Anti Bothar Campaign Launched

by Chekov Fri Nov 17, 2006 14:20

Firstly, where is the evidence that Bothar are exporting live animals? Secondly, in the poorer parts of the world, like West Africa, one of the major causes of child mortality is protein deficiency - because meat is too expensive for the majority of people. If this 'campaign' is not a hoax, it is a complete and utter disgrace. If you want to campaign against meat eating in Ireland, or another rich western country where the availability of expensive food supplements and protein alternatives is widespread, do so by all means. But to campaign against eating meat in the third world is pretty much the same as campaigning for dead children.

If this campaign is not a hoax, I would encourage the people behind it to take a trip to Mali and try to persuade some people that the monthly morsel of meat that they give to their kids is murder.

by Elaine Fri Nov 17, 2006 14:26

Bóthar are one of my favourite charities and I was surprised when I read of this campaign. They send animals to needy families on the proviso that they comply with the 'pass on' system. For example, if a family get a female cow in calf, the first calf is given to another needy family. When that cow is in calf, it is given to another family and so on. Ensuring that eventually whole communities can support themselves.

The heifers that are sent are Holstein Friesians because they give a high milk yield.

On the Bóthar website the following information can be found in the FAQ section...

"Are the cows killed for meat?
The cow is much more valuable to the family when alive. At the end of her life, as in Ireland , she may have to be sold for her meat and hide, but very few project families would kill their own cattle as they regard them as family members."

With regard to transport, the following information is given...

"How are the heifers transported?
All the animals are transported by air, as this is the quickest, cheapest and least stressful method. Usually 70 heifers travel together as a group. The interior of a large cargo plane is specially adapted, having purpose-built pens and absorbent flooring installed. The cattle are comfortable during their journey are not in any way perturbed by the flight. On arrival, they are again checked by the local veterinary staff. Following this they are fed and watered and have a rest, and the next day they are distributed to their new families who have been eagerly awaiting their arrival."

You seem more intent on promoting vegetarianism, and as a one time vegan I can appreciate your stance, but this is a rather dubious way of going about it.
If you can provide proof that the animals are ill treated then I will reconsider my support but you haven't done so yet. I am concerned that your article will put some people off supporting a very worthwhile campaign. This charity puts the means of production in the hands of families who would have no other way of supporting themselves.

We must be careful in the first world of lecturing those in the majority world on what they can and can't eat. Particularly when they are on the brink of starvation. To deprive them of a livelihood because of our ethical dietary standards is the greatest hypocrisy.

Please check out www.bothar.ie and get some more facts.

by guff Fri Nov 17, 2006 14:32

We must be careful in the first world of lecturing those in the majority world on what they can and can't eat. Particularly when they are on the brink of starvation. To deprive them of a livelihood because of our ethical dietary standards is the greatest hypocrisy.

I would think that that also applies in the first world

I support this and other charities and ill be damned if some snotty little uni student from d4 lectures me on the rights and wrongs of supporting fellow human beings

by Spike Fri Nov 17, 2006 15:43

This is one of the most reckless, ignorant and condescending posts I have ever read.

To suggest that animals are mistreated (where is your proof) shows that you know nothing about Bothar or animals in general. Poorly treated, meat only live exports would be pointless as the animals would be no good to those who need them, even if, shock horror, they were to be exported for slaughter.

People in the 3rd world who rely on animals for their own survival (much like irish farmers in times not long past) will treat animals well and with respect. I wonder if you are either racist, or so caught up in your vegetarianisim that you are quite prepared to attack one of the few charities around that refuses to simply throw money at a problem.

If you are offended by the way meat is produced, you are correct to take a stance and proclaim to be a vegetarian. That is your right.

But do not dare for one minute try to interfere in the rights of others to choose what they will or will not eat. You have every option open to you to live on your own food according to your diet. Others do not have enough to keep a family alive.

Go and do something positive instead of knocking those who are trying to assist.

by Catlady Fri Nov 17, 2006 16:33

This is the first I have heard of this campaign, and having read the many hostile and insulting posts relating to it I feel that many people have either not read the article in full, or are jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly.

I see nothing in the article which purports to dictate to citizens of the developing world what they should or should not eat. As far as I can see, the aim of the campaign is not to stop aid being sent, but rather to rethink the way in which this should be done both in order to avoid unnecessary suffering for animals AND to achieve better results as far as helping the people out - ie: by sponsoring bags of grain etc.

As one poster made reference to Mali, a country and peoples with which I am very familiar, I point to the work of Marcel Griaule, who in the 50's visited the Dogon people who live on the cliffs of Bandiagara. Before he left, he helped them cultivate onions and design an irrigation system, which alone dramatically improved the lives of those affected. He is famed for his contribution to this day and on his death even had the great honour of a traditional funeral ceremony there.

Malians are on the whole extremely poor and meat does not make up a large percentage of the average diet. There are, of course, problems with malnutrition, particularly in rural areas. I think the point being made above is that it is possible to produce far more high quality food for human consumption when the food grown is fed directly to humans, rather than passing through the digestive system of a cow or other animal first, much of it ending up as waste. It would therefore be possible to feed more hungry people directly with crops than with meat, which is a very inefficient way of recycling food.

One more thing which I find highly confusing about the Bothar way of doing things is the fact that there are many cows, camels, goats etc already in countries like Mali - the towns are teaming with them, so why export them rather than sourcing them locally or providing veterinary support directly to people like the Peul, who are traditionally herdsmen, as well as crops and irrigation schemes to those who are traditionally cultivators? This would seem a more logical approach to me. I fail to see the point in sending animals to countries which are already teeming with them, and where repeated droughts lead to their deaths and total loss of livlehood to the people who depend on them. If the animals were bought locally and distributed locally, money would go directly into the local economy benefitting everyone there rather than Irish/Western farmers, and also eliminate donations being wasted on long haul flights with specially adapted aircraft. I am no biologist, but I would also imagine that local animals thrive better in the hot climate and have immune systems which are better adapted to the regions in question. Leaving aside any welfare convictions, I honestly think there are better ways to use any extra cash I may have to help.

by Chekov Fri Nov 17, 2006 17:21

For a start, the person who posted this odious article is very clearly arguing for veganism. The fact that the statistics used are misleading and superficial used is a matter for another day.

Secondly, I am also familiar with Mali and the Dogon and have seen many of the irrigated onion fields. However, they are really nothing to do with the problem of malnutrition since there are few people in Africa who doen't have access to sufficent calories, most infant and child malnutrition, which can be clearly seen in the common pot bellies, is not from a lack of calories, it is from a lack of protein. In particular, because diets are so reliant on cassava - almost pure hydrocarbon - due to the fact that it will grow in poor soil and produces 3 crops a year and is promoted by the International Agencies. In this context, advocating vegetarianism - and actively discouraging aid agencies from supplying desperately needed livestock, is just appallingly arrogant and blind to reality.

If you had a child who suffered from protein malnutrition (Kwashiorkor) and you were poor and living in Africa, woud you feed it meat, if you were lucky enough to be able to get your hands on some?

I have no problem with people advocating vegetarianism in Western societies, although I think that such a position is fundamentally wrong and dangerous.

I have a huge problem with people agitating against sending animals to Africa on the grounds that "meat is murder". Africans don't get enough protein. Many children die because of this. Actively trying to disrupt the attempts of people to provide them with livestock which is the only available source of protein It is exactly the same, to my mind, as Marie Antoinette's famous "let them eat cake".

by ronan Fri Nov 17, 2006 18:10

hi chekov, protein is available in many other forms than livestock, pulses, beans and lentils all contain high amounts of protein.

by Chekov Fri Nov 17, 2006 18:36

"protein is available in many other forms than livestock, pulses, beans and lentils all contain high amounts of protein."

That's not my point. The fact is that protein is not available in Mali in the form of pulses, beans and lentils, none of which can be found in your average Malian village, never mind being affordable. The only source of protein that is widely affordable to most people is dried fish from the Niger (or imported from Senegal) and even that is fairly rare. Most people's diet is mostly just rice cooked in fish-guts with a couple of traces of vegetable and maybe a stock cube.

If the person who posted this story gave a damn about either people or animals, and wasn't just concerned with a self-absorbed moral purity, they might have tried to organise a campaign to distribute affordable non-meat or fish sources of protein to Africa rather than attempting to undermine an attempt to distribute desperately needed sources of nutrition to people who will die without it.

by Elaine Fri Nov 17, 2006 19:05

"One more thing which I find highly confusing about the Bothar way of doing things is the fact that there are many cows, camels, goats etc already in countries like Mali - the towns are teaming with them, so why export them rather than sourcing them locally..."

The answer can be found in the FAQ section on Bóthars website.

Cut and paste for those too lazy to check...

"Why don't the African people breed their own goats?
Out of 450 million goats in the world, over 350 million are in developing countries, but many of these are of poor quality and do not give anything like the amount of milk produced by an Irish goat. Some of the male goats born from Irish parents are mated with the native stock and the resulting offspring are better than if produced by two indigenous animals. Best of all, though, is to have kids that have both male and female parents of high quality stock."

On a personal note, the reason I support Bóthar is because I know where my money is going and the gift keeps on giving because of the 'pass on system'. If you send hens then the first chicks are passed on to another family. Cows the same etc. Not sure how the honey bees are passed on though, unless they call to their neighbour with a bee in a jar? The benefits re Pollination of surrounding crops would help all farmers in the locality so even if they are not passed on at least the benefits accrue. All in all it's a great idea and they have the cheapest yaks around (at €380 a pair) if anyone fancys sending a gift to Tibet.

by Catlady Fri Nov 17, 2006 19:44

Personally, I would never contemplate "preaching" vegetarianism, veganism or anything else to people in developing countries - I didn't while I was there and of course I appreciate the difficulties they face in sourcing good quality protein. However, I am still unconvinced that sending animals is the best way of dealing with the problems, and feel that a programme set up to produce cheap high quality protein (beans, hemp, lentils etc), in a similar way to Griaule's onion fields, would ultimately be more effective in the long term. Of course onions cannot provide all the nutritional benefits of a balanced diet (neither can milk or meat for that matter!), but they are a good source of vitamin C (15% of rdi per onion), calcium (4% rdi) and iron (2% rdi), as well as being a valuable trade commodity. If other crops with higher protein value in addition to essential vitamins not found in meat were to be added, I genuinely think any money donated would be put to better use. It is possible, indeed easy, to be healthy on a plant based diet, once the appropriate plants are at your disposal, and the people who traditionally rear stock or hunt could continue to do so to supplement a basic diet of plant origin which meets all of their basic nutritional needs, without, as I said, wasting money flying cows first class over to them - money which could be used for irrigation, housing, medical treatment and agricultural training and support which is far more sustainable.

Chekov, while I appreciate your acceptance of people's right to live a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle in the West, I would be very interested to know why you think this is "dangerous" (particularly as both are recommended by the WHO). Also, if you can produce alternative statistics to the ones in the article I would be interested in seeing them - for comparisons sake. As far as I am aware most environmental groups hold that meat production is detrimental to the planet, and it seems fairly obvious that it takes less resources to produce crops to be eaten directly rather than turned into animal muscle first - otherwise meat would be cheaper than veg, which even with modern western factory farming methods, is not the case!

Finally, I have taken a look at the Bothar website, and some of the content is spurious to say the least. I have mailed them for clarification, and am reserving my final judgement for when I receive a reply...

by matt Fri Nov 17, 2006 19:46

"I wonder would so many people donate if the pictures were of the animals being slaughtered? Or even skinned carcases? Maybe an emmaciated, beaten animal tied to a fence in the scorching sun? Think about it."
this is the most misguided and ridiculous campaign I've seen on indymedia. Do you have pictures of emaciated beaten animals that bothar brought from ireland? No?
Why would they be emaciated and beaten? Because people in third world countries don't know any better? There is a certain racist element to this article that is very disturbing. Or maybe you don't believe that people can treat animals with love and respect and still kill them to feed their kids, themselves? I agree with the above posters you are in no position to start imposing your beliefs on anyone especially those that are suffering already because of western beliefs being imposed on them. let them find their own way and support those who are trying genuinely to help them and are having some success in doing so.
You want to fight a just campaign certainly fight against the disgusting treatment of animals in ireland. They are certainly treated far worse and suffer a worse fate than those sent abroad by bothar.
Hopefully bothar will get great amusement from this ridiculousness.

by Catlady Fri Nov 17, 2006 20:06

Oh dear indeed. I saw both well cared for, loved animlas in Mali amongst other places, and also ones who were emaciated, badly beaten and tied up in the scorching shade. Matt, I really think you are making quite a jump of logic here. Cruelty is just as likely to exist in far off lands as it is here, and has nothing to do with race. I think the point the poster who said that about emaciated animals in pictures was thinking more of the fact that if you have a hard time providing water, shelter and food for yourself and your kids, you will have less time to worry about doing so for the goat... To accuse the poster of racism is going a bit far I think.

I did, in fact, look at the Bothar site in some detail after my first post, so no my dears, I am not so lazy as to need a cut and paste of well chosen sections of it. It also states a number of other things, some of which I find impossible to believe, but as I have said, I am awaiting a reply.

As I have also stated, this is the first I have heard of this campaign, but I do feel the article has opened up some very important points of discussion on the best ways we can use our spare cash to help developing countries, if we choose to do so.

by catlady Fri Nov 17, 2006 20:11

http://www.veganvillage.co.uk/vegfam/

This is a link to an organisation who are trying to feed the world using plants rather than animals. Provides another perspective for anyone interested!

by Aine Fri Nov 17, 2006 22:30

I have rarely found myself agreeing with Chekov but on this one I'm 100% behind him.

Compassion in World Farming, which is Ireland's leading farm animal welfare organisation, has campaigned against the live export of farm animals for slaughter & further fattening (leading to slaughter) for many years and also against the EU export refunds which, until recently, fuelled the export trade extrenal to the EU. CIWF does not campaign against the live export of breeding animals (such as racehorses or the Bóthar animals). For anyone who wants to get involved in a genuine ban live exports campaign, contact http://www.ciwf.ie for information.

The poster above (Matt?) displays an arrogant colonial attitude to people in Africa. "Don't export animals there as they will only be cruelly tied to a post in the scorching sun or skinned alive". What appalling condension! I don't work for Bóthar, but think they do extremely valuable work. The animals are transported in quality conditions ,as breeding animals, to communities and families where they are highly valued. Matt has obviously not done his research. He would probably find a friend in the Bardot animal rights' camp - where animals are more important than humans of the non-Aryan type.

There are, of course, a great many excellent vegetarians who are involved in social justice campaigns at home & abroad and who also happen to believe that animals, as sentient beings, should not suffer for human greed, but who realise that there are bigger fish to fry (whoops!) in today's world than attacking a group which is trying to assist sustainable farming in African communities.

If you actually do want to do something for animals, then start leafletting now about turkey farming and put people off their turkey dinners. Perhaps you know the facts about selective breeding, how the creatures can no longer mate naturally, how they suffer from brittle bones due to their large breast sizes, the appalling overcrowded conditions that they're kept in, the dubious slaughter conditions & the total lack of welfare legislation for the farming of turkeys in this country. If, as is likely, you do not know any of the facts, then again contact www.ciwf.ie for a briefing document.

by kidney bean Sat Nov 18, 2006 02:48

Purchasing (at current irish prices!) and Airlifting 70 Heifers to africa is surely not cheap!

This money could purchase and ship a hell of a lot of pulses and lentils.to these people and pay for any expertise needed to help in growing them natively. This method would provide more long term protein to more people and empower them to solve their own problems in a more resource efficient manner.

After all, If onions can be grown there then why not lentils / pulses?

So what's so wrong with plant protein chekov et al? Personally I have been living on it healthily all my life. Seems like it would be a much more efficient use of land area.

Not to discourage any efforts to help hungry people but if this is your goal then why not do this in a better and more resource efficient manner. I think bothar are not spending their donations in a way that achieves maximum effect and are encouraging animal dependency and all it's inherent disadvantages (disease, parasites, inefficient land use,etc) where there are better alternatives and in that sense I think their approach is a little irresponsible.

My only explanation for this particular approach being chosen over more efficient ones to achieve the stated goals is that perhaps there might be a small "sale of local cattle by creative means" element here.

by av Sat Nov 18, 2006 08:17

I have seen some of the farms where Bothar destined goats are kept and all looked very happy, my goats love to jump in the back of my car and are quite happy to make long journeys.

by Catlady Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:52

"The poster above (Matt?) displays an arrogant colonial attitude to people in Africa. "Don't export animals there as they will only be cruelly tied to a post in the scorching sun or skinned alive". What appalling condension!"

Aine, I am not sure who this is referring to as Matt seems to be of the opposite opinion entirely, and I am the poster just before you, and certainly never made any such claim. I am also very aware of the horrific abuses here in Ireland and the work of CIWF, and if these comments were targeted at me, I resent your assumption of ignorance on my part. Just wanted to clear that up. And yes, I do agree with you that the first priority ought to be solving abuse problems here, but still think that this is a valuable discussion given the fact that donations ought to be put to the best possible use. As I have still had no reply from Bothar to any of my queries, I am basically of the opinion that it would make more sense to provide cheaper, more efficient and more sustainable sources of protein to developing countries.
This is not a moral judgement on the rights and wrongs of starving people eating meat or dairy produce, I am simply following the logic that my back garden could probably support both myself and my partner quite easily if we were both vegan, but would never support even one cow or goat, even with the lush green Irish grass we have!

As I have stated above, I feel it would make more sense to try and provide a balanced diet from plant sources which would meet the basic needs of the families involved and which they could then supplement themselves from whatever local sources of dairy/meat are available, without being dependant on them in times of short supply/drought etc. This would ensure that more people were fed a basic healthy diet, after which its up to them to eat what they can get/what they want, be it fish, beef, chicken or wild animals hunted for food. I fail to see how this approach is either colonial or condascending - its just more sensible from what I can see. If Bothar want to persuade me otherwise I am ready to listen to their arguments, but for the moment this is my position, and they will not be getting any of my money.

Veggie, you may have missed it in an earlier post, but there is an organisation which aims to "feed the world" without the wasteful use of animal protein - Vegfam. Here is the link again: http://www.veganvillage.co.uk/vegfam/

by Flaco Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:25

I’m writing from Liberia, where I currently live and work. I spend a lot of the time in remote jungle communities, where much of the daily diet is bush meat ( anything that moves and is edible), supplemented with cassava and vegetables. People here eat what they can get. I would just like to point out how amusing the notion of promoting vegetarianism in contexts such as this is. A Liberian colleague has just read the Anti – Bothar posting, and is still laughing.

The world truly consists of very different realities!

by Joe Sat Nov 18, 2006 13:21

I know very little about the region so with that disclaimer here are a couple of reasons why the meat route might make sense

1. Existing knowledge base - its sounds like goats are not unusual there, people already know how to raise them. This would not be true for introducing new crops.
2. Local conditions - goats in particular can be raised in areas where many crops cannot be cultivated either due to low rainfall or terrain. You can set a goat (or some Sheep) loose on a near verticle and arid cliff and it will seek out the pockets of vegetation and turn them into protein that can be coonsumed by humans. Cows can graze on grass land that is too arid for cultivation or where access to the technology needed for cultivation is restricted. Also many grasslands have very thin soils and attempts to cultivate them simply destroys the soil.
3. Simplicity - proteins can be obtained from plant sources but because each plant surce does not provide all types of protein (there are 22) you need access to several different types of pants and you need to combine them in the right quantities. Animals on the other hand already contain the right balance of proteins as their meat is pretty similar to our own. It may simply not be possible to grow a full spread of plants locally - in Ireland the vegetarian diet includeds food stuffs that have been transported thousands of miles to provide that balance.

I used to be a vegetarian and the reason I gave up was in part down to the sort of vegetarain politics that tried to blame world hunger on the raising of livestock. The situation is much more complex than this and it is wrong to make a (false) ideological argument out of peoples suffering.

by Jacqueline Fallon Sat Nov 18, 2006 14:29

To the members of the "Anti-Bóthar Campaign",

I would strongly advise you to abandon your "Anti-Bóthar Campaign"and concentrate your efforts on those who, in reality, are guilty of animal cruelty.

Poverty stricken families who receive animals from Bóthar receive agricultural training and are trained in how to care for the animals (constructing shelters, growing fodder and breeding skills are taught) before they receive any animals. Animals are not subjected to mistreatment, as the animals are obviously more valuable to the families alive than dead. There's no profit to be made from one dead animal, which can't be milked nor an income provided from its surplus milk. Indeed, the animals are sent with the idea that they will be bred and any offspring given to another neighbouring family in the village. The recipient families value the Bóthar animals, as they are an invaluable source of nutrition and their only source of a meagre income.

Your ideas of supplying solely bags of grain to grow crops or other vegetarian options is an attractive and a nice idea to those living in comfort in Ireland with a variety of shops and supermarkets and vegetarian choices at their disposal, and who don't have to rely solely on them for their source of food, which might be a very unreliable source of food supply in some of these countries due to extreme weather conditions, and how hard it is to predict the yield in any given year.

I applaud the work of Bóthar and will have no hesitation in donating to them this year, as I did last year. It is a great Christmas gift to give to help deprived people of South America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe to obtain animals and in turn help alleviate their hardship.

To Bóthar, keep up the good work - Bail Ó Dhia ar an obair!

by Catlady Sat Nov 18, 2006 14:50

Joe, thanks for making suggestions to explain it. however, I remain pretty unconvinced. In order of the points you made:

1. Bothar put a lot of money into training the people to look after the animals, apparently. They need special treatment and cannot be cared for like the native animals. The same money could just as easily be used to give training on new cultivation methods and which crops are most beneficial.

2. According to Bothar, the goats and other animals cannot be let loose as they will come into contact with local herds and pick up diseases and parasites which would be harmful to them, having no natural immunity. So they can't be set loose like the local herds, but are kept permanently in specially built housing which has to be provided by the recipient family before the animal's arrival. Another reason for this is that if they were allowed to graze, they would trample much of the grass which is often in short supply. It also means that the family must spend time cutting feed for the animal, collecting water for it, and, once again according to Bothar, bringing it for a walk twice a day! I still feel the money would be better spent on irrigation and cultivation, particularly as I reckon an Irish cow would need a lot more fresh drinking water than a native one (I was constantly dehydrated in Africa despite being welded to my water bottle at all times). Given that lack of water is already such a huge problem in so many areas, to have to give gallons of it to a cow for it to come out partly as milk, partly as urine, doesn't seem sensible.

The ways in which cattle etc are kept in West Africa is, to my mind, far superior to they way it is done here (they wander off to graze each morning and come home when they feel like it, giving free range and organic a whole new meaning) even if I did have to run from the odd free ranging pissed off Bull while I was trekking there! But, according to Bothar themselves, this cannot be the case with the imported animals. Once again, if they are going to buy cows etc for people there, I reckon it would make more sense to buy local. That way they could buy a hell of a lot more animals who are resistant to native health risks, providing just as much milk/meat etc through larger numbers, which they people already know how to manage (in a far more humane way than us) and which require far less time and effort for the recipient families. Having, say, four goats rather than one would also mean they could sell on from time to time if the need arose, eat one during traditional festivities, still having something left if one got sick/milk dried up/died, or whatever. This has nothing to do with promoting veganism in developing countries as far as I am concerned. I just think they are wasting a hell of a lot of money, basically!

3. I am no botanist and certainly no authority on optimum conditions fro growing various crops, but I would imagine that a sufficient variety could be grown in most regions to ensure a basic adequate diet, which, as I have said before, could be supplemented with fish, meat from local herds, hunting etc. Once again, my basic point is that I think Bothar are wasting money, and I am becoming more and more convinced of that as I mull this over again and again.

I do think it's a pity you stopped being veggie just 'cos of certain politics. Just because people make an ideolgical argument out of a cause you basically support doesn't make the cause unworthy. Seems a bit like biting your nose off to spite your face. There are many groups around that I disagree with fundamentally, but it would never make me go back to eating animals. They are not responsible for any of the ideologies, false or otherwise, flying around after all!

by Spinning Quickly Sat Nov 18, 2006 21:34

"The fact that Bothar are encouraging people to participate in the live export and certain death of so many innocent, defenceless, intelligent animals is disgusting. This is why we have decided to launch a campaign to highlight the immeasurable cruelty involved in what they are trying to do."

OK - I take it you have documentary evidence of this, rather than making vague statements?

"I wonder would so many people donate if the pictures were of the animals being slaughtered? Or even skinned carcases? Maybe an emmaciated, beaten animal tied to a fence in the scorching sun? Think about it."

There's something creepy about assuming that everyone in Africa who receives one of these animals is a heartless sadist. Think about it.

"THE ANIMALS BOTHAR ARE SENDING TO THEIR DEATH THIS YEAR:
Cows, Goats, Camels, Rabbits, Hens, Sows, Yaks, Fish, Sheep, Guinea Fowl and Honey Bees."

They slaughter honey bees?

"In the UK, raising animals for food requires almost one-third of all of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the UK. (Producing one hamburger uses enough fossil fuels to drive a small car 35 kilometres and enough for 17 showers)."

You're assuming that food production in the UK is identical to those used where Bóthar sends their animals.

"Eighty per cent of agricultural land is used to raise animals for food. A vegan diet requires about 1/6 acre of land per year, whilst a vegetarian diet requires three times as much, and a meat based diet- an unbelievable- 20 TIMES AS MUCH!"

OK, how did you derive those figures?

This looks like a thinly (and clumsily) veiled attempt at promoting veganism, with little understanding of what goes on in the countries.

by Kato Sun Nov 19, 2006 14:02

I can only comment on the hunger of the children i teach in Ireland. If it were not for the breakfast and hot lunches that the school i teach in provides many of our pupils would go hungry for most of the week. I can only imagine how much worse it is for the children in parts of the African continent who also, if they are lucky enough to have a school, have to study with empty bellies. The people who have dreamt up this Anti Bothar campaign need to cop on to themelves. Bothar is doing its best to help others. If someone is hungry you do not quibble about the source of the food you provide it. If someone is thirsty you do not say 'may i suggest you use a filter jug first'. If someone is naked you do not quibble over whether the material is provided from sustainable resources. It is not ideal nothing is. If you wish to be vegan, vegetarian or whatever your preference good luck to you. You are lucky to be in a position where you have a choice and the education to make such a choice.

by Catlady Mon Nov 20, 2006 15:00

According to Bothar, the only reason they send animals instead of sacks of grain is because there are already other Irish based charities doing so. If anyone knows which charities these are could they post the details? If I can spare a few bob this Christmas I would like it to go to they guys who are going to put it to the most effective use.

by Anti Bothar Campaign Mon Nov 20, 2006 18:28 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1.

Firstly, for those that said that this campaign might be a hoax, I can assure you that it most certainly is not.

I am not going to start individually replying to everyone who commented, but I will give a general statement: We are not racists, we are not 'people-haters', and we do care about the lives of people aswell as the lives of animals. We believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to eat/use etc. animals in ANY way whatsoever, regardless of what an individuals circumstances may be.

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone would eat another person just because they were hungry!! You would find alternatives. We would love nothing more than to see hunger wiped out, but we don't want that done by taking the lives of animals- we want people to think of and use alternative (which are equally if not more, effective) methods.

We would like to stop Bothar from sending animals (and yes, they do kill bees- just look up bee keeping/honey production on the internet), but we would also like to promote ethical charities such as the one Catlady (thank you for your comments, we appreciate them) mentioned.

Again, we are not going to waste our time replying to all the trolls but we would be interested in knowing what these people (who obviously have a lot of time on their hands) do to improve the lives of any human or animal.

Anti Bothar Campaign

by Catlady Tue Nov 21, 2006 17:50

A quote from the Redesigning Progress site, a US based gang who are basically all about saving the planet, and in no way Animal Rightists, vegan promoters or anything like that, although they do say it's better to hunt yourself or buy organic/free-range animal produce than the mass produced stuff, for obvious environmental reasons.

http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/index...l#top

"A plant-based diet generally requires less land, energy, and other resources. Crop-based food requires an average of 0.78 global hectares per ton of food, compared to 2.1 global hectares required to produce one ton of animal-based food."

On a slightly different note, a Senegalese novelist I am reading at the moment (Aminata Sow Fall) mentions that the West typically keeps Africa down by giving with one hand whilst taking back ten times as much with the other, thus perpetuating an African mindset created throughout the colonial period whereby Africans themselves have been "trained" to believe they are somehow helpless, and therefore dependant on the West, which of course suits the West as they are kept in the position of power.

Now, I would never accuse Bothar of having an agenda of purposefully introducing factory farming methods, but to refer back to a point I made earlier, would it not make more sense to buy local animals for the needy which need minimal care and can roam freely to seek out pockets of vegetation (as mentioned by another poster), than to import foreign breeds which basically need to be kept in stalls all day requiring much more intensive effort on the part of the families, and bearing little or no resemblance to the traditional farming practices which have existed for centuries?

Does, in other words, the importation of Irish cattle etc. have a negative long term impact in terms of the environment, sustainability and cultural colonialism?

by Spinning Quickly Tue Nov 21, 2006 18:01

"Firstly, for those that said that this campaign might be a hoax, I can assure you that it most certainly is not."

Thank you for replying - I was wondering if there was only going to be one comment from you.

"I am not going to start individually replying to everyone who commented, but I will give a general statement: We are not racists, we are not 'people-haters', and we do care about the lives of people aswell as the lives of animals. We believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to eat/use etc. animals in ANY way whatsoever, regardless of what an individuals circumstances may be."

Your original posting stated that the animals were likely to be treated cruelly - no mention of animals being treated cruelly in Ireland, so that interpretation wasn't much of a leap.

"I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone would eat another person just because they were hungry!!"

People have been known to do so in desperate circumstances. The crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 (AKA the Andes flight disaster) was one that occurred in 1972. (I provide a link to Wikipedias' entry on this.)

Remember that the people to whom these animals are being sent are not merely hungry - many are malnourished and will quite possibly die without some form of aid.

"We would like to stop Bothar from sending animals (and yes, they do kill bees- just look up bee keeping/honey production on the internet), but we would also like to promote ethical charities such as the one Catlady (thank you for your comments, we appreciate them) mentioned."

My comments about the bees were a little facetious, but you haven't provided specifics about the death that awaits them abroad, as opposed to here.

Perhaps you might reconsider your campaign - instead of being "anti-Bóthar", it might be "pro-vegan", in that you promote the charities that send vegan aid.

"Again, we are not going to waste our time replying to all the trolls but we would be interested in knowing what these people (who obviously have a lot of time on their hands) do to improve the lives of any human or animal."

Some of the other contributors have mentioned their contributions - I have a standing order sending a certain amount of money each month to a charity. Plus, I usually buy charity cards for special occasions.

Not everybody who helps other people blows their own trumpet about it!

As for people being "trolls", I wondered if your original posting was itself a troll - it provoked a lot of outrage and there was no reply until today. I now see that it wasn't a troll, but a rea campaign.

by william considine - volunteer bothar worker Wed Nov 22, 2006 14:23

This campaign and the contents of the original post are so far from the reality that it is a big stretch to try to respond to it. It is nonsense from start to finish. It is based on a Developed World Perspective that is so homocentric, egocentric and delusional that it should be regarded as sick.

I have accompanied and cared for nearly 1000 dairy goats in six different shipments to Tanzania, over the past ten years. Not one goat in my care ever showed the slightest sign of stress or discomfort in transit. The recipients treat these goats as very special. They are better cared for than if they were one of the family. This is so because a healthy happy productive goat guarantees healthy children, guarantees a small income to pay for children to go to school and gives a modicum of hope for their future and a glimpse of what development can offer.

In regard to the "gasping fish being shipped out in tanks" its absolute nonsense. Fish, like most of the Bothar gift animals, are sourced in the recipient country wherever possible and certainly as close as possible to the recipients. Transport is the most expensive cost and Bothar takes every step to keep such transporrt to a minimum. The facts about the fish gift are that, the money goes as a grant to encourage young men to dig fish ponds by hand in suitable sites near their villages. When the pond is dug and fenced and equipped as required, the pond is seeded with eggs of a suitable fish species brought as a "pass on gift" from another village that already has a pond in production. A successful fish pond can give a regular and reliable source of protein to keep children and AIDS victims healthy and give these enterprising young me a reason to resist the disastrous drift to a shanty existance around the cities.

I would strongly urge the promoters of this ANTI BOTHAR group to go out and view the projects first hand before further damaging something precious that they don't understand. Suspend your campaign until you go out. If you come back without your perceptions being altered, then I will eat my hat

by wow Wed Nov 22, 2006 15:26

okay everybody in who has been posting on this comments page firstly have to think why the third world countries are starving .
Its the big corporates taking the food away from these countries and selling it back to them it does not take a scientist to come to that conclusion .
You have big corps like monsanto selling the people in third world countries seeds that they have to buy every year instead of reusing them cause the genetic makeup of the seeds wont allow them to do that.
Its really complex alot more than people realise i think, the fight for animal rights is fight for human rigths is for wommen rights etc etc its all connected .
We in the first world have a moral expectancy to help the poorer countries because we take alot more than we give back same with animals and the enviroment , we rape and rape and we do nothing to make things better .
Of course we get all nutrional benefits from from plant based products and everyone knows its cheaper to live on vege diet than animal .
We have to rethink the way we live our live and the things we buy if we ever really want to help poorer countries , animals and the enviroment.

by concerned environmentalist Wed Nov 22, 2006 21:28

Firstly, anybody who is posting complaints about people trying to teach bothar some sense and who eat animal products could be accused of hypocracy. Where do you people think the grain the cattle here in the western world are fed on comes from, do you think it is all grown here? Perhaps you should be educating yourselves before jumping to conclusions.
Secondly, Wow and Catlady are perfectly correct, and going vege is the single most important thing western people can do to help people in the third world. If the whole western world gave up animal products tomorrow the land in the third world could actually be used to feed the people there and not animals here.
Thirdly, sending starving people animals that will eat more food than they produce is the biggest false economy Ive ever heard of and I am glad that somebody is trying to talk sense into Bothar.
Fourthly, yes sending animals thousands of miles around the world providing them with veterinary care training people to look after them and then maintaining them is way more expensive than sending grains, tools, seeds, helping to build wells (which would provide the people with fresh water).
Helping starving people to be self sufficient and feed themselves and live off their land is obviously the only way that makes sense. Wasting thousands of pounds sending animals which in the long term cost more resources than they will provide is the only thing that is ridiculous and as catlady says bothar dont send grains etc because other charities do is madness, why not do the same thing and actually do some good?
Please educate yourselves people before you have a go at people who are trying to educate crazy people .... simple economics.....1 cow + 1 cow does not add up to loads of food, it adds up to loads of money that could have been spent on loads of food for people to eat instead and of course it adds up to loads of cow dung and vet bills and environmental damage etc etc

by Bothar all the way Fri Dec 01, 2006 16:20

I would just like to know how this campaign is coming along and also do you think it is going anywhere when the majority of people think you are being ridiculous?
I suggest that you all have a good read about Bothar because it seems that there is very little knowledge on the subject.
I would also like to know if anyone else would be interested in a debate between a memebr of the anti Bothar campaign and a bothar staff member? i have heard debates on the radio with members of different organisations and Bothar and so far no query or question has gone unanswered by Bothar.
With regards to the anti bothar campaign comment basically saying they couldn't be bothered answering everyones comment i think that is a big mistake...if you are truly dedicated to and believe in your cause the same way Bothar does surely you wouldn't leave so many negative comments go unanswered. Anytime i have called bothar about queries i might have had in the past they are quick to provide me with all the facts and figures....don't you think you should be doing the same?? you only seem to be answering comments on being vegan and what does Bothar exporting animals out to needy families have to do with you eating veg???

by Bothar all the way Fri Dec 01, 2006 16:28

FYI to the concerned environmentalist.......cow dung equals fertilisation for crops duh!!! i think i was thought that in the early years of primary school! maybe you should try some education yourself .....it's obvious you need it and if you read up on Bothar you would see that 1 cow + 1 cow might not equal loads of food but it does equal lots of milk and any surplus is sold in order to buy different foods, medicine, education, better housing, clothes! i would much rather all of these things than a few bags of grain....how bout you?

by Jo138 Fri Dec 01, 2006 22:48

Please read this article at: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

" According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.” "

I for one wouldn't dream of giving to Bothar for their dubious 'feed the hungry' stance. I'd feel much happier giving to Vegfam or Hippo, or any other organisations that are more environmentally friendly.

Feed the world using intelligence AND compassion - they don't have to be exclusive!

by Concerned environmentalist Fri Dec 01, 2006 23:37

FYI
Yep I know cow dung equals fertilisation, as does ANY dung (including human) and there are already plenty of animals, native animals, there to fertilise. As I already said, this is bad economics, these animals are costing more than they are giving to these people, false economy. Who said they couldnt get help with medicine, education etc etc?? Of course all of these things should be available to Everybody and I dont recall the anti bothar campaign saying they werent to get this kind of help, just not live exports.

I knew a person who went to Botswana and brought shoes, books etc etc and I also know people who go to Belarus annually and they bring lots of clothes but I wouldnt support them exporting live animals. As was said before there are plenty of native animals there and sending animals to eat more food than they will produce in milk or money is ridiculous. Bothar would be better sending bags of grain and seeds and tools and helping to build wells for water (which is necessity number 1) and why not send school books and clothes (plenty of other charities send clothes) and provide help with all the things you mentioned. That would be a much more worthwhile charitable act than sending live animals.

by Kim O'Reilly - Anti Bothar Campaign Sat Dec 02, 2006 19:09 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1

Checkov’s comment
The evidence that Bothar are exporting live animals is in their brochure on their website that’s what they do send animals to other countries, usually thousands of miles away. This is a live export. The letter to Bothar is not about telling people to be veggie or vegan but to stop sending living animals and to put the money they receive to better use to better help the people, this is the aim of the campaign.

Elaine’s comment
Passing on an animal does not make this any better, Bothar are still wasting money by sending animals when they should be sending food that will directly feed the people, as you have read from the many posts protein can be obtained without meat and growing food to eat is obviously more economical than feeding food to animals to turn it into meat or milk, this is simple maths. Money can also be directly sent to people, by sending people with money and bringing it to the villages. Shoes, clothes, books, tools can all also be brought (its nothing that hasn’t been done before), all of these items would be more beneficial then sending animals. Helping to build wells and housing and improving sanitary conditions could all be done by Bothar instead.
How anybody can say the animals are comfortable on a plane is ludicrous, how do you know they are comfortable? They cannot tell you this, nor can they tell you that they will enjoy adapting to a new climate etc. Irish animals being sent to places like Africa? I would not be happy in that heat why would an animal? Please don’t assume they are comfortable and happy etc. Also nobody is lecturing anybody on what they can or cant eat (and I know this has already been said by another poster) the request of the Anti Bothar Campaign is to stop sending animals and help the people in better ways for the them and the animals, this is not a lecture on veganism or a lecture of any sort, it is about doing things a better way, a more economical way and a less cruel way to the animals. What about the water the animals will drink, in countries where there is often drought I would have thought that helping to try sourcing water and keeping what little there is for the people and local animals would be of higher priority than sending animals to drink more of it.

Sounds like Guff to me….
Who’s the snotty little uni student from D4? I don’t appreciate you making assumptions about anybody involved in this campaign. Unsubstantiated comments should not be allowed on Indymedia.

Spike’s comment
Proof can be argued all day, Bothar can produce pictures of so called ‘happy’ animals and put ads on TV with cartoon animals all exited about going to meet their new families but this is not proof that these animals are happy, the very fact that they are shipped thousands of miles to a foreign country and have to adopt to a very different climate would not suggest to me that they are happy, they die during drought and are often caught out in the sun (which would not be so bad for native animals but animals from Ireland could not be happy in these circumstances), would you be happy out in the African sun unable to get out of the sun and not have enough to drink? As for throwing money at the problem, money, in the hands of the right people, of course, can be a great help, can it not help with sanitation and buildings and the building of wells where possible and clothes and medicines? As has been said so many times sending bags of food to be grown and helping to cultivate the land and source water to help feed the people, directly would all make so much more sense than sending animals.

Lentils and Beans combined with rice make up a complete protein. As rice is already available, sending seeds and tools and building wells and helping to cultivate the land and helping farmers to support themselves and their families by living off their land would as has been said numerous times already make much more economical sense and would be a better long term solution.

Aine’s comment
Firstly you do not speak for CIWF and the fact that they don’t have an anti Bothar campaign means nothing, as has been said before there is plenty of animal cruelty right here in Ireland and CIWF have plenty of campaigns going but that in itself is not a sign that they support Bothar and I am not commenting on what they do or don’t do as I don’t represent them and neither do you Aine. Also nobody is attacking anybody and I do not appreciate your use of wording there. While Bothars’ ‘trying to assist sustainable farming in African communities’ is an excellent idea, the problem we have is with HOW they are going about it. This has been made perfectly clear already. Also you should not make assumptions (unsubstantiated) about whether or not I or anybody else leaflets here in Ireland about turkeys or live exports or anything else. This topic is about Bothar and I would like to stick to the topic (even if others do not). You also assume I do not know the facts about farming conditions here in Ireland or you say it is not likely, again assumptions, and there is nothing CIWF can tell me that I do not already know but that too is getting off the point of Bothar, which is what this topic is about.

Joe’s comment
Your first two points would point to the fact that the native animals can survive but I don’t think this applies to animals who are not adapted to the climate and especially as they come from a very wet country. Nobody is saying people should not use what they have available but sending animals is insane. Organic farming can be promoted and while everything wont grow everywhere, an animal will not provide all the nutrients required by humans either, but there are still better ways Bothar could be helping people.

The facts remain, this is not the best way to help people, the fact that I do not live there is an empty argument, I care about starving people and about animal suffering, helping people in developing countries to be self sufficient is without doubt the way to go but not by teaching them OUR (as in the West, who have plenty of shops and so on) bad habits and farming practices. The facts remain the same it is environmentally and economically a bad way to produce food and in the long term will do more harm than good. There is not enough food to feed everybody in the world, most of the available food in the world is fed to animals who in turn are fed to humans. This is very simple to work out and produces a tenth of the food as opposed to just eating the food ourselves. These are Western practices and these practices play a big part in the starvation of others. Teaching the hungry to produce food in this manner is insane.

by eamo - New Scientist reader Sat Dec 02, 2006 19:33

1. The animals sent are NOT suited to the climate there.They will certainly NOT be producling large amounts of milk etc

2. They have no immunity to the parasites and diseases there.

3. On the contrary , they may give the native animals Eurppean diseases ( a situation that is bad for the animals AND very bad for the local habitat )

4. It costs an absolute fortune to tansport a live animal by aeroplane

5. Even with the best of intentions , the animals will suffer very badly in such an 'alien' environmnt

6. Believe it or not they actually have livestock in Africa ( i seen it on the telly )

generally, people of low intelligence like to make 'helpful' suggestions about the Third World
( remember when the Irish army were being urged to go and help the Tsunami victims in India ?..................actually there are more than ONE MILLION members of the Indian army, so i dont think they are short handed )

Eamonn

by A!0 Sun Dec 03, 2006 20:17

Taking a few of your points.
Rice is readily available...Really??Rice requires a swampy wet ground to grow.Not very common in Africas drought reigons.It is aid supplied[mostly USAID BTW].A diet of rice and lentils[GARRRK} is a starvation diet,not exactly rich in vitamins either. I challange YOU to live off that for a month and see if you would recommend that to anyone...They are suffering enough without killing them off with stuff like that.

You obviously havent a clue about how things work in Africa.
Send somone with the money to the villages..A perfect target for every corrupt offical and bandit to hit your money carrier going out in the bush.Paying for a bodygaurd as well??What exactly and where then will the villagers buy the food??From a corrupt central govt?Or from the local warlord who hijacked the food convoys??This is why ethopia and live Aid was such a flop.We gave and the corruption and graft took.The moment you are gone the local corrupt army commander/warlord and his boys will be in to collect it or any other aid ,to resell it to the place at double the price.

It is plainly FALSE to say there is not enough food to feed everyone on the planet.There is a surplus every year.It is politics and ecnomics that prevent it from going to places it is badly needed.Plus teach a man to fish you feed him forever.We want these people to be independant not dependant on the West for handouts.
Animal having difficulty adapting to travel or climate.Amazing that us Irish can ship horses to Kentucky USA ,South Africa,Russia,with a vet on aircraft especially adapted to the purpose[Aer Truas].And they arrive in better condition than their human passengers,in totally different climates than Ireland with no problems or stress.And wonder of wonders they Survive and therive in all corners of the Earth.If there is one animal that will be most suspectible to any stress it is a throughbread horse.So if we can import and export bloodstock without it dying on the ground at arrival.I think Bothar is well capable of shi[pping a cow and a herd of goats without stress.Also it is an internationa requirement that on air travel of animals over a certain size there must be a vet present to monitor the animal,in case it goes mad and endangers the aircraft and has to be put down and for it's well being.
So it is another fallacy you are sprouting there.
It really isnt about people is it this campain is it???They are not as important as if a cow is OK in Africa??Getting pirorities right might be in order here.

by eamo - person Mon Dec 04, 2006 20:47

This argument is very interesting, for many reasons....

When people hear that 'food/aid ' is being sent to the Third World, they automatically think its a good idea.....

This notion persists in their small brains....

I have a half eaten Goats Cheese sandwhich with onions and tomato and extra virgin oliove oil ("MMMMM , sandwich " , - Homer)..

Would somebody please arrange for a helicopter to come and pick it up , thence to Liberia on a chartered jet ?

Its the same principle.

Oh yes, I double checked , they DO have livestock in Africa.
Adapted, cheap , plentiful livestock of all kinds

by Red Inc Mon Dec 04, 2006 21:23

This is a shameful campaign being pushed by vegans.

I am going to donate money right now. I would advise all those who disagree with this campaign to do so also. I am also going to increase the amount of meat in my diet this week!

by william considine M. Sc. Agr - Bothar Supporter Tue Dec 05, 2006 02:08 wmconsidine at gmail dot com Nicharee, Duncormick, Co wexford

Dear Eamo, I don't usually flaunt my degrees and experience but in this case the cause justifies it. I would like to deal with each of your points

"1. The animals sent are NOT suited to the climate there.They will certainly NOT be producling large amounts of milk etc"

Response:
Africa is a Huge continent. The top of Mt Kilimanjaro is always covered in snow even though it is near the equator. There are many micro climates that are temperate and well suited to European dairy animals. The fact is that Bothar cows and goats actually live longer and produce more milk in the selected African environments than they would in Ireland

"2. They have no immunity to the parasites and diseases there."

Response:
This is true, however, because the animals are not allowed to run around with the native cattle and because they are housed beside their owners within the homestead and because all their food is cut and carried into them and because the grass is cut in the heat of the day when the insect vectors have gone to ground and because the animals are regularly washed by loving caring hands, the problems are overcome.

"3. On the contrary , they may give the native animals Eurppean diseases ( a situation that is bad for the animals AND very bad for the local habitat )"

Response:
See previous response. Because they are not allowed to mix with native animals or toleave the domestic compound, their is no detrimental effect on the native stock or on the environment. On the contrary, the veterinary and environmental training programme that goes with the gift of a Bothar dairy animal, has benefits for the management of the native stock and the environment.

"4. It costs an absolute fortune to tansport a live animal by aeroplane"

Response:
Speakingabout Costs and values in relation to health of children, health of AIDS sufferers and hope of impoverished communities is a bit crass. Receiving an Irish cow or dairy goat has greater benefit for an African family than wiining the Euro lottery would have for an Irish family. You cannot put a cost on survival but if you want to do so, it costs about €1000 to fly each heifer. I have sent several heifers and I have many times. The happiness of the recipients and the bright shiny healthy eyes of their children makes it an excellent investment.

". Even with the best of intentions , the animals will suffer very badly in such an 'alien' environmnt"

Response:
I have visted many animals over the past ten years and never witnessed any suffering. The contrary is the case. The animals get constant care and attention. Someone is always in attendance to swat away the flies.

"6. Believe it or not they actually have livestock in Africa ( i seen it on the telly )"

Response:
Of course they have, but they only give enough milk to rear their young. European stock have been bred to give milk to humans. This is the big difference. Africans with herds of native goats or cattle are the relatively wealthy. They do not get Bothar animals. Bothar animals ae mainly given to widows with large families and no livestock.

Your last comments are not worthy of a response.

by questioneverything Tue Dec 05, 2006 02:35

http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmafrica.html
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ecology-foodwithoutfrontie...6.jsp

question everything

by Kim O'Reilly - Anti Bothar Campaign Wed Dec 06, 2006 13:02 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1

I wasnt refering to Africa, specifically, with regard to all of the comments I made, Bothar send animals to other countries too. Also it isnt just about whether or not the animals will die on the aircraft or drop down dead on arrival, it is also about them having to live in foreign countries with different climate etc.

The fact that people decide the animals are not stressed or are happy etc doesnt mean anything as the animals cannot tell you this. The fact that the bloodstock industry exports animals does not
make this any better, what they do is just as bad as Bothar (even worse as they do it to line their own pockets) but this campaign is about Bothar.

Whats wrong with rice and lentils? I eat rice and lentils all the time and I never said they provided EVERY vitamin either, I said together they are a complete Protein, that is not to say that I am suggesting that this is All people should have, it is just an alternative protein food to animals. As for people not being able to go to third world countries (well you mentioned Africa anyway) and bring supplies as well as money, plenty have done it and again this is an alternative to sending animals.

I have already stated (more than once) that I want these people to be self sufficient and independant and of course nobody (certainly not me) wants them to be relying on the west for handouts, I do not know how you think I implied this as i was responding to other posters comments, mainly about the other ways Bothar could help, that is the point of this.

I resent your comment about priorities and that the cow being OK is more important than the people being OK, it is about people, animals and the environment all together and I dont appreciate your assumptions. You may think that there is enough food in the world to feed everybody and you are certainly correct about left over and indeed waste here in the west but that does not mean that the planet on a whole is not running out of food (and environmental groups are always saying this) as so much food is fed to animals to produce a tenth of the food for people, this is simply bad economics and bad for the environment and that is a fact.

by william considine - Bothar Supporter Wed Dec 06, 2006 20:16 wmconsidine at gmail dot com

Kim, I know that you were not responding to me in your last post but to an earlier post, however, i hope you do not mind if I respond to a number of your points. Firstly, the reason I am responding is because you appear to be a thoughtful concerned person and therefore well worth having dialogue with.

You are Vegan and I respect your choice in that regard, however I believe you are very wrong to force your dietary preference on African children and those ravaged with tropical diseases and AIDS. Able bodied adults after a well nourished childhood may be able to be healthy on a full vegetarian diet but the recipients of Bothar animals and their dependants do not fall into that category. I have considerable first hand experience and I have visited such families before and after receiving a dairy animal. In our culture we take milk for granted as an optional extra. Huge numbers of Africans have never seen or drank fresh milk or eaten dairy products. They have no electricity, no refrigeration, no milk supply so the only way to get this nutritious, health giving and essential food for these families is to have a dairy goat or cow in their compound. I have sat in their company and drank their milk out of the jam jar that they proudly served it to me in. Through a translator, i have listened to them give credit to their bothar goat for their ability to cope with AIDS and for the health of their children. They were so proud to have their own milk to be able to offer to us and to give to their neighbours and extended families. They were so pleased to tell us all about their goat, her name and when she was expecting again. The children constantly brought handfulls of grass into the compound to give to the animal that was clearly their pet and most valuable and proudest posession. I have travelled to Tanzania with 1000 irish dairy goats. These goats and their female offspring have become part of nearly 10,000 families. The male offspring are sold to the wealthier goat keepers who have flocks of native goats. Their semen helps improve the milk production of the native goats and the price paid is the biggest amount of money the recipeints have ever had. Often it is enough to put a permanent galvanised iron roof on their home. it is the best thing I have been involved in in my life.

As regards the shipments of heifers to Albania and Kossova, it is obviously a different story. You may not be aware that Bothar is the Irish arm of a US Baptist global charity called HPI or Heifer Project Internatonal. HPI was founded in 1946 when a group of devout Baptist farmers from Arkinsas, became aware through the US troops in Europe, that all the dairy stock all over Europe had perished in WW2 and there was widespread hunger and farmers returning ti their lands but having no dairy stock to restart. They got hold of a disused military cargo plane and filled it with their own dairy cows and flew them to europe as gifts to their fellow farmers in trouble. The war in Kossova had the same effects on Kossovan farmers and knock on effects in Albania where the refugees were forced to take flight. You may recall the roads filled with refugees with their ox carts and dairy cows heading for Albania. Wars are hard on farm animals. Those of us who genuinely care about animal welfare should never support war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan or wherever. All Bothar is doing in Kossova, is passing on the gift that the US farmers gave to European farmers after our war. Its just human decency.

Kim, finally please consider the sources of the ant-bothar campaign. It is very easy to talk people into not caring and doing nothing, that is a very easy sell. We have a tradition of giving and caring in this country and we must foster it and not damage it. In UK there has always been a more negative view taken in regard to food aid to the hungry. The predessessors of the UK anti-animal aid groups were those political and religious leaders and academics who in the 1840's successfully talked the British govrnment into taking no action in regard to the Irish famine because it was; a) an act of God against a godless and/or slothful people, b) a natural correction to over population and c) sending food aid would disrupt the economy and cause a fall in wheat prices and losses to the big farmers and landlords.

Kim, be careful about the objectives of fellow travellers.

by Kim O'Reilly - Anti Bothar Campaign Thu Dec 28, 2006 19:23 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1.

William as you will see from my earlier response I didn't directly reply to every single person for one simple reason, some of the topics were saying the same thing and my response answered them all directly or indirectly, including yours.

I never said what people in any third world country should or should not eat, any reference to food or meat alternatives was in response to another post, mostly about alternative protein foods (the lentil and rice I mentioned). I never once tried to force my dietary preference on African children and those ravaged with tropical diseases and AIDS (as you say). The anti-bothar campaign is about live exports, not telling people what they can and cannot eat. You also say that In our culture we take milk for granted as an optional extra, by we, you refer to the majority of people here in the west, granted, but you do not speak for me or others involved in this campaign, we most certainly do not take milk for granted, in fact I personally think that drinking milk from another species is totally un-natural and un-healthy and we are the only species that does this.

I also think that cows milk belongs to calves not people. I have said time and time again on this topic that the practice of rearing animals for food and milk
is bad economics and it is. Also, as I have said before Milk is not the only way to get nutrients and this has been proven long ago. It is economically bad to feed cows and give them precious water to produce a small amount of milk (small in comparison to the resources they consume first) this is the point. As for a Bothar goat helps them to cope with Aids? Greedy western pharmaceutical companies could do a lot more there and they do nothing, even vaccinations against the simplest (to us) of diseases would go along way, perhaps something Bothar should be looking into.

Also, William, nobody can say the cows don't suffer while being shipped thousands of miles away to a new climate etc and please don't tell me they don't, as you know because you don't know. This is economical nonsense and I have said this all along. That is without the enormous amount of wasted money being paid to airlines, vets, travel expenses etc All of that money could go directly to these villages to help build wells and plant some seeds (that will grow in the climate). Along with many other basic things they need help with.

We do of course agree with Bothar helping the most vulnerable people in the world and we are all for human decency and people on this forum should not
assume otherwise (as some have) but the facts remain William, Bothar are just teaching vulnerable people to waste the earths resources as people here in the west do and that is not the kind of help they need and in fact people here in the west can do so much more to help then they do and educating people about the earth and her resources and the wasting of food and land for agriculture etc would go along way to help the poor and impoverished, after all it is the west that is directly contributing to the conditions in the third world to begin with. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish famine and nor does the group you mentioned have anything to do with the anti bothar campaign also if bothar got their act together and started to actually do something creative and proper to help I would be very happy to help bothar as I do other groups who actually do something constructive and not just pass on bad habits. I do not however give to groups who spend money on paying wages etc I don't believe in middle men and I think that is what is wrong with so many of today's charities and people tend to agree on that.

Finally William thank you for your responses and I appreciate that this is a matter of importance to you and I would like to point out that it is up to Bothar themselves to engage in dialogue with us.something that they have so far failed to do.

by A10 Fri Dec 29, 2006 14:30

ever tried growing rice and lentils in sub sarahan Africa????Go out and try it for yourself,then come back and tell us it is a viable project.As far as I can see from your tone in your previous posts,nothing will satisfy you that the precious animals are more important than a bunch of people starving in Africa.Basically you have VERY Warped morality,animals are more important than humans at all costs.Condem people to die by eating stuff they cannot grow in their climate.I would be very worried to have you and your kind in charge of any power or country,your thoughts and policies are too close to the Nazis.Veganism and animal lovers.

by Kim O'Reilly - Anti Bothar Campaign Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:17 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1.

I know I have said this more than once, I mentioned lentils and rice as an alternative protein food, as other posters are of the impression that protein must be obtained from meat and dairy, which is not correct, lentils and rice are a complete protein. I have also said more than once that when I post on this article I am not all of the time referring to Africa, some posters however keep mentioning Africa as if it were the only country Bothar send animals to, which it is not.

Ever tried keeping animals alive in Sub-Saharan Africa A10???? What nonsense, I have not claimed to have ever lived there. I have said time and time again that this campaign is about people, animals and the environment and the long-term environmental impact and food and water supply consequences of sending these animals.

Also, A10, I do not appreciate your assumptions on what my intentions/reasons/beliefs or anything else regarding this campaign may or may not be, I have said it time and time again this is about live exporting of animals and the consequences of doing so for the people there the animals that are being sent there and the environment and the whole false economy thing and how the animals consume much more resources than they actually produce. The rest of your comments are also unappreciated and unsubstantiated. The campaign also asks that Bothar consider helping these people in a more constructive way.

Also A10 any comments I have made (apart from the opening comment, introducing the campaign) are in response to other posters. A10 it was you who said and I quote "As far as I can see from your tone in your previous posts,nothing will satisfy you that the precious animals are more important than a bunch of people starving in Africa", it was you who said about the "precious animals" being "more important" not me!

by Damien Thu Jan 04, 2007 18:52

Kim,

Do Bothar help the worlds poorest people? Yes
Do you help the worlds poorest people ? No
Are bothar perfect ? No
Do you have any right to condemn bothar when you do nothing, or next to nothing ? No

You have a cheek to criticise a charity who helps thousands of people... even if you disagree with how exactly they do it, the fact is they help people and you do not.

If you feel so strongly that a vegetarian diet will help end these peoples suffering why don't you try help them, instead of attacking an organisation that does some good in the world?

Of course I'll wait for your idiotic response where I'm sure you will claim that you give ten euros a month to some charity, I hope it eases your conscience because if your stupid organisation stops even one person donating to bothar, it will most likely cause people to die.

by RogY Thu Jan 04, 2007 20:47

>You obviously havent a clue about how things work in Africa.
Send somone with the money to the villages..A perfect target for every corrupt offical and bandit to hit your money carrier going out in the bush.Paying for a bodygaurd as well??What exactly and where then will the villagers buy the food??From a corrupt central govt?Or from the local warlord who hijacked the food convoys??This is why ethopia and live Aid was such a flop.We gave and the corruption and graft took.The moment you are gone the local corrupt army commander/warlord and his boys will be in to collect it or any other aid ,to resell it to the place at double the price.<

Why should nonhuman individuals have their rights violated because these details accurately reflect "how things work in Africa"?

Clearly there are structural problems in Africa, no doubt connected to the state of global economics and a history of imperialism. However, none of that was the doing of nonhuman animals.

We have no right to transport nonhuman animals anywhere unless after a very careful consideration of their interests, not human ones. If we place human animal interests above the interests of other animals, we are speciesists, and speciesism - like racism and sexism - is wrong.

RogY

by Saddened Thu Jan 04, 2007 20:51

Coming here from the "latest comments" link, I read this thread with increasing disbelief. I had hoped initially that it was a mistake or even a joke in some sort of poor taste but it appears to be for real. To discourage folk from contributing to a charity that helps the poorest of the poor and keeps people alive is not to be undertaken lightly. It needs huge evidence that the activities of the charity are harmful before such a call could be justified. The fact that there may be a more efficient way of providing such assistance is not enough. While Bothar would not be my own favourite majority world charity, I respect those who organise it and support it. This "anti-bothar" campaign smacks of a most unbelievable arrogance. It's my way or no way. So so sad :-((

by RogY Thu Jan 04, 2007 21:26

Saddened - don't you think enslavement and death is harm? We have to think of ethical ways by which to help these needy people, but not by helping their interests by violating the rights of others.

http://www.bothar.org/educate-animals.html
and talk about ideology - seen the pictures here?

RogY

by A10 Thu Jan 04, 2007 21:36

If you cant stand the heat.Get out of the Sauna!!! This is Indymedia where if you dissent from the norm you are a fascist or racist etc,so obviously I am quite entitled to call you an animal Nazi,because you seem impervious to any rational arguement from anyone,and all rational explanations as to how the animals are transported or cared for or whatever,are dismissed by you as irrevelant,untrue,etc.That is a boneheaded Nazi like Weltanshauung[Worldview]IE mine and no one else is correct.
Also stop trying this boring tactic of putting words in other peoples mouths!!I didnt say that you lived in Sub S Africa.I said you should try growing your rice and lentils there to feed yourself and others with protein.Actually goats,and cows are quite common there and I am sure Bohar will be and are competant to send the right animal to the right place with proper vetinary care and or husbandry.A FACT you do not seem comfortable with!!! You try and grow your lentils and rice down there,you require
1]Water;Where do you get it ?And alot of it,as both those crops require alot of water.
2]Soil to grow it properly,well you could manure it,except you cant use any cow dung as you wont allow any export of them.Human Shite,good idea,can we say Thyphus and Cholera??
3] Insecticide, penty of bugs that will eat your crop within days ,like locusts ants,etc.Well, suppose you could catch them and have plenty of protein.
4]Time and security for your crop to mature and security to make sure no one runs off with it when it is unripe.
As I said;You go out there yourself and grow us a crop of lentils and feed a village and repeat this every other year,and your fallacious arguement might sound better and beliveable.Meantime Bohar cattle will have proably provided three calves to another three fammlies.Guess who looks more beliveable to the natives?You,or Bohar?
Also your attitude,seems to be animals uber alles,making you more in common with a funny little Austrian fellow in Germany in the 30s.He was big into lentils and rice and animals as well.not much into helping humans tho.
RogY
What the FUK are non human individuals?????????? Would you can the PC crap expressions and call them what they are,animals.Animals do not have individuality,that is a human trait.Hmm,transporting animals after their considerations are taken into account.Are you Doctor Dolittle,that you can talk with the animals??How do you ask a cow if it wants to be moved to another field where the grass is greener??Or dissuade a lion from eating a gazelle and adapting a vegan lifestyle.
This board gets nuttier every day.

by RogY Thu Jan 04, 2007 21:46

>RogY
What the FUK are non human individuals?????????? Would you can the PC crap expressions and call them what they are,animals.Animals do not have individuality,that is a human trait.Hmm,transporting animals after their considerations are taken into account.Are you Doctor Dolittle,that you can talk with the animals??How do you ask a cow if it wants to be moved to another field where the grass is greener??Or dissuade a lion from eating a gazelle and adapting a vegan lifestyle.
This board gets nuttier every day.<

Of course nonhuman animals are individuals. Even animal welfarists will tell you that about their pets. Each one is an unique individual. I know nonhumans are animals, as humans are.

I said interests not "considerations". If you are going to rant and suggest nuttiness, please be accurate.

I cannot recall saying anything about lions. Perhaps you need to sit down calmly for a minute or two?

RogY

by Damien Thu Jan 04, 2007 21:47

RogY,

I would have laughed at the arrogance of your last post, if it wasn't so disgusting.

It is hard to believe people are happy to stand by and ignore the fact that 25,000 people starve to death every day.

It is hard to believe people are happy to stand by and ignore the fact that 15 million children starve to death every year.

While this lack of caring is common, for someone to criticise an organisation trying to keep these people alive is shocking.

How someone could prefer a child dying every five seconds to some animals having to take a plane trip can only be described as close to evil.

For someone to try spread this message is even worse.

by RogY Thu Jan 04, 2007 22:32

Damian. You presume too much. Why say ~anyone~ on this list is happy about these human deaths?

I certainly do not know anyone who is. However, your "some animal" quip is the problem. As far as I can tell reading the comments of those opposed to this campaign, none have much familiarity with the philosophy of animal rights.

If you were to check it out, you'd see that animal rightists care about all animals. However, what we cannot accept is gross rights violations of some to help others - that is utilitarianism not rights-based thought.

Please be sure that no-one is "happy" about humans starving to death - but blimey, it is not animal rightists who make them starve: vegan advocates do not have their representatives bidding against aid agencies for grains to feed "livestock".

We are talking about the structures of global economics here - if anyone is "happy" about how things are organised, it will be some capitalists who systematically rip off the 'developing' world.

Feed the world, starve the rich.

RogY.

by Damien Thu Jan 04, 2007 23:04

"it is not animal rightists who make them starve"

If animal rightists prevent a charity from feeding the poor, and these poor people then starve to death, it is the animal rightists that have killed them.

"We are talking about the structures of global economics here"

We are not. This story is about the foundation of a group which has been formed to put pressure on a charity to stop its work. The title gives it away. While you may be right in that the fundamental problem resides in economics, bothar are involved in poverty relief not economic strategy for the third world.

Have you any comprehension of what could happen if this sick group succeded? Have you ever pictured a starving child in your mind? Have you ever pictured 15 million starving children? Need some help? Imagine 15 million of these : http://www.hoslink.com/medical_images/Starving_child_ca...d.jpg

Do you really think it is wrong to feed this child some milk?

Shame on you.

by RogY Fri Jan 05, 2007 00:13

>If animal rightists prevent a charity from feeding the poor, and these poor people then starve to death, it is the animal rightists that have killed them.<

Damien (and sorry for getting your name wrong the first time), obviously we have not made the best start with each other - but we are essentially looking at this issue in different ways. No animal rightist (ARA) wants to prevent charities feeding the poor per se - but ARAs regard many nonhuman animals as rights bearers just like human animals, hence the objection to ~this~ way of helping.

We could imagine a charity set up in which trafficked women and children are redirected from Ireland to the 'developing' world. They, the charity, could even supply the support - education on how to pimp women, build a couple of brothels maybe. We'd be absolutely outraged by the suggestion because, although the poor require assistance, ~this type~ would be immoral.

I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, ARAs attempt to be nonspeciesist in their dealings with the world, and so sending nonhuman captives is also immoral.

I'd be most happy to assist in an ethical measure to help the poor - and do so routinely.

>"We are talking about the structures of global economics here"

We are not. This story is about the foundation of a group which has been formed to put pressure on a charity to stop its work. The title gives it away. While you may be right in that the fundamental problem resides in economics, bothar are involved in poverty relief not economic strategy for the third world.<

Yes, but their strategy is not ethical. Poverty relief is great: but those trafficked women and children may create more wealth than the nonhumans animals sent, but that would not make it right would it? Similarly, it would be "better" (get better results) to vivisect on human animals. We cannot just judge this issue on what's good for the recipients of the bothar 'donations'

>Have you any comprehension of what could happen if this sick group succeded? Have you ever pictured a starving child in your mind? Have you ever pictured 15 million starving children? Need some help? Imagine 15 million of these : http://www.hoslink.com/medical_images/Starving_child_ca...d.jpg

Do you really think it is wrong to feed this child some milk?

Shame on you.<

As I've said above, I support charities working in the 'developing' world - I have seen the pictures. I've also seen some other pictures - I've seen pictures of some of the slaughtered nonhuman animals: do you know that humans slaughter about 16,000 nonhuman animals for food EVERY SECOND (conservative estimate).

That's one hell of a lot of "feed" that could have been eaten directly by human animals - the West prefers to feed "livestock" more than starving children and other persons of colour.

Let me directly answer the question about the milk. The answer is no, if it is plant milk we are talking about. Cow's milk is calf food (the name gives it away). Goats produce milk for their kids, you are in support of a strategy that creates competition between the kids and the children, or the calves and the children. Since all these beings are rightholders, animal rightists are understandably opposed to a system that is based on systematic rights violations, just as Amnesty International would presumably oppose the human trafficking strategy mentioned above.

Of course, speciesists will reject the animal rights case and place human animal interests above nonhuman animal interests at every turn. You must surely see that my values, while directly supporting human charities, prevent that?

RogY

by Damien Fri Jan 05, 2007 01:01

I can never, and will never understand agree nor agree with the mentality of a person who would not give a glass of cows milk to save the life of a starving child. Perhaps if you were face to face with a starving child you would replace these ideolistic views with some compassion. But perhaps you would watch the child die as you say.

Have you ever watched a child die? Would it bother you more or less than watching a cow being milked?

There is something seriously wrong with you if you would watch a child die when you had the ability to save its life.

by RogY Fri Jan 05, 2007 01:22

>I can never, and will never understand agree nor agree with the mentality of a person who would not give a glass of cows milk to save the life of a starving child. Perhaps if you were face to face with a starving child you would replace these ideolistic views with some compassion. But perhaps you would watch the child die as you say.<

This is ever so silly. You have reduced an incredibly complicated situation down to a scenario in which I'm confronted with a starving child whilst holding a glass of cow's milk! In ~this~ circumstance I would certainly feed the child. But this goes nowhere in terms of exploring the campaign we are discussing.

>Have you ever watched a child die? Would it bother you more or less than watching a cow being milked?

There is something seriously wrong with you if you would watch a child die when you had the ability to save its life.<

Of course it would bother me more to see the child die. Are you unable to do anything other than present these simplistic nonsense scenarios?

You have entirely missed the thrust of my argument - or chosen to ignore it. The West has the ability to feed these children - its citizens, blinded by the x-box light, are too busy watching the latest crap from Hollywood or visiting the fashion shops in Dublin. This issue is bigger than sending some goats overseas.

RogY

by Damien Fri Jan 05, 2007 02:26

Look everyone knows the problem is huge, we all understand that sending relief to the starving, or slowly developing a country is'nt the ideal solution to this problem by any means. In reality however the situation is simple : If bothar were closed down tomorrow, more people would die. There can be no argument against this.

Nothing will change in the global economic market in the short term, so to close bothar would be to give these people a death sentence.

While you may content yourself with lofy pseudo intellectual ideas about how these people should be helped, the reality is they don't care about vegans or the world bank, they just want to keep their children alive

Why anyway is this twisted group ( and I use the term group loosely as I can't imagine anymore than two people being involved ) focusing their efforts on the weekest people in the world? Why are they campaigning against the poorest people in the world keeping animals in order to survive? How dare they dictate to these people what is morally right. How dare they suggest that these people should be left to die.

by Catlady Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:13

Having just caught up on this debate I can see that there is still much confusionabout what this campaign is actually about. Damien's posts seem to highlight the inability of many posters to even attempt to approach the issues involved with an open mind and any reasonable powers of analysis, and I will attempt to explain things as simply as possible for those who cannot grasp the thrust of RogY's eloquent and logical explanation.

"It is hard to believe people are happy to stand by and ignore the fact that 25,000 people starve to death every day."

I have never met anyone who was happy about this. Those involved in this campaign are certainly not and to accuse them of such gross lack of compassion would be insulting if it were not apparent that you had no comprehension of what they are campaigning for. as it stands, it is laughable... you should perhaps follow RogY's implicit advice and at least do some basic reading on the philosophy of AR before spouting such utter nonsense. You are letting yourself and the side you are on down by displaying not only your ignorance, but your blatant unwillingness to attempt to rectify it.

"If animal rightists prevent a charity from feeding the poor, and these poor people then starve to death, it is the animal rightists that have killed them."

To save you the hassle of rereading previous posts, which should leave you more time to check out the works of say, Tom Regan, I will simply say that this campaign has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with stopping Bothar or any other charity from feeding starving people. It is about urging them to do so in a more effective and ethical manner.

"If bothar were closed down tomorrow, more people would die"

Nobody here wants to close Bothar down. We want them to stop their ineffective methods and speciesist actions. Yes, I am an anti-speciesist. Unapologetically so.

"Why anyway is this twisted group ( and I use the term group loosely as I can't imagine anymore than two people being involved ) focusing their efforts on the weekest people in the world? Why are they campaigning against the poorest people in the world keeping animals in order to survive? How dare they dictate to these people what is morally right. How dare they suggest that these people should be left to die."

First Damien, rest assured that there ARE more than two people involved in this campaign. I met a few of them this week and what a wonderful bunch of compassionate people they are.

They are not campaigning against the poor keeping animals to survive. How many times does Kim or anyone else have to repeat this for you to get the message??? Neither are they dictating to them what is morally right and they are most certainly not suggesting they be left to die. As it has been said many times, this campaign is against the live export of sentinent beings, which on arrival will need time consuming care, will drink vast quantities of water, and eat vast quantities of food, all of which have to be provided in times of crop failure, drought and so on.

To put it in very very simple terms, just for you, as you seem to understand simplistic black or white situations...
Q: If you were faced with a thirsty, hungry child and a thirsty, hungry cow, and you had a sack of grain in one hand, a bucket of water in the other, would you:

a) give said child a meal and a glass of water before planting the rest of the grain and adding water to make it grow so the child could eat again later on???

OR

b) give the cow the sack of grain and the bucket of water so the child could have milk for a day or so, before they both die of dehydration or starvation as there are just no more renewable resources to be had, what with the drought and all???

At this point I am wondering how many posts you have actually read before rehashing the same old codswallop and implying the same old tired guff again and again and again...

by Damien Fri Jan 05, 2007 13:05

Catlady,

You suggest that "this campaign has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with stopping Bothar or any other charity from feeding starving people" You also suggested that I read the article again, as you felt that I misunderstood. Well perhaps you can clear it up for me. You are claiming that "Nobody here wants to close Bothar down". But when I read the original article I find : "please discourage family and friends from supporting Bothar"

What do you think would happen if everbody stopped supporting Bothar ? I'm sure that even you can understand it would close down. Campaigning for people to stop supporting Bothar is the same as campaigning to close it down.

Then you claimed that "to accuse them of such gross lack of compassion would be insulting". A previous poster implied that they would not feed a starving child cows milk , only grass milk - "answer is no, if it is plant milk we are talking about." They then went on to claim that cows milk was for calves alone and that to feed across species was encouraging competition. Do you agree that this means he does not agree with giving the starving child milk? Perhaps it is you that has not read the debate !

And now to the question you have posed. It is most interesting, as it exposes the stupidity of what you are suggesting.

You present two options to me.

Firstly you suggest feeding the child and sowing the grain....at the same time. To even suggest this is pretty stupid, even for an animal rights activist. I'd like to see you grow a crop with one bucket, during a drought. If I chose this path both the child and the cow will certainly die. Option b will also result in the death of the child and the cow, as you say.

But in your scenario you haven't given me the third option, the one which allows the child to live. Child drinks water. Child and childs family eat cow. Child and childs family live, while only the cow dies. Not an ideal situation, but at least the child survives

by Laura - Anti Bothar Campaign Fri Jan 05, 2007 13:13 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1

Everything RogY and Catlady said was absolutely correct in regards to the ethics and reasons behind this campaign.

As we have said before, we are not racists and we do care deeply about human-animals aswell as non-human animals. Anyone who can't see this and feels the need to keep going over the same arguement obviously has trouble reading, or just can't grasp the fact that are alternatives to what Bothar are doing that would alleviate suffering so much more effectively.

To those people who resort to 'shame on you' tactics instead of engaging in logical debate, I feel that somewhere deep-down, you actually agree with us and are perhaps to insecure to admit it. You may now feel the need to post for a second or third time, in retaliation- but I won't be convinced otherwise.

To those that feel this urge for repeat the same old thing over and over again, you are obviously trolls or people with too much time on your hands and I am not going to waste my time responding to you when the facts have been pointed out to you time and time again.

by Damien Fri Jan 05, 2007 13:24

Laura,

Are you as perverse as RogY and would you too only feed a starving child plant milk?

Or does the organisation distance itself from his sick ideology?

by A10 Fri Jan 05, 2007 14:42

When in final muck throwing mode ,blame your opponents as trolls or people with too much time on their hands,or they are not sheep like in agreement with all your nutty ideas.
You can put as many spins,arguements or whatever cheap gloss on it,you "animal rights" people are more concerned with animal welfare than human welfare.Obvious as the nose on ones face,as if you were in support of human rights and survival,you wouldnt be bemoaning a charity like bothar.
Well any charity that rises the ire of the animal nazis,gets my money.

by Kim O'Reilly - Anti Bothar Campaign Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:21 PO Box 4734, Dublin 1

A10, if you feel the need to resort to name calling because and I quote "This is Indymedia where if you dissent from the norm you are a fascist or racist etc,so obviously I am quite entitled to call you an animal Nazi" it doesn't say much for your argument. Also if I "couldn't stand the heat" as you say, I wouldn't still be repeating myself and trying to make people understand, including you A10. You are correct that no matter what anybody says about "how the animals are transported or cared for" etc does not make Bothar exporting live animals acceptable, as I have said before and I am not going to repeat the reasons for this campaign or the point of it as I have said it numerous times already and Catlady has also explained it very clearly and RogY has made very good points too (well worth reading).

I never tried putting words into anybody's mouth as you say, I didn't say that you said that I had claimed to have lived in Africa I said the point you made about
me growing rice and lentils there was nonsense, that is not trying to put words into your mouth A10. I was also making the point that -
1. I mentioned rice and lentils as an alternative protein food. Which they are!
2. I was not always referring to Africa as Bothar send animals to plenty of other countries.

Also the point is rice and lentils will grow in some places (I never said everywhere), it was mentioned in response to another post as (again) an alternative protein food. There are plenty of other ways that Bothar can help people in third world countries. People need water and sanitation and help with illness and
housing and many other things and Bothar could be doing so much more and you will also find that there are always alternative ways to produce food apart
from sending animals who (again) will consume more water than they will produce milk and Bothar could be sending food that people could eat directly
instead of a wasteful livestock system. The fact that a livestock system is wasteful and economically bad has been proven long ago. Also A10 you mentioned a lot of water to grow cops, cattle consume a lot of water to produce milk and you said cow dung cant be used as I/We wont allow any to be exported, there are already (as I have said before and so have others) plenty of cattle in Africa (as a country you keep mentioning) who already
produce dung.

There are plenty of other ways Bothar could help and that is still a fact and its not going to change and sending live animals is the biggest waste of money I can imagine when they could send actual food for people to eat and water and plenty of other necessities. You too A10 could be accused of being "impervious to any rational argument from anyone" that is the point to a discussion like this, you would not agree with my opinions tomorrow and yet you say I am impervious to any rational argument because I do not agree with yours.

One last point A10 and Damien, you have both assumed that I do nothing to help those in the third world, this is an empty argument, as you don't know what I do or do not do. What I do not do is crazy 'sending animals' and I don't like helping charities that are too busy paying 'middle men'. There are other charities and people who directly help the third world and they are the only ones I have ever helped. Also, the point (again) is to encourage Bothar to help the third world in a better way and we hope to engage in dialogue with Bothar and as I said in an earlier post Bothar have still failed to respond to us and should they respond we would be very happy to talk with them about better, more economical and more constructive ways that they could help and as they are an aid-giving charity they are in an excellent position to do something right and be a much better help to the people they are trying to help. Of course I too would give the child the milk Damien but hypothetical questions and scenarios wont save any lives. I want the child and all of the children and adults alike to have so much more than milk.

by ethical meat eater Fri Jan 05, 2007 20:59

Catlady,

That was one hell of a post. Lets take a wee look.

"Having just caught up on this debate I can see that there is still much confusionabout what this campaign is actually about."
So the anti-bothar people start a campaign which obviously is going to be counter intuitive to most people and then complain that there's "confusion"? Fuck me, I wonder why?

"Damien's posts seem to highlight the inability of many posters to even attempt to approach the issues involved with an open mind and any reasonable powers of analysis, and I will attempt to explain things as simply as possible for those who cannot grasp the thrust of RogY's eloquent and logical explanation." Oh, goody, that explains it. Its just that the untermenschen can't keep up with the dizzying heights of the pro-AR poeples intellect, powers of analysis and powers of expalnation. Silly us. (Though your analysis reminds me of Michael McDowell's putting down of Gay Mitchell as being of knee height to his own glorious stature.)

"Nobody here wants to close Bothar down" So why is called the anti Bothar campaign, then? What does an anti-anything campaign usually try to achieve? Anti-slavery? Anti-racism? Did it not occur to the "eloquent and logical" ones that this might cause some confusion? Especially among those of us not blessed with reasonable powers of analysis?

But hope is at hand We can "at least do some basic reading on the philosophy of AR before spouting such utter nonsense" Oh dear. Advising others to do some basic reading on AR just reeks of the same old intellectual arrogance. I mean, you are ones putting forward a radical, non-standard analysis of the world. It is YOUR responsibility to explain yourselves properly, not OUR responsibility to mug up on it. And given the amount of "confusion", you have obviously failed miserably.

For the record, I have done some basic reading on animal issues. People like richard Ryder, Singer and Tom Regan can be persuasive and I have quite a lot of sympathy for Ryder's Painism theory and much of what he says makes perfect sense. However it is quickly obvious that there is no unanimous agreement over where the line should be drawn in giving (acknowledging?) animal rights. In this vacuum the extremists run wild and you get the classic AR sloganism of "animals are not ours to eat, etc" This just leaves me cold. For instance RogY's comment about "enslavement" is a bridge too far in terms of imputing human feelings to animals. Freedom from pain, yes. Freedom from enslavement for animals, sorry, no.

There is also an extreme "Peoples Front of Judea" thing going on towards animal welfarists that just makes the whole AR agenda look ridiculous. We can treat animals well and still enjoy meat, fur and leather.

by Reggy Mon Jan 08, 2007 22:21

just looking back over similar posts in the animal rights section of indymedia, this bothar campaign has the same po box as alliance for animal riots sorry rights AFAR i think based in dublin? - its a shame they wont admit they are behind the campaign, why be so ashamed of a campaign they are supposed to believe in.

by Catlady Thu Feb 01, 2007 13:08

Ok, "ethical" meat eater, I'm back.

I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your sarcasm, so I won't, (except to say that your persistant closed-mindedness proves my point wonderfully. Thanks for that) and will just address the points you still seem confused about.

"So why is called the anti Bothar campaign, then? What does an anti-anything campaign usually try to achieve? Anti-slavery? Anti-racism? "

The campaign is not called "anti-feed starving people", "anti-charitable donation" or anything similar. Bothar is targeted here simply because of its practice of the live export of sentient beings. Were Bothar to change to a less cruel and more effective way of aiding the less fortunate, they would have the full support of any AR group I have ever met. This is made clear in the original article for anyone who can read.

"It is YOUR responsibility to explain yourselves properly, not OUR responsibility to mug up on it. "

I think the anti-bothar posters here have done a very good job of explaining their position. Unfortunately, some people have notions that are so ingrained within their consciousness that they are simply unable or unwilling to change their opinions on anything. An example of this would be the one who persists in the notion that the campaigners are trying to dictate waht is morally acceptable to starving people despite multiple assurances to the contrary, or the person who suggested an AR activist would watch a child die whilst holding a glass of milk (perhaps the same person, can't be bothered to check).

Further to this point, and relating to your accusations of "intellectual arrogance", I would like to state, for the record, that I am, like everyone on the planet, ignorant of many things. In my case one of those things happens to be Native American Literature - just an example that popped into my head. I would certainly be aware of some of the broader issues concerning the area as a whole, but would have no expertise whatsoever in the field. However, I would never presume to attack the motives of anyone putting forward an argument who did have expertise in the field without first attempting to educate myself appropriately. For one thing, I would clearly make a fool of myself by displaying my aforementioned ignorance of the topic, and for another, I would not be that arrogant.

Arrogance is most clearly seen when people who have not bothered to check their facts start spouting ridiculous nonsense despite not having a clue what they are on about. My suggestion for posters who had not done so to read up a little on the philosophy behing AR was done to enable a more intelligent debate rather that to continue to repeat the same boring tripe over and over again. Finally, having read some of the major works available, you surely realise that it would be impossible to relate all of the arguments in an indymedia posting???

"there is no unanimous agreement over where the line should be drawn in giving (acknowledging?) animal rights."

Of course there is no unanimous agreement. This is in the very nature of all philosophy and certainly not unique to that of Animal Rights. Ethicists themselves are constantly in conflict when on ethics committees, with the utilitarians arguing against the deontologists against the bio-ethicists.

"Freedom from pain, yes. Freedom from enslavement for animals, sorry, no.
There is also an extreme "Peoples Front of Judea" thing going on towards animal welfarists that just makes the whole AR agenda look ridiculous. We can treat animals well and still enjoy meat, fur and leather."

Enslavement involves pain. They are inextricably linked. For all sentient animals. A sow in a farrowing stall, a calf in a veal crate, a hen in a battery cage, a mink on a fur farm, are all enslaved to man. They are all in pain, most often physical as well as psychological, throughout their entire lives before suffering a terrible death at the end of it. The only way we can "enjoy" (and I certainly wouldn't no matter what the circumstances simply because of the disagusting nature of putting bits of carcass into my mouth) meat, fur or leather, would be to wait until an animal dies of old age, and then take what we want. This is the only way meat can be ethically eaten.

Incidentally, the problem AR people generally have with welfarists is the fact that most "welfare" consists of introducing half-measures, for certain species only, most of which make little or no difference to the levels of suffering of the animals in question, in order to allow people to ignore the realities and continue to fund horriffic practices whilst patting themselves on the back for being "ethical" meat eaters. The fact that AR people see this and refuse to support it, far from making them look ridiculous, shows that they have taken on board the sad realities of a system designed to exploit the weak for the benefit of the powerful, and are willing to step outside that system as much as possible despite having to make certain sacrifices. In my opinion, anyone with a choice who thinks they can eat meat ethically is being ridiculous, either they are ignorant of the truth of where that meat comes from, or they choose to ignore the truth.

by Damien Thu Feb 01, 2007 14:26

You are misrepresenting the case put forward by AR's earlier in the debate. In particular your claim that AR has not suggested that they would not give milk to a starving child.

Have you read the post by RogY Fri Jan 05, 2007 00:13 ? He clearly states he would not feed a starving child cows milk - as "cows milk belongs to calves not people" and he says he would only feed the child milk "if it were plant milk"

by Catlady Thu Feb 01, 2007 17:43

Damien, you are once again cherry picking bits of posts out of context. Rog Y most certainly did not say he would watch a child die in front of him whilst holding a glass of milk (a ludicrous scenario dreamed up by you in the first place.) He said it would not be wrong to feed a child plant milk, and in his next post he spelled his position out quite simply, as you had obviously still not grasped the gist of what he was saying. I quote:

"In ~this~ (ie: faced with a starving child) circumstance I WOULD CERTAINLY FEED THE CHILD (my emphasis). But this goes nowhere in terms of exploring the campaign we are discussing."

The repeated attempts by certain people to twist the words and purposefully misrepresent the views of the supporters of this campaign are utterly pathetic.

by Spinning Quickly Fri Feb 02, 2007 19:12

RogY writes
"Clearly there are structural problems in Africa, no doubt connected to the state of global economics and a history of imperialism. However, none of that was the doing of nonhuman animals."

Ever hear of locusts? They have been partly responsible for crises in food production, such as that of 2004 in West and North Africa.

by Pushkin Fri Feb 02, 2007 19:15

Dont forget goats. Undomesticated goats turned rich grasslands into what is now the Sahara.

by Catlady Fri Feb 02, 2007 19:22

...are hardly likely to be the solution then are they???

by logic lover Sat Feb 03, 2007 13:17

"ARAs attempt to be nonspeciesist in their dealings with the world" T

Thanks Rogy for the clear insight into the thinking and mindset of Animal Rights Activists represented by yourself. Your honesty is commenible as is your clarity of thought.

You wrote to Damien that "ARAs attempt to be nonspeciesist in their dealings with the world, "

Most of don't have to think too much about who we will eat with, talk to, go for a drink with or make love to We narrow things down by at least discriminating in favour of our own species.

Your choices are.....Hm......Lets call it INTERESTING!

by Pushkin Sat Feb 03, 2007 14:46

Goats which are limited in number and domesticated are useful rather than destructive.

by Catlady Mon Feb 05, 2007 19:32

Dunno about you logic lover, but I certainly think long and hard about who I spend my time with... and particularly who I make love to!!! And simply being human is not enough, particularly for the latter... some of us, ARA or not, are a tad more choosy than that!

by ethical honey eater Wed Feb 07, 2007 07:11

Heard a Bothar ad on the radio for sending a hive of bees as a gift. Can one presume this to be equally objectionable to the AR community? Honey not ours to eat, it belongs to the little baby bees, enslavement of bees, yadda, yadda yadda??

by Catlady Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:14

This has already been discussed in earlier posts.

by Brenda Tue Feb 13, 2007 22:11

Catlady, Kim and all the rest of you on the anti-bothar campaign,

Why don't you get out from behind your computer and your nicknames and get out and picket your local butcher??? instead of this ludicrous online campaign. He is selling "individuals" purely for us to eat! you could do that and Irish society won't suffer too much, no one will starve, widows and single parents will still get their allowances, although I guarantee the butcher wont be too happy and will call the guards.

On the other hand, bothar whether you agree with them or not are working to eradicate poverty and malnutrion. Why not tackle the problem in the Country where you live in instead of Countries ravaged by war, disease, and malnutrition. When you have succeeded in closing down all the butchers in Ireland, and cleared the meat counter in Tescos, then you can move on to sub-sahara africa!!!

Um...of course it's much easier to hide behind an internet "nick name" (obviously not you Kim) and a computer and pontificate.

Ps. seeing that you love facts, could you count up the number of online hours you have spent on indymedia and equate it to the number of "non-human individuals" you have saved since this campaign was started? Bothar was never one of my favourite charities but I have to say...this campaign has changed my mind..next time I can spare some money it will be going to them!!!

by Catlady Sun Feb 18, 2007 23:20

Brenda,

I am not "on" the anti-bothar campaign, as I have previously stated, and simply came across the article on Indymedia as you (presumably) did.

Like all other indymedia users, I have the right to use a pseudonym if I wish to, but if it upsets you so much I can let you know that my name is Catherine. Anyone who knows me knows this anyway, and I fail to see what difference it could possibly make to you, but as you seem to take such objection to anti-Bothar poster's use of pseudos (although curiously not to those attempting to defend Bothar...), I hope that knowing the name my parents chose for me reassures you.

"Why don't you get out from behind your computer and your nicknames and get out and picket your local butcher???"

The above lines cited from your post is oddly reminiscent of the fur hags I met on a demo yesterday who asked why we weren't doing anything about the "poor aborted babies and tsunamis".

Your implication that ARAs spend their lives "pontificating" from behind computer screens is quite frankly pathetic. Have you never seen an AR demo here in Ireland?? Read about one?? Who do you think organises them and participates if not ARAs??? Pickets happen regularly in Ireland on a wide range of issues, not to mention all of the behind the scenes work activists (including those running this campaign) do on a daily basis - research, producing materials, negotiating with state bodies, cleaning up the diahorrea of a rescued puppy who had such poor nutrition from birth that his guts cannot digest properly... I find it extremely arrogant on your behalf to imply that those involved in animal rights do nothing, and suggest that it is in fact you who knows nothing about what we actually do.

"When you have succeeded in closing down all the butchers in Ireland, and cleared the meat counter in Tescos, then you can move on to sub-sahara africa!!!"

Sorry to break ti to you Brenda, but nobody needs your permission to highlight any issue. Attempting to tell anyone what issues they can or cannot focus on in any campaign is once again, in my opinion, arrogant. Would you take the same line with other activist groups?

Furthermore, Bothar IS an Irish issue. If you re-read previous posts you will see this clearly explained. The campaign was NEVER about bringing veganism to developing countries, despite what certain posters choose to believe.

Your final point is mind-boggling on so many levels...
First of all you seem to be implying, once again that all we do is sit in front of Indymedia all day waiting for someone to post on this thread, presumably letting the aforementioned diahorrea pile up around our ears. I can assure you that this is far from the case.

Secondly, one life saved is worth a lifetime of AR work as far as I or other ARAs are concerned. The amount of time spent campaigning to save any individual is worth it. And no, I don't think any of us keeps a stopwatch to tell us when to log off/go home, simply because a horse's life is worth 2 hours, a dog's 3, or any such nonsensical concept of "worth". Each individual is unique, and each life is worth any amount of time spent on trying to save it.

And lastly, I find it fascinating that you have decided to support Bothar simply because the flawed rationale behind their methods has been exposed...But then if you want to waste your money on ineffective and ultimately harmful "aid" that's your business...

by Teen Tue May 15, 2007 18:00

The slaughter of animals as it is put is not senseless murder its to feed starving people! if it is to be believed now that animal lives are held higher than childrens lives then what has the world come to. The food chain, people.

by Gavin Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:52

Do you know that most of the animals boght by Bothar orginate in the country where assistance is provided or neigbouring countries. They do NOT fly all their animals to countries in which they work.

The cows and goats provided to well trained families are for milk production not meat (in 90% of cases, since milk production is more sustainable than one meat meal). Animals also provide valuable fertillizer for dry and infertile soils, giving families a hope of a good harvest.

Least the people and Bothar and their supporters are trying to make the world a better place. I challange you to contact Bothar and ask to attend one of their Study Tours where you can experience first hand the good work they are doing and you can look innocent women and children in the eye and tell them they do not deserve a better life !

You mention that Bothar should be building houses, that does come, but the starting point is to get people producing food for themselves - as they develop in this program so they are able to generate an income to pay school fees, purchase medicines and improve their housing. With this comes a renewed dignity and self respect that every human deserves. And as for the animals they are very well cared for since they are what broke these families out of the poverty spiral. The relationship between the people and their animals is actually so incredible - they all have names and adequate quanities of fresh feed!

by Ailish - former NGO volunteer Sun Aug 26, 2007 03:03

I agree with Gavin's assessment. I've worked in rural Africa with an Irish NGO (not Bothar, not Concern) and believe Bothar is involving the Irish farming community in a simple practical way of helping African small farmers (subsistence farmers) to produce milk. The first born calf has to be donated by the recipient to another farm family in the area, thus generating mutual aid (an old anarchist idea, incidentally, though African farmers wouldn't tend in that political direction). Bothar's field officers and travelling veterinarians carry out checks to ensure animal health.

I've come across smallholders breeding rabbits as meat and fur cash crops. Large Brown and Californian White were among the preferred species (both imported to Africa by 19th century white settlers and missionaries), but other species like Angora were also there. Some Africans breed feral pigeons and guinea fowl for sale to the town dwellers, in addition to hybrid chickens. I was once offered two large live white mice in cardboard shoe boxes by an African breeder who knocked on my town door, but declined politely. They might have made nice caged pets, huh?

Over many centuries live animals have been exported across continental borders. Where did Julius Caesar and Caligula get their horses? (from Arabia, maybe interbred with British and Hibernian species). Where did Hannibal get his elephants for that epic Alpine trek? Marco Polo brought Arabian-South European horses to ancient China, and brought Chinese species back to Europe with him. Introduction and interbreeding of farm animals and pets and racing horses has been successful in the third world under veterinary supervision.

Continuing good luck to Bothar and its African partners, I say.

by eLAMPE Tue Jan 01, 2008 20:51

2 things:

1) To say that all animals, which, scientifically speaking, even includes brainless creatures , i.e. jellyfish, feel such emotions as love and loneliness and are sentient is a philosophical statement and should not be presented as fact. I am not saying its is a false statement, I am merely pointing out it should not be presented as fact.

2) Humans need protein in order to survive, it is in our nature to eat meat. Recently a couple went to jail when their baby, only months old, died because they fed it a vegetarian diet. I am not stating that a vegetarian diet is a poor choice, I am merely stating that humans are designed to eat meat and we have been doing so since our creation.

I merely came across this site in a Google search and I will not be checking it again. It is not cowardice if I do not reply.

by dave Fri Jan 11, 2008 13:46

I’m going to speak about the morality of this issue by first highlighting another fundamental animal right. Is it right to spay or neuter an animal, a cat or a dog let’s say? Think about this for a minute, if one doesn’t, the number of these animals would exponentially increase and would lead inevitably to suffering for those animals, when resources such as housing and food become rarer as the population increases. This situation is avoided by the present practice of neutering and spaying. But, in doing that, what you are essentially doing is removing that animals fundamentally important ability of propagating it’s genes, and by your doing so, breaking a line that continued, generation after generation, unbroken for the 3 and a half billion years of life on this planet. You’re taking from it the only productive ability it has to offer the world. As you can see, ethically, this is not a cut and dry issue. Similarly, if one considers our selective breeding of animals we essentially do the same thing, removing traits that are not useful to us. Now, it would be easy to see this as a selfish enterprise, that we are molding these animals for our own gain. But, in terms of evolutionary success, this is a mutually beneficial process, a symbiosis of sorts, for example, the chicken is by far the most numerous bird that has ever lived. Now, granted, most of these chickens live in the most terrible conditions imaginable, but remember, so do people. And what Bóthar is doing is trying to alleviate the conditions that so many people endure by the use of animals, and not their abuse. For the most part these animals are used for what they produce and not for their meat, and if you have a problem with that then consider this. A Friesian cow produces, as a result of our selective breeding, far more milk than its calf needs. This is of course our own doing but as a result, it needs to be milked and if we didn’t milk it, a plethora of conditions and diseases would result. The morality is again a hazy playing field. One solution to this problem of not drinking milk would be to allow the animal to it’s own devices to slowly, on it’s own, breed out the dependency on humans, but this of course has its associated and inevitable suffering, an untenable position really, and in addition their grazing could not be maintained on arable farm land, which would be used of course for vegetables and crops. One could humanely put down all animals of that breed, but more likely, for our present imaginary purposes, the whole species. Or finally one could slowly breed these dependencies out of these animals ourselves but that would instantly become uneconomical and one of the two drastic measures outlined above would inevitably ensue. What I am essentially saying is that the domestication of animals is not a reversible process, if we stopped using these animals they would suffer and die by starvation and disease, so discussion on the alternative, opting out of eating meat, cheese, honey, drinking milk et cetera, is entirely futile because ultimately it can and will change nothing outside your own activities and self-satisfaction and to impose these subjective values on the most needy in the world is itself morally dubious. You can say that the transport of animals is inefficient energy wise, but that is hardly a moral issue. If a farmer decides to donate an animal to Bóthar, (which, I’m led to believe, is the main reason for these airlifts) how else would the animals be quickly and easily moved? And do the ARA’s not use airplanes themselves? Or use plastics, electricity, and all it entails? I know that’s a reductio ad absurdum, and I apologize for its crudeness, but it’s the logical conclusion one comes to with these problems.
You have to draw the line somewhere as they say, but in the end the line you draw is a human act, an arbitrary boundary on your ideology, a line that does not exist. As a result of this one cannot expect people’s opinions to be uniform, in fact you can expect them to be exactly the opposite so in fact, we are all wasting our time. Me, you and others, wasting our efforts, but the difference is I’m wasting my time convincing you that you shouldn’t be convincing others that they shouldn’t support a charity that does good work while we sit, in front of screens, screaming our opinions at audiences of little significance. This is where I sign off, and rest assured I will continue to contribute in my own way to the good work being done by Bóthar and I would encourage others to do the same. At least, if even indirectly, I feel as if I’m doing something of merit.

by Frank Fri Jan 11, 2008 14:19

In India and some other warm countries many people, partly for religious reasons, are brought up as vegetarians. They can survive into late age on such a diet, especially if soya beans are in the diet. Soya has 28 per cent protein, the highest percentage in any common vegetable.

However, if a person is brought up from infancy on a diet of meat and vegetables their body may not be able fully to adjust to a conversion to vegetarianism. The ageing body particularly may suffer the lack of certain digestive acids contained in meat.

I read a newspaper interview many years ago with the Anglican anti-apartheid campaigner, Rev. Trevor Huddleston. He lived in the parish of Sophiatown in South Africa during the 1950s and published a book about his encounters with racism entitled Naught for your Comfort.

Anyway, he told the interviewing journalist that as a young man he had converted to vegetarianism, but that in his declining years he had to, on doctor's advice, switch back to occasional meat eating in order to benefit from those precious amonio acids. A campaign against the donation of Irish animals to African peasants seems weird, on dietary as well as compassionate grounds.

by Ollie Thu Feb 07, 2008 20:36

I truly fail to comprehend the logic behind this article.
I am waiting to see any genuine evidence for the cruelty to the animals that bothar send. Not a single picture. However, it is only too clear the suffering of those in less economically developed countries. Diseases such as marasmus and kwashiorkor are things we should be worrying about not the wellfare of animals.
To be quite honest if you were so worried about "pictures of the animals being slaughtered? Or even skinned carcases?" perhaps you should campaign about the livestock industry world wide. Write to close all the abattiors and the butchers in the develdoped world. I would be keen to see the progress of that arguement.
You claimed that bothar would be sending several animals to their deaths this year. One thing im unsure about however is how exactly are the "honey bees" going to be slaughtered?
"meat, eggs and dairy products contain high concentrations of saturated fat and cholesterol" If i am perfectly honest, i think this is the least of the worries of those living in LEDCs. In fact when you claimed that "heart disease, cancer, and strokes- the three leading killers in the world" you omitted the fact that these are infact not the largest killers in less economically developing countrries. As it in fact happens those diseases acount for less than 1 % of all deaths in the countries that Bothar offers help to.
Protien deficiency is the biggest problem in the diet of people living in these countries, perhaps we should all spend a little less time criticising those that are doing all they can to help this problem.

Finally, how exactly is it going to be possible to refine the diet of a dying child that has so little already. how can it be expected for them to be persuaded that what they consume is percieved as morally wrong and thus give up what could well be their last meal.

by Brendan Tue Mar 04, 2008 00:38

To the creaters of this post.
Get your facts straight before makng allegations. Go on a field trip and see for yourselves the good work Bothar and Heifer International do.

by Catlady Tue Mar 04, 2008 13:42

I have just caught up on the latest additions to this thread, and it is rather dismaying to see that posters consistently make points and ask questions which have been answered already by various people.

I suggest that anyone who wishes to comment read the previous posts, and then if they have any questions to raise or points to make which add to the discussion, rather than simply repeating points and questions again and again, they do so.

by Damien Wed Mar 05, 2008 21:13

I guess the only positive thing we can take from this is that this "organisation" doesn't actually exist yet.

They seem to be a small sub group of Alliance for animal rights, as they share a PO Box and have no other presence.

Given that AFAR don't even mention the anti bothar "campaign" on their website, and that AFAR in Ireland keep a very low profile anyway its safe to say that this is a fringe element of what is already a fringe group. I can't find any pictures of "demos" on the AFAR site that show more than 5 participants ... so essentially we are worrying about nothing. At most two people support this "campaign" - if there was a majority of the 5 active AFAR members then one assumes the "campaign" would at least make it to the AFAR website.

This notion of an anti bothar campaign only exists on this thread, there is no point in arguing against a campaign which doesn't actually exist.

by Belfast - none Sun Dec 14, 2008 23:29

apart of possible cruelty it may be a bad idea to send high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows to Africa.

Importing high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows in to Africa can be a threat to local Livestock breeds bring them nearer to extinction

http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/09/10/98082.html

Livestock breeds extinction threat: How prepared is Tanzania?

The scientists who compiled the report say that during a recent drought, some farmers who had kept their indigenous herds were able to walk them through long distances in search for water sources while those who had traded the Ankole breeds for imported ones lost their entire livestock.

The researchers surveyed farm animals in 169 countries including Tanzania.

The report warns that over-reliance on a few breeds of farm animal species, such as high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows, egg-laying white leghorn chicken, and fast-growing large white pigs, is causing the loss of an average of one livestock breed every month.

It is important to note that about 70 percent of the entire world\'s remaining unique livestock breeds are found in developing countries such as Tanzania.

by Belfast - none Sun Dec 14, 2008 23:29

apart of possible cruelty it may be a bad idea to send high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows to Africa.

Importing high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows in to Africa can be a threat to local Livestock breeds bring them nearer to extinction

http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/09/10/98082.html

Livestock breeds extinction threat: How prepared is Tanzania?

The scientists who compiled the report say that during a recent drought, some farmers who had kept their indigenous herds were able to walk them through long distances in search for water sources while those who had traded the Ankole breeds for imported ones lost their entire livestock.

The researchers surveyed farm animals in 169 countries including Tanzania.

The report warns that over-reliance on a few breeds of farm animal species, such as high milk-yielding Holstein-Friesian cows, egg-laying white leghorn chicken, and fast-growing large white pigs, is causing the loss of an average of one livestock breed every month.

It is important to note that about 70 percent of the entire world\'s remaining unique livestock breeds are found in developing countries such as Tanzania.

by Catlady Mon Dec 15, 2008 02:40

have pointed out numerous reasons why this is stupid. Thanks for providing another one!

Honestly........ a small portion of questioning intellect is all it takes. To prey on the vulnerable in order to prey on the even more vulnerable is just despicable...... to support their abuse is worse.

by AshleySwift Wed May 13, 2009 21:21

This is disgusting.

Bothar is an excellent charity that provides desperately needed animals to struggling families - and you want to take this away? Where is the evidence that these animals are in any way treated badly? In fact, the most likely thing is that they'll be amazingly looked after, far better than they would be in the First World! If a family has a cow etc and it is providing them with food, why would they mistreat it? They'd probably treat it as well as any of their children, because if it dies what will they live on? Money that they could put towards their children's education would be tied up with food - and they don't get a lot of money in the first place.

Your article is factless and could do horrible damage to a charity who is just trying to make the world a better place. I don't see you organising a charity to send off grain to people! Preach all you want, but when push comes to shove, Bothar are the one doing the good in this world, and you're trying to get them closed down.

And if you're big on animal rights, which is fair enough, look to the First World, who in all honesty are doing the most damage. For example, for some First World woman's fur coat, eighteen red foxes are killed to make one fox-fur coat, and 55 minks to make a mink coat. Elephants who perform in circuses are often kept in chains for as long as 23 hours a day from the time they are babies. Also in the Northern hemisphere - the people from the Developing World who can barely feed themselves won't be buying circus tickets!

So who, really, are the perpetrators of animal cruelty? Not some starving child! Please, rant on a subject that might actually do some good in the world. And if less people donate to Bothar you can thank yourself - you've increased world starvation.

by Farmer. Thu May 14, 2009 07:45

"The scientists who compiled the report say that during a recent drought, some farmers who had kept their indigenous herds were able to walk them through long distances in search for water sources while those who had traded the Ankole breeds for imported ones lost their entire livestock."

If Bothar had any common sense they would set up a breeding program for LOCAL hardy breeds from the area they are trying to help.

I can well imagine Irish cows keeling over in tropical heat.

Irish people keel over in the tropics as well.

by Old Africa hand Thu May 14, 2009 09:13

Cows and people will "keel over" and possibly die if they don't try to adapt to a new terrain and new climate. I've heard about German colonial farmers in East Africa before the First World War who introduced horses in a mountainy area of Tanganyika. Sadly the creatures succumbed to a strain of equine fever. Could similar horses survive there today with help from new drugs supplied by vets? I also met, actually met, an Irish missionary priest in East Pokot, a semi-arid region in western Kenya. He had introduced, firstly, some Sanaa goats acquired from Somalia in order to crossbreed with the Pokot nomadic people's local breed of goats. This venture was successful in improving the local breed. Secondly, he bought camels from a similar area in the Horn of Africa and let them crossbreed with the local Pokot strain. Great success followed and the Pokot herds have thrived and increased. The adult camels produce about 2 litres of healthy milk per day (I saw a trained African milking them: beware of nasty bites from camels!) which feeds the Pokots and can be sold as surplus to blow-ins in the area to raise cash. Incidentally, special harness and wooden carriers were made and camels were trained to carry wood and other necessities of the tribespeople - something they had never tried until the 1980s before the Irish missionaries arrived.

In a mountainy area of Tanganyika missionaries introduced potatoes from Europe around the 1940s. Nowadays these potatoes are grown seasonally in a high altitude area with good rain, and lots of farmer income comes from selling the cash crop to merchants from Arusha and other big towns. This is successful implantation of food sources.

Yes, not all European animals supplied to Africa, with its varied climates and environments, can adapt to local circumstances, but there's no harm in trying. African farm research colleges can keep the situation under scientific review, and Irish universities, if interested, can do research into tropical agriculture and twin with African and other third world institutions. Irish foreign aid (called Irish Aid) can be persuaded to help such twinning. I know Bothar has its veterinary and Ag. Science experts to advise it and do checks in the field.