| Topic: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 14/10/08 / Views : 9504 / Replies : | |
|  | I was in Sainsburys today and saw a brand of milk http://www.rachelsorganic.co.uk/ and it is promoting a SEND A COW TO AFRICA ,
and well I don't need to tell you all , the dangers and reverse effect this could have on helping people,animals and the envorinment etc.
As you may know of this website explaining the DONT SEND A COW charity by animal aid http://www.animalaid.org.uk/veggie/sendacow.htm
Do you think we should all contact the rachels organic and show them a more positive way they can help people in other countries rather than this?
Educating the public here in the UK is just an important part aswell as direct donations to these countries about how the use of animals is keeping them stuck in poverty and not helping them get out. |
|
|
| [add your comments | all topics] | |
|
| Reply #1: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 03/03/06 | |
| | | I'm glad you brought this up. A lot of people will think it's a great idea, but I think it's just horrid. There's been a lot of talk over the years about banning the import/export of livestock because it's just so cruel. This is playing on most people's consciences - most people put humans before other animals and think meat is the best kind of food - even though, as you say, Veggiewoman, there are far better ways to help people in Africa. They're trying to make it OK to pack an animal, probably in the most cramped conditions, off to another country - with a totally different climate - and be used. I hate people like that. Of course I don't want humans to starve, but (good old cliche coming up) two wrongs don't make a right!!! |
|
|
|
| Reply #2: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 03/03/06 | |
| | I totally agree with the idea that it is wrong to send a cow to Africa. People just see the animal as something to use and they do not consider feelings. It is so cruel it to a poor village where animals as well as people have hard lives.
I feel sorry for the people and instead of a cow think they could be given things that are not cruel. They could be provided with a clean water system, sacks of rice etc. |
|
|
|
| Reply #3: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 03/03/06 | |
| | I find this whole 'send a cow/goat/chicken' idea terribly upsetting and so many levels.
Here is the alternative, unfortunately they not very well known:
http://www.veganvillage.co.uk/vegfam
Paws :-) |
|
|
|
| Reply #4: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 03/03/06 | |
| | | What to expect on a MILK carton? Of course they won't be adverse to abusing and exploiting cows. They could even use the scheme to dispose of old milked out cows and "useless" male calves from their dairies, but I believe these schemes tend to source the "Livestock" on site now rather than shipping across the oceans. |
|
|
|
| Reply #5: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 14/03/06 | |
 | | anonymous |
|
| | I approach this issue from a very different perspective to those who normally use this site: I'm not especially interested in romance, or animals especially, but in international development, in which I work. I think the whole 'send a cow/goat/whatever' thing is at best badly mistaken, at worst idiotic because of the huge waste of resources involved.
There are far more effective ways of helping break poverty, all of which are centred around helping people to help themselves; if you're going to send resources to Africa or other poor regions, spend money on providing transferable skills not expensive animals. Quite apart from the conditions they will have to endure in being transported, there is the issue of finding a suitable breed of cattle for teh kind of environment in which they will have to live.
Lack of water is a major problem in Africa, and sending a European cow is hardly the intelligent way to tackle it: far better to send cheap, low-maintenance water pumps than expensive animals.
Thsi is a typically badly thought out scheme, akin to the people who send teddy bears to the 'orphanages' in Eastren Europe in the mistaken belief that that is the way to solve the problems of the lack of child care. DO not do it! |
|
|
|
| Reply #6: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 14/03/06 | |
| | anonymous |
|
| | I whole heartily agree with Richard on this one.
Just on an enviromental scale, this is a huge disaster, not to mention an animal welfare one.
The ignorance of our overly wealthy fat nation never ceases to amaze me!
Thanks VW for bringing this to my attention, I'd not noticed this particular milk brand (as you can imagine I don't hang around the milk isle for any length of time...LOL)
I'll contact saisbury's and see what they've got to say for themselves... i'll let you know of any (if any) response I get.
Cheers |
|
|
|
| Reply #7: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 14/03/06 | |
| | Yes that was an interesting post from Richard, thank you. It was good to get a view of this topic from a different perspective. And it shows that exploitation of animals is often a bad idea for other reasons than animal welfare...there are so many examaples.
I just agree with every post so far on here totaly, not much to add, for once I am lost for words!! Except I think that T Bear is right that these schemes don't physicaly send live animals abroad...but I'd like confirmation of this. |
|
|
|
| Reply #8: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 14/03/06 | |
| | | Yes CP I'm sure I've read as much. They did use to export live cows across but as you can imagine it wasn't efficient to them. So the whole "send a cow" scheme is dishonest because they tend to breed on base soil now and charities just fund the initial expenses. |
|
|
|
| Reply #9: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 17/03/06 | |
| | | Its still on sale, I saw it today and I just wanted to take them all off the shelf and hide them.Better still just throw them in the bin. |
|
|
|
| Reply #10: Re: don't send a cow and Rachels Organics! |
| Posted : 18/11/07 | |
| | anonymous |
|
| | Question...Why is everyone here some freaking daft. Send a cow has nothing to do with animal cruelty. It is infact improving the welfare of the animals in the respective location they are allocated. the lifespan of a SAC animal is 3 or often 4 times longer than the animal stuck in a feedlot in the UK, or anywhere else in the EU. The animal is looked upon as an asset for the family and the the return of investment is tenfolds.
Seriously...aren't you embarressed, being so ignorent. I would be. Veggiewoman. When, the animal as explained earlier is a generator for further development, not only for skills, but also wealth and wellbeing of the people. Also for your information, they don't actually send animals, they provide animals from other regions where there is a surplus. It is reallocation of animals. You can look upon it as an equalizer of the cattle, poultry and sheep in Africa. Ha-ha...I am so sorry for you people. I guess ignorance is bliss, right? |
|
|
| [add your comments | all topics] | |
