Humane Society Wrong to Say Seals More Valuable than Other Animals

Dear Colleagues:

In his Report from the Seal Slaughter: Special Chance to Help, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle writes:

It’s a day I dread each year: the first blow or bullet landed against a baby seal off Canada’s East Coast. It marks the beginning of the world’s largest, intentional slaughter of marine mammals.”

The HSUS solution? It has two parts.

First, HSUS has launched a “Save a Seal Today” campaign that asks people to sign a pledge “not to buy seafood products produced in Canada—such as snow crabs, cod, scallops, and shrimp—until Canada ends its commercial seal hunt for good.”

So, according to HSUS, we should boycott seafood produced in Canada and instead eat seafood produced in America, France, Norway, Japan, etc. But have no fear. We do not have to give up those yummy Canadian seafood products forever. Once the Canadians stop the commercial seal killing, then we can resume eating them.

The first part of the HSUS solution not only does what just about every single-issue campaign does—sends the message that some animals, whether seals, wolves, or nonhuman primates, have greater moral value than others—but it explicitly reinforces that speciesist valuation by encouraging the consumption of other non-Canadian sea animals until Canada stops killing the seals (as a commercial enterprise).

Now, I understand that humans find seals to be more cute than codfish, shrimp, scallops, etc. but human perceptions of cuteness really ought not to be the criterion for membership in the moral community.

HSUS notes:

Why boycott Canadian seafood? Because it’s working.

A small group of commercial fishermen in Eastern Canada kill seal pups for their fur, earning a tiny fraction of their annual income. Their industry has seen its revenue plummet since we started the boycott a few years ago.

So if we continue the boycott and the seal kill stops, then the Canadian seafood industry can reemerge and continue its previous higher level of slaughtering fish and other aquatic nonhumans.

The difference is that codfish, shrimp, scallops, etc., although presumably appealing to other codfish, shrimp, scallops, etc. simply don’t have those little faces that just make us humans melt.

But sentient sea animals value their lives just as the seals value theirs.

So the first part of the HSUS solution to the seal kill is explicitly speciesist and deliberately reinforces the notion that some animals matter more an others. This is very typical with these single-issue campaigns. And HSUS takes the further step of encouraging the public to consume the less-favored animals in order to benefit the more-favored ones.

Animal protection organizations are increasingly using boycotts that explicitly promote animal exploitation. For example, PETA announced a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken until KFC agrees to buy its chickens from producers who gas the birds, which PETA promotes as a more “humane” way of killing the birds and as economically more profitable for chicken producers. When KFC in Canada agreed to gassing chickens, PETA called off its boycott (in Canada). The message sent is crystal clear: it is morally acceptable to consume birds who have been gassed.

Second, Pacelle states:

This fight can be demoralizing. But we must keep our gaze fixed on our goal. Today, I’m asking for your support to help us stop it once and for all. If you give now to our efforts to save seals, your donation will be tripled by the Giant Steps Foundation and other generous donors. With every dollar you give, until we hit a total of $400,000, these other donors will give two dollars. Please consider a special gift—with this chance to turn every dollar you donate into three—to help us finally win the battle.

So, according to HSUS, your contribution of money can help HSUS “finally win the battle” because a total contribution of $400,000 will be worth $1.2 million to HSUS.

I do not understand this.

How can anyone say with a straight face that another $1.2 million is going to make a meaningful difference? Pacelle acknowledges that HSUS has an annual budget of $150 million and financial records indicate that HSUS has assets of almost $225 million.

But another $1.2 million is what we need “to help us finally win the battle”?

It is, of course, terrible that the seals are being killed. But it is also terrible that some use this tragedy to rake in a few more dollars.

I should add that the HSUS seal campaign is being directed by Humane Society International (HSI). HSI has launched a “Humane Choice” label in Australia that it claims “will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care, from birth through to death.” A product bearing the HSI “Humane Choice” label assures the consumer of the following:

[T]he animal has had the best life and death offered to any farm animal. They basically live their lives as they would have done on Old McDonald’s farm, being allowed to satisfy their behavioural needs, to forage and move untethered and uncaged, with free access to outside areas, shade when it’s hot, shelter when it’s cold, with a good diet and a humane death.

So let’s “dread” the day the seal kill begins but reassure the public that the daily slaughter of millions of farm animals is just fine.

And Pacelle, at a recent news conference about animals used for food, stated:

We’re not asking for an end to the confinements of animals in buildings. We’re asking they not be crammed into cages and crates barely larger than their bodies.

So let’s “win the battle” against the seal kill but provide a bit more space to the animals tortured on factory farms.

It should be apparent to you that the mainstream groups (and they’re all pretty much the same) are exploiting animals as a business venture and none of this has anything to with shifting the paradigm from animals as property to animals as moral persons.

The campaign against the seal kill has been going on for decades. It has not ended yet. But many of the mainstream groups have made millions and millions of dollars from the campaign over those decades.

There is one way to change the status quo: to dislodge people from the default position that animals are things. There is one means to that end: creative, nonviolent vegan education.

The alternative is telling people that they should eat American codfish rather than Canadian codfish until Canada stops killing certain animals who have the good fortune to appeal to us. The alternative is pretending that there is some difference between seal fur or the skin of any other anmal. The alternative is to maintain that we should stop killing cute seal pups but that we can continue to consume cows, pigs, and chickens who have a “Humane Choice” label slapped on their corpses.

The alternatives make no sense. Indeed, they are counterproductive in that they mislead the public into thinking that we can make meaningful moral distinctions among different sorts of animal exploitation.

So I say to Wayne Pacelle, whom I have known for many years: Wayne, do you really want to “finally win the battle”? Then put your talent and the talents of your HSUS colleagues, and the considerable resources of HSUS, behind a single clear message:

Go Vegan. Stop eating, wearing, consuming, or otherwise using nonhuman animals.

Wayne, if you really want things to change, stop promoting the notion that some animals count more as a moral matter than do others. Stop promoting “happy” meat and animal products. Stop promoting the notion of “responsible breeding.” Stop promoting the fantasy that some slaughterhouses are “abusive” and others are not. Educate your 11 million members that the issue is animal use, not fetishizing certain animals over others or reforming animal torture, which, given the status of animals as chattel property, will never result in improved protection for animals anyway and will only make the public feel more comfortable about exploiting and consuming animals. Yes, your more conservative donors will object but so what? Imagine the impact you could have if you made clear that a “humane” society was one that rejected all animal use.

To all of you: If you are not vegan, go vegan. It is incredibly easy to do; it is better for your physical health and for the planet. But, most importantly, it is the morally right thing to do.

And then, go educate others about veganism in creative, nonviolent ways. An idea shared with others is worth so very much more than a dollar given to already fantastically wealthy corporations—even if the dollar you donate is tripled.

Finally, amidst all of the focus on seals and other “special” animals, please do not forget the fact that there are millions of dogs, cats, rats, fish, birds, mice, and other nonhumans who need homes today. Right now. Please adopt a homeless nonhuman. There are more animals now than ever who need homes. The housing crisis is depriving nonhumans as well as humans of their homes. Please adopt. We are responsible for domesticated animals being in a world in which they do not fit. The least that we can do is to give them a place of refuge. Adoption is an important form of animal rights activism.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

 

Lorraine Haines's picture

The author of this article makes a very sound point.

The stance taken by HSUS is speciesist. It openly disregards the rights of some sentient beings in favour of others (others that just happen to be able to evoke the sympathy of the public, and therefore encourage donations ).

I think that many people that donate to HSUS and also PETA genuinely wish to see the abolition of all animal exploitation/use. This would be a very good time for these organisations to shift their emphasis toward that goal, and promote veganism as the only morally defensible position for anyone that takes animal rights seriously. If they were to use their considerable finances in this way then we would be well on the path to real change and a strong, united, animal rights movement.

(With regard to one of the above comments: There are very few things in modern human society that are actually natural, and if we are going to defend human behaviour on the grounds of 'it's what other animals naturally do', then we must also defend rape , theft and cannibalism; but you rarely, if ever see a thief's behaviour defended in court by the statement 'she was just doing what came naturally'.

The species that is most guilty over over-population is the human species.

We say we are like them when it suits us, and we say we are NOT like them when it suits us. We employ double standards in our own favour all the time.)

veganpanda's picture

Wayne Pacelle is what's known as a 'welfarist', someone who would think, eg that the nonhuman animals who are being 'tested on' (tortured) in labs (& other places), until dead would be much better of in nice roomy cages maybe with a cushion thrown in... rather than abolishing the enslavement of animals altogether!!

Wayne (HSUS) is basically spreading round that nonhuman animals should be used as slaves, just so long as they are as comfortable as they can be (while still alive!)

Gumboz1953's picture

I decided a few years ago that the HSUS couldn't care less about the seals -- it was all about donations .

Last year, I saw the pictures of the seals being chased down and beat to death , and asked them, "You've got some people up there. Why don't you save some of them? At least one?" The answer was that it was "against the law " for HSUS to approach the seals. But it wasn't "against the law" to get the cute pictures of the seals BEFORE the hunt -- "poor things, they will be dead in a few weeks, send money !"

And isn't this a law that any one of us would break, if we were there? I've seen the pictures of the idiots chasing the babies with those awful hooks. I want to scream, "Stop him! Put the doggone camera down, and stop him!"

They don't want to stop it. It would dry up their largest source of funds. Pacelle is just a snake- oil salesman.

vjg's picture

I think this piece makes it clear how companies like HSUS manipulate people emotionally into donating to a particular cause rather than encouraging them to do what helps other animals best.

It also makes it clear why boycotts are problematic from a moral theory standpoint. I don't " boycott " hurting human beings. I just don't them because not hurting them is the right thing to do in and of itself -- I don't think of myself as not hurting others until certain conditions are met, and then I can go back to hurting others with a clean conscience. On its face, that's morally ridiculous.

So, for example, as a vegan and an abolitionist, I don't "boycott" seafood, I don't use fish, other sea animals or other animals for food , clothing, entertainment or other purposes. A lot of people misunderstand veganism as a kind of "boycott" and that's really not the case.

Vincent J. Guihan
AnimalEmancipation
http://www.animalemancipation.com

hawkgirl's picture

Vincent, lately I've heard several people mention similar things about the word " boycott ." But it didn't become obviously clear to me until I just read your comments. Perhaps if there are many people who misunderstand vegan life as a boycott, as only a temporary way of living, then using this word could inadvertently contribute to the humane myth problem.

Language is quite important, especially in a time when words are so cleverly manipulated in service of justifying the continued exploitation of animals . Thanks.

kong99's picture

No, I don't like to watch someone kill a baby seal or a deer or any other animal. But, it's a fact of life and it's nature. Nature is one large food chain and, like it or not, man is part of that chain.

In many cases it is required for population control. Failing to control the population of one species of animal can result in the extnction of it's food source....which, in turn, results in the extinction of the overpopulated animal.

As for baby seals, I haven't researched that info, but man kills for survival. Most living species do.

timgier's picture

One could just as easily argue that "it's a fact of life and it's nature" for human beings to kill other human beings over property and resources - we have a long and bloody history to attest to it. Even though it may be part of our nature, we strive to rise above that behavior - and we are all the better for doing so, wouldn't you agree?

kong99's picture

I don't want anyone getting the impression that I'm a heartless person who doesn't care about animals . I love animals. I can't stand watching someone shoot a deer or a wild animal, and I could never do it myself. At the same time, I love meat , and I eat it to survive....and have a tasty meal, lol.

I know the response is going to be "so it's ok as long as you don't have to see it happen?". But that's not fair. I don't like to see the lions munch down their prey while it's still alive, but I know it's the way nature is...and must be.

kong99's picture

Is it human nature to kill each other? Maybe it is. Huh, not sure. But, most people don't have any urge whatsoever to kill another human being on a personal level. Most killing world wide involves defending a cause or pushing a cause. Maybe it's nature for us to defend what we believe in, and killing a human being to achieve that is considered necessary at times...despite not having the urge to kill. Damn, you stumped me.

In any case, that's on a different level than feeding yourself to survive, or killing something to sell for the money you need to survive.

Man, I love this. You learn different perspectives of things that make you see things in a different light. Cool.

timgier's picture

You are right, in that there are certainly cases where a person would have to kill in order to survive. We kill other humans in self-defense and it is both legal and moral to do so. We might also kill & eat another human if it was the only way to survive (there are cases where it has happened.) That doesn't mean that killing human beings is right all the time though, and it doesn't mean that we can use human beings as property, to do with as we please.

I think that the slave-owners of the old American South would have said that they had to keep owning slaves to make their living, and to put food on the table. The slave traders who bought and sold slaves were also putting food on their own tables, and thought slavery was necessary for survival. But because slavery is morally wrong , those reasons weren't good enough.

Is it a good enough reason to keep breeding and raising billions of animals every year just because we like how they taste? Is it a good enough reason to keep killing them because we can make money from it? If it is morally wrong to use another living creature against it's will, then those reasons aren't good enough. If it is morally wrong to kill other sentient living beings, then those reasons aren't good enough.

There are cases where the rights of human beings come into actual conflict with the rights of non-human animals, and in those few cases maybe it's okay for the rights of the humans to win over. But is it true that everyone needs meat to survive? Is it true that people have to kill animals to make a living?

I believe that it is wrong to take the lives of other living, feeling, self-aware creatures. I believe that they have the right to live the lives that they possess and that I must respect that right, whether they are human beings, or nonhuman beings.

What do you believe?

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

 

randomness