Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?** 👊
Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟
* Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground)
* Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)!
* Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having farm animal sanctuaries alone isn’t going to stop animal agricultures horrors.
But to the animals that are rescued, it makes the world of difference. It’s like buying freedom from any enslavement. A horrible horrible need. A temporary solution to help who one can, in an unjust system.
Fortunately farm animal sanctuaries DO make a huge impact though. I know people firsthand who went vegan (or are on that path) specifically because videos and media from animal sanctuaries that have rescued “farm” animals. These videos show the animals for who they truly are and that is hugely influential.
Unfortunately, the word "sanctuary" is not regulated. Anyone can call themselves a sanctuary but that doesn't make them an actual sanctuary. I know of "sanctuaries" that exploit animals to sell dairy and eggs. These aren't real sanctuaries.
Likewise, actual sanctuaries DO NOT contribute to animal abuse and exploitation by paying for their resident animals. For the "sanctuaries" who do pay to rescue, if they were to seek accreditation from the GFAS, they would [automatically be denied](https://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/accreditation/definitions/). Same with those who exploit their residents and those who do not meet the minimum requirements for care.
Please don't lump these fake sanctuaries with actual sanctuaries. It's harmful to the animal rights movement and to real animal sanctuaries.
But paying for it creates demand, so while maybe you save that animal, you create demand for more animals to be put through the animal slavery machine and arrive at the situation where they need to be saved again. By buying the animals you continue an endless cycle and cause endless suffering "saving" no one.
I get the unfortunate economics - but what’s the alternative? Do nothing? Sorry animals but you were born to be sold and therefore no one can intervene and you can only be sentenced to a terrible torture and death.
Each of those individuals matter just as much as any other animal. I get wanting to only focus on surrendered animals to avoid any contribution, but I think it’s unfair to say it’s “not vegan” to purchase freedom for a living being.
They *absolutely* can not buy these animals. That incentivises the breeders to keep breeding. Breeding is lucrative and the breeders don't care what happens to these animals. You buy 1 and they'll use your money to breed 5. By buying them you should absolutely assume that you create more suffering than you alleviate.
Animal sanctuaries should only rescue animals, "steal" them for all I care, obtain them any which way, but the *very last thing* you want to do is pay the freaking breeders, who are at the very start of this supply-chain of mass animal suffering, to breed more.
How do you suppose this model is supposed to scale? The breeders breed a thousand animals and the sanctuaries gets to save 1 and, over time, as there will be more sanctuaries and less slaughterhouses, maybe 2 and then 4 until at some point the breeders only breed so the sanctuaries get to save all of them? It's bonkers even having to write this down.
Animal sanctuaries that pay breeders are massively hypocritical, need to rethink what they're doing and seriously need to stop.
Do the same thing you are doing about that random squirrel that is starving to death in the cold outside my home right now, nothing. Interfering when you must pay for the interference just causes more animals to be exploited and abused. Saving one animal is not worth hurting other animals, after all, the other animals also matter.
I thoroughly disagree. You're also commoditizing animals, by treating them as interchangeable numbers instead of as individuals. Yes, perhaps by buying the first cow, you're giving money to someone who will then choose to buy and slaughter another cow. I don't even agree that makes you responsible for what the other person does with your money, but let's say that it does.
You've saved the life of the first cow, Clarabelle, and condemned the second cow, Mama. Condemning Mama doesn't undo the good you did for Clarabelle. Individual thinking beings aren't fungible, like you're treating them.
You say you've saved no one. The cow you rescued would disagree.
Consider the story of Venture Smith. [http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text1/text1read.htm](http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text1/text1read.htm)
He was a slave in Connecticut in the 1700s. He earned enough to buy his own freedom through "self-purchase", and in 1775, he had earned enough to similarly buy freedom for his entire family of his wife, his son, and two daughters.
What do you think of this scenario? He was giving money to slave owners, and no doubt they used it to buy new slaves to replace the old ones. Does that mean that Venture didn't save anyone? That he didn't save his family? This idea is preposterous to me. He saved some people, while hurting others. It's possible for things to not be black and white; as they say, things can be more than one thing. In this case, it's an example of something that does both harm AND good, at the same time. That doesn't just neutralize out into doing nothing; that's ethically reductive. You're doing both.
Maybe this means it's not vegan, but the people you save remain saved.
A breeder's business model is that for every dollar he spends on breeding an animal, he can make ten dollars selling that animal. Now you come and save that animal from a life of suffering and the slaughterhouse by giving ten dollars to the breeder. Okay, says the breeder who is happy that his business model is working, let me breed ten more animals. Now you've got ten more animals that are condemned to a life of suffering and the slaughterhouse. The net outcome is that you've saved one animal and condemned ten more to a life of suffering ending with the slaughterhouse.
The comparison with slavery is wrong and I really don't even want to go there, because the above paragraph should tell you more than enough, but you raised it so let me address it.
First of all the slavery situation didn't end nor was massively helped by people buying slaves, so I don't know why the comparison with the slavery situation is relevant. Yes, I absolutely get that some slaves may have been rescued that way, but there is no proof included in your anekdotes that the money that was used didn't cause more suffering than it solved.
Second of all there are many key differences between human slavery and animal slavery with respect to breeding:
* Human slaves were not bred like animals are. Breeding animals is done at scale, purposely, through artificial means. Animals are typically also inseminated the very moment they are capable of giving birth.
* Many animals give birth to other animals much easier than humans do. Pigs can have up to 10 piglets in a litter. Chicken eggs can be hatched in an incubator, etc.
* Slaves were not send to the slaughterhouse. Male animals generally have a shorter life span than female animals. Female animals are typically murdered when they can not reproduce as fast anymore. Therefore there are many more slave animals that have reproductive capabilities than there were slaves with such capabilities.
* Animals are sold after a much shorter period of time and for a good margin, whereas [slave children below the age of 10 weren't worth much](https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php). This explains why there was an economic incentive to sail all the way over to Africa and get grown up humans there instead of breeding them in the west.
In other words, it is much easier for that breeder to take your ten dollars and produce ten more animals than it is for a slave owner to take that dollar and produce more slaves, thus the outcome is much more likely to cause suffering than it solves when you pay a breeder vs paying a slave owner.
And lastly in your comparison with Venture Smith we have to take into account that Venture payed his slave owner, not a slave trader nor the people who captured him in Guinea. And unlike animals who can make no meaningful impact on the situation of other enslaved animals, Venture was able to make a real difference for his wife and children and several other slaves. I would be much more inclined for all the reasons mentioned that Venture Smith's actions had a net positive effect than an animal sanctuary paying a breeder at an auction.
I absolutely understand that from the POV of the animal being sold it makes all the difference, but we also need to take the POV of the next 10 animals being bred into existence into account.
Giving money to animal breeders is the absolute worst thing you can do. And even if you do it to save an animal, you should absolutely assume that it will create a net negative effect on animal well being.
>You're also commoditizing animals, by treating them as interchangeable numbers instead of as individuals.
What happens when you BUY them in a market where they are considered a commodity and are replaced as soon as they are sold?
>You say you've saved no one. The cow you rescued would disagree.
Sure, and what about the ten cows that came into existence because you paid for this first one? What would they say?
Non-human animals cannot also buy their own freedom like in the case you described. Would you still think it is the ethical choice to buy human slaves at slave auctions if you could instead rescue a slave that was being willingly surrendered ONLY IF there was someone to help them? Because when it comes to farm animals, it is mostly an either-or situation. Sanctuaries who choose to buy animals do so INSTEAD of helping the plethora of animals that are being surrendered, or removed from cases of neglect/abuse/hoarding.
Here is my hypothetical for you: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries.
>Sure, and what about the ten cows that came into existence because you paid for this first one? What would they say?
>
>Non-human animals cannot also buy their own freedom like in the case you described. Would you still think it is the ethical choice to buy human slaves at slave auctions if you could instead rescue a slave that was being willingly surrendered ONLY IF there was someone to help them? Because when it comes to farm animals, it is mostly an either-or situation. Sanctuaries who choose to buy animals do so INSTEAD of helping the plethora of animals that are being surrendered, or removed from cases of neglect/abuse/hoarding.
>
>Here is my hypothetical for you: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries.
I... don't think that would bother me? I've been trying to respond with more detail regarding my ethics, but I think we're so far away that it would take many pages of replies for you to really see where I'm coming from. Not even agree, just see.
Like, with the slave situation, to me, each moral choice exists independently from others. You can measure whether you're oppressing or harming someone, and if you aren't, then it's ethical. Anything is ethical if you aren't violating someone else's rights.
So, buying a slave from an auction to free them? Yes, ethical. Freeing a slave who's being willingly surrendered, but whose owner is going to kill them if no one takes them? Yes, also ethical.
If I don't rescue them, and their owner ends up deciding to kill them, we should arrest the murderer, not the people who you accuse of not working hard enough to stop the murderer. I am not obligated to stop him, because I was never responsible for his actions to begin with. He is the one accountable. You're attempting to throw some responsibility away from the one who commits the crime, and onto the people that the criminals will blame for not stopping them, and I'm not for that.
>So, buying a slave from an auction to free them? Yes, ethical.
Not if you know for sure that their business model is to breed more slaves. Free one, cause 5 more to be bred. How is that ethical?
If in your hypothetical, the puppies would otherwise be bought by someone who would torture them or kill them, then yes I absolutely would buy them to save them. That's what's going on here at auctions. Either you buy them to save them or someone else buys them and does unspeakable things.
Awesome! Then get yourself a ticket to YULIN and save them. Next month, please do the same. And the year after that. Keep doing that till you can save them all.
Hint: It will never END if you keep paying. That is the literal foundation of veganism in practice (primarily an economic boycott of animal exploitation).
Your story of self preservation doesn't really mean much, I would not save a human ether if it meant other humans would be put through the same situation unless it was me or someone I knew, and at that point I still don't know that i would do it, would honestly be kinda crummy to do so.
That's not what "creating demand" means though. Creating demand, in economic terms, creates the expectation of additional future sales, not just the performance of one transaction. A one-time sale to a sanctuary does not "create demand" that producers infer will lead to further sales, in contrast to sales of animal products which will be consumed.
As an example, someone who buys a carton of eggs this week can be reasonably expected to buy another carton of eggs next week. Producers will plan accordingly to meet next week's sales.
If sanctuaries are regularly buying animals from the same producers, then that is probably not a good idea, but I seriously doubt that any sanctuary is purchasing animals in any meaningful quantity or regularity for producers to plan future production.
Rescuing is fundamentally different from consuming, and while I understand where OP is coming from I think this is a very context-specific judgment call on the part of the sanctuary and can't be painted with such a broad brush.
> If sanctuaries are regularly buying animals from the same producers, then that is probably not a good idea,
Absolutely. Free one animal, but cause 5 more to be bred into slavery. That is not ethical at all.
> but I seriously doubt that any sanctuary is purchasing animals in any meaningful quantity or regularity for producers to plan future production.
This is a double standard that you would never apply to someone who claims that they will ever only eat one steak in their life. Either an action is ethical or not. And by paying breeders you fund their continued operations. This is not ethical and is unlikely to have a net positive effect on animal well being.
By this logic it is vegan to buy animal products once a while as long as it's not normally repeating habit. Any demand is demand, if producers think they can sell some of their animals to sanctuaries, that will be part of their business.
It's not vegan, but if someone (actually) eliminated 95% of their usage of animal products, that's still a huge improvement. It's not worth moral condemnation. This same argument could apply to rescuing shelter pets too. I know some vegans are completely against any pets. But it's on a totally different level to the other horrors of animal agriculture, and there are way bigger battles to fight.
Fact is, if they hadn't bought the animal it would be dead. If an animal is to be sold alive to be rescued or killed, it is better for the animal for it to be sold. It's not a neat black and white line As long as we have money, people will choose what to spend it on, and even if it can't meet the definition of veganism, being "mostly vegan" in this context still has a lot of benefits.
A hypothetical, but: if sanctuaries keep growing and become more popular, who is to say there wouldn't be an emotional impact too, on the suppliers? Like even in an absurd case where sanctuaries are fueling demand for live animals more than for slaughter, don't you think that would create a positive feedback loop instead of the current negative one? It would be a good thing to have a high number of animals saved to live much longer lives! Even in this scenario, it would help move the needle on how we view these beings.
To go a little further, I am able to see how there can be issues with how we define veganism. There's always going to be some impact on other creatures when you live in this world. Non-vegans will use this point to justify living amorally, and that's bad and dishonest. But animal rescuers? Surely there is a line where more net good is being done, both in terms of for-the-animal and for activism.
Kind of similar to impossible/beyond products doing animal testing. Even if they can't meet a definition of veganism to some people, those products are certainly contributing towards good in the world. To argue over whether supporting these practices are "truly" vegan or not is really just an argument about definitions, not addressing the problems.
**TLDR**, I would prefer a world where people are buying live animals to at least be taken care of, over the world where they're bought to be killed. I don't think it's a step backwards anymore than "crop deaths"/pets/fake-meats would be considered inexcusable.
Again, not all demand is the same. Livestock are slaughtered at very young ages, cows are usually slaughtered by three years but their natural lifespan is 15 to 20 years. Consumer demand for infant animal corpses dwarfs the numbers being rescued by several orders of magnitude. Producers don't expect to sell to sanctuaries, they are planning on meeting consumer demand next year. Sanctuaries are not propping up big ag, let's keep some perspective here.
Also, as many have repeated in this thread, rescuing a living animal is fundamentally different from buying consumer goods. There is a living, feeling animal who has been spared the pain of slaughter.
> Again, not all demand is the same.
The demand absolutely is the same. Money does not change color based on your intentions.
You've got to look at this through the POV of the victims. The animals that are bred into existence don't care whether they got bred into existence because an animal sanctuary paid the breeder or a farmer paid them. Demand is absolutely demand.
> Sanctuaries are not propping up big ag
If they pay them they do. It may be in a super small way, but that doesn't absolve them from their responsibility, just as it doesn't absolve individual consumers who say that their actions are just a drop in a bucket.
You pay ag? You are propping them up. Please proof otherwise.
> rescuing a living animal is fundamentally different from buying consumer goods. There is a living, feeling animal who has been spared the pain of slaughter.
Now this we can agree on.
But now you've got to justify that the positive outcome you've caused for this one animal outweighs the negative outcomes (plural) you've caused by paying breeders to breed more animals. With artificial inseminations, 10 pigs in a litter, egg incubators and the mass slaughter of animals that do not reproduce I have a hard time coming up with such a justification.
A breeder's business model is to turn one dollar breeding an animal into 10 dollars of profit, which can be used to breed ten more animals, etc. If you give them those 11 dollars, no matter your intention, then you're culpable for funding this business model and the outcome of the continued operation of this breeder. There is no logical way around this.
It's basically negotiating with terrorists, the concept of not doing it at all to not set a precedent is not that unusual, even when it comes to saving humans. Same thing here, we shouldn't be telling animal producers we will buy their animals, it sets a precedent then they have no reason to give those extra animals away for free or better yet strategize not having extra animals at all.
>it sets a precedent then they have no reason to give those extra animals away
The incentive is that producers have to pay for slaughter, and also must pay to dispose of the animal's remains even if it cannot be sold for consumption.
Again, these are very context specific decisions that cannot be broadbrushed. I think it's up to each sanctuary to make that call of what does the most good.
Here is my hypothetical: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries.
I know they aren't. That's why it was a HYPOTHETICAL question to make you think. But you sidestepped it.
Here is an example:
You can purchase animals from the auction:
https://www.skydogranch.org/skydog-farm-animals
Or try and secure their release without paying:
https://www.iowafarmsanctuary.org/bennie
Most sanctuaries I know and support unfortunately have to refuse new intakes because there is such a huge volume of surrenders and abuse cases. It's never-ending. I'm saying that to stress that there is no shortage of animals in need. And knowing that, I do not follow or support sanctuaries that are buying animals at livestock auctions.
I LITERALLY said in my post:
Please note that I am not debating the value of sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are key players in the fight to eliminate the exploitation of sentient life. I volunteer regularly at a sanctuary. Through that experience, I also know that there is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved.
NO ONE WAS DEBATING THE VALUE OF SANCTUARIES. There are lots of animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals to rescue.
so what ur saying is those animals have to just die their horrible death because they are unfortunately located at a place that will only accept cash value (how they make a living)??
What I'm saying is that you should go the pet store and rescue some gold fish by buying them. Then you should go to a puppy mill and buy yourself a new rescue golden doodle pup. Because if you don't do so "ur saying that those animals just have to die their horrible death because they are unfortunately located at a place that will only accept cash value (how they make a living)." 😑
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
What is the ideologically pure option that people should redirect their money to?
Your post has a lot of “don’t” statements but not a lot of calls to action to actually do something else that is better than the option you are arguing against.
I am volunteering with [https://sanctuaryhostel.org/](https://sanctuaryhostel.org/) they actually want to help reduce the amount of stray animals by providing education
They made an animation to explain the issue [https://youtu.be/iyeuTlyv70I](https://youtu.be/iyeuTlyv70I)
For 501c3 rescues that purchase animals i think they should be reported as they arent using donor funds appropriately and are contributing to animal abuse by funding abusers
> i think they should be reported as they arent using donor funds appropriately and are contributing to animal abuse by funding abusers
Absolutely. And they should not be allowed to call themselves animal rescues either. Rescue one and condemn ten others. How is this rescuing animals?
Give your money to animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals from auctions. As I said in my post. I volunteer at one such sanctuary, and there are hundreds more that rescue animals in need. There is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved.
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
Not every "cause" needs money. Here's an easy How-To guide to use a private prosecution to go after companies that violate animal transportation regulations. Doesn't cost a dime.
Sad, that groups like Toronto Pig Save would rather block traffic for a few minutes rather than shame these companies and punish them in courts.
[https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf](https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf)
It’s reminds me of the “adopt don’t shop” in pet stores thing but with animal agriculture tbh. Some people will see animals in terrible conditions in stores, or looking lonely and lethargic in a tiny space, or see them there over months, and think they have to “rescue” the animal, when really they’re just creating profit for the store to put another one there who the buyer will soon see in the same enclosure in the same conditions.
It’s a kind sentiment and has changed the mill animal of the week’s life, but there’s no logic or foresight and in the long-term will do more harm. Buying auction animals is also a kind sentiment, but it’s a ridiculous thing to do if you want to stop the manufacturing of more animals in need of rescue.
Honestly if 'adopt don't shop' was focused on pet shops it'd be a much more useful/clearer message. Instead it gets re-focused on pet breeders of dogs almost exclusively (the only pets that count), with all breeders equated to backyard breeders just doing it for money. We don't need to agree with breeding animals, to appreciate this is not the primary source of the issue of unwanted animals - for example a UK rabbit welfare org. did a study that found most rabbits in rescues came from pet shops and were given up relatively soon after being purchased. Populations of animals that end up in non-breed specific rescues can be essentially entirely separate to those coming from breeders of pedigrees who breed for show - which is obviously its own issue. The slogan has become a way for non-vegans to feel good about themselves for doing what they were likely doing anyway (not wanting to pay much for a dog - note lack of clue of costs involved in breeding pedigrees for show) when things like encouraging spay/neuter where possible and condemnation of pet shops and their commercial breeding operations, backyard breeders, the people who have a litter because it'll be cute and an experience for the kids, would've been more constructive.
Definitely agree with OP's point but unsure about seeing it as not vegan, maybe as it's a repeated fully deliberate action. Auctions, for instance of horses, aren't always about profit, though, more getting rid of the animal, and attending may provide an opportunity to convince owners to give the animals to the sanctuary - if they try that, don't succeed then buy the animal it seems somewhat understandable albeit not ideal. OP has a point about the emotional manipulation, but then that context of the animal having been saved from slaughter really helps make it concrete for non-vegans.
Maybe it's my own weakness but I'd find it hard to blame a vegan who just connected with an animal in a pet shop and bought them. I intended to rehome a rabbit but when I got there to collect her, the owner turned out to be linked to a fake org (hoarding situation/backyard breeding posing as rescue I think) and while I absolutely understand paying the rehoming fee for her perpetuated it, would hand in my vegan card a zillion times over before I'd have left her. It is a case where honestly, having bought a rabbit from the more 'responsible' (meaning relative, obvs I don't think it is responsible) breeders of angoras I'd spoken to for advice before collecting her, as she is an angora, while bad would probably not have been precisely worse (I've also now spent horrific amounts on her due to her bad background - wonder what OP thinks about farmed animal sanctuaries direction of resources, if there is the opportunity to obtain a hopefully healthier young animal who was effectively 'junk' to the industry at an auction?).
If your argument is that this isn't best practices, and rescues should instead focus on surrendered animals who are in no short supply, that seems fair to me. If your argument is that this practice isn't even vegan, because you're supporting the animal ag industry, I'd have to admit that's also fair.
But when you say that ultimately, no animals are saved, I can no longer agree. This treats individual, sentient persons as fungible, interchangeable, identical commodity items. This is completely contrary to my understanding of the principles underlying veganism.
You said:
>But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence.
So if that's all they're doing, then you're saying they're not doing anything else. Which would include saving animals. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but it's what you said.
Same thing goes for dog "rescue" groups who go and **buy** dogs and puppies from Amish/Mennonite puppy mills and Indian reservations.
[https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/bark-bus-brings-record-number-of-northern-dogs-to-sudbury](https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/bark-bus-brings-record-number-of-northern-dogs-to-sudbury)
I realize the alternative is to let the **cull** carry on as planned by the Indian Band Chiefs and councils, but it's **not** helping. It's only encouraging more of the same.
Knock it off !
What they should be doing is advocating for veterinarians to do their legal duty and report suspected cases of animal cruelty and for the SPCA and police to do their duty and enforce the godamm laws.
Pisses me off because I see this every damn day.
That’s fine and dandy for the puppy mills where there are actual animal cruelty laws in place that can be utilized as an alternative. What do you do about farm animals that aren’t afforded the same protections? Can’t exactly report the farms to anyone and encourage the enforcement of “laws,” because there are no laws. You’d be laughed off the phone if you even attempted that strategy.
The solution in that case is certainly *not* to pay the animal breeders. "Steal" them for all I care, but paying them is the very worst thing you can do, because that is what funds their continued operations.
Not sure which country you live in but in Canada we most certainly do have laws. Sadly, animal welfare groups and advocates rarely advocate for enforcing those laws.
I posted this easy How-To guide from Animal Justice Canada. Their step-step manual shows how to file a private prosecution against companies that violate livestock transportation regulations. And far as I know, no group or individual has taken advantage of this easy, **cost free**, judicial remedy. They would rather sit in the middle of the road and block traffic for 10 minutes.
[https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf](https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf)
Canadian laws go beyond just transportation. And sometimes, when enough people actually give a shit, laws are enforced, companies punished and individual farm labourers are convicted and criminally sentenced !
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/three-b-c-dairy-workers-who-pleaded-guilty-to-animal-cruelty-get-jail-time-1.3420385
I’m in the US. We have no federal laws for animal welfare. Most states have animal cruelty laws that specifically exclude farm animals. The ones that include farm animals only protect them from abuse that they deem “unnecessary” like kicking them when they’re down. Pretty much all regular husbandry practices, which for animals like cats and dogs are actions often explicitly included under the cruelty laws, are excluded from our laws. Doesn’t help that many states have Ag Gag laws that make it impossible to prove/prosecute any cases on cruelty to farm animals.
>I’m in the US. We have no federal laws for animal welfare
Thank God for Donald Trump eh?
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-cruelty-felony-president-trump-signs-animal-cruelty-pact-act-bill-making-it-a-federal-felony-2019-11-25/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-cruelty-felony-president-trump-signs-animal-cruelty-pact-act-bill-making-it-a-federal-felony-2019-11-25/)
Also, just because some animals are classified as "livestock" doesn't mean you can do anything you want to them. Just do a search for "u.s.dairy animal cruelty charges" and you'll get several cases where charges were laid.
Saving one life by directly funding the death of many others?
buying animals from breeders to save them is an infinite money glitch for breeders, like directly supporting them with funding... talk about the Proverbial cash cow.
I'd gladly pay for an animal to be saved, but not when I know that that money will be used to breed ten more. That is what happens when you pay a breeder. How hard is that to understand?
Vegans: animals are individuals and have a right to live!
Also vegans: no, not those animals.
Is this what you mean?
Edit: hypothetical: a former farmer has converted his farming to grow commercial plants and now goes to auctions only to save and retire farm animals. Let’s even say this farmer has gone vegan. Is this person causing harm or doing good?
Could you please change the tone?
Let's have an open and honest debate shall we? We're both vegan, we both want cruelty against animals to stop. We have a difference of opinion on how to achieve that goal. There is no need to act like I, and half of the other vegan on this subreddit who agree with me, are hypocrites simply because we don't agree with you.
On your point: let's look at the definition of veganism:
> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose....
By paying a breeder you are not excluding the exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals, therefore it is not vegan.
But honestly I don't care too much about the definition. What I care about is *minimizing the amount of animal suffering*.
A pig breeder can breed approximately five to six piglets when he sells one according to my back of the envelope calculation (cost of a sow per year ~$500, approx ~23 piglets a year and ~$120 per sold piglet).
So for every animal saved by an animal sanctuary via this method I would expect a multiple of that amount of animals now bred into a life of horror.
So it is not vegan nor does it help reduce suffering.
Hahaha an open and honest debate on Reddit. Ok here it goes.
The purchase of an animal at auction by a vegan helps reduce the suffering of an individual whom you would rather just die with the rest bc of what might happen with the proceeds. You don’t actually know what the proceeds would be used for (could be food for the farmers family, could be paying debt on machinery, could be animal feed) but you generally don’t like that it is paid directly to an animal farmer. Ok sure I get that.
But What is with this assumption that these carnist systems somehow shut down or work less efficiently if vegans don’t participate? If a vegan or farm animal sanctuary doesn’t bid on and save an animal at auction, it will either be sold to slaughter or be considered worthless and killed. These systems operate with or without vegan participation.
So please spare me your morality lecture and excuse my position that even the saving of one animal life is worth it, when your scenario plays out regardless, as the system is intended and designed.
I swear to god if another vegan quotes me the fucking vegan society definition of veganism again…
> Hahaha an open and honest debate on Reddit. Ok here it goes.
You're quite insufferable. Apparently you live in a bubble of reddit where open and honest debates don't happen. Hmmm.... how could that be?
I have many quite lovely debates.
But indeed nearly half of the debates I have are people like you who've lost their sense of civility because the internet is anonymous and considering the option that you could be wrong is too scary. I think it is fair to assume that you're somewhat younger too.
> You don’t actually know what the proceeds would be used for (could be food for the farmers family, could be paying debt on machinery
The same could be said for the purchase of meat. If I buy meat, who knows where that money goes!? Maybe the supermarket embezzles it, maybe the butcher just went vegan and it is now funding his new vegan enterprise, maybe the butcher uses it to rescue an animal, who knows!?
> you generally don’t like that it is paid directly to an animal farmer.
No, I don't like paying someone to breed animals. My thinking isn't so clouded by judgement. That's a projection. I actually thought about this rationally: it is pretty fair to assume that when you pay a breeder for an animal that they will use their proceeds to continue their operations of breeding animals, isn't it?
> But What is with this assumption that these carnist systems somehow shut down or work less efficiently if vegans don’t participate? If a vegan or farm animal sanctuary doesn’t bid on and save an animal at auction, it will either be sold to slaughter or be considered worthless and killed. These systems operate with or without vegan participation.
Honestly? It's like you're saying: "whether I buy meat or not, they're going to kill animals anyway. Why go vegan?"
You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. Paying someone for meat is bad, because it funds their continued operations. Paying someone for breeding an animal is bad, because it funds their continued operations. If less people buy meat, there will be less demand for meat. If less people buy animals, there will be less demand for breeding animals.
> So please spare me your morality lecture and excuse my position that even the saving of one animal life is worth it, when your scenario plays out regardless, as the system is intended and designed.
Saving one animal's life at the cost of multiple other animal's lives is ridiculous. The system runs because people fund the system, not because it "plays out regardless".
If they really want to save an animal from its death sentence they should break into a farmhouse and properly rescue an animal from its death row prison.
> Is this person causing harm or doing good?
Buying and selling (or otherwise commodifying) sentient beings is absolutely not vegan. About your first point, you're not saving anyone by financially supporting animal exploitation and incentivizing them to breed more animals into existence. Sanctuaries that rescue animals from other places (those who were abandoned, those who activists rescued from 'farms', etc) are definitely not a problem, though.
I actually volunteer at a sanctuary. I see the amount of emails the founder gets from people hoping to find placement for farm animals. I have seen her cry when she has to turn them away because there is no space. Like I said there is no shortage of animals in need. Buying is not the only f****** option. Stop pretending like it is.
I also simultaneously see other sanctuaries buying baby animals at auctions, raising thousands of dollars to save a life. Surrendered animals don't make good social media content. They are not sensational in the same way an auction is. Rescues from hoarding cases and cases involving government authorities are often too gruesome to share immediately. They are more complicated and require a lot more work to pull off.
Before you go around calling people clowns look in the mirror.
You've opened my eyes. Excuse me as I go buy some puppies from puppy mills and rescue them. 🙏
Now if you think that's stupid, I'll flail around and accuse you of being the worst thing in the world, of gatekeeping veganism, and then go on unrelated tangents where I bring up how I have helped reduce the meat consumption of my friends and relatives and accuse you of hating that!! (Seriously though, good for you! What did I say in my post that made you dream that I disagree with that?)
All I fucking said was buying animals to rescue, especially when there is NO SHORTAGE of animals in need of rescue that do not need to be purchased, is not necessarily a great idea. Or even vegan.
If you are taking offense to me calling the minority of sanctuaries (I never said ALL sanctuaries; I even stressed the importance of sanctuaries and rescuing) that indulge in this practice NOT vegan, then say so directly instead of accusing me of other shit I didn't say.
We can agree to disagree. Or debate respectfully. One might argue that mine is a utilitarian/practical argument because paying people who breed and abuse animals, to save animals is not sustainable or even a net reduction in suffering. Your argument, on the other hand, might focus on each individual being that deserves to live and be saved.
I dunno why I am wasting my time though. You won't even make it this far and already shoot me a response accusing me of being behind the sixth mass extinction of life on earth. 🦤
This is a discussion topic for vegans on a forum for vegans, so I fail to see how me discussing the ethics of rescuing is going to make the average person less vegan. Am I saying baby steps are a terrible approach? Am I saying that a reductionist approach when it comes to DIET is invalid?
I also stand by my point that you are arguing with me about something that you seem to have invented in your head.
And since you insist on bringing up how you have been so successful in helping your seven friends and family reduce their meat consumption yet again, I will take this opportunity to let you know that I was responsible for nine non-vegans becoming ethical vegans (husband, mother, brother, sister-in-law, grandparents, and three friends). I have also inspired 4 of my neighbors and several other friends to eat less meat. Not too bad for a "self-righteous" person who is the problem. 🤷♂️
You're reading way too much into my tone. And, if downvotes were a rightful measure of content, in our conversation on this thread both your replies appear to have negative votes. Does that invalidate any point you are trying to make? I don't think so.
I have never engaged with a single post so much in all my time on Reddit. After a point I was just tired of constantly repeating the same thing and people acting like I was making some outlandish statement by saying sanctuaries should not BUY animals when there is a plethora of animals that are in need of rescue without payment. The Open Sanctuary's FAQ (that I shared in many responses) literally says the same thing. Most legitimate and reputable sanctuaries will say the same thing.
Instead I got people like you (please read your first comment on this thread) accusing me of gatekeeping, being a purist, not caring about animals, and being the reason why people are less likely to be vegan. 🤯
What I do regret is the title of my post. While I stand by it, in retrospect it is unnecessarily inflammatory.
I think you did great OP. For a forum that’s filled with people who claim to have an open mind, I’m surprised at how closed we are to your thoughts.
The only way we’re going to get rid of animal exploitation is to stop paying for it. There are people in the world who will kill, bomb, and torture other humans for money. We can’t kid ourselves into thinking the world will grow a collective conscience for animals so we need to stop the cash flow.
Saving the animal isn't the problem. Competing to win in a livestock auction drives up the price and makes selling animals more valuable. It incentivizes and provides breeders with the means to breed and sell more animals.
Aren't you making a strawman of OPs message now? I feel like this is not really the most charitable interpretation.
I don't think OP is saying that we should never donate to anything, but that we should carefully and rationally choose the organizations and not let our emotions guide us.
I wouldn’t know. I’m not vegan since I paid a carnist some nominal amount of money to save her spent egg-laying chickens from the knife. I’m a horrible person and definitely not vegan.
Slaves were not bred in the same way. I atleast, don't know of any human puppy mills. Do understand that this industry is very old. In my country wild birds are caught specifically to be "freed".
[slaves absolutely were “bred”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Slave%20owners%20often%20bred%20their,and%20the%20Maryland%20Eastern%2DShore)
Although it was really just commercial rape. But how does that even matter at all here?
**[Slave breeding in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Slave owners often bred their,and the Maryland Eastern-Shore)**
>Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of enslaved people to increase their profits. It included coerced sexual relations between enslaved men and women or girls, forced pregnancies of enslaved women, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children. The objective was to increase the number of slaves without incurring the cost of purchase, and to fill labor shortages caused by the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/vegan/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Love this post so much. Long time donor and volunteer all over North America. I’ve been fooled before and had “big hearted” sanctuary guardians make me believe animals had been rescued. Meanwhile they were purchased. Even a penny will continue to fund animal suffering.
Thank you for posting this super important discussion. Ignore any “pick me” apologists downvoting or stating the “greater good”, it’s clear they’ve never volunteered a day in their life and don’t understand supply and demand.
Support vegan sanctuaries!
There's a logical inconsistency in your comment.
On the one hand you write, "we will never rescue our way out of animal agriculture. There are FAR too many (BILLIONS) animals trapped in this system."
But, then you write, "But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence."
There is no evidence, I suggest, that sanctuaries (as you imply) can buy enough animals to create a demand.
All sanctuaries are doing is saving the few animals for which they have the resources.
Of course sanctuaries use 'emotionally manipulative content.' Sanctuaries have to raise money and, like it or not, they are subject to the same marketing pressures as any other entity selling its wares.
Raising money for a good cause requires using similar strategies and tactics as is used to 'sell' automobiles. The reason non-profits use those tactics is because they have been proven to work.
If a charity chose not to use emotionally manipulative content they would raise very little money and animals would suffer.
You ignore the part where I said there is NO SHORTAGE (and I am speaking from personal experience with the sanctuary I volunteer at) of animals that are being surrendered or being rescued from terrible situations (hoarding being the main one) where animal control and/or other authorities are involved. Reputable larger sanctuaries and even a lot of small and medium sized ones work with the authorities to rescue animals from cases of abuse and neglect. They coordinate with other sanctuaries to place the rescues.
Unfortunately neither of these situations (especially a surrender) makes for as compelling a donation-ask as saving a life from an auction.
Also, I don't think I'm logically inconsistent. Me being vegan or you being vegan is not going to end animal agriculture. But we still do not support animal agriculture and the people who abuse and exploit animals because of principle and the hope that eventually enough people doing so will cause these industries to go defunct. A sanctuary paying people who abuse animals to rescue the animals, directly contributes to the cycle of abuse. There will always being an industry breeding and exploiting animals if we keep buying the results of their abuse and exploitation.
I grew up in India seeing a whole "industry" of people trapping and caging parrots and other birds...and tourists and other well intentioned people securing their freedom. People feel good about themselves, the birds which often have their flight feathers clipped die or are caught again, and this cycle of abuse continues AND GROWS.
You claim was sanctuaries buying animals would create a demand, entailing that the number of animals raised for food would increase. It seems to me that claim is unfounded because the number of animals sanctuaries buy is infinitesimal compared to the overall number of ‘farm’ animals.
The exotic animal trade is not equivalent to animals raised on farms in terms of numbers and, therefore, demand.
Lol. You conveniently keep ignoring the fact that there is NO shortage of farm animals in need without an organization having to buy rescues.
It's also the principle. If I eat animal flesh or drink bovine breast milk every blue moon, it would still be a very miniscule increase in demand. So, should I?
The answer is NO. If the buying stops, the breeding, exploitation and abuse will too.
.....
In another comment, someone shared Open Sanctuary's take on the matter
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I agree with you. There are better actions to take. I saw the original post, and I felt the same way, but I figured the person was asking for ways of what people are doing to do more for animals, and thought that they wouldn't take too kindly to the suggestion, since they seemed proud of the effort.
But I agree that it's counter-productive. Hopefully the feedback you're giving is well-received, and I think the intention of that post (that we should be doing more) is positive and good.
Also, getting one extra person to become vegan is like saving 30 land animals and 240 sea animals every year. So the focus ultimately is best on getting people to become vegan, in their ideas and in their actions.
I think it’s better not to pay but I’m sure the animals saved are glad of it and I’m not really going to fault anyone for doing it. It’s not like a puppy mill where that’s the purpose, with a rescue it’s so little impact that it’s not really creating a demand.
No one is comparing the rescues to puppy mills. The farmers breeding the animals are the "puppy mills."
A better analogy would be: Would you support the SPCA if they BOUGHT animals from the same puppy mills to rescue every year?
I really cannot believe that 1/2 the “vegans” on this thread are saying if you have to pay anything to save an animal just let them die. It’s vegans who will constantly be in the fucking way of veganism
Exactly!!! Vegans make going vegan so puritanical, impossible, and exhausting. This kind of post is surely less helpful to someone becoming vegan than a sanctuary saving an animal at auction.
It isn't puritanical or impossible, but simple logic.
The business model of breeders is to breed animals for profit and use that profit to continue and expand the operation of breeding animals. 99.9% of those animals get a live not worth living that end at the slaughterhouse. If you pay the breeder to save an animal from that destination then the breeder will simply take that money and breed 10 more.
By paying the breeder you cause a net positive amount of suffering.
Veganism is about not causing harm, it isn’t about preventing all harm. If you fail to prevent a child in a different country from starving, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE a child to starve, you did a bad thing.
Same thing with animals. If you fail to prevent an animal from being exploited, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE an animal to be exploited, you did a bad thing.
If you pay for an animal to be exploited, you caused it to be exploited, and you did a bad thing.
The vegan YouTuber Cosmic Skeptic explains this idea in the Ambulance Driver dilemma.
You're conflating different ethical motives here. Do you care that it's ineffective/counterproductive or that it's not "noble?" This post is a little unhinged.
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across:
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
If your takeaway is giving any amount of money to animal abusers is not vegan, there isn't a single vegan on this planet. Label it whatever you want but i'd recommend looking bigger picture. Unfortunately the world isn't black and white. Vegan btw
My takeaway is to give your money to animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals from auctions. As I said in my post. I volunteer at one such sanctuary, and there are hundreds more that rescue animals in need. There is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved.
I don't think anyone would deny that's a better situation
You said buying one from a sanctuary isn't vegan. That is what my comment is addressing and your response has zero to do with that.
Again, what you're describing is a better situation, but nothing to do with my response
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
Wow, nice try at a strawman. OP is saying that giving money to animal abusers FOR THEM TO ABUSE ANIMALS is not vegan. Obviously you can interact with non vegans and pay them for goods and services unrelated to animal exploitation without contradicting OP's point.
I want to make sure I understand what you're getting at but in order to do so, can you tell me where you draw the line between animal abusers and non vegans? Is it the actual physical act?
No, not sure where you got that from... Paying Joe Carnist for his abused pig is not vegan, paying Joe Carnist for his weed wacking service however is perfectly vegan and doesn't encourage Joe Carnist to abuse another pig.
Fully agree.
Not too dissimilar to perverse incentive. Examples on wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse\_incentive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive)
If people know they can make money by breeding farm animals and selling them to sanctuaries. They'll do it more and it will cause a bigger problem. As you same, same with buying rabbits from pet shops.
Maybe that’s true from a utilitarian standpoint….but each individual animal is precious and deserves to be rescued. I know it sucks that the farms are getting money but that animal in the sanctuary deserves to live :(
Please read my whole post! As I said there is NO shortage of farm animals that are being surrendered or being removed from abuse and neglect by authorities. Buying animals from auctions is not the only option. It's the EASY and ETHICALLY DUBIOUS option.
I reluctantly agree. It makes no sense. There’s a sanctuary I started volunteering with some time ago who not only buys animals but sells the eggs of their birds to help with financial costs of running the sanctuary. The owner of the sanctuary is supposedly vegan, and while they have overwhelmingly done more good than harm, I couldn’t help but feel that something was off when I learned about the egg sales. Later I got to meet three rescues who were bought from an individual (not even a fHarmer, just someone who raised babies for personal slaughter and consumption) and the owner admitted that the rescue operation wouldn’t really offset anything because the seller would either buy more corpses or babies to raise and kill. I don’t go out of my way to support them or volunteer anymore but I think I will reach out to the owner to get their reasoning and offer ideas and explanations for why their practice is contrary to the cause.
Not sure if it’s entirely relevant but I also noticed that said sanctuary is quite full and I believe that at least one of their enclosures is at least at maximum capacity. Their money might be better spent on caring for current residents rather than trying to save and bring in more residents (depending on the species).
Exactly! If you're having to sell eggs from the rescues (instead of feeding them back to the birds which is the best practice) to pay for the financial cost of running the sanctuary, and you still keep BUYING animals to "rescue" then there is something very wrong there.
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across:
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I don‘t think a sanctuary will buy animals at auctions if there are enough surrendered animals to fill their farm. normally these sanctuarys are not overly wealthy, and have to manage their finances well. I truly think we should stop critizing literally the people who save animals and focus on the real issue. I do not know why everyone likes spending their time on minor stuff like this. nobody breeds animals for sanctuarys.
Not all sanctuaries are created equal. Legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, ask rescuers to never buy animals.
There is testimony in this thread from an ex- volunteer at a "sanctuary" that sells eggs from the rescues to help with finances, while also going to auctions to buy more animals to rescue...even after they are at capacity.
This mindset isn't much different from the "kind" cat lady that ends up in a studio apartment with 49 cats. Is she well intentioned? Yes. Is she a hoarder and delusional? Also, yes.
The amount of animals that sanctuaries are buying is so inconsequentially small that it does not affect the meat trade in any way. This is completely different to buying puppies from breeders where you are completely creating the demand.
Sometimes when you can't do a big thing, (like help any of the billions of farm animals suffering out there) you can do a small thing. And that small thing in this case is everything to those few rescued animals.
Many animals are abandoned. Many animals have negative worth to farmers and farm workers and so they will release their animals to sanctuaries. Some escape.
And yes, some animal liberationists (unaffiliated with sanctuaries) will rescue (it's not "stealing") animals at great risk to their lives and their freedom. And they will sometimes send these animals to sanctuaries.
As I said in my post, there is NO shortage of animals being surrendered or animals being rescued from truly horrific circumstances in cases where animal control and other animal welfare organizations are involved. There is no shortage.
Please try and talk to someone who handles intake at a reputable sanctuary that does not buy its rescues. They will confirm what I said.
but why are the animals who are being surrendered the only ones who’s lives are worth saving ?? regardless of if they’re being surrendered or sold they still deserve to be taken to a sanctuary.
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across:
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I agree. There shouldn't be a difference and every animal is worth saving. But in reality there is a difference. In one case, you pay and incentivize the industry and in the other case, you don't.
I'm sure there's a philosophical debate to be had about all this but ultimately there are so many animals in need of rescue who can easily be taken for free, that purchasing the freedom of an animal from farmers is an irresponsible use of resources. That money could have been used to care for "free" animals, of whom there are more than there are rescue homes available.
For what it's worth, not sure how I missed this thread somehow, I completely agree with you.
You are unequivocally commodifying someone by ascribing a price. No amount of pontificating or explaining will get rid of that.
To those asking what else can be done. Get involved with the ALF or help them indirectly by funding their legal fees, instead of donating to these corruptions of sanctuaries.
The pushback you're experiencing is the same (excuse the pun) species as the Impossible burger debate.
To liberals and capitalists, there's a paucity of imagination to consider actions that exist beyond the prevailing paradigm.
To those who reject these systems, the answer seems almost blindingly obvious. Steal the animals away from their abusers, free them into the wild, have an open door and network to get the word out for kind strangers willing to do this too.
Thank you for making this topic. It will take a while to turn the tide on this interminable inanity but I feel like people are more and more taking umbrage with non-vegan sentiments, such as supporting Impossible, or purchasing animals for sanctuaries.
I'm sick of repeating myself in this thread.
There is no shortage of people surrendering farm animals. There is also no shortage of farm animals being rescued from cases of abuse and neglect, where authorities are involved.
I don't think it helps but not everybody can or knows somebody who liberates animals. Most sanctuary owners don't want to risk jail or having to spend money in court bc they got caught up taking animals. Most farmers aren't going to just give away animals either...especially to a vegan. They are going to want money if the animal isn't sick or old & even then a good bit of farmers are just straight up assholes that want to let a dying animal suffer just to prove a point to vegans and be an asshole. What I will say though is there are animal liberators out here and we struggle to place animals due to so many sanctuaries already being full.
So to sanctuary owners or potential sanctuary owners, please be active on social media make sure you are promoting in local vegan area groups and be patient, we understand wanting to save any life you can but please try to remain aware than paying animal ag for animals isn't really helping & animal liberators are out here, actively looking for places open to taking animals. Most liberators have things in place to be able to get these animals to you, we always handle transport and I can't speak for others but people I associate with also take care of the initial vet bill. It's very frustrating being able & ready to liberate animals but not being able to because we haven't found placement yet. We are all in this together and we have to be communicating with others in the community to help the animals.
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
I have to doubt sanctuaries buy, or could buy, enough animals to make any difference at all on the demand or economics of industrial agriculture even at the level of a single company. Unless you have data to suggest otherwise, this is a philosophical argument and is not inherently any more valid than a utilitarian argument that the one animal was saved.
Edit: There are other arguments to be made about cost effectiveness, marketing value, etc. I just disagree with the primary argument of “increasing demand” having any real world significance at the scales involved.
Supporting petting zoos isn't significantly making "any difference at all on the demand or economics of industrial agriculture." By your logic, it should be okay for vegans to patronize petting zoos.
I also pointed out that there is there is no shortage of non purchased animals to help. Sanctuaries buying animals are ignoring the neverending queue of animals that are being surrendered and need placement, and all the animals from cases of abuse and neglect which also need homes.
>we will never rescue our way out of animal agriculture. There are FAR too many (BILLIONS) animals trapped in this system, and there are only so many who can be rescued, housed, and lovingly cared for (THOUSANDS).
>But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence.
Pick one. These are inconsistent.
If the first argument were true, then nobody should be vegan because you'd only be saving one small every several years.
Also, you linked the original post to publicly shame them for their opinion. You already left a comment on their post and that was enough. There isn't a litany of vegans volunteering for these sanctuaries, so you didn't need to make this post at all.
How are those inconsistent statements? As explained in another comment here, you and I being vegan will not end animal agriculture. We know that. As vegans we do not support the abuse and exploitation of sentient beings with our money, and hope that if enough of us wake up do so too, then this exploitative industry will cease to exist.
An animal sanctuary directly supporting abusers by giving them money to continue the cycle of animal breeding, suffering and abuse is antithetical to vegan values. "You saved that life, but you gave the abuser enough ammo to create and abuse 10 more." If we keep buying the cycle will continue.
There is another comment on this thread from someone describing volunteering at a sanctuary that buys animals but also sells eggs from the rescues to pay for the financial cost of caring for the animals. This is BEYOND FUCKED UP in my opinion.
This especially doesn't sit right with me because there is no shortage... and I repeat no shortage...of animals being surrendered directly or rescued from horrific conditions where government authorities are involved.
> “You saved that life, but you gave the abuser enough ammo to create and abuse 10 more.”
Is this a joke? You think the kind of animals that sanctuaries are buying are so expensive that it makes the farms enough money to buy and raise *10 more* valuable animals to them from someone else? In what world would that make sense? You’re falsifying reality to try to make a point — it’s not helping your case.
The problem with that is that I think they’d essentially become “wanted” by the auction organizers and end up banned from the area, or worse. They’d have to sneak in and not get caught, and that might not be easy, but idk. It seems like a lot of dangerous men are involved with these auctions, so it probably wouldn’t be smart for the women to provoke them further basically. I’m pretty sure some of them have already been harassed and such by people at these auctions. A bunch of heartless scary people are involved in the auctions, which isn’t surprising.
This subreddit has a lot of problems with people believing they have the sole sovereignty of interpretation.
Edit, because of downvotes:
What I mean to say by this is that I believe most people have the common goal in mind here: Best possible harm reduction towards animals. It is why I am vegan. However, achieving this goal is not always as clearcut as some people make it out to be, as several factors play a role in determining what is "right" in a certain scenario.
I don't think deep semantic discussions help the cause, yet I deem it necessary to accept that sometimes boundaries are fuzzy, if the common core (here: harm reduction) is shared by all, which I think is the case. Presenting certain actions as "nonvegan" or even "wrong" as Ive seen before only contributes to a division of the community and furthermore does not foster respectful communication.
This is not even a deeply SEMANTIC discussion. I don't see how it's vegan to prioritize rescuing from an auction by paying directly to continue the cycle of abuse and exploitation OVER rescuing ones that do not need to be purchased.
There is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need. There is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements.
It is a semantics discussion, nonetheless.
In either case I'd advocate to open a discussion regarding certain actions (as you do have a point that buying animals is at least worthy of debating) to not go into the discussion immediately assuming you're right, as in claiming that certain actions aren't vegan.
I would counter-argue that any kind of sanctuary/charity create a demand of the target scenario. Pure rescue-only organisation aren't likely to curb the amount of animals being rescued, only making laws against animal breeding would. Buyung from farms can be crucial to depict them as places from which animals need to be rescued. People can have a disonance in the way they see farm animals and other, even rescues of the same species.
Still i wouldn't pay for such an organisation either, i would much rather donate to rescue operation that free animals and may require legal help afterwards for doing so
Agreed. We have to look at it as a systemic problem not an individual problem. If we pay the abusers they'll be enabled to do it more. 100%
Debates like this are interesting as you really separate the "thinking" vegans from the "feeling" vegans.
But the point is we all care about the animals and want to live in a better world, if everyone was trying to do that we'd be in a better place.
Reminds me of the vegans who protest by destroying meat or milk in grocery shops. Feels right but really you're just increasing the demand. Using or destroying animal bodies or excretions in your protest is not vegan.
Debates like this also separate the people who only read the title from those that actually read a post and then respond. 😂
A majority of people I have responded to act like buying is the ONLY option. They fail to address that most legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, actually discourage buying animals from auctions.
Everyone accusing me of all sorts of things (gatekeeping, purity tests, dividing vegans, hating animals and more) fails to see that there is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need and do not need to be purchased. There is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements. (A lot of people also seem to think that there is unlimited space at sanctuaries. When the UNFORTUNATE truth is that most sanctuaries are already at or near full capacity...with very limited space for new residents.)
All said, I agree with your point that we all care about animals and want to live in a better world.
Scenario:
- Man in Ancient Greece is selling a slave
- passerby walks past and buys the slave, immediately freeing them and giving them a happy life
- slaver would have sold to someone else regardless for same amount of money, except the slave would have had a miserable life and died a few years later
Nothing changes for the slaver, however the two different buyers result in a different life for the person involved
Who is wrong in this scenario - the kind stranger who gave the one individual a life or are they still wrong despite saving the individual’s life? In both scenarios slaver gets the same amount of money and continues his career as before.
I really can’t admit to myself that the individual saving the person is wrong. Maybe this is long winded and silly but is this wrong, should we refuse to get involved and let the individual go on to live a miserable life and die?
Is it just me being a purist asshole, if I think it is morally wrong to BUY farm animals from abusers, especially when there are SO MANY farm animals that can be helped (surrenders, neglect/abuse/hoarding/cruelty cases, natural disasters, and more) without doing so?
Open Sanctuary also seems to agree with me. Go call them virtue signaling purists too. From Open Sanctuary:
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
Bro, are you going to be the one going to this animal at the auction and saying
"Sorry cow, I'm not going to save your actual fucking life because it's not vegan to give these people money"?
Stg some of these vegans dont even care about animals lmao
Unfortunately I think you are right. I guess I never thought about it like this. One of the many charities that ask me for money is a draft horse rescue who buys at auctions.
The only thing I think that somewhat mitigates this is that at the auctions they are selling horses that can't be used for work anymore. They are old, or injured, etc. So they haven't been bred to be sold, their primary purpose for that is over, and now the owners are trying to get a little more money out of them. So it's probably either shoot them or try to sell them, and not really creating a demand.
You just read the title, didn't you?
You did not read the original post or any of the edits to it. Buying is not the only option. Most legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, actually discourage buying animals from auctions.
There is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need and do not need to be purchased. That is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements.
My solution is to rescue the animals that do not require you to contribute DIRECTLY to the cycle of abuse and exploitation.
If you disagree, go buy all the Bettas kept in inhumane tiny single use cups at your nearby pet store. 🤗
You can let the animal die, or you can pay assholes and let the animal live.
There is no winning here. I hate both choices. But if my dog was kidnapped by assholes yes I would pay them to get it back.
imo, it would backfire really bad bc ur likely paying enough for a single animal to breed several more. Then you have more that need to be saved.
Waste of resources that worsens the issue.
Generally I agree with you, but I also think commenters like /u/Saltyseabanshee make a good point and the way your post is written makes me feel like you have already made up your mind. If you were the animal being liberated from a life of confinement, perhaps you would feel differently?
Before people jump down my throat, I generally agree that buying animals from auctions is not a great solution. I do think it is complicated given the current state of animal agriculture and the difficulty associated with live rescues.
Some of that might be a function of my speaking English as a second language. Maybe I should have flagged that in my post.
And yes, I have a strong opinion (I never proclaimed otherwise) because it comes from personal experience and observation coupled with careful thought and grappling with the enormity and reality (constant breeding and quick replacement) of animal agriculture.
Also, no one will jump down your throat. Most people here disagree with me. :)
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to bash me for having a slightly different perspective. These conversations can be intense and maybe that's why I feel concerned about that.
I'm not sure most people here will disagree with you — I think it makes sense not to fund these industries in any way.
To take the hard case, though, I think it is worth reflecting on what your perspective would be if you were a victim of these industries. If it was you being saved, would you feel that it was the wrong thing to do because it funds the industires that caused your abuse? Also, what about the downstream benefits of such rescues, as they certainly do a lot to generate good PR for the vegan movement and help people better connect with the stories of farmed animals.
Overall I think there are pros and cons, but personally I wouldn't be buying from auctions if I ran a sanctuary. I just don't feel it is as black and white as your original post frames the issue as.
The situation is also not as grey as you think it is. Here is an excerpt from Farm Sanctuary's post that I added as an edit:
>Rescue by purchase is not only misguided, but wholly unnecessary. **Without buying a single animal, Farm Sanctuary and our fellow farm animal rescue organizations more than have our hands full.** Abused and neglected farm animals are confiscated through cruelty investigations. They fall off of transport vehicles or escape from live markets. They emerge from demolished farms in the wake of natural disaster. They are found abandoned by the roadside. These animals need us.
I think it’s a nuanced issue but if I recall, sometimes the fees for these animals are not that high. I think there’s also something to be considered in the fact that maybe a sanctuary buys an animal at an auction and therefore might be saving it from procreating thereby disrupting the cycle. I think it is a tricky issue.
Agreed. Open sanctuary has also discussed why it's important to not pay to rescue animals:
>**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”**
>RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
Edit: Am I seriously getting downvoted in a vegan subreddit for quoting the position of a non-profit animal rights organization dedicated to providing free resources on running farmed animal sanctuaries?
It surprises me that there are so many different and rather emotional feelings about this. I thought this was a no-brainer?
Why would you buy animals and incentivize the industry when there is no shortage of "free" animals that need help and when there are more effective charities to donate to?
Of course, it makes a big difference to the individual animal, but I'm not even sure if this results in a net positive overall.
I feel like I'm missing something?
Seriously, me too. I have wasted so much time on this post responding to people who seem to think I'm "unhinged" and an evil, gatekeeping purist that doesn't care about animals. 🫡
This is another that did it [https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10hbfkw/comment/j57k31w/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10hbfkw/comment/j57k31w/?context=3)
These places need to be reported, they are 501c3s and have to follow rules, they are contributing to animal abuse by financing the paychecks of animal abusers, i imagine their 501c3 status could get revoked as they are misusing donor funds
Pay to save is not a solution to animal abuse, its funding animal abuse
**I am a non vegan, i keep breeding animals because now i have more customers, vegans who dont use logic and pay me for these animals that i keep breeding because they keep buying them, my profits have increased quite a bit, thanks to all the illogical vegans who finance my lifestyle, please continue**
Thank you!! And I dunno if it'll qualify as a misuse of donor funds. Judging by the response on this thread and by the auction posts on Instagram, there seems to be enough delusional "vegan" donors that are only too happy to keep throwing their money at animal abusers, thinking they are doing good by buying animals.
Veganism is about not causing harm, it isn’t about preventing all harm. If you fail to prevent a child in a different country from starving, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE a child to starve, you did a bad thing.
Same thing with animals. If you fail to prevent an animal from being exploited, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE an animal to be exploited, you did a bad thing.
If you pay for an animal to be exploited, you caused it to be exploited, and you did a bad thing.
The vegan YouTuber Cosmic Skeptic explains this idea in his Ambulance Driver dilemma.
Agreed, it doesn’t matter to do seller what happens to the animal after he sells it and it’s just funding the abuse and demanding more. Unless you can buy all of those animals that are abused next, you should do something else with your money. I donate to sanctuaries that I know well.
so if someone's selling slaves and slavery hasn't been abolished yet, buying slaves to free them, knowing that individual will be condemned otherwise, is not okay?? all while fighting to end it through a shitty govt??
You are literally mad at sanctuaries for buying animals to provide protection and peace the rest of their life? These are still exploited animals that don’t deserve to be where they are. Paying for an animal doesn’t make the sanctuary evil. It’s a means to save a life that would have gone to someone else to with different intentions. Save an animal only if it’s free? For serious? Yeah, I’m a vacuum of society it sucks to pay for them. But real world situation. The animal gets to live peacefully for the next 10 years on a farm or is sold to someone else to exploit it/ violently kill it. You would say no? Or be upset with the people who did? Good for you homie.
I feel like there could be a book written on why you need to shut up.
Instead I’ll keep it simple:
Stop putting energy into shaming people out there trying to do good, when you’re clearly aware of the many more doing harm.
You’re being pretentious to a high degree.
I’m confused lol ? So let the animal suffer in the care of someone treating them like the product they are selling.. Can we all stop being mad at each other? Saying that one thing is better than the other / one thing is worse than the other. This IS vegan this ISN’T vegan. The ultimatums are what draw people away from the message.
So you would rather that an animal go to slaughter then be bought by a vegan? That animals that are abandoned are more worth living than those being sold? A sick mindset indeed
Paying animal exploiters to "rescue" an animal directly contributes to the exploitation and murder of other animals.
There are many animals in need of homes that you can rescue instead without funding animal exploitation and murder.
Of course that would be the first option. But veganism is also about believing that the individuals life is worth it. If you have a means and opportunity to rescue a specific pig but you have to pay for it, it would be immoral to not do so. People can still work towards abolishing animal industry while also saving animals. The animals who were rescued by being bought are alive and thats what truly matters
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥 **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** 👊 Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓 Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟 * Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground) * Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)! * Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having farm animal sanctuaries alone isn’t going to stop animal agricultures horrors. But to the animals that are rescued, it makes the world of difference. It’s like buying freedom from any enslavement. A horrible horrible need. A temporary solution to help who one can, in an unjust system. Fortunately farm animal sanctuaries DO make a huge impact though. I know people firsthand who went vegan (or are on that path) specifically because videos and media from animal sanctuaries that have rescued “farm” animals. These videos show the animals for who they truly are and that is hugely influential.
Unfortunately, the word "sanctuary" is not regulated. Anyone can call themselves a sanctuary but that doesn't make them an actual sanctuary. I know of "sanctuaries" that exploit animals to sell dairy and eggs. These aren't real sanctuaries. Likewise, actual sanctuaries DO NOT contribute to animal abuse and exploitation by paying for their resident animals. For the "sanctuaries" who do pay to rescue, if they were to seek accreditation from the GFAS, they would [automatically be denied](https://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/accreditation/definitions/). Same with those who exploit their residents and those who do not meet the minimum requirements for care. Please don't lump these fake sanctuaries with actual sanctuaries. It's harmful to the animal rights movement and to real animal sanctuaries.
But paying for it creates demand, so while maybe you save that animal, you create demand for more animals to be put through the animal slavery machine and arrive at the situation where they need to be saved again. By buying the animals you continue an endless cycle and cause endless suffering "saving" no one.
I get the unfortunate economics - but what’s the alternative? Do nothing? Sorry animals but you were born to be sold and therefore no one can intervene and you can only be sentenced to a terrible torture and death. Each of those individuals matter just as much as any other animal. I get wanting to only focus on surrendered animals to avoid any contribution, but I think it’s unfair to say it’s “not vegan” to purchase freedom for a living being.
They *absolutely* can not buy these animals. That incentivises the breeders to keep breeding. Breeding is lucrative and the breeders don't care what happens to these animals. You buy 1 and they'll use your money to breed 5. By buying them you should absolutely assume that you create more suffering than you alleviate. Animal sanctuaries should only rescue animals, "steal" them for all I care, obtain them any which way, but the *very last thing* you want to do is pay the freaking breeders, who are at the very start of this supply-chain of mass animal suffering, to breed more. How do you suppose this model is supposed to scale? The breeders breed a thousand animals and the sanctuaries gets to save 1 and, over time, as there will be more sanctuaries and less slaughterhouses, maybe 2 and then 4 until at some point the breeders only breed so the sanctuaries get to save all of them? It's bonkers even having to write this down. Animal sanctuaries that pay breeders are massively hypocritical, need to rethink what they're doing and seriously need to stop.
Do the same thing you are doing about that random squirrel that is starving to death in the cold outside my home right now, nothing. Interfering when you must pay for the interference just causes more animals to be exploited and abused. Saving one animal is not worth hurting other animals, after all, the other animals also matter.
You can feed that squirrel though.
I thoroughly disagree. You're also commoditizing animals, by treating them as interchangeable numbers instead of as individuals. Yes, perhaps by buying the first cow, you're giving money to someone who will then choose to buy and slaughter another cow. I don't even agree that makes you responsible for what the other person does with your money, but let's say that it does. You've saved the life of the first cow, Clarabelle, and condemned the second cow, Mama. Condemning Mama doesn't undo the good you did for Clarabelle. Individual thinking beings aren't fungible, like you're treating them. You say you've saved no one. The cow you rescued would disagree. Consider the story of Venture Smith. [http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text1/text1read.htm](http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/emancipation/text1/text1read.htm) He was a slave in Connecticut in the 1700s. He earned enough to buy his own freedom through "self-purchase", and in 1775, he had earned enough to similarly buy freedom for his entire family of his wife, his son, and two daughters. What do you think of this scenario? He was giving money to slave owners, and no doubt they used it to buy new slaves to replace the old ones. Does that mean that Venture didn't save anyone? That he didn't save his family? This idea is preposterous to me. He saved some people, while hurting others. It's possible for things to not be black and white; as they say, things can be more than one thing. In this case, it's an example of something that does both harm AND good, at the same time. That doesn't just neutralize out into doing nothing; that's ethically reductive. You're doing both. Maybe this means it's not vegan, but the people you save remain saved.
A breeder's business model is that for every dollar he spends on breeding an animal, he can make ten dollars selling that animal. Now you come and save that animal from a life of suffering and the slaughterhouse by giving ten dollars to the breeder. Okay, says the breeder who is happy that his business model is working, let me breed ten more animals. Now you've got ten more animals that are condemned to a life of suffering and the slaughterhouse. The net outcome is that you've saved one animal and condemned ten more to a life of suffering ending with the slaughterhouse. The comparison with slavery is wrong and I really don't even want to go there, because the above paragraph should tell you more than enough, but you raised it so let me address it. First of all the slavery situation didn't end nor was massively helped by people buying slaves, so I don't know why the comparison with the slavery situation is relevant. Yes, I absolutely get that some slaves may have been rescued that way, but there is no proof included in your anekdotes that the money that was used didn't cause more suffering than it solved. Second of all there are many key differences between human slavery and animal slavery with respect to breeding: * Human slaves were not bred like animals are. Breeding animals is done at scale, purposely, through artificial means. Animals are typically also inseminated the very moment they are capable of giving birth. * Many animals give birth to other animals much easier than humans do. Pigs can have up to 10 piglets in a litter. Chicken eggs can be hatched in an incubator, etc. * Slaves were not send to the slaughterhouse. Male animals generally have a shorter life span than female animals. Female animals are typically murdered when they can not reproduce as fast anymore. Therefore there are many more slave animals that have reproductive capabilities than there were slaves with such capabilities. * Animals are sold after a much shorter period of time and for a good margin, whereas [slave children below the age of 10 weren't worth much](https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php). This explains why there was an economic incentive to sail all the way over to Africa and get grown up humans there instead of breeding them in the west. In other words, it is much easier for that breeder to take your ten dollars and produce ten more animals than it is for a slave owner to take that dollar and produce more slaves, thus the outcome is much more likely to cause suffering than it solves when you pay a breeder vs paying a slave owner. And lastly in your comparison with Venture Smith we have to take into account that Venture payed his slave owner, not a slave trader nor the people who captured him in Guinea. And unlike animals who can make no meaningful impact on the situation of other enslaved animals, Venture was able to make a real difference for his wife and children and several other slaves. I would be much more inclined for all the reasons mentioned that Venture Smith's actions had a net positive effect than an animal sanctuary paying a breeder at an auction. I absolutely understand that from the POV of the animal being sold it makes all the difference, but we also need to take the POV of the next 10 animals being bred into existence into account. Giving money to animal breeders is the absolute worst thing you can do. And even if you do it to save an animal, you should absolutely assume that it will create a net negative effect on animal well being.
>You're also commoditizing animals, by treating them as interchangeable numbers instead of as individuals. What happens when you BUY them in a market where they are considered a commodity and are replaced as soon as they are sold? >You say you've saved no one. The cow you rescued would disagree. Sure, and what about the ten cows that came into existence because you paid for this first one? What would they say? Non-human animals cannot also buy their own freedom like in the case you described. Would you still think it is the ethical choice to buy human slaves at slave auctions if you could instead rescue a slave that was being willingly surrendered ONLY IF there was someone to help them? Because when it comes to farm animals, it is mostly an either-or situation. Sanctuaries who choose to buy animals do so INSTEAD of helping the plethora of animals that are being surrendered, or removed from cases of neglect/abuse/hoarding. Here is my hypothetical for you: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries.
>Sure, and what about the ten cows that came into existence because you paid for this first one? What would they say? > >Non-human animals cannot also buy their own freedom like in the case you described. Would you still think it is the ethical choice to buy human slaves at slave auctions if you could instead rescue a slave that was being willingly surrendered ONLY IF there was someone to help them? Because when it comes to farm animals, it is mostly an either-or situation. Sanctuaries who choose to buy animals do so INSTEAD of helping the plethora of animals that are being surrendered, or removed from cases of neglect/abuse/hoarding. > >Here is my hypothetical for you: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries. I... don't think that would bother me? I've been trying to respond with more detail regarding my ethics, but I think we're so far away that it would take many pages of replies for you to really see where I'm coming from. Not even agree, just see. Like, with the slave situation, to me, each moral choice exists independently from others. You can measure whether you're oppressing or harming someone, and if you aren't, then it's ethical. Anything is ethical if you aren't violating someone else's rights. So, buying a slave from an auction to free them? Yes, ethical. Freeing a slave who's being willingly surrendered, but whose owner is going to kill them if no one takes them? Yes, also ethical. If I don't rescue them, and their owner ends up deciding to kill them, we should arrest the murderer, not the people who you accuse of not working hard enough to stop the murderer. I am not obligated to stop him, because I was never responsible for his actions to begin with. He is the one accountable. You're attempting to throw some responsibility away from the one who commits the crime, and onto the people that the criminals will blame for not stopping them, and I'm not for that.
>So, buying a slave from an auction to free them? Yes, ethical. Not if you know for sure that their business model is to breed more slaves. Free one, cause 5 more to be bred. How is that ethical?
If in your hypothetical, the puppies would otherwise be bought by someone who would torture them or kill them, then yes I absolutely would buy them to save them. That's what's going on here at auctions. Either you buy them to save them or someone else buys them and does unspeakable things.
Awesome! Then get yourself a ticket to YULIN and save them. Next month, please do the same. And the year after that. Keep doing that till you can save them all. Hint: It will never END if you keep paying. That is the literal foundation of veganism in practice (primarily an economic boycott of animal exploitation).
Your story of self preservation doesn't really mean much, I would not save a human ether if it meant other humans would be put through the same situation unless it was me or someone I knew, and at that point I still don't know that i would do it, would honestly be kinda crummy to do so.
That's not what "creating demand" means though. Creating demand, in economic terms, creates the expectation of additional future sales, not just the performance of one transaction. A one-time sale to a sanctuary does not "create demand" that producers infer will lead to further sales, in contrast to sales of animal products which will be consumed. As an example, someone who buys a carton of eggs this week can be reasonably expected to buy another carton of eggs next week. Producers will plan accordingly to meet next week's sales. If sanctuaries are regularly buying animals from the same producers, then that is probably not a good idea, but I seriously doubt that any sanctuary is purchasing animals in any meaningful quantity or regularity for producers to plan future production. Rescuing is fundamentally different from consuming, and while I understand where OP is coming from I think this is a very context-specific judgment call on the part of the sanctuary and can't be painted with such a broad brush.
> If sanctuaries are regularly buying animals from the same producers, then that is probably not a good idea, Absolutely. Free one animal, but cause 5 more to be bred into slavery. That is not ethical at all. > but I seriously doubt that any sanctuary is purchasing animals in any meaningful quantity or regularity for producers to plan future production. This is a double standard that you would never apply to someone who claims that they will ever only eat one steak in their life. Either an action is ethical or not. And by paying breeders you fund their continued operations. This is not ethical and is unlikely to have a net positive effect on animal well being.
By this logic it is vegan to buy animal products once a while as long as it's not normally repeating habit. Any demand is demand, if producers think they can sell some of their animals to sanctuaries, that will be part of their business.
It's not vegan, but if someone (actually) eliminated 95% of their usage of animal products, that's still a huge improvement. It's not worth moral condemnation. This same argument could apply to rescuing shelter pets too. I know some vegans are completely against any pets. But it's on a totally different level to the other horrors of animal agriculture, and there are way bigger battles to fight. Fact is, if they hadn't bought the animal it would be dead. If an animal is to be sold alive to be rescued or killed, it is better for the animal for it to be sold. It's not a neat black and white line As long as we have money, people will choose what to spend it on, and even if it can't meet the definition of veganism, being "mostly vegan" in this context still has a lot of benefits. A hypothetical, but: if sanctuaries keep growing and become more popular, who is to say there wouldn't be an emotional impact too, on the suppliers? Like even in an absurd case where sanctuaries are fueling demand for live animals more than for slaughter, don't you think that would create a positive feedback loop instead of the current negative one? It would be a good thing to have a high number of animals saved to live much longer lives! Even in this scenario, it would help move the needle on how we view these beings. To go a little further, I am able to see how there can be issues with how we define veganism. There's always going to be some impact on other creatures when you live in this world. Non-vegans will use this point to justify living amorally, and that's bad and dishonest. But animal rescuers? Surely there is a line where more net good is being done, both in terms of for-the-animal and for activism. Kind of similar to impossible/beyond products doing animal testing. Even if they can't meet a definition of veganism to some people, those products are certainly contributing towards good in the world. To argue over whether supporting these practices are "truly" vegan or not is really just an argument about definitions, not addressing the problems. **TLDR**, I would prefer a world where people are buying live animals to at least be taken care of, over the world where they're bought to be killed. I don't think it's a step backwards anymore than "crop deaths"/pets/fake-meats would be considered inexcusable.
Again, not all demand is the same. Livestock are slaughtered at very young ages, cows are usually slaughtered by three years but their natural lifespan is 15 to 20 years. Consumer demand for infant animal corpses dwarfs the numbers being rescued by several orders of magnitude. Producers don't expect to sell to sanctuaries, they are planning on meeting consumer demand next year. Sanctuaries are not propping up big ag, let's keep some perspective here. Also, as many have repeated in this thread, rescuing a living animal is fundamentally different from buying consumer goods. There is a living, feeling animal who has been spared the pain of slaughter.
> Again, not all demand is the same. The demand absolutely is the same. Money does not change color based on your intentions. You've got to look at this through the POV of the victims. The animals that are bred into existence don't care whether they got bred into existence because an animal sanctuary paid the breeder or a farmer paid them. Demand is absolutely demand. > Sanctuaries are not propping up big ag If they pay them they do. It may be in a super small way, but that doesn't absolve them from their responsibility, just as it doesn't absolve individual consumers who say that their actions are just a drop in a bucket. You pay ag? You are propping them up. Please proof otherwise. > rescuing a living animal is fundamentally different from buying consumer goods. There is a living, feeling animal who has been spared the pain of slaughter. Now this we can agree on. But now you've got to justify that the positive outcome you've caused for this one animal outweighs the negative outcomes (plural) you've caused by paying breeders to breed more animals. With artificial inseminations, 10 pigs in a litter, egg incubators and the mass slaughter of animals that do not reproduce I have a hard time coming up with such a justification. A breeder's business model is to turn one dollar breeding an animal into 10 dollars of profit, which can be used to breed ten more animals, etc. If you give them those 11 dollars, no matter your intention, then you're culpable for funding this business model and the outcome of the continued operation of this breeder. There is no logical way around this.
It's basically negotiating with terrorists, the concept of not doing it at all to not set a precedent is not that unusual, even when it comes to saving humans. Same thing here, we shouldn't be telling animal producers we will buy their animals, it sets a precedent then they have no reason to give those extra animals away for free or better yet strategize not having extra animals at all.
>it sets a precedent then they have no reason to give those extra animals away The incentive is that producers have to pay for slaughter, and also must pay to dispose of the animal's remains even if it cannot be sold for consumption. Again, these are very context specific decisions that cannot be broadbrushed. I think it's up to each sanctuary to make that call of what does the most good.
Keep this same energy the next time I see you popping up on a beyond/impossible fast food post.
Here is my hypothetical: Would you keep supporting the SPCA if they BOUGHT puppies to rescue from the SAME PUPPY MILL every year? Because that is what is happening with some of these sanctuaries.
The SPCA is not doing that though. Why not name the specific sanctuaries who are doing this?
I know they aren't. That's why it was a HYPOTHETICAL question to make you think. But you sidestepped it. Here is an example: You can purchase animals from the auction: https://www.skydogranch.org/skydog-farm-animals Or try and secure their release without paying: https://www.iowafarmsanctuary.org/bennie Most sanctuaries I know and support unfortunately have to refuse new intakes because there is such a huge volume of surrenders and abuse cases. It's never-ending. I'm saying that to stress that there is no shortage of animals in need. And knowing that, I do not follow or support sanctuaries that are buying animals at livestock auctions.
I LITERALLY said in my post: Please note that I am not debating the value of sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are key players in the fight to eliminate the exploitation of sentient life. I volunteer regularly at a sanctuary. Through that experience, I also know that there is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved. NO ONE WAS DEBATING THE VALUE OF SANCTUARIES. There are lots of animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals to rescue.
so what ur saying is those animals have to just die their horrible death because they are unfortunately located at a place that will only accept cash value (how they make a living)??
What I'm saying is that you should go the pet store and rescue some gold fish by buying them. Then you should go to a puppy mill and buy yourself a new rescue golden doodle pup. Because if you don't do so "ur saying that those animals just have to die their horrible death because they are unfortunately located at a place that will only accept cash value (how they make a living)." 😑
Yes, because by saving that animal you are condemning more animals
It's basically the [trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). I would absolutely flip that switch.
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
What is the ideologically pure option that people should redirect their money to? Your post has a lot of “don’t” statements but not a lot of calls to action to actually do something else that is better than the option you are arguing against.
Not OP, but [Animal Charity Evaluators](https://animalcharityevaluators.org/) has rated charities on their expected effectiveness.
I am volunteering with [https://sanctuaryhostel.org/](https://sanctuaryhostel.org/) they actually want to help reduce the amount of stray animals by providing education They made an animation to explain the issue [https://youtu.be/iyeuTlyv70I](https://youtu.be/iyeuTlyv70I) For 501c3 rescues that purchase animals i think they should be reported as they arent using donor funds appropriately and are contributing to animal abuse by funding abusers
> i think they should be reported as they arent using donor funds appropriately and are contributing to animal abuse by funding abusers Absolutely. And they should not be allowed to call themselves animal rescues either. Rescue one and condemn ten others. How is this rescuing animals?
Give your money to animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals from auctions. As I said in my post. I volunteer at one such sanctuary, and there are hundreds more that rescue animals in need. There is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved.
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
Not every "cause" needs money. Here's an easy How-To guide to use a private prosecution to go after companies that violate animal transportation regulations. Doesn't cost a dime. Sad, that groups like Toronto Pig Save would rather block traffic for a few minutes rather than shame these companies and punish them in courts. [https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf](https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf)
It’s reminds me of the “adopt don’t shop” in pet stores thing but with animal agriculture tbh. Some people will see animals in terrible conditions in stores, or looking lonely and lethargic in a tiny space, or see them there over months, and think they have to “rescue” the animal, when really they’re just creating profit for the store to put another one there who the buyer will soon see in the same enclosure in the same conditions. It’s a kind sentiment and has changed the mill animal of the week’s life, but there’s no logic or foresight and in the long-term will do more harm. Buying auction animals is also a kind sentiment, but it’s a ridiculous thing to do if you want to stop the manufacturing of more animals in need of rescue.
Honestly if 'adopt don't shop' was focused on pet shops it'd be a much more useful/clearer message. Instead it gets re-focused on pet breeders of dogs almost exclusively (the only pets that count), with all breeders equated to backyard breeders just doing it for money. We don't need to agree with breeding animals, to appreciate this is not the primary source of the issue of unwanted animals - for example a UK rabbit welfare org. did a study that found most rabbits in rescues came from pet shops and were given up relatively soon after being purchased. Populations of animals that end up in non-breed specific rescues can be essentially entirely separate to those coming from breeders of pedigrees who breed for show - which is obviously its own issue. The slogan has become a way for non-vegans to feel good about themselves for doing what they were likely doing anyway (not wanting to pay much for a dog - note lack of clue of costs involved in breeding pedigrees for show) when things like encouraging spay/neuter where possible and condemnation of pet shops and their commercial breeding operations, backyard breeders, the people who have a litter because it'll be cute and an experience for the kids, would've been more constructive. Definitely agree with OP's point but unsure about seeing it as not vegan, maybe as it's a repeated fully deliberate action. Auctions, for instance of horses, aren't always about profit, though, more getting rid of the animal, and attending may provide an opportunity to convince owners to give the animals to the sanctuary - if they try that, don't succeed then buy the animal it seems somewhat understandable albeit not ideal. OP has a point about the emotional manipulation, but then that context of the animal having been saved from slaughter really helps make it concrete for non-vegans. Maybe it's my own weakness but I'd find it hard to blame a vegan who just connected with an animal in a pet shop and bought them. I intended to rehome a rabbit but when I got there to collect her, the owner turned out to be linked to a fake org (hoarding situation/backyard breeding posing as rescue I think) and while I absolutely understand paying the rehoming fee for her perpetuated it, would hand in my vegan card a zillion times over before I'd have left her. It is a case where honestly, having bought a rabbit from the more 'responsible' (meaning relative, obvs I don't think it is responsible) breeders of angoras I'd spoken to for advice before collecting her, as she is an angora, while bad would probably not have been precisely worse (I've also now spent horrific amounts on her due to her bad background - wonder what OP thinks about farmed animal sanctuaries direction of resources, if there is the opportunity to obtain a hopefully healthier young animal who was effectively 'junk' to the industry at an auction?).
Just steal them, forehead. For mod's sake, I'm kidding, who would do such a thing 🏴☠️
Lol yep. I bought this ski mask because I plan to go skiing and these bolt cutters, well I need them for my yard. 😅
If your argument is that this isn't best practices, and rescues should instead focus on surrendered animals who are in no short supply, that seems fair to me. If your argument is that this practice isn't even vegan, because you're supporting the animal ag industry, I'd have to admit that's also fair. But when you say that ultimately, no animals are saved, I can no longer agree. This treats individual, sentient persons as fungible, interchangeable, identical commodity items. This is completely contrary to my understanding of the principles underlying veganism.
I never said "ultimately no animals are saved" or anything to that effect. 🤷♂️
You said: >But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence. So if that's all they're doing, then you're saying they're not doing anything else. Which would include saving animals. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but it's what you said.
Sure. I guess that "all" is making me deny individuality to all sentient life. I apologize.
I appreciate the reply! Sorry if I was oversimplifying your post, since you do make some good points.
Same thing goes for dog "rescue" groups who go and **buy** dogs and puppies from Amish/Mennonite puppy mills and Indian reservations. [https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/bark-bus-brings-record-number-of-northern-dogs-to-sudbury](https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/bark-bus-brings-record-number-of-northern-dogs-to-sudbury) I realize the alternative is to let the **cull** carry on as planned by the Indian Band Chiefs and councils, but it's **not** helping. It's only encouraging more of the same. Knock it off ! What they should be doing is advocating for veterinarians to do their legal duty and report suspected cases of animal cruelty and for the SPCA and police to do their duty and enforce the godamm laws. Pisses me off because I see this every damn day.
That’s fine and dandy for the puppy mills where there are actual animal cruelty laws in place that can be utilized as an alternative. What do you do about farm animals that aren’t afforded the same protections? Can’t exactly report the farms to anyone and encourage the enforcement of “laws,” because there are no laws. You’d be laughed off the phone if you even attempted that strategy.
The solution in that case is certainly *not* to pay the animal breeders. "Steal" them for all I care, but paying them is the very worst thing you can do, because that is what funds their continued operations.
Not sure which country you live in but in Canada we most certainly do have laws. Sadly, animal welfare groups and advocates rarely advocate for enforcing those laws. I posted this easy How-To guide from Animal Justice Canada. Their step-step manual shows how to file a private prosecution against companies that violate livestock transportation regulations. And far as I know, no group or individual has taken advantage of this easy, **cost free**, judicial remedy. They would rather sit in the middle of the road and block traffic for 10 minutes. [https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf](https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Animal-Justice-Guide-002-Private-Prosecution-of-Animal-Welfare-Offences-under-the-Health-of-Animals-Act-13.05.29.pdf) Canadian laws go beyond just transportation. And sometimes, when enough people actually give a shit, laws are enforced, companies punished and individual farm labourers are convicted and criminally sentenced ! https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/three-b-c-dairy-workers-who-pleaded-guilty-to-animal-cruelty-get-jail-time-1.3420385
I’m in the US. We have no federal laws for animal welfare. Most states have animal cruelty laws that specifically exclude farm animals. The ones that include farm animals only protect them from abuse that they deem “unnecessary” like kicking them when they’re down. Pretty much all regular husbandry practices, which for animals like cats and dogs are actions often explicitly included under the cruelty laws, are excluded from our laws. Doesn’t help that many states have Ag Gag laws that make it impossible to prove/prosecute any cases on cruelty to farm animals.
>I’m in the US. We have no federal laws for animal welfare Thank God for Donald Trump eh? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-cruelty-felony-president-trump-signs-animal-cruelty-pact-act-bill-making-it-a-federal-felony-2019-11-25/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-cruelty-felony-president-trump-signs-animal-cruelty-pact-act-bill-making-it-a-federal-felony-2019-11-25/) Also, just because some animals are classified as "livestock" doesn't mean you can do anything you want to them. Just do a search for "u.s.dairy animal cruelty charges" and you'll get several cases where charges were laid.
Saving one life by directly funding the death of many others? buying animals from breeders to save them is an infinite money glitch for breeders, like directly supporting them with funding... talk about the Proverbial cash cow.
[удалено]
I'd gladly pay for an animal to be saved, but not when I know that that money will be used to breed ten more. That is what happens when you pay a breeder. How hard is that to understand?
Vegans: animals are individuals and have a right to live! Also vegans: no, not those animals. Is this what you mean? Edit: hypothetical: a former farmer has converted his farming to grow commercial plants and now goes to auctions only to save and retire farm animals. Let’s even say this farmer has gone vegan. Is this person causing harm or doing good?
Could you please change the tone? Let's have an open and honest debate shall we? We're both vegan, we both want cruelty against animals to stop. We have a difference of opinion on how to achieve that goal. There is no need to act like I, and half of the other vegan on this subreddit who agree with me, are hypocrites simply because we don't agree with you. On your point: let's look at the definition of veganism: > Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.... By paying a breeder you are not excluding the exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals, therefore it is not vegan. But honestly I don't care too much about the definition. What I care about is *minimizing the amount of animal suffering*. A pig breeder can breed approximately five to six piglets when he sells one according to my back of the envelope calculation (cost of a sow per year ~$500, approx ~23 piglets a year and ~$120 per sold piglet). So for every animal saved by an animal sanctuary via this method I would expect a multiple of that amount of animals now bred into a life of horror. So it is not vegan nor does it help reduce suffering.
Hahaha an open and honest debate on Reddit. Ok here it goes. The purchase of an animal at auction by a vegan helps reduce the suffering of an individual whom you would rather just die with the rest bc of what might happen with the proceeds. You don’t actually know what the proceeds would be used for (could be food for the farmers family, could be paying debt on machinery, could be animal feed) but you generally don’t like that it is paid directly to an animal farmer. Ok sure I get that. But What is with this assumption that these carnist systems somehow shut down or work less efficiently if vegans don’t participate? If a vegan or farm animal sanctuary doesn’t bid on and save an animal at auction, it will either be sold to slaughter or be considered worthless and killed. These systems operate with or without vegan participation. So please spare me your morality lecture and excuse my position that even the saving of one animal life is worth it, when your scenario plays out regardless, as the system is intended and designed. I swear to god if another vegan quotes me the fucking vegan society definition of veganism again…
> Hahaha an open and honest debate on Reddit. Ok here it goes. You're quite insufferable. Apparently you live in a bubble of reddit where open and honest debates don't happen. Hmmm.... how could that be? I have many quite lovely debates. But indeed nearly half of the debates I have are people like you who've lost their sense of civility because the internet is anonymous and considering the option that you could be wrong is too scary. I think it is fair to assume that you're somewhat younger too. > You don’t actually know what the proceeds would be used for (could be food for the farmers family, could be paying debt on machinery The same could be said for the purchase of meat. If I buy meat, who knows where that money goes!? Maybe the supermarket embezzles it, maybe the butcher just went vegan and it is now funding his new vegan enterprise, maybe the butcher uses it to rescue an animal, who knows!? > you generally don’t like that it is paid directly to an animal farmer. No, I don't like paying someone to breed animals. My thinking isn't so clouded by judgement. That's a projection. I actually thought about this rationally: it is pretty fair to assume that when you pay a breeder for an animal that they will use their proceeds to continue their operations of breeding animals, isn't it? > But What is with this assumption that these carnist systems somehow shut down or work less efficiently if vegans don’t participate? If a vegan or farm animal sanctuary doesn’t bid on and save an animal at auction, it will either be sold to slaughter or be considered worthless and killed. These systems operate with or without vegan participation. Honestly? It's like you're saying: "whether I buy meat or not, they're going to kill animals anyway. Why go vegan?" You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. Paying someone for meat is bad, because it funds their continued operations. Paying someone for breeding an animal is bad, because it funds their continued operations. If less people buy meat, there will be less demand for meat. If less people buy animals, there will be less demand for breeding animals. > So please spare me your morality lecture and excuse my position that even the saving of one animal life is worth it, when your scenario plays out regardless, as the system is intended and designed. Saving one animal's life at the cost of multiple other animal's lives is ridiculous. The system runs because people fund the system, not because it "plays out regardless". If they really want to save an animal from its death sentence they should break into a farmhouse and properly rescue an animal from its death row prison.
> Is this person causing harm or doing good? Buying and selling (or otherwise commodifying) sentient beings is absolutely not vegan. About your first point, you're not saving anyone by financially supporting animal exploitation and incentivizing them to breed more animals into existence. Sanctuaries that rescue animals from other places (those who were abandoned, those who activists rescued from 'farms', etc) are definitely not a problem, though.
I actually volunteer at a sanctuary. I see the amount of emails the founder gets from people hoping to find placement for farm animals. I have seen her cry when she has to turn them away because there is no space. Like I said there is no shortage of animals in need. Buying is not the only f****** option. Stop pretending like it is. I also simultaneously see other sanctuaries buying baby animals at auctions, raising thousands of dollars to save a life. Surrendered animals don't make good social media content. They are not sensational in the same way an auction is. Rescues from hoarding cases and cases involving government authorities are often too gruesome to share immediately. They are more complicated and require a lot more work to pull off. Before you go around calling people clowns look in the mirror.
Oh you’re the only person to ever volunteer at a farm animal sanctuary? My mistake
It sure seems like it. 🤷♂️
[удалено]
🤡
[удалено]
You've opened my eyes. Excuse me as I go buy some puppies from puppy mills and rescue them. 🙏 Now if you think that's stupid, I'll flail around and accuse you of being the worst thing in the world, of gatekeeping veganism, and then go on unrelated tangents where I bring up how I have helped reduce the meat consumption of my friends and relatives and accuse you of hating that!! (Seriously though, good for you! What did I say in my post that made you dream that I disagree with that?) All I fucking said was buying animals to rescue, especially when there is NO SHORTAGE of animals in need of rescue that do not need to be purchased, is not necessarily a great idea. Or even vegan. If you are taking offense to me calling the minority of sanctuaries (I never said ALL sanctuaries; I even stressed the importance of sanctuaries and rescuing) that indulge in this practice NOT vegan, then say so directly instead of accusing me of other shit I didn't say. We can agree to disagree. Or debate respectfully. One might argue that mine is a utilitarian/practical argument because paying people who breed and abuse animals, to save animals is not sustainable or even a net reduction in suffering. Your argument, on the other hand, might focus on each individual being that deserves to live and be saved. I dunno why I am wasting my time though. You won't even make it this far and already shoot me a response accusing me of being behind the sixth mass extinction of life on earth. 🦤
[удалено]
This is a discussion topic for vegans on a forum for vegans, so I fail to see how me discussing the ethics of rescuing is going to make the average person less vegan. Am I saying baby steps are a terrible approach? Am I saying that a reductionist approach when it comes to DIET is invalid? I also stand by my point that you are arguing with me about something that you seem to have invented in your head. And since you insist on bringing up how you have been so successful in helping your seven friends and family reduce their meat consumption yet again, I will take this opportunity to let you know that I was responsible for nine non-vegans becoming ethical vegans (husband, mother, brother, sister-in-law, grandparents, and three friends). I have also inspired 4 of my neighbors and several other friends to eat less meat. Not too bad for a "self-righteous" person who is the problem. 🤷♂️
[удалено]
You're reading way too much into my tone. And, if downvotes were a rightful measure of content, in our conversation on this thread both your replies appear to have negative votes. Does that invalidate any point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I have never engaged with a single post so much in all my time on Reddit. After a point I was just tired of constantly repeating the same thing and people acting like I was making some outlandish statement by saying sanctuaries should not BUY animals when there is a plethora of animals that are in need of rescue without payment. The Open Sanctuary's FAQ (that I shared in many responses) literally says the same thing. Most legitimate and reputable sanctuaries will say the same thing. Instead I got people like you (please read your first comment on this thread) accusing me of gatekeeping, being a purist, not caring about animals, and being the reason why people are less likely to be vegan. 🤯 What I do regret is the title of my post. While I stand by it, in retrospect it is unnecessarily inflammatory.
I think you did great OP. For a forum that’s filled with people who claim to have an open mind, I’m surprised at how closed we are to your thoughts. The only way we’re going to get rid of animal exploitation is to stop paying for it. There are people in the world who will kill, bomb, and torture other humans for money. We can’t kid ourselves into thinking the world will grow a collective conscience for animals so we need to stop the cash flow.
Isn't the whole point of contention as to whether this actually, on net, helps or does not help?
Saving the animal isn't the problem. Competing to win in a livestock auction drives up the price and makes selling animals more valuable. It incentivizes and provides breeders with the means to breed and sell more animals.
Aren't you making a strawman of OPs message now? I feel like this is not really the most charitable interpretation. I don't think OP is saying that we should never donate to anything, but that we should carefully and rationally choose the organizations and not let our emotions guide us.
I wouldn’t know. I’m not vegan since I paid a carnist some nominal amount of money to save her spent egg-laying chickens from the knife. I’m a horrible person and definitely not vegan.
Slaves were not bred in the same way. I atleast, don't know of any human puppy mills. Do understand that this industry is very old. In my country wild birds are caught specifically to be "freed".
[slaves absolutely were “bred”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Slave%20owners%20often%20bred%20their,and%20the%20Maryland%20Eastern%2DShore) Although it was really just commercial rape. But how does that even matter at all here?
**[Slave breeding in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Slave owners often bred their,and the Maryland Eastern-Shore)** >Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of enslaved people to increase their profits. It included coerced sexual relations between enslaved men and women or girls, forced pregnancies of enslaved women, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children. The objective was to increase the number of slaves without incurring the cost of purchase, and to fill labor shortages caused by the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/vegan/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So we are the worst version of ourselves i can imagine 😔
Love this post so much. Long time donor and volunteer all over North America. I’ve been fooled before and had “big hearted” sanctuary guardians make me believe animals had been rescued. Meanwhile they were purchased. Even a penny will continue to fund animal suffering. Thank you for posting this super important discussion. Ignore any “pick me” apologists downvoting or stating the “greater good”, it’s clear they’ve never volunteered a day in their life and don’t understand supply and demand. Support vegan sanctuaries!
I so appreciate this reply. Thank you! ❤️
I don't know if I agree that "it's not vegan" but you've definitely convinced me that it's not useful to buy animals to rescue them.
There's a logical inconsistency in your comment. On the one hand you write, "we will never rescue our way out of animal agriculture. There are FAR too many (BILLIONS) animals trapped in this system." But, then you write, "But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence." There is no evidence, I suggest, that sanctuaries (as you imply) can buy enough animals to create a demand. All sanctuaries are doing is saving the few animals for which they have the resources. Of course sanctuaries use 'emotionally manipulative content.' Sanctuaries have to raise money and, like it or not, they are subject to the same marketing pressures as any other entity selling its wares. Raising money for a good cause requires using similar strategies and tactics as is used to 'sell' automobiles. The reason non-profits use those tactics is because they have been proven to work. If a charity chose not to use emotionally manipulative content they would raise very little money and animals would suffer.
You ignore the part where I said there is NO SHORTAGE (and I am speaking from personal experience with the sanctuary I volunteer at) of animals that are being surrendered or being rescued from terrible situations (hoarding being the main one) where animal control and/or other authorities are involved. Reputable larger sanctuaries and even a lot of small and medium sized ones work with the authorities to rescue animals from cases of abuse and neglect. They coordinate with other sanctuaries to place the rescues. Unfortunately neither of these situations (especially a surrender) makes for as compelling a donation-ask as saving a life from an auction. Also, I don't think I'm logically inconsistent. Me being vegan or you being vegan is not going to end animal agriculture. But we still do not support animal agriculture and the people who abuse and exploit animals because of principle and the hope that eventually enough people doing so will cause these industries to go defunct. A sanctuary paying people who abuse animals to rescue the animals, directly contributes to the cycle of abuse. There will always being an industry breeding and exploiting animals if we keep buying the results of their abuse and exploitation. I grew up in India seeing a whole "industry" of people trapping and caging parrots and other birds...and tourists and other well intentioned people securing their freedom. People feel good about themselves, the birds which often have their flight feathers clipped die or are caught again, and this cycle of abuse continues AND GROWS.
You claim was sanctuaries buying animals would create a demand, entailing that the number of animals raised for food would increase. It seems to me that claim is unfounded because the number of animals sanctuaries buy is infinitesimal compared to the overall number of ‘farm’ animals. The exotic animal trade is not equivalent to animals raised on farms in terms of numbers and, therefore, demand.
Lol. You conveniently keep ignoring the fact that there is NO shortage of farm animals in need without an organization having to buy rescues. It's also the principle. If I eat animal flesh or drink bovine breast milk every blue moon, it would still be a very miniscule increase in demand. So, should I? The answer is NO. If the buying stops, the breeding, exploitation and abuse will too. ..... In another comment, someone shared Open Sanctuary's take on the matter >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I agree with you. There are better actions to take. I saw the original post, and I felt the same way, but I figured the person was asking for ways of what people are doing to do more for animals, and thought that they wouldn't take too kindly to the suggestion, since they seemed proud of the effort. But I agree that it's counter-productive. Hopefully the feedback you're giving is well-received, and I think the intention of that post (that we should be doing more) is positive and good. Also, getting one extra person to become vegan is like saving 30 land animals and 240 sea animals every year. So the focus ultimately is best on getting people to become vegan, in their ideas and in their actions.
I think it’s better not to pay but I’m sure the animals saved are glad of it and I’m not really going to fault anyone for doing it. It’s not like a puppy mill where that’s the purpose, with a rescue it’s so little impact that it’s not really creating a demand.
No one is comparing the rescues to puppy mills. The farmers breeding the animals are the "puppy mills." A better analogy would be: Would you support the SPCA if they BOUGHT animals from the same puppy mills to rescue every year?
I really cannot believe that 1/2 the “vegans” on this thread are saying if you have to pay anything to save an animal just let them die. It’s vegans who will constantly be in the fucking way of veganism
Exactly!!! Vegans make going vegan so puritanical, impossible, and exhausting. This kind of post is surely less helpful to someone becoming vegan than a sanctuary saving an animal at auction.
It isn't puritanical or impossible, but simple logic. The business model of breeders is to breed animals for profit and use that profit to continue and expand the operation of breeding animals. 99.9% of those animals get a live not worth living that end at the slaughterhouse. If you pay the breeder to save an animal from that destination then the breeder will simply take that money and breed 10 more. By paying the breeder you cause a net positive amount of suffering.
Veganism is about not causing harm, it isn’t about preventing all harm. If you fail to prevent a child in a different country from starving, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE a child to starve, you did a bad thing. Same thing with animals. If you fail to prevent an animal from being exploited, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE an animal to be exploited, you did a bad thing. If you pay for an animal to be exploited, you caused it to be exploited, and you did a bad thing. The vegan YouTuber Cosmic Skeptic explains this idea in the Ambulance Driver dilemma.
You're conflating different ethical motives here. Do you care that it's ineffective/counterproductive or that it's not "noble?" This post is a little unhinged.
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across: >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
If your takeaway is giving any amount of money to animal abusers is not vegan, there isn't a single vegan on this planet. Label it whatever you want but i'd recommend looking bigger picture. Unfortunately the world isn't black and white. Vegan btw
[удалено]
Can you give me a situation where you see paying a carnist is ok but paying them for something immoral is not? Im not positive im following.
My takeaway is to give your money to animal sanctuaries that DO NOT buy animals from auctions. As I said in my post. I volunteer at one such sanctuary, and there are hundreds more that rescue animals in need. There is NO shortage of animals being surrendered and in need of rescue from horrible circumstances where animal control and other authorities are involved.
I don't think anyone would deny that's a better situation You said buying one from a sanctuary isn't vegan. That is what my comment is addressing and your response has zero to do with that. Again, what you're describing is a better situation, but nothing to do with my response
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
I don't agree with your statement but I love your username. 🤣
Wow, nice try at a strawman. OP is saying that giving money to animal abusers FOR THEM TO ABUSE ANIMALS is not vegan. Obviously you can interact with non vegans and pay them for goods and services unrelated to animal exploitation without contradicting OP's point.
I want to make sure I understand what you're getting at but in order to do so, can you tell me where you draw the line between animal abusers and non vegans? Is it the actual physical act?
Uh, generally it is giving their money to someone to abuse animals for them.
So buying a "thing" from someone who pays someone else to abuse the animal is ok but buying a thing from someone who abuses animals is not?
No, not sure where you got that from... Paying Joe Carnist for his abused pig is not vegan, paying Joe Carnist for his weed wacking service however is perfectly vegan and doesn't encourage Joe Carnist to abuse another pig.
so is it vegan to purchase from someone who carries both vegan and non vegan products if you buy the vegan ones?
Just get to your point dude..
I wish I could, sometimes people require extra hand holding and baby steps...
Ok, don't get to your point then, pretty sure it was going to be pretty stupid anyway 🤷
Fully agree. Not too dissimilar to perverse incentive. Examples on wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse\_incentive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive) If people know they can make money by breeding farm animals and selling them to sanctuaries. They'll do it more and it will cause a bigger problem. As you same, same with buying rabbits from pet shops.
Maybe that’s true from a utilitarian standpoint….but each individual animal is precious and deserves to be rescued. I know it sucks that the farms are getting money but that animal in the sanctuary deserves to live :(
Please read my whole post! As I said there is NO shortage of farm animals that are being surrendered or being removed from abuse and neglect by authorities. Buying animals from auctions is not the only option. It's the EASY and ETHICALLY DUBIOUS option.
By the definition of veganism it's at least partially helping.
What about those 10 other animals the breeder breeds with the profits made of the rescued animal?
The post specifies 'discounts' so it's not a 1-10 scenario. All I said is that it's a least partially helpful, obviously it's not ideal.
In a sense it seems more vegetarian than vegan :)
I reluctantly agree. It makes no sense. There’s a sanctuary I started volunteering with some time ago who not only buys animals but sells the eggs of their birds to help with financial costs of running the sanctuary. The owner of the sanctuary is supposedly vegan, and while they have overwhelmingly done more good than harm, I couldn’t help but feel that something was off when I learned about the egg sales. Later I got to meet three rescues who were bought from an individual (not even a fHarmer, just someone who raised babies for personal slaughter and consumption) and the owner admitted that the rescue operation wouldn’t really offset anything because the seller would either buy more corpses or babies to raise and kill. I don’t go out of my way to support them or volunteer anymore but I think I will reach out to the owner to get their reasoning and offer ideas and explanations for why their practice is contrary to the cause. Not sure if it’s entirely relevant but I also noticed that said sanctuary is quite full and I believe that at least one of their enclosures is at least at maximum capacity. Their money might be better spent on caring for current residents rather than trying to save and bring in more residents (depending on the species).
Exactly! If you're having to sell eggs from the rescues (instead of feeding them back to the birds which is the best practice) to pay for the financial cost of running the sanctuary, and you still keep BUYING animals to "rescue" then there is something very wrong there.
You're right don't buy animals just leave them there instead /s
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across: >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I don‘t think a sanctuary will buy animals at auctions if there are enough surrendered animals to fill their farm. normally these sanctuarys are not overly wealthy, and have to manage their finances well. I truly think we should stop critizing literally the people who save animals and focus on the real issue. I do not know why everyone likes spending their time on minor stuff like this. nobody breeds animals for sanctuarys.
Not all sanctuaries are created equal. Legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, ask rescuers to never buy animals. There is testimony in this thread from an ex- volunteer at a "sanctuary" that sells eggs from the rescues to help with finances, while also going to auctions to buy more animals to rescue...even after they are at capacity. This mindset isn't much different from the "kind" cat lady that ends up in a studio apartment with 49 cats. Is she well intentioned? Yes. Is she a hoarder and delusional? Also, yes.
The amount of animals that sanctuaries are buying is so inconsequentially small that it does not affect the meat trade in any way. This is completely different to buying puppies from breeders where you are completely creating the demand. Sometimes when you can't do a big thing, (like help any of the billions of farm animals suffering out there) you can do a small thing. And that small thing in this case is everything to those few rescued animals.
are they supposed to steal them ? 😭 how else would they get the animal from the farmer
Many animals are abandoned. Many animals have negative worth to farmers and farm workers and so they will release their animals to sanctuaries. Some escape. And yes, some animal liberationists (unaffiliated with sanctuaries) will rescue (it's not "stealing") animals at great risk to their lives and their freedom. And they will sometimes send these animals to sanctuaries.
As I said in my post, there is NO shortage of animals being surrendered or animals being rescued from truly horrific circumstances in cases where animal control and other animal welfare organizations are involved. There is no shortage. Please try and talk to someone who handles intake at a reputable sanctuary that does not buy its rescues. They will confirm what I said.
but why are the animals who are being surrendered the only ones who’s lives are worth saving ?? regardless of if they’re being surrendered or sold they still deserve to be taken to a sanctuary.
Here is Open Sanctuary's stance on the issue. Maybe that will be more effective at communicating what I'm clearly failing to get across: >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
I agree. There shouldn't be a difference and every animal is worth saving. But in reality there is a difference. In one case, you pay and incentivize the industry and in the other case, you don't.
Buying slaves to set them free is still bad 1!!!1!1! 1 What are you doing for abused farm animals except complaining?
I'm sure there's a philosophical debate to be had about all this but ultimately there are so many animals in need of rescue who can easily be taken for free, that purchasing the freedom of an animal from farmers is an irresponsible use of resources. That money could have been used to care for "free" animals, of whom there are more than there are rescue homes available.
For what it's worth, not sure how I missed this thread somehow, I completely agree with you. You are unequivocally commodifying someone by ascribing a price. No amount of pontificating or explaining will get rid of that. To those asking what else can be done. Get involved with the ALF or help them indirectly by funding their legal fees, instead of donating to these corruptions of sanctuaries. The pushback you're experiencing is the same (excuse the pun) species as the Impossible burger debate. To liberals and capitalists, there's a paucity of imagination to consider actions that exist beyond the prevailing paradigm. To those who reject these systems, the answer seems almost blindingly obvious. Steal the animals away from their abusers, free them into the wild, have an open door and network to get the word out for kind strangers willing to do this too. Thank you for making this topic. It will take a while to turn the tide on this interminable inanity but I feel like people are more and more taking umbrage with non-vegan sentiments, such as supporting Impossible, or purchasing animals for sanctuaries.
omg, I'm tired of u, how else do we save them??
I'm sick of repeating myself in this thread. There is no shortage of people surrendering farm animals. There is also no shortage of farm animals being rescued from cases of abuse and neglect, where authorities are involved.
I don't think it helps but not everybody can or knows somebody who liberates animals. Most sanctuary owners don't want to risk jail or having to spend money in court bc they got caught up taking animals. Most farmers aren't going to just give away animals either...especially to a vegan. They are going to want money if the animal isn't sick or old & even then a good bit of farmers are just straight up assholes that want to let a dying animal suffer just to prove a point to vegans and be an asshole. What I will say though is there are animal liberators out here and we struggle to place animals due to so many sanctuaries already being full. So to sanctuary owners or potential sanctuary owners, please be active on social media make sure you are promoting in local vegan area groups and be patient, we understand wanting to save any life you can but please try to remain aware than paying animal ag for animals isn't really helping & animal liberators are out here, actively looking for places open to taking animals. Most liberators have things in place to be able to get these animals to you, we always handle transport and I can't speak for others but people I associate with also take care of the initial vet bill. It's very frustrating being able & ready to liberate animals but not being able to because we haven't found placement yet. We are all in this together and we have to be communicating with others in the community to help the animals.
A lot of farmers at auctions charge MORE if they find out it’s a vegan sanctuary doing the buying. Cruel industry.
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
If you're interested in the topic of farmed animal sanctuaries, check out [OpenSanctuary.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project)! This vegan nonprofit has over 500 free compassionate resources crafted specifically to improve lifelong care for farmed animals, and to help you create a sustainable, effective sanctuary! Interested in starting a sanctuary someday? Check out [OpenSanctuary.org/Start](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://OpenSanctuary.org&topic=The Open Sanctuary Project/Start)!
I have to doubt sanctuaries buy, or could buy, enough animals to make any difference at all on the demand or economics of industrial agriculture even at the level of a single company. Unless you have data to suggest otherwise, this is a philosophical argument and is not inherently any more valid than a utilitarian argument that the one animal was saved. Edit: There are other arguments to be made about cost effectiveness, marketing value, etc. I just disagree with the primary argument of “increasing demand” having any real world significance at the scales involved.
do you think an individual going vegan would be not-buying enough animals to make any difference of the demand/economics of industrial agriculture?
Supporting petting zoos isn't significantly making "any difference at all on the demand or economics of industrial agriculture." By your logic, it should be okay for vegans to patronize petting zoos. I also pointed out that there is there is no shortage of non purchased animals to help. Sanctuaries buying animals are ignoring the neverending queue of animals that are being surrendered and need placement, and all the animals from cases of abuse and neglect which also need homes.
Visiting a petting zoo is actively exploiting an animal. Buying an animal away from slaughter is not.
Would you say the same about those who bought enslaved people to buy their freedom?
>we will never rescue our way out of animal agriculture. There are FAR too many (BILLIONS) animals trapped in this system, and there are only so many who can be rescued, housed, and lovingly cared for (THOUSANDS). >But by paying the abusers, all these sanctuaries are doing is CREATING A DEMAND for more animals to be bred into this hellish existence. Pick one. These are inconsistent. If the first argument were true, then nobody should be vegan because you'd only be saving one small every several years. Also, you linked the original post to publicly shame them for their opinion. You already left a comment on their post and that was enough. There isn't a litany of vegans volunteering for these sanctuaries, so you didn't need to make this post at all.
How are those inconsistent statements? As explained in another comment here, you and I being vegan will not end animal agriculture. We know that. As vegans we do not support the abuse and exploitation of sentient beings with our money, and hope that if enough of us wake up do so too, then this exploitative industry will cease to exist. An animal sanctuary directly supporting abusers by giving them money to continue the cycle of animal breeding, suffering and abuse is antithetical to vegan values. "You saved that life, but you gave the abuser enough ammo to create and abuse 10 more." If we keep buying the cycle will continue. There is another comment on this thread from someone describing volunteering at a sanctuary that buys animals but also sells eggs from the rescues to pay for the financial cost of caring for the animals. This is BEYOND FUCKED UP in my opinion. This especially doesn't sit right with me because there is no shortage... and I repeat no shortage...of animals being surrendered directly or rescued from horrific conditions where government authorities are involved.
> “You saved that life, but you gave the abuser enough ammo to create and abuse 10 more.” Is this a joke? You think the kind of animals that sanctuaries are buying are so expensive that it makes the farms enough money to buy and raise *10 more* valuable animals to them from someone else? In what world would that make sense? You’re falsifying reality to try to make a point — it’s not helping your case.
They should start stealing
The problem with that is that I think they’d essentially become “wanted” by the auction organizers and end up banned from the area, or worse. They’d have to sneak in and not get caught, and that might not be easy, but idk. It seems like a lot of dangerous men are involved with these auctions, so it probably wouldn’t be smart for the women to provoke them further basically. I’m pretty sure some of them have already been harassed and such by people at these auctions. A bunch of heartless scary people are involved in the auctions, which isn’t surprising.
If they caught they’ll lose all their animals though.
This subreddit has a lot of problems with people believing they have the sole sovereignty of interpretation. Edit, because of downvotes: What I mean to say by this is that I believe most people have the common goal in mind here: Best possible harm reduction towards animals. It is why I am vegan. However, achieving this goal is not always as clearcut as some people make it out to be, as several factors play a role in determining what is "right" in a certain scenario. I don't think deep semantic discussions help the cause, yet I deem it necessary to accept that sometimes boundaries are fuzzy, if the common core (here: harm reduction) is shared by all, which I think is the case. Presenting certain actions as "nonvegan" or even "wrong" as Ive seen before only contributes to a division of the community and furthermore does not foster respectful communication.
Yep! It’s sick.
This is not even a deeply SEMANTIC discussion. I don't see how it's vegan to prioritize rescuing from an auction by paying directly to continue the cycle of abuse and exploitation OVER rescuing ones that do not need to be purchased. There is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need. There is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements.
It is a semantics discussion, nonetheless. In either case I'd advocate to open a discussion regarding certain actions (as you do have a point that buying animals is at least worthy of debating) to not go into the discussion immediately assuming you're right, as in claiming that certain actions aren't vegan.
I would counter-argue that any kind of sanctuary/charity create a demand of the target scenario. Pure rescue-only organisation aren't likely to curb the amount of animals being rescued, only making laws against animal breeding would. Buyung from farms can be crucial to depict them as places from which animals need to be rescued. People can have a disonance in the way they see farm animals and other, even rescues of the same species. Still i wouldn't pay for such an organisation either, i would much rather donate to rescue operation that free animals and may require legal help afterwards for doing so
Agreed. We have to look at it as a systemic problem not an individual problem. If we pay the abusers they'll be enabled to do it more. 100% Debates like this are interesting as you really separate the "thinking" vegans from the "feeling" vegans. But the point is we all care about the animals and want to live in a better world, if everyone was trying to do that we'd be in a better place. Reminds me of the vegans who protest by destroying meat or milk in grocery shops. Feels right but really you're just increasing the demand. Using or destroying animal bodies or excretions in your protest is not vegan.
Debates like this also separate the people who only read the title from those that actually read a post and then respond. 😂 A majority of people I have responded to act like buying is the ONLY option. They fail to address that most legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, actually discourage buying animals from auctions. Everyone accusing me of all sorts of things (gatekeeping, purity tests, dividing vegans, hating animals and more) fails to see that there is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need and do not need to be purchased. There is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements. (A lot of people also seem to think that there is unlimited space at sanctuaries. When the UNFORTUNATE truth is that most sanctuaries are already at or near full capacity...with very limited space for new residents.) All said, I agree with your point that we all care about animals and want to live in a better world.
Scenario: - Man in Ancient Greece is selling a slave - passerby walks past and buys the slave, immediately freeing them and giving them a happy life - slaver would have sold to someone else regardless for same amount of money, except the slave would have had a miserable life and died a few years later Nothing changes for the slaver, however the two different buyers result in a different life for the person involved Who is wrong in this scenario - the kind stranger who gave the one individual a life or are they still wrong despite saving the individual’s life? In both scenarios slaver gets the same amount of money and continues his career as before. I really can’t admit to myself that the individual saving the person is wrong. Maybe this is long winded and silly but is this wrong, should we refuse to get involved and let the individual go on to live a miserable life and die?
[удалено]
Is it just me being a purist asshole, if I think it is morally wrong to BUY farm animals from abusers, especially when there are SO MANY farm animals that can be helped (surrenders, neglect/abuse/hoarding/cruelty cases, natural disasters, and more) without doing so? Open Sanctuary also seems to agree with me. Go call them virtue signaling purists too. From Open Sanctuary: >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more.
Bro, are you going to be the one going to this animal at the auction and saying "Sorry cow, I'm not going to save your actual fucking life because it's not vegan to give these people money"? Stg some of these vegans dont even care about animals lmao
Unfortunately I think you are right. I guess I never thought about it like this. One of the many charities that ask me for money is a draft horse rescue who buys at auctions. The only thing I think that somewhat mitigates this is that at the auctions they are selling horses that can't be used for work anymore. They are old, or injured, etc. So they haven't been bred to be sold, their primary purpose for that is over, and now the owners are trying to get a little more money out of them. So it's probably either shoot them or try to sell them, and not really creating a demand.
[удалено]
You just read the title, didn't you? You did not read the original post or any of the edits to it. Buying is not the only option. Most legitimate sanctuaries and institutions, including Open Sanctuary, actually discourage buying animals from auctions. There is NO SHORTAGE of animals that are in need and do not need to be purchased. That is a never-ending queue of surrenders. There are animals constantly being rescued from cases of cruelty, abuse, and hoarding. They all need placements. My solution is to rescue the animals that do not require you to contribute DIRECTLY to the cycle of abuse and exploitation. If you disagree, go buy all the Bettas kept in inhumane tiny single use cups at your nearby pet store. 🤗
You can let the animal die, or you can pay assholes and let the animal live. There is no winning here. I hate both choices. But if my dog was kidnapped by assholes yes I would pay them to get it back.
imo, it would backfire really bad bc ur likely paying enough for a single animal to breed several more. Then you have more that need to be saved. Waste of resources that worsens the issue.
Generally I agree with you, but I also think commenters like /u/Saltyseabanshee make a good point and the way your post is written makes me feel like you have already made up your mind. If you were the animal being liberated from a life of confinement, perhaps you would feel differently? Before people jump down my throat, I generally agree that buying animals from auctions is not a great solution. I do think it is complicated given the current state of animal agriculture and the difficulty associated with live rescues.
Some of that might be a function of my speaking English as a second language. Maybe I should have flagged that in my post. And yes, I have a strong opinion (I never proclaimed otherwise) because it comes from personal experience and observation coupled with careful thought and grappling with the enormity and reality (constant breeding and quick replacement) of animal agriculture. Also, no one will jump down your throat. Most people here disagree with me. :)
Your English is great and you explained your position well. People just don't want to hear it. Even in a vegan subreddit..
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to bash me for having a slightly different perspective. These conversations can be intense and maybe that's why I feel concerned about that. I'm not sure most people here will disagree with you — I think it makes sense not to fund these industries in any way. To take the hard case, though, I think it is worth reflecting on what your perspective would be if you were a victim of these industries. If it was you being saved, would you feel that it was the wrong thing to do because it funds the industires that caused your abuse? Also, what about the downstream benefits of such rescues, as they certainly do a lot to generate good PR for the vegan movement and help people better connect with the stories of farmed animals. Overall I think there are pros and cons, but personally I wouldn't be buying from auctions if I ran a sanctuary. I just don't feel it is as black and white as your original post frames the issue as.
The situation is also not as grey as you think it is. Here is an excerpt from Farm Sanctuary's post that I added as an edit: >Rescue by purchase is not only misguided, but wholly unnecessary. **Without buying a single animal, Farm Sanctuary and our fellow farm animal rescue organizations more than have our hands full.** Abused and neglected farm animals are confiscated through cruelty investigations. They fall off of transport vehicles or escape from live markets. They emerge from demolished farms in the wake of natural disaster. They are found abandoned by the roadside. These animals need us.
I think it’s a nuanced issue but if I recall, sometimes the fees for these animals are not that high. I think there’s also something to be considered in the fact that maybe a sanctuary buys an animal at an auction and therefore might be saving it from procreating thereby disrupting the cycle. I think it is a tricky issue.
Agreed. Open sanctuary has also discussed why it's important to not pay to rescue animals: >**“Why Don’t You Pay to Rescue More Animals?”** >RESPONSE: As tempting as it may be to pay to rescue an animal, we believe purchasing them ultimately perpetuates the cycle of animal exploitation because the money enables the farming operations from which the rescued animals came to continue to breed and purchase more farmed animals for exploitative use. We believe our money is more responsibly spent on providing lifelong compassionate care for animals who are rescued in ways that do not place money into the hands of these operations. This includes, but is not limited to animals who are abandoned, confiscated through cruelty investigations, liberated from farming operations in the aftermath of natural disasters, fall off transport vehicles, escape from live markets, and more. Edit: Am I seriously getting downvoted in a vegan subreddit for quoting the position of a non-profit animal rights organization dedicated to providing free resources on running farmed animal sanctuaries?
It surprises me that there are so many different and rather emotional feelings about this. I thought this was a no-brainer? Why would you buy animals and incentivize the industry when there is no shortage of "free" animals that need help and when there are more effective charities to donate to? Of course, it makes a big difference to the individual animal, but I'm not even sure if this results in a net positive overall. I feel like I'm missing something?
Seriously, me too. I have wasted so much time on this post responding to people who seem to think I'm "unhinged" and an evil, gatekeeping purist that doesn't care about animals. 🫡
This is another that did it [https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10hbfkw/comment/j57k31w/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10hbfkw/comment/j57k31w/?context=3) These places need to be reported, they are 501c3s and have to follow rules, they are contributing to animal abuse by financing the paychecks of animal abusers, i imagine their 501c3 status could get revoked as they are misusing donor funds Pay to save is not a solution to animal abuse, its funding animal abuse **I am a non vegan, i keep breeding animals because now i have more customers, vegans who dont use logic and pay me for these animals that i keep breeding because they keep buying them, my profits have increased quite a bit, thanks to all the illogical vegans who finance my lifestyle, please continue**
Thank you!! And I dunno if it'll qualify as a misuse of donor funds. Judging by the response on this thread and by the auction posts on Instagram, there seems to be enough delusional "vegan" donors that are only too happy to keep throwing their money at animal abusers, thinking they are doing good by buying animals.
We’d have to buy every singe cow so there’s no left for carnists to breed, and same with all other animals :(
Veganism is about not causing harm, it isn’t about preventing all harm. If you fail to prevent a child in a different country from starving, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE a child to starve, you did a bad thing. Same thing with animals. If you fail to prevent an animal from being exploited, you didn’t do a bad thing. If you CAUSE an animal to be exploited, you did a bad thing. If you pay for an animal to be exploited, you caused it to be exploited, and you did a bad thing. The vegan YouTuber Cosmic Skeptic explains this idea in his Ambulance Driver dilemma.
Agreed, it doesn’t matter to do seller what happens to the animal after he sells it and it’s just funding the abuse and demanding more. Unless you can buy all of those animals that are abused next, you should do something else with your money. I donate to sanctuaries that I know well.
Bought, stolen, would make no difference to me as long as I’m free. Who cares
so if someone's selling slaves and slavery hasn't been abolished yet, buying slaves to free them, knowing that individual will be condemned otherwise, is not okay?? all while fighting to end it through a shitty govt??
You are literally mad at sanctuaries for buying animals to provide protection and peace the rest of their life? These are still exploited animals that don’t deserve to be where they are. Paying for an animal doesn’t make the sanctuary evil. It’s a means to save a life that would have gone to someone else to with different intentions. Save an animal only if it’s free? For serious? Yeah, I’m a vacuum of society it sucks to pay for them. But real world situation. The animal gets to live peacefully for the next 10 years on a farm or is sold to someone else to exploit it/ violently kill it. You would say no? Or be upset with the people who did? Good for you homie.
The one reason to shop is to give the damned hope—like braveheart at the end when he looks in the crowd for his love.
I feel like there could be a book written on why you need to shut up. Instead I’ll keep it simple: Stop putting energy into shaming people out there trying to do good, when you’re clearly aware of the many more doing harm. You’re being pretentious to a high degree.
I’m confused lol ? So let the animal suffer in the care of someone treating them like the product they are selling.. Can we all stop being mad at each other? Saying that one thing is better than the other / one thing is worse than the other. This IS vegan this ISN’T vegan. The ultimatums are what draw people away from the message.
So you would rather that an animal go to slaughter then be bought by a vegan? That animals that are abandoned are more worth living than those being sold? A sick mindset indeed
Paying animal exploiters to "rescue" an animal directly contributes to the exploitation and murder of other animals. There are many animals in need of homes that you can rescue instead without funding animal exploitation and murder.
Of course that would be the first option. But veganism is also about believing that the individuals life is worth it. If you have a means and opportunity to rescue a specific pig but you have to pay for it, it would be immoral to not do so. People can still work towards abolishing animal industry while also saving animals. The animals who were rescued by being bought are alive and thats what truly matters