First, let me say that I truly do believe that it is unrealistic for activists on this issue to envision a day where we are all vegetarian or vegan. It's very important to raise awareness about the many benefits of that option, but it is perhaps more important to work toward HUMANE treatment of animals raised for slaughter, simply because no matter what the activists on this issue would want, people in developed countries are going to continue to eat meat.

I am depressed when I think how much more meat China is eating than ever before, etc. and so the sheer volume of demand for "meat" means a push for higher volume production which in turn, I suspect, means worse conditions for the animals.

Having said all that, what bothers me about the statement you cite is this: The rationale for caring about how the animals are treated is public sentiment and economics, not morality. DeHaven, as quoted by you, said:

"The situation that recently unfolded at the Hallmark/Westland slaughter plant in Chino, Calif., underscores the fact that concern for the welfare of animals … especially those used as a food source … is prominent in the minds of the American public, and that the economic consequences of ignoring the welfare of animals can be devastating . . . "

Nothing about right and wrong. Nothing about compassion. Once again, it seems to be wrong only when and if they "catch" you, because then the public will get upset (not these vets themselves, but the public) and that's a bad thing because it's going to hurt the industry in its pocket, not because of the suffering.

It doesn't sound like a revolution to me. It sounds like the same vapid, amoral proclamations that always steam me coming from these veterinary professionals in the AVMA. The don't stand for the right thing EVEN when they stand on the right side: they merely move because of the potiential economic impact of continuing to support cruelty.

That enrages me and makes me sick. I think it's totally and completely soul-less and amoral. It's wrong because its wrong, not because someone is going to lose money.

OK, so I did go read the whole thing as you suggested. While the overall outcome of this movement, if it takes hold, should be positive, I still believe the reasons behind it are wrong.

In order of preference, it is best for them to:

1. Do the right thing for the right reasons
2. Do the right thing for the wrong reasons
3. Do the wrong thing for the right reasons
4. Do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons

If they end up moving from number 4 above to number 2 above, that's some kind of progress. That's basically what his editorial points to. (Although, I'm not convinced that all of his arguments point in that direciton. In the case of the horse slaughter, I think he's advocating #3: Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.)

Overall, his emphasis is all about the ego of the profession and crafting and controlling the message. His reasons for wanting to get out front on this are:

To regain relevence
To avoid being marginalized and ignored
To regain/avoid losing credibility
To pass the "smell test" with the public
To control public perception
Craft the message, rather than respond to it
And finally, to retake what he calls their "rightful position as acknowledged authorities" on animal welfare.

That last one would be funny if it weren't, in context, so very sad and ironic.

Sad and ironic precisely because his reasons for imploring his colleagues to take forward-moving positions on animal welfare do not appeal to morality, compassion or kindness for the animals. They appeal to professional ego -- the desire to be SEEN AS leaders in welfare, the desire not to end up on the wrong side of public sentiment, etc. He talks about veal crates being unnacceptable to the public, NOT about being unnacceptable morally, to him, to them -- as they should be.

This is a little like when a child stops beating up his little brother MERELY to avoid being punished, NOT because his moral sensibilities have developed to the degree that he is capable of empathy or compassion.

Neither veterinarians nor any other profession has a "RIGHTFUL" place, as he claims, as leaders and authorities on treatment of animals. Leadership comes from a moral place, a compassionate place of empathy. When any person or group plans, as this editorial implies, to feign compassion for strategic purposes, or to take positions merely because they don't want to lose credibility or want to be seen as authorities -- well, that won't pass the "smell test."

Will it move us in the right direction? Sounds like it, and I gather we'd both be glad of that. But the heart's clearly not in it, and that is why I still despair the motives behind the action even if the action is right.

If I were to craft a brief argument to be presented to a groups of bovine veterinarians, I'd be hard-pressed to get away with as much as what Dr. DeHaven has written. Moral imperatives and integrity are viewed in very different terms by the players on the inside of this profession. Appealing to their sense of right and wrong strikes the wrong note and would see me laughed out of the room.

You have to appreciate that every profession has its culture and its style. They also have very sensitive, easily pushed buttons on the topic of animal welfare--so these issues must be approached with caution. If you lived in a world where PETA was always breathing down your neck and threatening to blow up your house, you'd react in knee-jerk fashion to almost any "animal welfare" initiative, wouldn't you?

Baby steps...