How do you feel about direct action?

[livinginphotographs]

First, let me say, I'm still developing an opinion on this, and thought I'd throw it out there to get some feedback.

I've been reading some ALF press releases tonight, and been thinking a lot about it.

I DO NOT support releasing an animal into an unnatural environment to starve/freeze to death. But the press release describing the recent freeing of mice from an LSU laboratory and putting those mice into homes where they are cared for is totally acceptable to me. This seems to me to be an instance where civil disobedience is not just okay with me, but necessary. No people were hurt, just property in the interest of driving up the costs of animal experimentation.

I also agree with those who may have used, um, unconventional means to free slaves. It's the same with animals. Sometimes letter-writing and protests are not going to help an animal that is being treated cruelly.

Like I said, I'm still pondering this, so any differing opinions are more than welcome.

And mods, feel free to delete this if this is topic is a bit extreme for DU. I know Agent Mike is always watching.

[flvegan]

1. I'll go first. "Direct Action" (note the quotes)

By definition is twofold (according to "ALF FAQs":
1. Rescuing animals; and
2. Causing financial loss to the exploiter of said rescued animal.

I don't think that anyone should support said "direct action" across the board. I don't agree with arson, yet "direct action" dictates that freeing lab mice is better served with a pipe bomb. One can't simply agree with a simple definition, much like one couldn't agree with supporting a "war" across the board.

Personally, I support direct action. I support people that remove animals from abusive situations and find them homes. I support folks that run underground railroads to assist same. I support trespass, property destruction and other non-law abiding actions that DIRECTLY result in the liberation of an animal (by property destruction, I mean cutting a chain or breaking open a cage, trap, etc). I've cut chains. I've trespassed. I've been published, under my real name, by HSUS, PETA and Farm Sanctuary for my actions. Rod Coronado shook my hand and thanked me for my part in a raid on a farm of battery hens, of which I openly spoke about at an AR conference. I didn't burn the buildings down, but I helped take a couple hundred starving hens out.

I support Sea Shepherd when they disable a whaler. I support my fellow balaclava donned person who cuts a chain link fence to take a dog from a bad situation. I don't know that I'd support his/her decision to burn the building/house down.

You don't have to support every single action/reaction across the board. Each press release should stand on it's own.

I see it this way...you said, "Sometimes letter-writing and protests are not going to help an animal that is being treated cruelly." Yes, you're right. This is where the individual activist may choose to ask him/herself if he/she has done all he/she reasonably can to assist this animal.

I believe whole-heartedly in open rescue. Redefine "direct action" as it's presented. Any time YOU touch fur, scales, feathers or skin, and liberate that animal from abuse, you have participated in direct action. Any time YOU stand in the way of abuse, resulting in an animal(s) liberation, you have participated in direct action. It mattered to that animal, and quite frankly, that animal probably wouldn't be disappointed to find that you didn't blow the place up.

[livinginphotographs]

2. I should've defined the "direct action" I was referring to.

For instance, one press release describes vandalizing a McDonald's. That I disagree with. They didn't save any animals, the McDonald's will be rebuilt (even if it is elsewhere), and the media can play it off like these "activists" were nothing but a bunch of punks.

As far as open rescue, I agree with that 100%, and don't see how anyone can find something wrong with rescuing an abused animal, even if a chain or a cage has to be damaged. But arson or vandalism just for the sake of arson or vandalism seems pretty counterproductive. It also makes it easier for the govt to designate them as "terrorists" and start going after EVERYONE who is involved with animal rights, not just the ALF. I don't doubt the committment of people who do that sort of thing, I just think they go a little overboard.

I'm hesitant to link to the actual press release, since I don't know how the mods would feel having the ALF linked on their site, so I guess we'll have to rely on me to describe it accurately. But what they basically did (and you may have already read it) was break in, take the mice, and vandalize the lab. While I don't "support" the vandalism of the lab, per se, I can't say I'm too choked up about it. If it becomes too expensive for the school to keep doing experiments on animals because of security and having to constantly repair and replace their equipment, then that's a good thing, in my opinion.

So I guess when I say I support direct action, there's a graded scale of support for each part of a particular raid or rescue. It depends on the case. So I guess I just gave myself a non-answer. :)

[Warpy]

3. I'd be a little more comfortable with it

if they took more steps to ascertain the animals were truly being abused. Some animals used in medication trials are treated humanely. Some are not.

ALF often fails to make the distinction, believing instead that all medical use of animals is wrong.

My adorable teddy bear of a rescued tom cat would be dead if their vewpoint had become standard. He was saved by a combination of five medications that are also used for human beings.

I would prefer review and inspection to be used to make sure conditions are appropriate to the species and that testing procedures are humane. "Liberating" test animals is not always the best policy.

[shockra]

4. I've been thinking about it too.

I went to the Bite Back magazine website last weekend and read the diary of actions for the last four months. I don't have a problem with taking animals out of cruel situations. Arson? Yeah, quite illegal, but there are instances where it has helped to run people out of business, so it's served a purpose. There are cases where I can understand it.

I can understand the impulse behind rescuing animals and/or setting them free. When I was younger and I'd see a picture of vivisection, I'd just want to jump into the page and take that animal out of there RIGHT NOW. It grabs you on a soul level. You feel like a parent watching a total innocent being tortured. If I could astral project myself into cages where animals are being kept and get them out I would have done so over a million times by now. Vivisection certainly kept me awake many, many nights.

I think one reason you see (property) violence alongside the compassion of animal rescue is because of how incredibly overwhelming the problem of animal exploitation is. If you don't get justifiably angry at times, you end up sinking into a deep depression. I remember reading a description by Louise Hay of depression. She said it's an internalization of anger you don't feel you have a right to have. Well, we know we have a right to feel angry about the cheap value placed on animal lives.

One can easily become incapacitated by depression when facing the extremes of animal abuse and the scope of the problem. In which case you would be unable to do anything about it at all. You have to keep that anger alive or you'd fold. Which is true for a lot of situations that are out of, or feel out of, your personal control.

I could spout on this for a long time, but I also feel that my opinions depend a lot on the specific situations. There is value in all kinds of approaches. You have to find the best thing for each case. I noticed that ALF thinks PETA is wimpy for negotiating with fast food giants like McDonalds for better conditions for animals. They have a no compromise policy. I can understand that, but I don't think it's practical in that case. There are times TO take a stance of no compromise. But it takes all kinds, and sometimes a lot of different kinds of approaches at once.

[livinginphotographs]

5. That's a good point.

Sometimes I almost get so depressed battling Republicans on issues such as the death penalty, the Iraq War, drug legalization, and animal rights that I can understand people who give up on discussion and go straight to actual action.

While I can't see myself committing arson or property damage, if I were on a raid to free laboratory mice, I can understand someone who just has had enough and vandalizes a lab.

I think (and this is naive on my part, I know) in a hundred years, the exploitation of animals which is so commonplace will be seen as barbaric by the majority of people, and many of those individuals who have engaged in direct action will be seen as heroes, much like Harriet Tubman.