orphan children. People are animals much as some like to say we are not. I am not being facetious, just making my point very clear with the extreme.
My point is this. PA has to work within the reality of our society. They can’t save all animals no matter how much they try. PA can’t bite off more than they can chew and still survive. Sorry about the repeated food related language. I must be getting hungry. People come to the fundraisers for a variety of reasons but most of those people eat meat. Alienating them is not an option. The best argument I’ve heard so far for going vegetarian or vegan at the events is the success of other organization’s vegetarian or vegan events. My response to that is that PA is not HSUS and may not have the same support base. What works for them may not work for us. People can be fickle.
I have to say this because I don’t think I’m getting through. Vegans (not all of you), I’m sorry but how can you not see that your very existence is a condemnation of eating meat. You may not be judgmental but you have judged, even if only for yourself. You have concluded that eating meat is wrong and cruel. Some meat eating people will feel judged and found unworthy. They will not feel welcome at events that reinforce that feeling. It concerns me that in attempting to save more animals PA could actually save less if they lose the support of the meat eating community.
Last, I don’t feel attacked in this discussion and I hope no one feels attacked by me. It is certainly not my intention.