# Threat against all farm animals up in Sweden, EU



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

Here is a blog tellilng how bad things can be if you get mighty people against you. Poor goats suffer the most, owner mentally destroyed:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHKP6o6MZpjam4h0tiXhmHfRoIYJA

The blog owner alerts to spread the information, probably in order to see if there is anything that can be done to make similar not happen again and again. Unfortunatelly, this is not an isolated example, but one in a long row of similar happenings.

(I personally suspect that the neighbur fed the goats with yeast or something similar, and then called the inspectors...)

From the beginning the childrens' books' writer Astrid Lindgren made clear that the animals in the "factories" suffer, and live unnaturally. (She wrote a book titled "My Cow Wants Some Fun", which is a quotation from a small farmer who denied to have his cow indoors all the year. "No, that is not possible on this farm, because my cow wants some fun.) So the government gave Astrid Lindgren an unusual birthday present: A new law for animals' protection. This law, though, has turned out to be used to harm the very same animals, especially those that live on small farms, and have an owner who loves them.

How are things in the US, are there any reports from the big meat, eggs, and milk production plants? Do the authorities take animals away from owners without warning? Is there anything we could do to cooperate for the benefit of our goats?


----------



## ksalvagno (Oct 6, 2009)

There would have to be a big group to go up against the government. Not much other than get out of that country. So sad.


----------



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

Out of the country? Oh, dear, that sounds a bit drastic ... :shock:

If we do not take the fight where we are, will it really be better somewhere else?


----------



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

As some of you might have suspected, my brother's goats are the latest victims.


----------



## mariarose (Oct 23, 2014)

I'm sorry. No, here in the States we have the exact opposite problem, but with the exact same result of maltreatment and misery. Animal Cruelty laws have no "teeth". There is no political will to protect the animals. Corporations rule everything. And animal rights people often are, and act like, criminals. Very often causing harm to the very animals they want to "help".


----------



## mariarose (Oct 23, 2014)

What I was trying to say was that the position here is that animals are completely at the mercy of the owners, and they do suffer whether it is in the factories, or in someone's backyard, the owner has almost total rights to treat it as he/she wants to. Very little goes on in the way of swooping officially in and taking animals away. That is left to small groups of people, activists driven mad, who often don't understand what the animal needs either...


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

I read the blog and I feel sick to my stomach. 

I'm not sure I totally agree with Mariarose about animals in the U.S. I feel like we have pretty good animal welfare laws here. Large industrial farms are not always held to account because of money, but reports of animal abuse on smaller farms are not usually ignored. I also tend to think that farmers in general are more likely to provide good care for their animals than any government agency would. The farmer, after all, at least has some skin in the game. Sick animals are not profitable. And I've seen firsthand how government bureaucrats handle wildlife in the name of "helping" them. Most of them have no clue what they're doing. 

I've read several cases where the U.S. government did horrible things to animals here for bureaucratic reasons. Has anyone here read "Mad Sheep" about the Faillace family's attempt to introduce New Zealand Beltex sheep to the U.S.? Because of the mad cow disease scare in the late 90's/early 2000's, this family was targeted by the U.S. government and their whole flock and livelihood destroyed in order to divert attention from the cattle industry and provide a scapegoat even though the sheep were perfectly healthy and scrapies-free. I'll also never forget reading about Giggles the fawn and how she was black-bagged and killed by the government to satisfy some law about keeping wildlife even though she was an orphan and there were arrangements to take her to another state where she could be legally raised in captivity. As bad as that kind of thing is, I'm so glad I don't live in Sweden. This is not the first time I've read about the problems farmers face over there.


----------



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

Thank you for your entries, both of you! So you managed to read a blog written in Swedish, wow!

Yes, I am very aware of how some people treat their animals in the US, obviously for the fun of causing suffering. (President Obama released the suffering of some show horses, but president Trump undid it very quickly.)

Maybe I should balance this by telling you that most Swedes are very keen on treating children and animals well. For example, our "giant" Astrid Lindgren worked a lot for the benefit of "pigs and chicken". Maybe you have heard of her "Emil in Lönneberga"?

Or maybe, just maybe, you could be interested in this forum: www.alternativ.nu

If you can make your computer translate the entries, you will also find an old woman there, unable to keep her mouth shut when it comes to goats!

One big problem is that most people here believe in what the government say, and presume that the animal owner must have made his goats etc suffer a lot, since the government chose to act. How is that "faith in authorities" over there? Here, they show a series on the television about animal police of some kind. I look at the films with lots of questions in my mind, since I have seen similar programmes from here, where I knew more about the background.

And a big thank you, Damfino, for your mentioning of the big factories! When killing goes industrial, the animals are the first to suffer.

PS I suddenly found the word for the suffering of those poor horses: Soring. There is a film on the mentioned blog, but I did not manage to copy the link.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

The blog was translated more or less to English. A little difficult to read in spots because of the grammar, but it was decipherable.

I don't think hardly anyone in the U.S. treats their animals badly for the fun of causing suffering. While that can happen anywhere, those cases are very, very rare and are easily prosecuted under our animal cruelty laws. 

The worst cases of cruelty that I've seen have been from people who hoarded animals. These are "animal lovers" who can't say no to any animal in need so they take on far more than they can realistically care for. At some point they are overwhelmed and their animals start dying from diseases related to neglect, overcrowding, starvation, infected wounds, etc. It seems like animal sanctuaries get raided by animal protective services more than other types of farms, and usually for good reason. Working farms where animals are needed to produce an income can be guilty as well, but usually the abuses are less egregious because some minimum of health and well-being are necessary for animals to turn any kind of profit, and they are also subject to periodic government inspections.

Do you know of Temple Grandin? There's an excellent movie about her, and of course lots to read on the internet. She revolutionized slaughterhouses in the U.S. She's an animal welfare advocate (not to be confused with animal rights activists) and redesigned feed lots, cattle chutes, and slaughterhouses all over the U.S. to make these places more humane for the animals destined for the dinner plate. 

I do know about soring gaited horses. There have been laws against this for decades and rules against it at shows, but a few people cheat the rules and ignore the laws for the sake of winning. It's sad that anyone would do such things. I don't blame Obama or Trump on that one. There are a lot of bureaucratic reasons why the updated soring laws didn't get finalized before Obama left office. Trump put a whole pile of Obama's "11th-hour" laws on hold for review, not necessarily for revocation. I'm personally not a fan of rushed-through laws myself, so this could be a good thing. Of course, the news makes it sound like new laws would have stopped soring practices, but I have a hard time believing that. It's not about having more laws--it's about whether anyone will obey them and whether anyone will enforce them. Would the updated law have worked? Who knows. But I tend to believe there will always be cheaters and crooks no matter how many laws get passed. It's nice when guilty parties can be properly punished though.


----------



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

It seems to me as if you know things, Damfino!  It is very possible that I have misunderstood what the two presidents were doing.

Concerning laws &c in my country, someone has once said: "Poor Sweden, if there comes a dictatorship, for it would function way too well!" I guess we are, traditionally, brought up to obey authorities, especially the Church. Nowadays it is possible to say "I am not a Christian", but a century ago it was just out of the question!

Btw, maybe you have also read about Stanley Milgrams experiments on obedience? So, what do most people do when a boss tells them to slaughter animals without stunning? Or, when things get worse, to gas humans to death, who are not wished in the society?


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

Well, I'm not sure I know too many things, but I do know that U.S. politics are always ridiculous. I'm not sure anyone quite knows what any of our Presidents or other politicians are doing except finding new ways to fleece the American public. But no, I don't think Trump has a personal vendetta against the horses, just against Obama. Most laws have more to do with politics than public service it seems. 

In this country people are often brought up to NOT obey or respect authorities, which has its own set of problems. But on the other hand, there is always a healthy fear of those in power among any population, and people are also very easy to deceive into believing their cause is good enough to justify any behavior. This is generally true of all humankind regardless of where they live. It's why humans are capable of doing something as illogical as becoming violent at a peace rally, for example. I love how some of my "pacifist" friends can't even get along with their own family, let alone someone from a different political party! Similarly, I love how my "freedom-loving, small-government" friends believe the government should increase the size of the military, spy on people more, and crack down on social behaviors they disagree with. Humans are amusingly illogical most of the time.


----------



## Trollmor (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't know the word 'fleece'. It reminds me a little of the word 'flå' in Swedish, which means 'take the skin off a dead animal'. It should then mean something like 'take what you want without asking permission'. Am I on the right track?

I have the impression that in America you don't have the system with 'remissomgång', which means that the government has to send out its proposals to parts of the public for comments, before presenting them to the parliament. Many here find politics boring and slow, not entertaining at all. I find this good; politics is about all our lives, including our money, it SHALL not be entertaining! (For good entertainment we have both enterprises, films, etc, and the Public Service Broadcasting, which is really good.)

Concerning the institution "county boards", which are taking animals from their owners here, they were originally introduced to report to the King (who was then omnipotent) if any of his police servants did wrong to the public/farmers. Now it functions in a totally other way ...

To obey or not to obey, that is a good question! I had the privilege to be brought up by parents who deliberately taught me to think by myself. That is a very good thing! But, of course, I have been thinking wrong many times nevertheless ...

If we take the example of Nazi Germany, it was, as we know, lethal not to obey. But afterwards, someone can freely say "Nobody has the right always to obey!" Well. That is of course easier said than done. But still ... *trying hard to think*


----------



## mariarose (Oct 23, 2014)

Damfino said:


> hardly anyone in the U.S. treats their animals badly for the fun of causing suffering.


All I can say is, You don't live where I do, and see what I do.

But I was speaking more of the attitude that the owner is the one who decides how an animal lives or dies, and it is no one else's business. And the people who would object to that are the ones most ignorant of what an animal needs.

On the one side, the owner can say, the animal needs to provide me with profit, nothing else, or entertainment, and it is my business.

On the other side, the people who would object are saying, animals need what *I* would need. Or they are willing to allow or perpetuate cruelty to make their own talking points.

Neither side is legally required to see animals as separate beings with needs of their own.

@Damfino I suspect that dogfighting, cockfighting, horse and mule pulls (Yes, there are wonderful horse and mule people involved, but the ones that aren't wonderful are still allowed, because they are the owners) circus elephant acts, trained marine life shows... are more common than you think. And on the other end of the scale, neighbors of mine tied fire crackers to their dog's tail inside a pen and laughed hysterically at the result. Other neighbors of mine broke a cat's leg and through it in with their dogs and watched it be torn apart. I saw it and could not stop it and it was not a bother to the law enforcement. Yes, we have laws, and they are toothless when they aren't enforced.

This is for entertainment purposes. Nothing else.

We may never see eye to eye on animal cruelty, and that is fine. I deeply respect you, and I think most of the time you are OK with me, too.


----------



## JearDOE Ranch (Aug 23, 2018)

It is so sad to see what some producers are dealing with!!! My heart breaks for them. I can't imagine loosing a goat over something so trivial as diarrhea. Goats get diarrhea!

There are some animal cruelty laws in place here in the USA, but like someone mentioned, it's really more up to the owners discretion how they treat the animal. That being said, you really see it more with pets than with livestock here. Unless you count commercial livestock, but that isn't defined as animal abuse here, and is just my opinion. The problem with making animal rights laws, as well with any law, is the adverse affect it may have, like what you've enlightened us to in the blog. 

As for here in the US, we do have a few laws that have had not nearly as dire, but still bad consequences. For example, a law protecting race horses from being put down the moment they are retired from racing, has also affected farmers who own old and ill horses that are no longer able to work. What was once taken to a slaughter house to be make into glue, dog food, and other products, now has become a waste of resources for the farmer.

There was a movement that got the USDA to legally define terms such as free range, cage free, and other terms for producers to be able to use to label their goods for the consumer, but commercial farms have fought there way for USDA to re-define those terms so that they can compete in the new growing market. So now the labels have become useless. 

So, because of this, farmer's Markets have become a growing trend and I think it's great. I would rather go out and get to know my farmer personally than have new laws drafted up just to be misinterpreted to cause grief for some poor unsuspecting soul. There are some who still cling to their commercially grown meat and produce, and I have no qualms with that. That is their choice and I'm happy to live in a country that allows us to have that choice.

I hope the people of Sweden and the other countries this is happening in find a way to fight back.


----------



## toth boer goats (Jul 20, 2008)

This has been a friendly discussion, I am proud of all of you.

However, I have to remind everyone the rules. 
No political discussions, as they can get way out of hand, in a negative way.


----------



## Damfino (Dec 29, 2013)

I'll try not to mention politics again then. It's a dirty subject anyway. 



mariarose said:


> @Damfino I suspect that dogfighting, cockfighting, horse and mule pulls...
> 
> This is for entertainment purposes. Nothing else.


I personally have no problem with keeping animals purely for entertainment purposes. In fact, the only reason anyone keeps pets is for their own amusement. Dogfighting and cockfighting are cruel practices which are quite rightly banned, but I love horse and mule pulls. I've had fun watching several of them and am always amazed by the really well-trained teams juxtaposed with the ones that aren't prepared for the competition. This is true of almost any competition I suppose. There are always a fair number that aren't really ready to be there. I've haven't seen cruelty at a horse pull. I've seen it more often at barrel races, but I've also been to more barrel races.

I also have no problem with elephant circus acts or marine animal acts, ect. I think they can actually be quite wonderful and I cried my eyes out when Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey finally folded last year. I had the rare privilege to be allowed "backstage" at one of them and met some of the animals in person. As someone who trains animals myself, I see no moral difference between training a goat, a dog, a horse, an elephant, a tiger, or a sea lion. And while it's quite possible to use cruel training techniques with any animal, it's much faster, easier, and safer for everyone if you train without cruelty, and the results are far better. Animal rights activists do their best to paint horrible pictures of abused animals on farms and in circuses, but way too many of them have been completely staged or false, and they use these faked images to sway an ignorant and gullible public.

When I say that there are very few cases of animal cruelty for cruelty's sake, I of course mean that there are very few in comparison to the huge number of people who own animals, and few even in comparison to the "incidental" cruelty cases I mentioned earlier. Even soring horses, which is terribly cruel, is not done for the sake of cruelty but for the sake of winning money and prestige (while hoping not to be caught). I know that intentional cruelty happens, and it's horrible when it does, but I can't believe that hardly anyone is intentionally cruel purely for the "thrill" of causing suffering. Some areas of the country will contain more cruel people than others, but to make it sound as though a large number of people in the U.S. are out to harm animals for the fun of it is not fair.


----------

