
FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms - mschuster91
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/05/factory-farms-fbi-missing-piglets-animal-rights-glenn-greenwald/
======
Overtonwindow
For reference you might consider watching the excellent documentaries "Our
Daily Bread," and "Food, inc"

~~~
partycoder
"Our daily bread" is particularly interesting. They try to show an unbiased
perspective, by no adding a narrator, or music. Just showing the process step
by step.

The scene with the chicken vacuum in the warehouse explains what "cage free"
chicken really means. I think it's rather misleading...

------
trhway
> The FBI agents ordered staff and volunteers to stay away from the animals
> and then approached the piglets. To obtain the DNA samples, the state
> veterinarians accompanying the FBI used a snare to pressurize the piglet’s
> snout, thus immobilizing her in pain and fear, and then cut off close to two
> inches of the piglet’s ear.

>The piglet’s pain was so severe, and her screams so piercing, that the
sanctuary’s staff members screamed and cried. Even the FBI agents were so
sufficiently disturbed by the resulting trauma, that they directed the
veterinarians not to subject the second piglet to the procedure.

a blatant act of animal torture.

~~~
mschuster91
> a blatant act of animal torture.

If a German veterinarian would do this, he'd instantly lose his license, and
the cops who "supervised" this would be under investigation for dereliction of
duty.

There is so much that has gone wrong in this case, on all levels from the cops
over a judge who actually authorized the warrant to the "veterinarians".

------
cup
I think its hard to morally justify consuming animal products in this day and
age, under a capitalist system where animal welfare is not recognised.

For people that want to eat or use animal products you should consider hunting
for your own food, rearing your own chickens or just cutting back.

The ecological problems and the blatant disregard for animals rights are too
much and a top down approach doesn't seem possible considering the power these
big agricorps have.

It's time for individuals to make the conscious decision to opt out.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
The moral pitch for abstinence from meat in general, or meat one hasn’t killed
themselves, is one of the most unsuccessful animal rights campaigns in
history. People like meat. Those same people are moving into cities. The
population is not going to hunt.

Moral arguments are fun to make, but without a plan they’re just bloviation.
Pushing people to prioritise humane legislation, advocating a switch from
intelligent animals and related methods, while less emotionally satisfying,
are altogether more effective.

~~~
edejong
Yet here in the Netherlands I see many coworkers and friends moving partly or
totally away from meat due to moral concerns. Others choose to pay higher
prices for livestock raised in better conditions.

~~~
distances
Same in Finland. Lots of people who have no intention of going full vegetarian
have nonetheless added meat-free dishes and locally, ethically produced meat
for their diets.

------
JumpCrisscross
Activists were filming, under cover, a farm being heinous to pigs, saw two
piglets in a dire state, and absconded with them. The FBI got involved to get
the pigs back.

There’s a legitimate question around why public dollars are being spent on a
relatively minor crime. But that legitimacy is lost by the article blowing a
reasonable law enforcement response to a theft into a “cover up”.

I have a pet theory to explain why animal rights organisations are so often
ineffective. The organisations that effect change get fewer donations than
those that piss people off. This, together with institutional prerogatives,
results in the villification of reasonable le enforcement actions over trying
to pass legislation.

~~~
distances
Is such animal mistreatment in a farm not a crime in the states in question? I
find it absurd and sad that the "crime" of documentation and rescue even
enters the discussion, when the FBI resources should clearly be used to
investigate the far, far greater misdeed taking place at the farm itself.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Is such animal mistreatment in a farm not a crime in the states in
> question?_

I don’t believe it is—the article specifically says it’s illegal elsewhere but
not in America. In the states where it might be illegal, the laws in question
were passed as a result of reasonable debates balancing the cost of food
against the wellness of animals. All-or-nothing often yields the latter.

> _I find it absurd and sad that the "crime" of documentation and rescue_

While falsifying intent for purposes of undercover reporting is illegal in
some states, stealing is illegal everywhere. If they had to act, they should
have immediately given the piglets to the (a) farm’s management or (b) police.
Worst case: immediately hire a lawyer upon return to the shelter. The methods
they used were dumbly deployed.

~~~
distances
> If they had to act, they should have immediately given the piglets to the
> (a) farm’s management or (b) police.

You know very well yourself that this would not have been a good idea _at all_
if their goal was to help the mistreated piglets and bring wider awareness for
the farming practices.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and
documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get
laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit
is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.

~~~
distances
I see no reason why that would have resulted in any less of a witch hunt than
the current outcome. This was a very mild and non-obtrusive instance of
activism, and I whole-heartedly believe this was the correct course of action
in this case.

Non-destructive activism is an overwhelmingly positive force for society.
These were dying, mistreated piglets; calling this "stealing" is akin to
giving a blessing for the animal cruelty that took place here.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
When pushing for rule changes, you’re pitching to the margin. Worrying about
to whom you’re giving a “blessing” while breaking simple laws only your base
finds controversial ensures you’ll see no legislative traction. Best case: you
squared your problem’s difficulty by twinning your policy exposure and thus
political cross-section.

It reminds me of a town hall a freshman state legislator held a few years ago.
She wanted to propose an animal welfare law for farms in the state. PETA and
Greenpeace showed up. The former wanted to boycott the law (I don’t know what
this means) because it didn’t go far enough. The latter was concerned this
would encourage meat eating and increase carbon emissions or something. The
bill was reconsidered and dropped. Compromise is hard.

