I read this article in the tangible paper and was interested because I never really put 2 and 2 together. On one side of the debate you have the Humane Society which is big on animal rights and the ideas that animals deserve the same rights as humans, basically. On the other side of the fence, there is anyone who makes their money through the death of animals. So, while the Humane Society is the richest charity organization for animals, the ranchers and independent farmers who have been using livestock as their income and food source for generations, are now under the gun.
While I think that my cat should be fed when it is hungry and for me to not hit or injure it, at the same time, I went and paid for her to have her front claws removed, because I have had two children grow up with my cat and didn't want her scratching them on purpose or acciadent. Animal people can't tell me otherwise, it happens. The moment a cat person says that cats don't scratch, they get scratched. Animal people are against de-clawing, because it harms the cats. Well, me going to the dentist for a root canal gives me as much or more pain, so does that mean the dentists should not do root canals?
Anyways, my personal rant is similar to the farm vs. wild fishing reasons. In that battle, it has been shown time and time again that the healthiest fish is wild fish. The farm fish sometimes tend to have a higher mercury content in them so while it may seem healthy, it actually hurts you in the long run: like Tylenol. But, the animal rights people argue that you should not eat and kill the animals in their natural habitat. So, a question never poised to them: you or them? Would an animal rights person give up their life and health for an animal, even as small as a fish? So, if you stop wild fishing, then you let go of hundreds of thousands of jobs around the US and most likely many times more all over the world. So, the animal rights protester may seem all high and mighty, but that on person is partially responsible for having people lose their jobs.
So, Humane Society against farmers, ranchers and chefs: what happens on either front? Well, if everyone continues and the Humane Society just deals with it, then people can eat, make money and be happy. However, if the Humane Society wins, then ranchers, farmers, and even chefs and their restaurants will go out of business. When the animal rights people don't understand, is that water trickles downhill (you can think of something else that always goes downhill, but I made this a PG blog). Ranchers are not allowed to kill cattle, so all meat places close, so there goes 99.999% of the restaurants out there. Wow, that will not hinder the economy any...
What about the more likely approach: which is that there are restrictions that have to be done for each pound of beef. So, those restrictions mean that more time and money has to go into every pound. This will mean that the ranchers will charge more, so restaurants charge more, and the 99 cents hamburger at mcdonalds, which has some soy in it somewhere, most likely, now will cost $1 or more, and have even more soy in it to help offset the costs. White Castle hamburgers, which is made of beef pieces, will go up to almost a $1 each and NO ONE will buy any, as I can remember in as little as ten years ago, they used to be 36 cents each and now they are 48 cents each. What about your favorite steak house? The 6 ounce $10 steak will not be $15, the 16 ounce steak will now be $50 and if you want anything more, you can't afford it.
On behalf of the farmers and ranchers and chefs like me, buy meat and don't give in to the animal rights mumbo jumbo. I don't want to eat a salad every day for the rest of my life.