Backyard rescue hens

[Viking Redbeard]

You're right, the term 'vegan' has many meanings these days. I subscribe to Donald Watson's definition: "...a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." But I take your point, there is no longer a single definition.

Regardless of whether or not eggs are healthy for chickens, they do eat them, and I'm not sure it's okay to deny them the opportunity to do so. I am in the if-it-comes-out-of-your-body-you-have-first-dibs-on-it school. Again, you're right to say that some chickens don't eat them, but again I don't know how long you'd have to wait before you can be sure they aren't interested. My mind isn't 100% made up on this issue.

(Sorry, haven't quite got the hang of the quote system yet...)

It's not the act of condoning harmlessly obtained animal products that's harmful, it's the idea of not making it abundantly clear that the exploitation of animals cannot ultimately be anything other than harmful. That plus the given notion that animals are essentially producers of food. Just as it isn't necessarily the marrying of 9-year-old girls that is essentially harmful, but the deeply ingrained conception in certain societies that it's okay to marry a 9-year-old girl - and all the inevitable abuses that come with such a mindset. I'm not sure there's any point adhering to intellectual consistency by saying that marrying a 9-year-old is morally okay - so long as you don't molest her, impede her education, etc. Why not just say it's wrong to marry a 9-year-old? Similarly, if large numbers of people are walking around with the notion that animals are producers of food, and gentle exploitation is okay, nothing will ever change for the better in any significant way. Let's just say we don't need to consume animal products and so it's a bad idea (if not 100% immoral in every conceivable scenario) to do so.

As far as economics is concerned, we live in a capitalist society and we can't discount it. Where there is a big demand for a product, and for however long it takes for human beings to stop being unscrupulous, it will be impossible to stop entrepreneurs from supplying said products. Suppliers supply for profit, and the best possible profit margins equals the worst conditions legally permissible for the animals producing the products. There is no realistic way around this if large numbers of people want to consume animal products, and the selling of eggs is not going to be outlawed any time soon.

Reading on, I think that you answered a point I previously made about making it clear that buying animal products isn't good. You're dead right about people buying "good" animal products to cancel out "bad" ones to keep their moral bank accounts in balance. I know people who do this all the time!

[brimstoneSalad]

To quote, just push the button in the top right corner of the post you want to reply to.
Or you can quote manually by just typing out the quote tags:
{quote} stuff you want to quote {/quote}

Except you use [] instead of {}

You're right, the term 'vegan' has many meanings these days. I subscribe to Donald Watson's definition: "...a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." But I take your point, there is no longer a single definition.

I definitely understand that, and the coiner of a word/the original "official" definition does carry substantial weight, but this definition is also very problematic.

Consider: Animal exploitation.
Exploitation is not always wrong; it is merely making use of something and gaining an advantage from it (it can be wrong, but isn't always; it may or may not be considered "unfair" if you gain MORE advantage than those who are "exploited", but that's a matter of opinion).
Humans are also animals.

So, picking fruits and vegetables? Animal exploitation. Some migrant workers did it (they chose to do it and benefitted from it by getting paid, but that's still exploitation because they were being used for something and it benefited the people eating the fruit and the farm owner through economics).
The only fruits and vegetables that would even be vegan would be those grown and sold by the people who picked them and co-owned the farm as a co-op.

Is being a hard-line communist a requirement for being vegan now too?

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Regardless of whether or not eggs are healthy for chickens, they do eat them, and I'm not sure it's okay to deny them the opportunity to do so.

And babies will eat their own poo if you give them the opportunity to do so. Parents are wrong to interfere, right?

Why would it not be OK, if it's not doing them any harm, or even helping them?
Chickens don't seem to have any urge to eat eggs (any more than humans would), they just do it because they're there, and there's a tendency in nature to avoid waste.

It's not the act of condoning harmlessly obtained animal products that's harmful, it's the idea of not making it abundantly clear that the exploitation of animals cannot ultimately be anything other than harmful.

But that's not quite true.

Rope grown oysters actually clean water.
Seeing eye dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, rescue dogs -- these animals do important and life saving things.
Chickens, as it has be mentioned, are some of the best natural pest control for pesticide free gardening there is.
Horses, mules, and donkeys can carry injured, or supplies over ground that's hard to traverse with modern vehicles, and without having to bulldoze forest to build expensive (money wise and environmentally) roads.
In second and third world countries, oxen and other large animals are essential for basic agriculture, for plowing soil, and moving goods around on roads without cars.
Cats can keep rodent populations under control and even help prevent plagues.
Bees, of course, are probably the best pollinators there are.

These are all instances of exploiting something for personal or social benefit.

Species mutualism, as long as the non-humans don't get such a raw deal as they do today (by being kept in terrible conditions and killed, at the detriment of humans AND non-humans), can be a good thing.
Humans have been doing it very, very wrong for a while. That doesn't mean it can't be done right.

I'm not sure there's any point adhering to intellectual consistency [...]

Intellectual consistency is always a good idea, particularly on the internet. Dogma is losing popularity these days, and if you tie veganism to that sinking rock, the whole movement will be pulled down with it.

Is it harder to explain why the exceptions are uncommon, and how capitalism tends to create abuse by encouraging people to cut corners and so we have to be very careful? Yes. But it's also necessary to do so, because advocating a black-and-white dogma is what's putting off the intellectuals, and we NEED them to be on board if this is going to go anywhere.

the selling of eggs is not going to be outlawed any time soon.

Sooner than all animal products would be outlawed... and less likely to result in a black market.
Not really sure what your point is.

You're dead right about people buying "good" animal products to cancel out "bad" ones to keep their moral bank accounts in balance. I know people who do this all the time!

This is an issue of public education. And it's definitely not an easy issue. I'm afraid there will always be idiots. People are still looking for dieting loopholes for weight loss, and that has been a solved (incredibly obvious) issue for a very long time.
BUT if we advocate an intellectually consistent moral position, at least all of the smart people can pick up on it. That's the domain where we can make the most traction (and have the most staying power; idiots follow whatever the latest trend is, you can't really convince an idiot of a fact for good, because he or she won't understand it well enough to hold fast against the most absurd opposing argument).

[Viking Redbeard]

Some migrant workers did it (they chose to do it and benefitted from it by getting paid, but that's still exploitation because they were being used for something and it benefited the people eating the fruit and the farm owner through economics).

True, that is exploitation, and everyone takes part in the exploitation of others in one way or another. However, the migrant workers were not treated exclusively as things to be exploited. Which is to say that they could opt out any time, and once their appointed tasks were at an end they weren't then used in another way, and then in another way, until there was no further use for them but to either let them die or kill them and make use of their body parts. So you're right to say that exploitation in itself isn't necessarily harmful; but the treating of a human or a non-human animal exclusively as a thing to be exploited is where the horror lies. So that's what I mean by animal exploitation, and a rejection of it need not involve turning commie.

And babies will eat their own poo if you give them the opportunity to do so. Parents are wrong to interfere, right?

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

These are all instances of exploiting something for personal or social benefit.

But of the examples you list here, the ones that are essential (to us and the environment), such as bees, are best left unmolested to do their thing naturally. There's no requirement to bend them to our will, and in fact attempting to do so invariably causes environmental problems further down the road. The waterways of Japan, for example, have become overrun with black bass, which are now outcompeting local fish and f'ing up the eco-system.

Training dogs and horses to do special jobs is good news for us, very bad news for them. You need puppy mills, you need to figure out what to do with the ones who don't do well in training; you need to figure out what to do with the ones that get sick or injured and can't perform their jobs any more. Don't make the mistake of thinking the people who own them are always going to be nice - they won't and they aren't. Without a doubt, these practices cause immeasurably more suffering, harm and death than they prevent. The reason people don't usually notice or care is because it's people that are in almost every case benefitting. You say it can be done right; well, I'll have to be convinced.

Speaking of cooperation, how about going old school and making some Africans carry the supplies through the forest? How about getting some impoverished Thai children to go round keeping the rodent population under control? Given the right inducements, they'd probably be better than cats, and it would beat begging in the streets, right? We wouldn't have to pay them - just give them food, shelter and medical care, and we could exploit to our heart's content. Would that not be a win for everyone, including the animals?

Intellectual consistency is always a good idea, particularly on the internet.

Good catch. Again, good point. I agree that intellectual consistency is important. I don't think it's intellectually inconsistent, though, to explain why certain institutions or actions (let's say dancing naked in the fast lane of the motorway at night) are always a bad idea, even if they don't always result in unpleasantness.

You've got me thinking though. I'll ponder on everything you've said very carefully.

[brimstoneSalad]

True, that is exploitation, and everyone takes part in the exploitation of others in one way or another. However, the migrant workers were not treated exclusively as things to be exploited.

Well, they are often treated that way by their employers. And non-human animals aren't always treated exclusively in that way. There was mention of no-kill backyard hens, who retire when they stop laying (although they don't retire from eating bugs, that's kind of their thing). Also, often dogs are allowed to retire and are adopted to be pets for the rest of their lives.

Can you clarify what your concept of this "exclusive" nature is?

Which is to say that they could opt out any time, and once their appointed tasks were at an end they weren't then used in another way, and then in another way, until there was no further use for them but to either let them die or kill them and make use of their body parts.

I'm thinking you might need to look into more the situation of migrant workers, and second and third world economics.
They can only fully opt out if they'd like to starve, or let their families starve.
And that's also probably true for you; you can opt out of work only if you want to starve and live on the street.
Work is a choice for very, very few people in this world.

Migrant workers can choose which kind of vegetable they want to pick, if that's their thing, or if they want to carry things and stack bricks instead, or if they want to cut animals into pieces, or dig out latrines. But they have to do some low-paying menial work. Choice is a bit of an illusion.

It's a narrow spectrum of choice similar to what non-human animals would also have, relative to their cognitive abilities. (I'm not suggesting migrant workers have low cognitive ability).

I'm not saying anything against migrant work as a job, or against hiring those workers; I think it's very important for them to have these jobs. Somebody would much rather be paid 50 cents an hour to pick my vegetables and have a job which can support him/her plus the family, rather than not have that job at all (the reason that is the market rate is because of the sheer number of people who need jobs).

Anyway, when we move beyond the horrors of commercial farming, I'm not sure if we can say that it's worse to exist and live a long fairly peaceful life in a relatively open garden mostly protected from predators with peers where you can eat bugs, get food, have medical care, and occasionally people pick up the round white things that fall out of your cloaca until you stop making them, and then keep on until the natural end of your life, after which the body you don't need anymore is ground up for cat food or something.

To claim that this would be inherently wrong, I think, weakens the argument of the animal advocate.

Training dogs and horses to do special jobs is good news for us, very bad news for them.

I don't think that's necessarily true.
Puppy mills are evil because they're commercial endeavors that cut corners, and there are plenty of dogs that need to be adopted in shelters. This wouldn't have to be the case. And work dogs often retire into adoption.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the people who own them are always going to be nice - they won't and they aren't.

People who have children aren't always nice to them either. Should people not be allowed to have children?
People who have romantic partners or spouses aren't always nice to them either. Should people be forbidden from having relationships with each other?

It's an extreme claim to make to say something shouldn't be allowed because some people will always be jerks.
Look at the balance.
And more importantly, if YOU are doing it yourself, you can make the choice to treat your children, your S.O., of the animals you care for to higher standards.

Without a doubt, these practices cause immeasurably more suffering, harm and death than they prevent.

I don't think that's apparent. Particularly for service animals.

Speaking of cooperation, how about going old school and making some Africans carry the supplies through the forest? How about getting some impoverished Thai children to go round keeping the rodent population under control? Given the right inducements, they'd probably be better than cats, and it would beat begging in the streets, right? We wouldn't have to pay them - just give them food, shelter and medical care, and we could exploit to our heart's content. Would that not be a win for everyone, including the animals?

If you want, serious practical and regulatory issues though.
I don't think the kids would be better at it than cats, or that humans would be more efficient at removing bugs from garden plants than chickens (or enjoy it as much, in either case). Evolution has an edge.

certain institutions or actions (let's say dancing naked in the fast lane of the motorway at night) are always a bad idea, even if they don't always result in unpleasantness.

That analogy doesn't work here.
You have no way of knowing how the drivers will react to you (drive on, crash, veer into you). If they are YOUR backyard hens, you have complete control of your treatment of them. There's virtually no chance of cruelty through your own actions, unless you choose to be cruel.

You've got me thinking though. I'll ponder on everything you've said very carefully.

Good to hear.

[Clarity]

I have followed this site for a bit now, but I only just signed up specifically to comment on this post. I think I can provide some much-needed clarity on this subject.

I am an atheist vegan, and I have a backyard hen. Her name is Carrie, and she is now 9 years old. I originally bought her from a local feed store (before I became vegan), though she was certainly hatched at a commercial hatchery. She has a 16-square-feet coop and a 166-square-feet run, both tucked at the edge of the forest near my house. I feed her twice daily - a combination of organic commercial chicken feed, local berries, dandelion greens, clover, organic cereal, and any other healthy treats I can find around. I also refresh her water and clean her coop twice daily. Once in a while, I let her roam around the lawn to snatch up grubs and graze on the fresh grass. With the exception of parasites (which can be kept under control but are impossible to totally prevent in a location overrun with wild birds), Carrie is perfectly healthy, a description which has been confirmed by her Avian Veterinarian. All things considered, she has an excellent life and will likely live many years to a ripe old age.

As a commercial breed (a Rhode Island Red), Carrie lays an egg nearly every day, despite her advanced age. These eggs are eaten by my family, and I avoid them simply because of the ick factor. If my family did not eat her eggs, I would certainly feed them to my dog, sell them to neighbors (which is not dubious in any way considering that chickens are quite expensive to feed, house, and provide veterinary treatment for), or perhaps eat them myself. To bury infertile eggs - as someone suggested - would only attract predatory animals, which are adept at dispatching chickens. To bury eggs daily would be a massive inconvenience, and more likely than not, one would have raccoons, foxes, or perhaps even bears (depending on one's location) seeking out the daily offering. In most municipalities, this would be considered purposeful feeding, which is quite illegal due to the causes with nuisance wildlife it causes. Last but not least, the burying or disposal of eggs would simply be wasteful. If one has no other option, then eggs should simply be fed back to the chickens. Oftentimes, chickens will eat their own eggs - in fact, once an egg is removed from the nest, chickens will see it as "not their egg," and consequently eat it, just as they would if they came across an unprotected nest in the wilds. Any deformed, cracked, or otherwise imperfect eggs will also be eaten.

The implication of keeping, incubating, and raising all fertilized eggs is equally unreasonable. If a cock bird is kept with hens, then nearly every egg will be fertile. This will result in at least a dozen chicks being produced per hen annually. I once knew a women who let her quail breed freely; her small flock of two dozen became 200 within a year. She was an animal hoarder, and when she finally decided to control the situation, her only option was to sell 100 of the birds to a farm. The culling of unhatched eggs is an important part of animal birth control; one cannot have animal welfare, let alone animal rights, in an overpopulated group of animals.

Lastly, I would like to address the question of keeping chickens captive. Keeping chickens as pets is no more objectionable than keeping dogs as pets or keeping wolves in zoos. If an animal is kept ethically in captivity - and ethically is the key word here - than one must be delusional to oppose the practice. After all, few dog people would let their dogs roam freely because of their animal rights beliefs. Their dog could be hit by a car, harmed by a stranger, injured by another dog, infected by bacterial or viral diseases, or infested by parasites. Letting the dog - or chicken - be "free" would only take away their freedom to be healthy, to be free from stress and injury, to be free from discomfort, etc.

So, vegans, if you have rescued chickens, geese, quail, turkeys, etc., feel free to consume their eggs. We do not live in a perfect world; we live in reality. Don't be swayed by idealism. It will do nothing for the animals.

Normally I would be more thorough in my arguments, but it's late and I can't type all night! I look forward to seeing your responses.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi Clarity, thanks for the reply, and welcome!

I hope you'll post an intro thread, and stick around to join more conversations.

Would you be open to sharing some pictures, and more experiences with your hen? Particularly, in terms of costs (food, infrastructure, repairs, veterinary, etc.)?

[Jebus]

Hi Clarity and welcome to the forums,

I definitely think it's commendable to rescue any animal from misery or death. However, I don't believe humans should eat the eggs for the following reasons.

1. A child who grows up eating eggs will most likely not develop "the ick factor" and might be curious about tasting cow milk, pig meat, or other animal products.
2. A vegan who eats ethical eggs will often come across as hypocritical (even though s/he is not) in the eyes of non-vegans.
3. The eggs would do more good if fed to hungry dogs.

[brimstoneSalad]

1. A child who grows up eating eggs will most likely not develop "the ick factor" and might be curious about tasting cow milk, pig meat, or other animal products.
2. A vegan who eats ethical eggs will often come across as hypocritical (even though s/he is not) in the eyes of non-vegans.
3. The eggs would do more good if fed to hungry dogs.

What about health? Egg yolks are terribly high in cholesterol, and egg consumption is associated with a number of diseases.

I wouldn't give eggs to dogs for the same reason I wouldn't give them to children. An adult can make up his or her own mind with informed consent to do something unhealthy like smoke cigarettes or eat eggs, children and pets can not.

The best bet is to sell them to neighbors who would be eating eggs anyway.
1. This doesn't damage their health any more than it would have been to begin with.
2. You can put the money in a jar to help pay for the hen's medical expenses.
3. You displace factory farmed eggs; a neighbor who buys from you is not buying eggs from the grocery store.

As to point #2, I don't think that matters too much if you're doing it in the privacy of your own home, and nobody else is likely to see it happening. If somebody does see it, I think you just inherit the obligation of explaining it very clearly, so the witness can understand the difference.
Wearing leather is a similar issue. I think most people can understand "I had this before I went vegan, and I'm just wearing it out before buying something non-leather".

[john.griffith]

In case it hasn't been said yet, if you hold the opinion that collecting the eggs laid by backyard hens is a harmless activity you are at least operating in ignorance of hen welfare and at worst you are lying to yourself. I suggest getting to know vegans who rescue chickens and talk to them about chicken welfare. The FB group Vegans with Chickens would be a great resource.

[PrincessPeach]

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?

Lactation topic's are my favorite I feel very much the pain that lactating mammals go through as a mother who still continues to lactate even after the child has been 'weaned'. All mammals must go through the same process of weaning...

A child must wean from their mother's breast milk for multiple reasons;
The more stimulation the tit's have = more milk produced ..
The mother most slowly wean her child from her breast and this is a very difficult process because of the presence of oxytocin in titty milk (all milk comes from tit's all titty milk has oxytocin in it and all milk comes from mammals)
Oxytocin is the pleasure releasing hormone that happens when we hug another or ... orgasm... (it can be addicting)
Young children must slowly stop drinking their mother's milk (must children don't want to because the oxytocin make feels good)
The number of feeding's must slowly go down from 6 feedings a day to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 to none... !
When the milk isn't drained completely from the tit it will literally 'back the milk duct up' and clog it making it very painful for the milk to come out & the flow much smaller ...
Tit's run the risk of engorgement if not milked yes but the solution is not to continuously milk them forever; as long as the tit's are being stimulated the body will respond by making milk so one would have to simply milk the cow less and less and less until one day soon the milk will be all dried up!
Tit's can also be engorged by not properly draining out all of the milk from the tit.
Another solution would be to let the lactating rescue cow milk a rescued calf until the calf weans itself naturally.