I am considering making a regular contribution to the CIWF as cruelty to farm animals is an issue which I feel quite strongly.

As a non-farmer, I am keen to know the feelings towards the CIWF from those in the trade.

Is the CIWF a worthy charity to support? Do they have a positive impact on farming? Or are they just another headache for farmers?

Firstly it would be interesting to know what it is you regard as cruelty? Is it what you have experienced in real life or is it your perception from what the media has told or showed you?

CIWF has flawed logic in that it has fought to prevent calves being transported to Europe in a controlled and well cared for way, yet prefers to see these calves knocked on the head at birth because they have no value.

CIWF is a lobby group that was originally run by Vegans and Vegetarians, the aim of the oganisaton was originally to stop animals being kept for eventual slaughter for food.

It is not a charity but a limited company with well paid directors. Today it has widened its brief and needs to be seen to represent large numbers of the population against popular causes. This way it is able to get funds from as many well meaning people as possible so as to maintain the incomes of the leaders of CIWF.

If you wish to support an animal charity then a very worthy organisation with no baggage is the Blue Cross. 

CIWF may or may not have started with a Vegan agenda, but it's certainly gone that way in recent years. I have no problem with veggies campaigning openly about their lifestyle and aims, but we live in a democracy and 97% of us aren't veggies. From the point of view of animal suffering, properly conducted slaughter isn't an issue, though Kosher and Halal slaughter may be.  The whole problem with CIWF at the moment is that if it succeeds in shutting down or reducing livestock farming in the UK, then the shortfall in meat supply will be made up from foreign sources which are always worse than the UK for animal welfare (not always much worse, e.g NZ or Denmark, but worse all the same).

CIWF need to get their facts right,  they  think Holsworthy is on Exmoor so that is how accurate they are, they can't even read a map!

 

Frank the wool:

CIWF has flawed logic in that it has fought to prevent calves being transported to Europe in a controlled and well cared for way, yet prefers to see these calves knocked on the head at birth because they have no value.

CIWF had a representative debating with us some time ago and quite clearly explained that they were opposed to Frank taking sheep to his nearest slaughterhouse which, I think, was in Belgium and said that his sheep should instead take a 200 mile journey within the UK. The grounds for their opposition were that if he were allowed to take his sheep to Belgium, then Scottish Farmers might also be allowed to do so.

We can see therefore that their ethical position is the "Greatest good for the greatest number."  ie. It is better that fewer suffer than that many suffer.

This Utilitarian philosophical view was propounded by John Stuart Mills and Jeremy Bentham some two hundred or so years ago and is, in many respects a popular and apparently sensible view taken by big organisations and governments world wide. It is the thinking behind decisions such as those made within the NHS when expensive drugs are denied particular patients so money can be spent treating many. It is the same philosophical basis which was also used to justify slavery and the labour camps of Stalin et al.

Utilitarianism will inevitably lead to a perversion of natural morality. I do not want to bore readers and so will give just the example of this perversion, whereby in pre-war Germany the utilitarian philosophy made it  'moral'  for young children to inform on their parents.

My own view is that the root ethical position should be the primacy of the individual (be it human or animal) and thus our moral standards will be based upon placing ultimate value on the individual. In short our behaviour towards the group follows our value of the individual NOT the other way round.

It is not possible in life to uphold that position at all times but that is no reason to try. There must be millions of us keeping stock who try to treat each animal and value that animal for its own sake. Its not just money, its not just meat, it is the whole animal we value for its own sake. For us, it is not just General Utility but Individual Relationship that matters. True! the end is meat but how we get there matters and depends on our initial ethical position.

In the case of CIWF,  I regard their view towards Frank's sheep as immoral and that immorality derives from their starting ethical position which is utilitarianism.

I suspect you credit CIWF with too much learning.  Having encountered a few of their members, they generally seem to subscribe to the "it's fluffy and we should cuddle it" school of thought.  From what I can gather any objection they have to particular farming practices are secondary to the principle of stopping livestock farming altogether.

Sadly it is groups like this that have the ear of government and appear to populate up the ranks of the bureaucracy that government uses to implement it's policies.

 

At least they don't claim that sheep are killed for their wool I suppose.

Firstly it would be interesting to know what it is you regard as cruelty? Is it what you have experienced in real life or is it your perception from what the media has told or showed you?

Having had first hand experience of factory farming practices (battery egg production); I class this as animal cruelty. I personally believe that all animals reared for meat should be allowed to exercise their natural behaviour before they die, or where this is not possible, at least live a happy life. I am a meat eater and always buy the best I can afford (for the record 95% of the meat I buy is from the local butcher/delicatessen and the only meat I do buy from supermarkets are delicatessen products such as pate, salami etc [the stuff you can rarely buy from the butchers]).

 

I think you'll find 95% + of farmers don't like battery egg production either, including many with first hand experience.  Still the same old question though: Is it better to buy battery eggs from the UK, where at least there are some welfare standards, than buy them from various foreign countries where welfare standards are rudimentary to say the least?  Personally I'd ban batteries in the UK, and also ban importing all eggs produced in batteries, but that doesn't appear to be a political possibility from our urban S(c)ottish government.

 

moaningfarmerpalmer:

Firstly it would be interesting to know what it is you regard as cruelty? Is it what you have experienced in real life or is it your perception from what the media has told or showed you?

You do not say to whom you are addressing this question and so I guess that it is addressed to your fellow correspondents in general. From a reading of this thread and reading others over the years, my guess is, that most respondents would generally agree with your views on intensified animal rearing and the 'distress' caused by restricion of the ability to express natural behaviour. (One has to remember however that natural behaviour, includes knocking the hell out of each other until a heirarchy of feeding and breeding has been established)

However, I also guess that most animals in the world are reared intensively by farmers who do not appear in these columns and many of whom, read the FW magazine.

As to the point as to what it is that lies behind peoples perceptions; I usually manage to deduce that from what they write or say and in this regard there are some very well read, well educated, we travelled and experienced people writing on FWI and I, for one, like to read their contributions including your own. I have also noticed how some contributors have increased the 'quality' of their contributions, no doubt by reading how the contributions of others are structured and their points argued.

To speak to the point of CIWF, some time ago I visited the Charities Commission web site and downloaded a copy of their accounts. From memory they employ eight equivalent full time people and their CEO has a salary of £68k. They do very little box rattling and the majority of their income of, I think it was £250k in 06 came from donations and grants. I commented at the time how much noise and influence a quarter of a million could buy and wondered why the NFU couldn't make better use of their (our) millions.

 

 

 

 

Why do farmers view CIWF as working against the industry? CIWF was set up by a guy called Peter Roberts who gained a diploma in Agriculture from Harper Adams and had a dairy farm, he wasn't someone who didn't understand the industry.  He understood and did not like what he saw. 

If British farmers actually woke up and saw the benefit from working with CIWF  they could make giant leaps forward.  CIWF are not anti farming, they simply want animals treated humanely with respect and compassion; is that not what we all want?   A quick look at their website tells me that they operate within 26 european countries and also on the world stage.  CIWF, through sister organisations, could actually assist British farmers by changing other countries perceptions of welfare and campaiging for changes to farming practices where standards are lower.  By doing this they can try to get foreign governments to adopt the same high standards as the UK.  The website also shows sponsorship from Tesco's and endorsement from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Joanna Lumley. Quite a strong brand! 

There is a huge opportunity for British farming to work with and develop brands with CIWF for the benefit of both parties plus of course farm animals.

 DA  (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a member or involved in any way with CIWF) 

 

  

 

 

A number of attempts have been made to work with CIWF, probably the most recent was the attempt to set up a scheme with Tesco when the "well meaning" supermarket told all of its milk suppliers that they were not allowed to send any bull calves for export.

 I am told that this has not been a success.

All of the time that CIWF refuse to accept that transporting animals across 22 miles of water and prefer to have them knocked on the head at birth does not make for an organisation that can be worked with. Where they would rather I transport lambs for slaughter 200 miles instead of 80 because they go to another country, yet the standards are the same, makes you realise that this organisation has nothing to do with welfare of animals but all to do with paying it's executives.

It may have begun with good intentions, it is a long way from there now.

 

devilsadvocate:

they simply want animals treated humanely with respect and compassion;

Most readers of this site would agree with your impression of what CIWF want. Unfortunately, as Frank the Wool relates, their actions belie their words and, as I have argued in another thread, their underlying philosophy is utilitarian which is, the greatest good for the greatest number. In pursuit of this they are content for one animal to suffer in order, as they see it, to benefit the many. We know this to be true because one of their representatives told us so in earlier debate.

Many stock keepers, whilst not being sentimental (not the same as having sentiment) value each animal holistically for its own sake and do not simply regard each animal as being of value only as a component part of a herd or flock.

In my view the utilitarian philosophy of CIWF is no different from that of any large organisation that treats animals (or people) as economic units from which outputs should be maximised and inputs minimised.