To Understand Animal Welfare Issues One Mustn’t be an Urbanite
by hailtothenihilist
I just read this comment on an article at The Land about live exports: “Perhaps Sylvia is a city dweller who never mixes withanyone (sic) who understands what is involved in agriculture or knows anything about live export”.
I’m sick to death of hearing this kind of folly from rural / agricultural Australia. I am quite sure there is no mutual exclusivity between urban Australia and animal welfare. The facts of the matter are quite plain–the animal welfare standards which we expect are not being satisfied in some instances abroad. This is not a matter that requires one to be of the land to acknowledge and appreciate. In fact, if one is invested in the land, their response is likely to be one that has their own interests in mind have elements of self-interest. I expect that.. (Well, it certainly seems to be the case, for “livelihood” seems to be one of the most bandied about terms in the debate.) I acknowledge that this is a big, mean issue where there is a lot–economically, socially and emotionally–at stake. However, rural Australia those guilty, most of which are of “rural Australia”, please don’t insult we who live in the city.
(Update: Please read the words of this, and any other, post I write carefully. Please tease out the premises, they will lead you to my conclusions. Read again, carefully. If you find any obvious mistakes, please, by all means, bring them to my attention via the comments. I will either explain them–if they are in fact not mistakes–or will happily correct myself. By stating “I’m sick to death of hearing this kind of folly from rural / agricultural Australia” I mean just that. I am sick of hearing something that a group of people are saying. I am not claiming everybody in that group says or thinks that. I am claiming that some have. I am claiming that as fact. I can, as there is evidence. And I am sick of hearing it. Again, fact. This is evidenced by the fact that I know I pretty well and am the only person capable of offering a fairly accurate verbal report on I‘s behalf.)
Hail To The Nihilist 
Firstly I agree with you that language excluding one party from understanding the other is never a productive exercise in bridge building. But I don’t see this as something exclusive to urban or regional citizens, rather simply a trait of a human in a frustrated condition, regardless of address. The implication that this condescension is exclusive to one group of people could be seen as simply more of the same, Paul. One party accusing the other of simply being “ignorant”, “insulting”, “myopic”……….. “unable to understand”.
Many people you’ve interacted with on twitter are actually “city dwellers” turned “rednecks”, “bumpkins”, “country folk” etc. but have simply never openly made a point of it, because there is no point. It reaps no reward. The same way all vegans should not be judged on the most vocal and offensive, those living in rural areas shouldn’t. Easy. Polarizing the argument is immature and quite frankly I find it tiresome and unproductive. I have strong views on what I find to be a healthy lifestyle as a small part of an enormous system but always shy from broad strokes of generalisation that aren’t simply scientific and self evident…. Or at least that’s what I strive for.
My second point would refer directly to the title of your piece. No, I don’t believe you have to be a farmer to understand animal welfare issues, in fact I think most producers would love populations outside regional areas to have a better understanding of the difficulties faced in raising livestock, I believe that’s what leads to comments such as the one cited in your post, whether it be the right thing for someone to say or not. But to elaborate on the issue I believe is truly the crux of your frustration I think a very important distinction must be made: the distinction between understanding the issue of animal welfare and understanding how to care for the welfare of an animal. It’s the latter that truly gets under the skin of seasoned stockmen and is sometimes wrongly transmitted or interpreted as the former.
I see you operate a cleaning business and can I say that’s also a role underestimated by many. I agreed to manage a cleaning business for my uncle while I had a semester off from study many years ago. However I balked at the offer when he informed me I would be operating the new business as well for the first two months. I told him we had the funds to hire cleaners immediately, I didn’t need to operate it. He said this was non-negotiable. I complied, and took the offer. I understood the issue of cleaning, things needed to be cleaned, so much was obvious, but failed to realise it was a task only sustainable through developing the appropriate skill set. Providing accurate quotes that were fair on my business and the client, proper use of PPE and chemicals, very slim margins for error re. time management, building a good rapport with clients etc.
The issue is these two different concepts aren’t separated enough in the fickle twitterverse of animal welfare discourse. I constantly see producers under attack by anonymous militant vegans and animal rights activists for not providing adequate care when the issue with live export was never with producers, rather abroad, as you stated. I grew up around cattle and sugar cane. I can tell you the issues, they are obvious, but the reasons those issues exist, the strategies currently in play to deal with them, the progress of developing strategies and the implementation of those strategies as a profession unfortunately are not my domain. I have not dedicated a career to them and I cannot say I understand them to their full effect. In such a case the best I can do is educate myself with quality information sources. One of the best resources I have in this regard is a producer or lettered professional studying the industry, they’ve had experience, they’re making a living from it (debatable for many) and in the case of dairy and meat production the welfare of their animal is actually paramount to maximising their financial sustainability. You simply cannot make a living from crappy meat from a stressed animal, that simple. The same applies for the land used to produce meat. Effective land management is how your “invested interest” is carried out, for the land, the animals and the producer in equal measure. They require each other to be equally healthy to thrive. So to say one has his/her own interests in mind when invested in the land is only one third of the picture. If producers had the selfish outlook you describe I’m sure they could find a better, more comfortable living than what they currently do. In fact many do move away from farming such as me. It’s evidenced in the staggeringly high average age of agriculturalists. Those who stay on truly do love what they do, love the animals they breed and this is a difficult concept for “moral vegans” (as Lierre Keith describes welfare motivated vegans/vegetarians) to grasp as it is completely at odds with their beliefs. To me it seems like an inconvenient truth to you that this is occurring every day. But it does, which tells me that your criticism of a “livelihood” defence of cruelty is indeed a valid one and not nearly as selfish as you perceive it to be.
You sign off your post with a declaration to rural Australia at large, a generalisation, a polarisation of two groups which in reality mean nothing in terms of our diverse society “don’t insult we who live in the city”. Are we going to “chicken and egg” the shit out of this issue to see who started insulting who first? Pointless, just more of the same low level discourse, regardless of self appointed affiliation. We should at least agree a higher standard than this should be the norm.
Thanks for the comment Russ.
A brief response. I said “I’m sick to death of hearing this kind of folly from rural / agricultural Australia”. This sentence–the conclusion of this whole piece–should be read for what it is. I am sick to death of hearing something that is being said by a certain group of people. I certainly don’t think they are the only group capable of saying something along these lines. Likewise, I don’t believe all producers feel this way.
Correction: Sentence at bottom of second last paragraph.
Should read: “which tells me that your criticism of a “livelihood” defence of cruelty is not a valid one and not nearly….”
I’m doing admin work simultaneously and there are rumours I’m only human. Shit happens.
Enjoy.
I think the term urbanite was used offensively, and agree it should not have been used. However, I do agree with the sentiment that people need to be far more informed of the food production process and, in this case, the industry and how it affects the cycle of both countries.
I think people should have the right to choose their philosophy in life and in food. I think animal activists are needed to hunt out the fringe elements that are failing to meet the humane standards. But animal welfare is not only the domain of vegans.
Every farmer and even butcher will tell you that this is not acceptable to stress animals out nor to mistreat them, not just because it is inhumane, but from a commercial level is unviable. Stressed animals release cortisol, which acidifies and darkens the meat. Dark, acidic meat loses moisture, which makes it dry, unpalatable and thus unsaleable.
The short version: Ignorance (not just of the vegan activists, but of the public itself) leads to conspiracies and wild accusations. Basically, a great deal of these campaigns are due to a failing to understand the food cycle and the drivers behind them.
Thanks for your comment zntrek.
I agree with a lot of your comment however pose this thought. Not all vegans consider welfare the baseline.
Whilst that may be true, if a discourse is to be had then a middle ground needs to be sought.
If one is to discuss the merits of a religious philosophy, it is best to not commence with a disapproval of their choice of worship practice or flat out tell them that living a good and just life is not the baseline.
To offer a true discourse on the subject requires an understanding of both sets of options, but views and experiences.
You assume that I don’t have this understanding, xntrek. Necessarily I do, for I have lived both options and possessed a variety of views and experiences.
I don’t support the middle ground on this issue I am afraid. I’ll leave that for others to do. Just as I don’t sought a middle ground on slavery, racism, sexism or homophobia. I am sure you will agree with me on these other issues, no? If so, why not others?
No problem, I accept the no “middle ground” assertion, However, the use of a circular argument in which the assumption of conclusion is included in the question so that it can’t be answered without appearing to be morally ambiguous, well, that’s hardly sporting and unbecoming of a philosophy major.
In much of your commentary and posting, you take the stand of a mind made up, a foregone conclusion presuming that the burden of proof lies not with yourself, the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. It is a stance you undertook with a comment on my own blog. So, I have issued you with a response and a challenge : http://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/why-its-ethical-to-eat-meat/#comment-51
Absolutely the burden rests on the claimant. In this scenario, the claimant is an individual that chooses to unquestionably adhere to a convention. That’s why I think “Is it ethical to eat meat?” is a very important question. However, the response I have heard incessantly is why should this question even be asked. Those that have never considered it are likely to feel this way.
Perhaps I have been unclear with my argument. I assume that people are aware of my position and how I came to it. To repeat it, in its entirely, in every discussion would be unnecessarily time consuming. Therefore, please don’t accept any pithy rendition of it that I post in these comments to be the extent of it. I suggest, instead, to read back over my blog–and comments that you may discover on other blogs–for the picture to become more complete. (Though, I don’t believe I have outlined it entirely in a post–it’s more a series of vignettes.) I understand your concern. I shall put some effort into clarifying my position over the next week. Time, chap. Time.
Gary Francione’s thesis is probably the nearest to mine. That’s not to say I agree with him entirely.
Thanks for posting everything.
I’m glad to hear that but, prima facie, your original piece draws very clear lines in the sand between rural and urban Australia. My contention is that the lines are not so black and white. Your language speaks for itself in that regard. Whether the intention was to generalize or not is irrelevant. It did and it’s an unproductive part of contentious debates which have tangible consequences to others. This debate is not an abstract exercise. Public opinion has been shown to elicit policy responses to industries and if it is to be yield positive results for animals such generilsations, from either party (pro or anti, not rural/urban) are unconstructive.
As I pointed out the difference between awareness of an issue in an industry by a member of the public and the experience and skill of those in industry are not the same. Given that the issues currently under scrutiny do not question the exemplary skill of Australian stockmen and stockwomen I tend to empathize with them when they are collaterally criticized by a misguided mber of the public. That said, the comment in question was not warranted.
You stated it definitely was something being said by a certain group of people; a generalization. I’m unsure what you’re experience with rural Australians is but I don’t find that statement well informed by referencing online comments. Even if you detect a pattern forming chances are its unlikely to be the consensus of the majority who incidentally don’t post anything online.
It is not a generalisation, Russ. The claim in question has been made. I linked to an example in the first sentence of the post. I am sure ten minutes on #agchatoz will find plenty more examples.
You’re very right about public opinion having a far reaching impact. I’m interested in these “tangible consequences” that you describe? I merely predict a cycle of discussion, most of which won’t dig in.
I think the intention of this post is quite clear and is evidenced by the language. It’s a rant about a phenomenon I have observed. It is centered around, in particular, a view that is exclusive in nature. A view that is possessed by some people. A view that is illustrated by the comment I quoted in the first sentence of this blog post. (“You’re from the city. You don’t understand.”)