Backyard rescue hens

[brimstoneSalad]

We need to remove this idea that what comes out of animals body is food and ours to take or give away. If the egg was not viable, I would leave it with the hen and if abandoned, i would bury it. We need to encourage people to not think of eggs as food, because the more we enforce it, the more we encourage egg consumption as a whole.

I have often heard this claim. And it's plausible. However, it is still a testable empirical claim- and I've yet to see evidence to support it (which doesn't mean there isn't evidence).
If there's hard evidence that this happens, and the harm is more than the reduction in harm, then I'm 100% behind you.
Without evidence, I don't feel very comfortable making that argument, though.

If/when I gave away eggs to neighbors to displace other factory farmed eggs, I would explain the situation. I would tell them about factory farming, and how it's wrong, and how these eggs are displacing that source. I would make sure they know that it's not necessary to eat eggs nutritionally, and that cruelty free farming is not sustainable- that I was paying out of pocket to keep these hens healthy and would not kill them when they stop laying.

I don't mind too much if people think of other humans as food, as long as we aren't murdering each other for it.
There were cultures that ate their dead- it was consensual, and they didn't kill each other for it (it was actually a religious thing). Aside from the prion disease that they caught from it that nearly killed their entire tribe off, there wasn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

I don't yet believe that one mindset (seeing something as possible food) necessarily connects to the other (feeling entitled to murder for it).

you would be wrong. Eating eggs is not vegan, regardless of the source.

That may be. I wouldn't do it. But I wouldn't feel comfortable calling somebody else out for doing it.
If somebody identifies as vegan, I'm disinclined to start a fight and tell them they aren't because they're eating backyard hen eggs.

Seems pretty clear cut. Would you consider someone who has a rescued cow, and drinks the cows milk, vegan? What about if you had a rescued pig that died naturally and you ate their body? Still vegan? I don't think so.

It's freegan or meegan; and that may be a term which needs to come into wider use to describe this kind of behavior.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, not sure I would ask money for the eggs... And I would certainly not sell the animals themselves. Who said I would?

Of course, selling animals is wrong- if you have animals you can't take care of, you have to find the best home possible for them, and selling them limits your options.

Making a profit from the eggs would be pretty dubious.

But selling them for less than eggs at the grocery store cost makes sense for a two reasons (as I see it):

1. You discourage the recipient from wasting. If you give them away, the neighbor may take them to be polite despite not wanting them, and then just throw them away. If you sell them, you give the the opportunity to say no, and the investment discourages waste.

2. The money goes into a jar to support the hens- veterinary costs may be modest while they are young, but when they get older those costs can climb dramatically. Almost all animals have to be put to sleep when the owners can no longer afford medical costs, to prevent suffering. The money in the jar delays this, and provides the hen with better quality of life in the long run.


We are naturally responsible for the care of rescue hens, but at some point that responsibility is limited by our ability to do so. Subsidizing this effort is in the hens' best interests.

Just a thought.

If you're acquiring and selling products that were made by child slave labour, you would directly support child slave labour. The situation we are talking about—backyard rescued hens laying eggs without force or enslavement—is totally different.

Yes.

It probably is not vegan because veganism is more than just morality. You can still call yourself a 'moral vegan' as far I'm concerned. But like I said; don't care about the label.

I like the freegan/meegan terms, although they are still kind of in flux and the definitions are not very clear yet.

[brimstoneSalad]

Not everyone is against human slavery, so should we find ways to make slavery better for those people who do not want to change? I don't think its our job as vegans to find better ways for people to do things we don't fundamentally agree with.

That's actually a very good question. I believe new-welfare is the way to go, and I think there are some good arguments to be made that slavery could have been abolished faster, and with less bloodshed, if it was progressively reformed until being phased out.

We can't go back in time and try it again, of course, so it's hard to really know that. But maybe this could be it's own thread?

It's an interesting topic.

Sending mixed messages is a big problem in the animal rights movement, and it is one reason why our population isn't growing faster.

And that's another interesting topic.

I don't think that's why veganism isn't catching on faster- but rather, I think the variety of opinions in the vegan community, and variety of approaches, is why veganism is becoming more popular right now. The less dogmatic it appears, the more it can catch on.

Of course, there's also a trade-off there in principle: diluting something makes it easier to accept, but it also lessens its impact.

As an important philosophical question: If something is diluted by 50%, but it spreads to twice the audience, does it not do the same good?
What if dilution by only 10% spread it to ten times the audience? Is that not better?


Christianity became nothing more than a word very quickly- and consequentially it has taken over most of the Western world, precisely because it is so accommodating and unprincipled (beyond it's absurd but effortless premise).

We definitely don't want to see veganism go that way, since it would lose all moral utility. But is there a middle ground?

This could easily be a topic of its own too. It's an interesting subject.

If it doesn't function in that capacity, it should not be utilized for any other purpose.

No other purpose? How about for making paint?
Or something else that nobody knows about, and that doesn't encourage or perpetuate animal exploitation elsewhere.

- there would not inherently be anything wrong with it, except for the following issues:
If you sell the dead pig or eating it in front of others, you are encouraging the notion that dead animals are food stuff.

That's much more reasonable- and it all has to do with public perception.

While I think that's an empirical claim (one I'm skeptical of until I have hard evidence to back it up), I hope we can at least agree that making use of something without anybody's knowledge is not inherently wrong.

When we look at an animal and see a meal, we start to objectify the animal as a thing and not as an individual with individual wants and needs.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's the same argument radical feminists make against any and all sexuality.
We could look at other humans and see a potential meal, without murdering them for it. Just as we can be attracted to women as men without raping them or failing to see them as individuals with wants and needs.

I don't disagree that it's distasteful- but I don't see that argument as necessarily valid.

What should a non-vegan think if he/she saw a vegan eat a pig after saying that pigs are not food stuff and should not be used or killed?

I agree that would tend to confuse people.
They'd think the vegan was a hypocrite, and it would discredit veganism in their eyes (despite being a logical fallacy).

I see this as an argument to be very careful about any use or endorsement of use of animal products.
And it may be true that the average person is just not intelligent enough to understand the difference.

If empirical evidence proves that people just don't understand the difference between preventing waste and sustained animal cruelty, then that argument holds water.
But as an empirical claim, I don't feel comfortable making it until I have more solid evidence.

It's a good theory, but it needs support.

Im against dog fighting, and won't engage in it directly, and I would refuse to give a dog I found to someone who I suspected would use him in such a way. If you were to give the dog up to a dog fighting owner, you would be in some way accepting their use/treatment of the dog, even if you yourself did not actively participate in the event.

That doesn't really compare.

There's nothing that anybody could do to an unfertilized egg that would be morally harmful. You're not giving away your rescue chicken, and you're not giving up chicks.

The issue is one of educating the carnists, and preventing them from getting confused about what constitutes legitimately avoiding waste, and what perpetuates animal cruelty.
We know the difference- but they probably do not. If we can teach them the difference, then there should be nothing wrong with it.

- im not suggesting they are equal, but rather there are common threads that can be linked. As long as we think of animals as production units, or food stuff, or ours to use as we see fit, the longer we will be entrenching these notions and working counter to a world were animal's right to life and freedom from human interference are considered important.

This goes back to the new welfare argument. Due to human psychology, I suspect things might work better (and faster) in steps.

There is the argument that if we make animal agriculture "better" people will think it's good enough, and not driven by the cruelty of current practices, will be less likely to go vegan.
Is there any evidence we can provide for that, or is that just an assumption?
Should we really be against all animal welfare, because it's not animal liberation?

[Volenta]

Im unfamiliar if cows actually need to be milked otherwise they can suffer pain. I would be in favour of stopping the rescued cow from having further children, as we need to curb domestication not continue its growth. Cows milk is calf food. If it doesn't function in that capacity, it should not be utilized for any other purpose.

I know that human womens have this problem. If it's the case with humans, I think it would certainly be the case with cows (because of domestication). More information on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_engorgement

As for the other points you made: I'm pretty much on the same wavelength as brimstoneSalad. So I'm not going to repeat what he* said.

*it is he, right?

[BarkingCrow]

I don't understand the concern with "backyard chickens". I can appreciate the concerns when animals are kept in substandard conditions, fed crappy, antibiotic laced food and serve no purpose but to be food on someone's table, but none of this applies with any of the people that I know who keep 'backyard chickens'. Housing is provided for protection from predators and security, not to enslave them. The members of my family who keep hens have had them wander off; that is their prerogative. They are feed a much better diet than they would ever have in the wild, not some cheap "Ole Roy" type food made from by-products of other products. They are part of the eco-system in the backyard - they eat a ton of bugs (something they would do if they were in the wild) and provide manure that is composted and used to fertilize the veggie and flower beds. In every instance with my family and friends, the chickens are indeed pets. They will never be killed, are given medicine when they get sick, and are part of the family (yes, the kids have brought them into the house). We provide a safe, healthy and happy lifestyle, and in turn they help us grow better, more productive veggies and they provide us eggs. The veggies and eggs are for personal use only - they aren't sold or given way.

Not doing something in an effort to encourage others to also not do it would be one of the last reasons I would ever stop doing something. Am I concerned about global warming? Sure. But I'm not going to sell my car and only ride a bicycle in the hope that my actions will encourage others to dump their car too. I'm going to reduce my footprint by installing solar panels, re-using gray water, growing my own food via organic and responsible methods, etc.

Do what you feel is best for you and stop worrying about what others think.

BC

[brimstoneSalad]

Not doing something in an effort to encourage others to also not do it would be one of the last reasons I would ever stop doing something.[...]
Do what you feel is best for you and stop worrying about what others think.

Do you have kids?

If you did/do, imagine trying to explain to them that it's harmful to smoke, and then they see you smoking. While your message is still true, it could undermine the message and lead to them taking it less seriously, increasing the chances of them becoming smokers.

Quite a few people quit doing things in order to be good inspirations to others, particularly their children (but also sometimes friends and family). I don't think it's a bad reason at all, but among the most noble.

Peers aren't your children, of course, but I think you may underestimate the effect your actions have on others, in terms of inspiring them, or encouraging them to bad behavior.
No man is an island; we live in a complex and evolving social environment that influences our actions in terms of peer pressure with acceptance and censure, and the function of social currencies.

The idea is somewhat similar to the broken windows theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Sometimes seemingly small things may have a disproportionate social influence.
Feminists tend to bring up the same issues with regard to the way we use certain words.

Is it at least clear that these things do have an effect, it's just not clear how significant the effect is.
Is it important for us to focus on subtle social perceptions? OR is the effect so small, that bothering about it is wasting our time?

In the end, it's an empirical question.

I think the effect is probably pretty small with regard to something like eating eggs. But it is worth considering. I wouldn't want to entirely dismiss the possibility.

[BarkingCrow]

Not doing something in an effort to encourage others to also not do it would be one of the last reasons I would ever stop doing something.[...]
Do what you feel is best for you and stop worrying about what others think.

Do you have kids?

If you did/do, imagine trying to explain to them that it's harmful to smoke, and then they see you smoking. While your message is still true, it could undermine the message and lead to them taking it less seriously, increasing the chances of them becoming smokers.

Quite a few people quit doing things in order to be good inspirations to others, particularly their children (but also sometimes friends and family). I don't think it's a bad reason at all, but among the most noble.

Peers aren't your children, of course, but I think you may underestimate the effect your actions have on others, in terms of inspiring them, or encouraging them to bad behavior.
No man is an island; we live in a complex and evolving social environment that influences our actions in terms of peer pressure with acceptance and censure, and the function of social currencies.

The idea is somewhat similar to the broken windows theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Sometimes seemingly small things may have a disproportionate social influence.
Feminists tend to bring up the same issues with regard to the way we use certain words.

Is it at least clear that these things do have an effect, it's just not clear how significant the effect is.
Is it important for us to focus on subtle social perceptions? OR is the effect so small, that bothering about it is wasting our time?

In the end, it's an empirical question.

I think the effect is probably pretty small with regard to something like eating eggs. But it is worth considering. I wouldn't want to entirely dismiss the possibility.

No, I don't have kids. I understand your point about our influence, especially with the people close to us (those we live with, work with, etc.). I was more referring to the idea that someone can't call themselves "vegan" because they eat eggs. Well, if those hens are homegrown, responsibly cared for and well treated pets that are never harmed and have a much better life than they would in the wild... why does it matter?

Influence goes both ways. I may be an egg eating vegan, but in doing so I'm showing others how to be a responsible chicken owner. It would be the same with honey and goats milk. I know people who keep bees on their property for the pollination benefits to their crops. They take very good care of the hives - the queen is not trapped, they don't use smoke, etc. While they do use the honey, the main goal of taking the honey/combs is to keep the bees from swarming and relocating. With the goats, they sheer them each year for the fleece. They roam freely on several acres, have an excellent diet, and milk is only taken while they are nursing a kid. They even have a barn and a herding dog that watches out for them. If I'm not hurting/harming them and am actually providing a better life than the animal would have in the wild, why is it a problem for them to provide me with something? Is it not an even trade?

BC

[brimstoneSalad]

I was more referring to the idea that someone can't call themselves "vegan" because they eat eggs. Well, if those hens are homegrown, responsibly cared for and well treated pets that are never harmed and have a much better life than they would in the wild... why does it matter?

Oh, I see.
Yes, I would not call that person not vegan. I would also object to the vegan police objecting to that.
With one caveat...

If I'm not hurting/harming them and am actually providing a better life than the animal would have in the wild, why is it a problem for them to provide me with something? Is it not an even trade?

Again, I agree. There's no problem with this. This used to be how it was in parts of India, before the practice of selling old cows for death marches across the border became common (in my understanding).

However, one caveat: Other people can be easily confused, and that can cause major inconvenience for others. So it's very important to make sure people understand the situation if they witness these actions.
For example, how most people in the South now think that vegetarians eat chicken and fish, because a few people went around claiming to be vegetarian but ate chicken and fish all the time.

If somebody saw a vegan eating an egg from a backyard hen, they might think "Oh, eggs are vegan." and then proceed to buy commercially produced eggs and bring them to a vegan potluck, or put them in foods they give to their vegan friends, promising those foods are vegan (because they don't know the difference between one egg and another).

So, as to the caveat: I wouldn't call those people not vegan. BUT it would tend to confuse others, so I think it either needs to be done in private, or very well explained if somebody who knows the person is vegan sees it happen (along with the explanation that people shouldn't assume a vegan feels comfortable with eating backyard hen eggs -- a lot of us would also rather not eat eggs for health reasons [particularly egg yolks]).

Only food that's really purely plant based should be labeled vegan, so anybody who is vegan in any respect can feel comfortable eating it. But each individual who may choose to identify with the ethical and potentially health sides as well can make his or her own personal choices where there's no cruelty and/or death involved.

Rope grown oysters, no kill backyard hen eggs, no kill pet goat's surplus milk, very carefully and sustainably harvested honey, etc.

These shouldn't be generally labeled as vegan, since that implies all vegans would be comfortable eating them, but the vegan police also shouldn't be prejudiced against those who choose to eat them.

[Viking Redbeard]

There are a few points here.

First of all, I have no problem with keeping rescue hens in the garden to roam around and do what they will. However, I don't think it's possible to eat animal products and call yourself a vegan. I don't want to enter a debate about semantics here, but it seems to me that someone who consumes and condones the consumption of animal products is not a vegan.

The second point is that chickens very often eat their own eggs to replenish lost nutrients, so we're not really doing them a favour by taking their eggs away from them. While not immoral in itself, I consider the act a bit of a dick move, to say the least.

Much more importantly, I don't think it's ethical to condone the consumption of animal products. I want to draw a distinction between what goes on in philosophical conversations like these and what goes on in real life; and, yes, it may be that it is not unethical to eat the eggs of rescued hens, and it may be that it's not unethical to find a child's corpse in a ditch and decide to cook it up and eat it. However, I don't think any of us would want to live in a world in which people habitually eat child flesh. I think this ought to be discouraged at every turn. The problem comes down to the ins and outs of supply and demand. If there is a large enough demand for child flesh or avian menses, it's simply not rational to suppose that we can go about supplying that demand in an ethical way. Most people will not keep rescued hens in their gardens; most will buy their eggs from a supplier; others will purchase hens from the chicken rape gulags we call hatcheries and help prop up the industry in that way. The fact that we're even talking about 'rescued hens' shows that the demand for eggs in itself has created a situation in which millions of birds badly need to be rescued. This ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that the root of the problem is egg desire in the human animal.

On the topic of animal welfare, I think it's safe to say that most people in society are in fact concerned about animals, and the result of the likes of PETA and Peter Singer and the RSPCA slapping their seal of approval on the body parts and secretions of exploited animals is that many people not only think of animal exploitation as perfectly moral, but now believe it's more moral than not exploiting them at all. They think that they can be a member of the animal rights movement - by consuming animal products!

What I suggest is that we, as vegans, need to focus our energies not on finding moral loopholes to allow people to continue indulging their desire for menses and milk and such like and helping them to feel okay about it, but on breaking society out of the idea that there's no harm per se in keeping animals in order to consume what comes out of their bodies. We should make very very clear that the things that come out of animals' bodies are not things for us to eat, and that we have a moral duty to keep our dirty mitts off their breasts and reproductive systems.

The animal welfare movement has been going a long time now, and as I see it, the only thing it's succeeded in doing is convincing people that the animals they exploited were treated very nicely, and that their treatment is therefore not morally problematic. This is the problem.

[brimstoneSalad]

However, I don't think it's possible to eat animal products and call yourself a vegan.

What are you talking about? People do it all the time. You can worship Lucifer and call yourself a Christian too.

I don't want to enter a debate about semantics here, but it seems to me that someone who consumes and condones the consumption of animal products is not a vegan.

But... you just made a very strong semantic claim.

Veganism can be defined broadly in two ways (and anything in-between, or a combination of the two).

The arbitrary dogma of eating any and all non-animal products regardless of how harmful certain plant products may be to the world and animals *cough*palm oil*cough*, or how potentially beneficial and non-harmful some animal products may be *cough*rope grown oysters*cough*.
OR:
Abstaining, for ethical reasons, from any products that actually result in harm by violation of the wills of sentient beings.

I'm not keen on being the vegan police (I find that's more divisive than useful), so as long as people are sticking to at least one of those I would feel uncomfortable telling them they aren't vegan.
But if we want to go around and tell other people what they can or can not call themselves, we need to be much more specific and unanimous in our understanding of the definition of the word.

I wouldn't even mind legitimate freegans thinking of freeganism as a subtype of veganism. It's not really my battle.

More ideally, people should use or coin specific words to describe what they're doing to avoid confusion, as freegans do. Beegan, Bivalvegan/Ostrovegan, or just more generally Sentientist, or append an addition of what they eat to the word.

But that's more my preference for clear and unambiguous communication coming through. What is semantically correct is what is the most useful to communication.

The second point is that chickens very often eat their own eggs to replenish lost nutrients, so we're not really doing them a favour by taking their eggs away from them. While not immoral in itself, I consider the act a bit of a dick move, to say the least.

I don't know about that; eggs are really unhealthy, and I wouldn't expect them to be much better for chickens than they are for us. They need to eat the shells to replenish calcium, but there's no reason the shells couldn't be given back. In terms of other nutrients, it's probably better for the chickens to just eat more bugs instead.

Now, some chickens can be broody, and be offended by people taking their eggs. In these cases, I would say it's wrong because the chicken has developed a maternal attachment to the eggs. But for non-broody hens, I don't see anything wrong with it if they just leave the eggs alone.

Much more importantly, I don't think it's ethical to condone the consumption of animal products.

I think the more important point is being consistent and intellectually honest. Why would it be unethical to condone something if that thing is harmless?

yes, it may be that it is not unethical to eat the eggs of rescued hens, and it may be that it's not unethical to find a child's corpse in a ditch and decide to cook it up and eat it.

In both cases, this sounds more like an issue of "eew gross". I don't see a big difference here.

However, I don't think any of us would want to live in a world in which people habitually eat child flesh. I think this ought to be discouraged at every turn.

Why? If that's what they're into, and they're not hurting anybody. I don't have a big problem with people eating the already dead. It is literally goulish, but I don't think it's my place to judge them.
If I can not prove something is wrong, I tend to take a back-seat on moral judgement.

The problem comes down to the ins and outs of supply and demand. If there is a large enough demand for child flesh or avian menses, it's simply not rational to suppose that we can go about supplying that demand in an ethical way.

This seems like a slippery slope fallacy. If there is a demand for rescue/pet hen eggs, and not simply a demand for eggs, there's no reason to think that would be a big problem. The important point is the keep economics out of it, and make the clear distinction between the two concepts.

Meat from a human who has died naturally and one from a human who has been murdered for that meat is a distinctly different product.
If that meat is actually sold on the open market, that can become a problem, because then it becomes impossible to distinguish the source or tell them apart. If it's a family matter, much less so.

It's illegal to sell human body parts. It could just as well be illegal to sell eggs and hens, which would keep business out of it, for the most part.

I'm not interested in eating eggs, but even if I were, I would never buy eggs, because there's no way to know where they really came from once money starts changing hands. It's very easy to launder commercial eggs through a tiny mom-and-pop no-kill farm. Unless that farm (as I have mentioned elsewhere) is non-profit, and has no motive to do that.

and the result of the likes of PETA and Peter Singer and the RSPCA slapping their seal of approval on the body parts and secretions of exploited animals is that many people not only think of animal exploitation as perfectly moral, but now believe it's more moral than not exploiting them at all.

I didn't know PETA or Singer did that, but this is an issue of human ignorance. It does nothing to negate the possibility of these things being done less harmfully.
It's important for people to understand that they aren't doing anything GOOD by buying these products, but they're just doing less bad than they would have been buying others.

I agree with you entirely that confusing consumers is very problematic. They might buy "free ranged" eggs, and imagine they they're great animal rights advocates, and then eat some veal and think it cancels out since they did the "good" thing earlier. It's much like the influence of celery or really stupid/trivial exercises on dieting.
People think "Hey, I took the stairs, so I can eat this chocolate cake!" -- they do this because they're so painfully bad at understanding scale, and guesstimate to the benefit of their whims.

Education to prevent confusion is extremely important.