Petland + Ohio Farm Bureau = Ignorance at it’s best
This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure policy.
By turning animal activism into a business we could possibly eliminate the double standard.
In this article
Petland founder and CEO, Ed Kunzleman, is fighting back at the Humane Society of the United States and he doesn’t have very nice things to say.
“Everyone assumes (HSUS) is something it really isn’t; they do more harm than good…” and “They are primarily concerned with perpetuating their own existence.”
Kunzleman believes that the HSUS uses its name to mislead people by letting them think that their goal is to help local animal shelters. He thinks that they are more concerned with lobbying goals in Washington.
First, I have to say that any organization that isn’t concerned with perpetuating their own existence is one that will accept extinction at some point of it’s career. Secondly, really? HSUS is only concerned with lobbying in Washington? Really?
According to a recent NPR article:
“…the HSUS set up a “foreclosure pets fund” that provides financial aid to pet owners who are facing foreclosure or eviction. To date, the society has distributed more than $100,000 to 57 organizations. Shelters and animal rescue clinics have used the grants — ranging from $500 to $2,000 — to set up pet food banks, to assist with the cost of temporary boarding and to help owners defray the costs of emergency medical care.
The Humane Society also maintains a Web site that encourages down-and-out people to hold on to their pets until the bitter end. It reminds folks that just because a family loses its home doesn’t mean that the family’s pet should be forced to lose both a home and a family.
The HSUS believes that this Kunzleman fellow is trying to get people’s attention from the fact that they allegedly sell puppy mill puppies. I agree.
But Kunzleman isn’t the only one yapping about the HSUS. The Ohio Farm Bureau is pretty “concerned” about them too. Joe Cornley, senior director of corporate communications, thinks that the HSUS is unfair because they ask that “farm animals to be treated as family pets and encourages the reduction of meat from the American diet.” Oh no! Not compassion! Joe goes on to say:
“They don’t have the recognition of how farmers treat their animals and why it’s different… You treat them both humanely, but being humane to a farm animal is different than the treatment of family pets. If you don’t want to eat milk or eggs or meat, that’s fine, you can live your life as you choose… Our concern is when they try to shove that lifestyle down our throats.”
He never did say why the treatment of farm animals is different. It apparently just is.
I find it to be a double standard that people who advocate for compassion (read: animal activists) are labeled as “extremists” and come across as “shoving a lifestyle down one’s throat”. But the dairy industry advertises in magazines, billboards, TV and creates catch phrases such as “got milk?”, along with a myriad of other tools used to promote dairy; that they are not labeled the same. It is considered “advertising”. Is it because the meat and dairy industry are considered a business? Possibly. If this was the case, Petland’s CEO would have nothing to say about HSUS having 30 million of it’s profits going towards payroll. By turning animal activism into a business we could possibly eliminate the double standard.
Regardless, animals are not commodities. They live, breathe and create life. They have agendas that, believe it or not, are their own. And, I’ll bet if you ask a cow, that agenda has nothing to do with producing babies and milk for humans. Humans have no ownership rights to all life on Earth. It’s just so unfortunate that we seem to think that we do.
You might also like
Leave a reply
HELLO! I'm KD Angle-Traegner.
Writer, activist, and founder of Four Urban Paws Sanctuary. I’m on a mission to help people live a vegan life. Read more about KD…
Petland + Ohio Farm Bureau = Ignorance at it’s best
This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure policy.
By turning animal activism into a business we could possibly eliminate the double standard.
In this article
Petland founder and CEO, Ed Kunzleman, is fighting back at the Humane Society of the United States and he doesn’t have very nice things to say.
“Everyone assumes (HSUS) is something it really isn’t; they do more harm than good…” and “They are primarily concerned with perpetuating their own existence.”
Kunzleman believes that the HSUS uses its name to mislead people by letting them think that their goal is to help local animal shelters. He thinks that they are more concerned with lobbying goals in Washington.
First, I have to say that any organization that isn’t concerned with perpetuating their own existence is one that will accept extinction at some point of it’s career. Secondly, really? HSUS is only concerned with lobbying in Washington? Really?
According to a recent NPR article:
“…the HSUS set up a “foreclosure pets fund” that provides financial aid to pet owners who are facing foreclosure or eviction. To date, the society has distributed more than $100,000 to 57 organizations. Shelters and animal rescue clinics have used the grants — ranging from $500 to $2,000 — to set up pet food banks, to assist with the cost of temporary boarding and to help owners defray the costs of emergency medical care.
The Humane Society also maintains a Web site that encourages down-and-out people to hold on to their pets until the bitter end. It reminds folks that just because a family loses its home doesn’t mean that the family’s pet should be forced to lose both a home and a family.
The HSUS believes that this Kunzleman fellow is trying to get people’s attention from the fact that they allegedly sell puppy mill puppies. I agree.
But Kunzleman isn’t the only one yapping about the HSUS. The Ohio Farm Bureau is pretty “concerned” about them too. Joe Cornley, senior director of corporate communications, thinks that the HSUS is unfair because they ask that “farm animals to be treated as family pets and encourages the reduction of meat from the American diet.” Oh no! Not compassion! Joe goes on to say:
“They don’t have the recognition of how farmers treat their animals and why it’s different… You treat them both humanely, but being humane to a farm animal is different than the treatment of family pets. If you don’t want to eat milk or eggs or meat, that’s fine, you can live your life as you choose… Our concern is when they try to shove that lifestyle down our throats.”
He never did say why the treatment of farm animals is different. It apparently just is.
I find it to be a double standard that people who advocate for compassion (read: animal activists) are labeled as “extremists” and come across as “shoving a lifestyle down one’s throat”. But the dairy industry advertises in magazines, billboards, TV and creates catch phrases such as “got milk?”, along with a myriad of other tools used to promote dairy; that they are not labeled the same. It is considered “advertising”. Is it because the meat and dairy industry are considered a business? Possibly. If this was the case, Petland’s CEO would have nothing to say about HSUS having 30 million of it’s profits going towards payroll. By turning animal activism into a business we could possibly eliminate the double standard.
Regardless, animals are not commodities. They live, breathe and create life. They have agendas that, believe it or not, are their own. And, I’ll bet if you ask a cow, that agenda has nothing to do with producing babies and milk for humans. Humans have no ownership rights to all life on Earth. It’s just so unfortunate that we seem to think that we do.
You might also like
Leave a reply
-
regarding extremism: to be or not be?
to be extreme is to be ignored?
to not be extreme is to be meaningless?
it seems difficult to strike the right balance. being vegan, is seen by many, to be extreme. to vegans themselves, being vegan is the least we can do.
-
Hm, this is an interesting posting, that underlines the disconnect between two viewpoints:
1) farm animals are commodities, and their advocates willfully muddle the distinction between our duties to companion animals vs. farm animals, and
2) farm animals are sentient creatures, and agricultural advocates promote an arbitrary double standard for our duties to pets vs. farm animals, to protect their financial interests.
I think it’s fair to say that farm animals are both commodities and sentient creatures in today’s world, even if many people believe one role is more relevant/important than the other.
Two social values are at stake: the financial well-being of the farm industry, and the physical well-being of farmed animals.
It makes sense that anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the relevance of both interests, will look like an “extremist” to the people whose concern they’re ignoring.
Since HSUS and the Ohio Farm Bureau are both paid to protect specific groups, it’s no surprise that neither one takes a balanced look at the issue.
It’s up to citizens, journalists, and scholars to do that!
-
Interesting argument in favor of animal advocacy organizations as businesses. The difference is the main goal of meat/dairy/egg industries is to sell their products (sentient creatures). Advocacy organizations, in theory, should mainly be concerned with ending the supply and demand for such commodities, not selling anything themselves. What’s depressing is that you’re right — Kunzleman and Cornley are ridiculous in their criticisms of the HSUS, because they are biased toward animal exploitation and see organizations such as the HSUS as threatening.
However, in reality because the HSUS is concerned first and foremost with its own existence (same with PETA) it really does not go far enough to actually change the system. This goes into the argument of new welfarist v. abolitionist thought, but by relying on donations from meat eaters, HSUS and PETA can’t take a genuine stand in favor of veganism, and instead support meaningless measures such as Prop 2, with Wayne Pacelle himself going on Oprah and saying the question at hand isn’t even about eating animals. On the pet welfare front, HSUS and PETA do much better. But farm animals — they really have no place to talk. Again, sad that their weak stance is still considered extremist by people like Cornley.
HELLO! I'm KD Angle-Traegner.
Writer, activist, and founder of Four Urban Paws Sanctuary. I’m on a mission to help people live a vegan life. Read more about KD…
regarding extremism: to be or not be?
to be extreme is to be ignored?
to not be extreme is to be meaningless?
it seems difficult to strike the right balance. being vegan, is seen by many, to be extreme. to vegans themselves, being vegan is the least we can do.
Hm, this is an interesting posting, that underlines the disconnect between two viewpoints:
1) farm animals are commodities, and their advocates willfully muddle the distinction between our duties to companion animals vs. farm animals, and
2) farm animals are sentient creatures, and agricultural advocates promote an arbitrary double standard for our duties to pets vs. farm animals, to protect their financial interests.
I think it’s fair to say that farm animals are both commodities and sentient creatures in today’s world, even if many people believe one role is more relevant/important than the other.
Two social values are at stake: the financial well-being of the farm industry, and the physical well-being of farmed animals.
It makes sense that anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the relevance of both interests, will look like an “extremist” to the people whose concern they’re ignoring.
Since HSUS and the Ohio Farm Bureau are both paid to protect specific groups, it’s no surprise that neither one takes a balanced look at the issue.
It’s up to citizens, journalists, and scholars to do that!
Interesting argument in favor of animal advocacy organizations as businesses. The difference is the main goal of meat/dairy/egg industries is to sell their products (sentient creatures). Advocacy organizations, in theory, should mainly be concerned with ending the supply and demand for such commodities, not selling anything themselves. What’s depressing is that you’re right — Kunzleman and Cornley are ridiculous in their criticisms of the HSUS, because they are biased toward animal exploitation and see organizations such as the HSUS as threatening.
However, in reality because the HSUS is concerned first and foremost with its own existence (same with PETA) it really does not go far enough to actually change the system. This goes into the argument of new welfarist v. abolitionist thought, but by relying on donations from meat eaters, HSUS and PETA can’t take a genuine stand in favor of veganism, and instead support meaningless measures such as Prop 2, with Wayne Pacelle himself going on Oprah and saying the question at hand isn’t even about eating animals. On the pet welfare front, HSUS and PETA do much better. But farm animals — they really have no place to talk. Again, sad that their weak stance is still considered extremist by people like Cornley.