I have been involved in a few conversations on the topic of animal welfare, animal rights, and eating meat through social media networks over the past few weeks. Something I have observed is there tends to be a few loud mouths on both sides of every issues. It never pays to be obnoxious or demanding in a conversation with someone, and no one wants to listen to a know-it-all. I found this Top 10 Reasons list titles "How to lose the argument on animal welfare" and I thought it worthy to share, so enjoy and consider the points in your next conversation on any ag related topics.
By: D. A. Daley, CSU, Chico (via BEEF Daily)
1. Assuming science will give us all the answers; it only gives us some of the answers. I believe strongly in science but science doesn’t solve ethical questions. Also, the public does not trust scientists and assumes they can be bought! Watch the news and it is easy to find “scientists” on both sides of almost every issue. It has become a contest of “my science is better than your science”.
2. Using economics as the justification for all of our practices. Although it makes sense to those of us who raise animals for a living, saying “well of course we treat them well or we won’t make money” really hurts our efforts with the public. In other words, if this is all about making money rather than working with animals we would probably be in another line of work! We need to convince the public that we truly care about animals not just about dollars. Besides that, it is not always true. You can have extreme conditions that are not good for animals that can be profitable.
3. Assuming that you have to defend all agricultural practices, regardless of what they are. Why? I believe you defend those that are defensible. Period. Defending all practices makes no sense and causes you to lose credibility with the public.
4. Assuming we can’t do better at animal welfare. Agriculture is about evolving practices. Why can’t we continue to improve a system that is already good but will continue to change?
5. Attacking everyone who disagrees with you in a negative, critical manner. We get angry very easily and that generally means we aren’t comfortable with what we are doing, so we have to defend at the top of our lungs.
6. Not being willing to listen because we are so busy responding.
7. Assuming that the lunatic fringe is the general public. We spend way to much time focusing on lunatics and not working with the public.
8. Being reactive rather than proactive.
9. Assuming that because someone disagrees with you they are stupid, evil or both. Good people can look at the same issue differently.
10. Not working hard enough to build coalitions that include the public (consumers), Most of our coalition efforts are focused on bringing agricultural groups together. There aren’t enough of us, and we don’t represent enough votes.
Like the list....would be nice if both sides followed it.
ReplyDeleteThis is so very true. I can defend many agricultural practices and those I can't defend, I don't. I will talk about what is indefensible about them to those using the practices and avoid the discussion all together with those too far from farming to be able to grasp the complexities of the issue. We all need to become less defensive and more critical in our thinking about what it is we do and how we do it. We've made tremendous progress in many areas of agricultural pracice but we can still do many other things much better -- better for our livestock and better for the public perception of our industry. Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I might add, It is important to stick to your area of experience. I have worked in several cattle operations and a few horse operations, so I stick to defending those industries based on my experience and leave other areas to those who are experienced with them. Like the saying goes, if you don't know what you are talking about it is better to appear to be a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
ReplyDelete