Neurotopia

….by releasing them from a mink farm. This is what happens when you set animals free without regard to the consequences.

Now whether you think raising and killing animals for their fur is immoral or not, it takes a special kind of mind to cogitate that an appropriate solution is to spontaneously decrease the mink population by getting them killed.

Welcome to Mink Psychology 101: Remedial Minktation – mink raised on a farm don’t know anything about how the world works. When you let 6,000 of them out of their cages and 500 of them manage to escape out of the open farm gate, should anybody be shocked that a dozen of them died either because they were hit by cars, or simply from the sheer stress of a Mink Stampede?

By the way, 200 of the escapees still haven’t been caught.

Then again, maybe the animal rights nutters are the ones who don’t know how the world works. Accordingly, I feel compelled to create a new post category in their honor: “Rocket Surgery”

Hat Tip: Foundation for Biomedical Research E-Clips service

Comments

#1 SimonG
August 28, 2008

Fur farming is no worse than cattle farming, sheep, whatever. Clearly the only reason to target mink farms is because fur can be considered elitist, whereas nearly everybody eats chicken. Or maybe because sheep would just mill around aimlessly.

Plus mink are vicious little bastards which will wreak havoc on the local eco-system and any nearby poultry farms.
#2 Sean
August 28, 2008

6,000 were let out and 12 died. overreact much?
#3 Cleveland
August 28, 2008

Miss the point much Sean?

12 died (non-humanely), ~200 still uncaptured. A substantial fraction of that 200 will likely also die in short order and maybe (just maybe) a few will survive in freedom like the nutters Disney after-school-program fantasy predicted.

Let’s sum up. The population of ~6,000 animals stressed out by the release event (federal regulation works to combat stressors as inhumane treatment, btw). Anywhere from 12-200 dead, again, dying an inhumane (according to federal standards put in place at the behest of legitimate animal welfare advocates) death. Animals that will inevitably be replaced by additional animals. Animal activists demonstrate more nutty and inconsistent behavior, further to the detriment of their supposed goals of stopping mink farming.

Acting in a way that directly counters all of your supposed stated goals is just plain insanity. No other way to look at it.
#4 Will TS
August 28, 2008

A long time ago I worked in a lab that was attacked by the ALF. They released the animals right outside the lab, in the parking lot. Among the animals ‘rescued’ were about a hundred nude mice. You know, the athymic mice with non-functional immune systems. Their tiny shriveled bodies littered the ground. It was appalling.
#5 Bob Anderson
August 28, 2008

These types of mink releases have happened so many times, that I think it’s time to start blaming the fur farmers for failing to ensure better security and safety for their animals. If all these animals can’t live and cause such damage to the surrounding environment, they probably shouldn’t be there in the first place; and if they are housed in such inhospitable environments then measures should certainly be taken to keep them there.
#6 Mark P
August 28, 2008

I think you’re missing the point. Maybe the animal rights activists are doing exactly what every medical researcher or, for that matter, practicing physician does – weighing the cost:benefit ratio. Researchers believe that sacrificing the lives of experimental animals is worthwhile because of the potential gain for humans. Practicing physicians prescribe medicines that they know in some (hopefully) vanishingly small percentages of cases will cause serious side effects, including death. Surgeons do the same. They believe that the overall benefits outweigh the cost. Maybe the animal rights activists are not trying to save those particular animals, but rather trying to make mink farming so hard that they can end the practice, and thus save many more mink in the future.

Just a thought.
#7 phisrow
August 28, 2008

Maybe this is just projection; but I would presume that mass releases are chosen as being the best combination of easy+disruptive, not because animals are actually supposed to be saved. Mass release is likely easier than mass slaughter, when you are short on time and/or squeamish, and certainly plays much better for the camera. It might well also be, depending on the species in question, that recapture and replacement of those killed by the environment is more expensive than simple replacement.

I get the impression that hardline animal rights people care about animals in roughly the same way that serious doctrinaire communists care about workers. They aren’t actually all that interested in ameliorating conditions now; because the only satisfactory outcome is the annihilation of the present order. In fact, programs that reduce instances of flagrant and visible cruelty would actually be counterproductive for them; because many more people oppose animal cruelty than oppose animal use.
#8 Evil Monkey
August 28, 2008

I’d like to see that logic applied to ending the child sex slave business, Mark.
#9 T. Bruce McNeely
August 28, 2008

Great idea, Bob Anderson!
Likewise, with all the sexual assaults that occur, I think it’s time to start blaming the women for failing to cover up their bodies and walking around where men are!

Idiot.
#10 Mark P
August 29, 2008

Evil Monday, it must be too early for me, but I fail to see the relevance of the child sex slave to this issue, other than for pure emotional effect to distract from any logical considerations.
#11 Mark P
August 29, 2008

“Monday”? Wow, it really must be too early for me.
#12 scicurious
August 29, 2008

I have wondered before why activists target things like animal research and mink farms as opposed to say, the enormous, miles-wide expanses of cattle feedlots and slaughterhouses. Surely they aren’t that much more well-protected, and they are certainly treated much worse than laboratory animals. I figure that ALF people think they will get more support from the public over animal research than over the disruption of the steak route. Which tells you just how much the public knows about both practices.
#13 mrtlinslt
August 29, 2008

yeh, that, or they think that the types of folks that work in the feed animal industry will kick their cowardly behinds from here to next week if they get caught…
#14 Paul Murray
August 31, 2008

The goal isn’t to save those particular mink. It’s to discourage mink farming. Like most people with a big vision, the individuals who get hurt don’t rewally matter much to them. Omlettes and egshells.
#15 Evil Monkey
September 1, 2008

Sounds awfully similar to the arguments proposed by terrorists. Which probably explains why some animal rights fanatics are considered as such by the FBI.