pet connection

Earlier this week we wrote about the “corporate combination” of the small fringe group the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights with the animal-rights and fund-raising behemoth, the Humane Society of the United States. (Here and here, for previous posts). I wondered what it would be like to be a fly on the wall of the American Veterinary Medical Association offices.

A fly would probably have noticed that the AVMA is not amused. In a question and answer format on the AVMA Web site, the group answers charges made in the announcement of the formation of the new group. Here’s a sample:

Q. The HSUS and other groups have accused the AVMA of being “in the pockets of industry” when it comes to animal welfare issues. What is your response to that accusation?

A:That accusation is simply not true.

The AVMA believes effective answers to animal welfare questions and concerns are science-based and practical. Our evaluation of animal welfare issues includes looking at the entire system of animal care, not just one or two pieces of it. Often, changing one aspect of a system (e.g., removing hens from cages and putting them on range) may seem to be an easy way to improve the animals’ welfare; however, changing one aspect of a system without consideration for how that aspect interacts with other features of that system (e.g., ability to control disease and predators) can result in poorer, rather than better, animal welfare. Have you heard the phrase “losing the forest for the trees”? This means that someone is paying so much attention to a small detail that he or she is missing the big picture. When evaluating the animal welfare issues involved in a system of animal production, we have to see the forest and the trees to ensure we are making the right decision. If we really care about the welfare of the animal, we can’t afford to ignore the big picture!

When science clearly supports a policy or action by the AVMA, that policy or action is developed based on that science. Although all inputs and opinions are considered, the scientific data form the backbone of our recommendations. [...]

While we value our independence in decision-making, we also recognize that stakeholder input and involvement is critical to the identification and implementation of effective solutions to animal welfare problems. In that regard, the AVMA regularly communicates with a broad range of stakeholders, including individuals and organizations associated with the animal protection community, the animal industries, and governmental agencies.

Well, OK, then!

Sorry, AVMA, and believe me I am not an animal-rights activist, but if you expect us to honestly believe that factory-farming is good for animals … I don’t know what to say.

Although the shortage of food animal vets has been attributed to the fact that veterinary students are overwhelmingly female and urban these days, I have long wondered if the cruel practices of intensive livestock “farming” hasn’t contributed to the decline. We are not talking James Herriott anymore, and what person who cares at all about suffering would want to work in such an operation?

I’m not a vegetarian, but I will not buy meat that’s from a factory farm. And in this, I am not alone. AVMA, stand up for a better life for these animals, or you will lose ground to fringe groups like AVAR, especially now that they have HSUS as a bully pulpit.

Sometimes I look at the groups that presume to speak for animals and animal-lovers and I feel like singing the lyrics of a song from my well-spent youth:

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.

Update: Over on Dolittler, Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly offers her take on the meanings swimming in all the alphabet soup. Go read.