I Want You to Know Chickens
Comments are closed on this entry. This was a personal post written by me, not on behalf of any organization. That some people were unable to accept this and chose to use this post as a springboard to air their personal dislike of me or the organization I work for is unfortunate. Thanks for understanding and my apologies for any inconvenience this may cause (if this was a post ABOUT perceived inconsistencies in the AR movement, I would obviously not shut down the comments).
I wrote this for my personal blog, but realized it would probably resonate with many of you here. I tailored this more to my blog’s audience, hence the end message that may be a bit softer than for other audiences (my personal blog’s audience is mostly omni).
The first time I held a chicken was in college. She was a small white creature with big amber-hued eyes. I imagine the most unwanted thing she wanted to endure was being passed amongst a bunch of college kids. Stiff with fear, it was not the best way for chicken and human to meet.
A few years later I started volunteering at a sanctuary for farmed animals. I wandered amongst the hens, roosters and turkeys roaming a verdant field. What I remember most is their song, their talking. If there is one thing anyone takes away from interacting with happy chickens, it’s their conversation. Chickens and turkeys voice their thoughts and feelings and opinions on just about everything. It’s a rather soothing chorus.
Not always true, though.
Nearly seven years ago, I stepped foot into the modern chicken shed. In each building, 80,000 hens lived in cages so small they could not stretch their wings or move without bashing into another hen. Their existence was crazed, winnowed down to a few inches and endless boredom, ceaseless frustration.
On egg farms, to prevent the fighting and aggression that comes with abnormally high stocking densities of living beings, farmers cut off a portion of each hen’s beak. This leaves her unable to perform basic chicken things – preening, protecting, eating and drinking normally. A chicken’s beak is innervated, it has sensory neurons running to the tip, along with a blood supply. It is vital for a chicken to feel what is touching her beak, to know where base begins and tip ends. So it hurts to have a part of it removed, always done without anesthesia. Sometimes the nerves hurt so much, are so damaged, that they never stop crying, never stop sending messages to the brain that ouch! it hurts.
And the sound these hens make. The cries. I have never heard anything like it. There is a cadence, a rhythm to it that would almost be comforting if it wasn’t so jarring. You never hear this sound in nature or on sanctuaries or in little backyard flocks because it is impossible. No sanctuary has 80,000 hens running free, and if they did, on no sanctuary would you find hens so full of fear. The sound is a cross between the sound a hen makes when cooing to her babies and the sound she makes when fleeing a hungry fox. It is not right or normal.
I think perhaps, on that day, after hours of pulling (legally) hens from these battery cages, I decided not only to respect chickens but to love them fiercely, to pull them into my heart and let them nest. On that day, I saw how cruel and dispassionate people could be, from the worker who calmly cleaned feces-covered eggs to the transport catcher rip wings and break legs as he violently stripped birds from cages. I thought of the people who would see the brown cardboard boxes displaying a happy rooster perched on a fence, never knowing, never having any freaking clue of the suffering from which those eggs came.
And I thought of each hen. The one with a prolapse, her insides gruesomely displayed to the outside world. The one who gently, ever so gently, groomed another. The one with the four inch toe nails, scrabbling to find purchase on the wooden floor of the stock trailer. The bedraggled one who, after seeing the sunlight for the very first time, took a deep breath and died, just like that, deep inhalation, explosive exhalation, then nothing. I thought of them all, sitting in a horse trailer, with more room than they ever had…yet still clumped in tightly packed circles. To these deprived birds, freedom was not a victory, it was – in its own sad way – a torment.
It took them weeks to learn how to walk again, months to gain the necessary muscle strength to perch. The most beautiful moments were so simple, so plain in a chicken’s world. The first time a hen learned she could stretch her wings. She would do it incessantly, feeling how her muscles and tendons worked, how they curved and bended and oh my! how they would lift her off the ground. The first time a hen saw and tasted grass, how she tentatively, gently grasped each strand with her mangled beak. Or the first time she chose where to roost at night, sometimes shoving other hens, even roosters, from her chosen spot.
 |
| Where my ladies at? |
I want you to know chickens. How they walk and strut and preen. I want you to know they hate liars. Ferdinand, a Silkie rooster, knows this well. He loves hens, but they don’t really love him (no self-respecting hen likes a dude who immediately tries to have sex with her on the first meeting). So he would use his food call, the kind a rooster is only supposed to use when there is actual food. Hens would come running, Ferdie would get to mating. They learned quick, those hens. One time. Ferdie has to wait for new hens to try his odd manner of charisma on. They’ll learn too, because chickens are smart.
I want you to know some chickens are empathetic. Some are not. Some are mean, really mean. Spiteful, even. But some are kind and generous, sharing their warmth, their perch, their food with those less fortunate. When Bertha, an older, arthritic hen, saw Aurora, the smallest, skinniest, runtiest of all chick hens, shivering and alone, Bertha offered her space on the perch, a wing to stay warm by. For many days after Bertha died, Aurora maintained vigil on that same perch spot, even braving pecks from the bigger, meaner hens. I want you to know that some chickens mourn, fiercely.
I want you to know some chickens, even after being ignored or mishandled by humans, are genetically hard-wired to be curious and inquisitive. They will touch you with their beaks, gaze deeply into your eyes, and I want you to know that you will believe them alive and intelligent and you will know their otherness.
I want you to know that when a chicken takes their last breath on the sanctuary, it is like a person. It is in that moment they are so very alive, so vital, so full of spirit, and then they are not. Then they are a husk, a shell. Before, a chicken. Now, a corpse. Before, a human. Now, dead.
I want you to know that when a chick is growing in his embryo, he hears everything going on outside, just like a human baby. That he listens for his mother’s voice, recognizing it as unique. He will not respond to any other hen’s voice like this, not ever. Hers is a siren’s song, and it keeps him rooted and calm. When he breaks out of his shell, he will need her help to push through. He will seek her voice, her face, her smell. He will be far more precocious than any human baby, but he will still cheep and cry the moment the outside air touches his nose and he breathes it in for the first time.
I want you to know that everything in between is just like our everything in between. There is drama and “things that must be done”. There is love and jealousy and disputes over territory. There is fear and pain too. There are families and friends and enemies as well. There are songs and dances and things that keep the unit together against things that would tear them apart. There are brave heroics, like the mother hen who fights to the death against the shelter-seeking rattlesnake. There are cowards, like the rooster who does not warn the other chickens of the hawk but seeks shelter himself.
They are so like us, so different, so alien in many ways. Both their differences and similarities contribute to their specialness, so often neglected and ignored by most people. But not by me. And if you’ve gotten this far, I hope not by you either.
All I ask is this…think briefly, gently, and kindly of chickens. Think of how if you are given the choice between causing them more harm or less, that maybe you’ll consider the latter. Imagine making different choices in what you eat, and then once your imagination has blown you away with its awesomeness, make those choices. You are more powerful than you think.
At least to her, you will be.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Thank you for writing this. It’s beautiful and powerful.
Thank you for the nice comment; I’m glad the post was received so well.
I almost cried. this is beautiful.
Thank you, Grace.
Lovely indeed.
Thank you!
What an insightful post about the true nature of these birds… Yes, they can be playful, stubborn, curious, selfish, argumentative, shy, tender, aloof, social, etc., etc. In fact every single “human” trait I can think of… Chickens are capable of too!
About their vocalizations – My absolute favorite sound they make is when they fly! Granted, it’s no soaring eagle or gliding gull — But their joyful cackling while they lift their bodies from the ground sounds the event! I think they’re saying “gang way!” – They know their landings are not that graceful or accurate.
Some days when I’m in an awful state with the world, just being around them sooths me in a way nothing else can… I am grateful to anyone who gives any of these birds a chance at the life they completely deserve. Thank you so much for this post that helps people understand their true nature and even all their idiosyncrasies.
I attempted to do the same thing in this short video… I just wanted people to know chickens too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRzDajNR5G8
Because really… If people honestly knew chickens they could never, ever harm them again.
What a sweet video, Bea! Love to see those happy hens doing all their chicken things in peace.
I love chicken flight!! There are a few at the sanctuary who are gifted fliers, but for the most part, the birds do it just for fun, not because they are especially talented at it. Or at least that is what I think. :)
There is something incredibly soothing about being around chickens.
Marji: How do you reconcile your words above with the fact that Animal Place “Sanctuary” makes an agreement with an exploiter of egg-laying hens to take them from him when he deems them no longer profitable and spent and then APS, rather then provide these hens with what it promises to be – sanctuary -, turns around and sells them to backyard chicken enthusiasts: http://animalplace.org/available_poultry.html?
How do you reconcile your words with Animal Place “Sanctuary” being a signatory to Washington’s Initiative 1130, which, if passed, will astonishingly be called “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act”? Action for Animals wrote a very good critique and analysis of the initiative: http://afa-online.org/Initiative1130.pdf.
All of the above actions by AP perpetuate the exploitation of egg-laying hens. None of the above has anything to do with “respect” and it is particularly galling that a so-called “sanctuary” is party to any of it.
Thanks for your comment! I don’t think there is any reconciling needed, mct.
Are you suggesting we allow these hens to be sent to slaughterhouses where they will have their throats slit while fully conscious? I don’t think you are, of course.
We are offering an alternative…as we encourage the phase-out of eggs and promote a plant-based diet, we do everything in our power to help – LITERALLY – the animals alive. We act in the same way as any dog and cat shelter does – we place “unwanted” chickens into companion homes. We see this as no different than dog rescues who may work out a deal with puppy millers to adopt out unwanted breeder dogs instead of shooting them or killing them.
You are welcome to feel differently and approach the issue in a different way, but Animal Place will continue to work to free hens from egg farms and place them into homes. Nearly 2,000 hens are alive, living in homes, when they normally would be dead, composted, or fed to humans. We think this is a victory and each hens has the ability, in her own perfect way, to facilitate behavior change at a larger level than we could with our permanent sanctuary alone.
As to the Washington initiative, Animal Place has and will continue to endorse initiatives that provide a legal framework to reduce – in TINY ways – suffering on farms. They are not an end to suffering – a plant-based diet is, period. We welcome and encourage debate and discussion on this issue…heck, our staff isn’t all on the same page. We don’t expect a lock-step mentality, but we do the best we can to alleviate existing and future suffering with different approaches.
We will continue to provide a safe haven to neglected farmed animals, encourage a plant-based diet, and offer an alternative to slaughter to egg farmers until there are no hens on egg farms, suffering. We will continue address and re-address our support of initiatives and the like as well. But we won’t approach the issue of farmed animal suffering in a black-and-white light; we will use all means we reasonably and feasibly can to help those nonhumans on existing farms and preventing the future suffering of farmed animals.
If you would like to continue this discussion in more detail, you are more than welcome to email me at marji@animalplace.org with your alternative ideas to saving farmed animals. We will consider all techniques and ideas and implement those that fit with our ethics, to the best of our ability.
Marji: Thanks for your reply. I think that this does need to be voiced in a public forum such as this, not by private email.
The problem I have is that Animal Place touts itself a sanctuary for farmed animals and that rather than providing an alternative that leads to “no hens on egg farms” as you imply, both making an alliance with an exploiter of egg-laying hens and being a signatory to a sham of an initiative perpetuates exploitation.
Alternatives to ending exploitation: unambiguous and clear advocacy to end exploitation that does not make alliances with exploiters and does not support the reform of exploitation. A true sanctuary rescues the victims of exploiters with the promise of safety and keeps that promise rather than benefit from the current “backyard chickens” fad with all of the problems that go with it.
I’ve been on egg farms and in slaughterhouses. Given a choice between life as a backyard companion and the cessation of one’s very existence, I’m going to presume the hen prefers life.
The Rescue Ranch program is yet another possible tool within the animal rights movement to use. It is not the only tool. Diversity in achieving a compassionate world is good.
I’ve held these hens. I have looked into their eyes. I have known them. I know them now. I will not be convinced that advocacy has more power than their right to breathe, exist, live. More than that, these hens are advocates without effort. We can help be their voice, help share their story, reveal their plight and encourage behavior change.
Advocacy is great. We engage in it wholeheartedly. We will always do so.
But there are hens suffering now. Heading to slaughterhouses. If I can stop those existing hens from having their throats slit, I will do so. Animal Place will do so. It is not contrary to our mission of extending compassion to all life.
It’s a good discussion to have. Within our organization and outside of it. That said, I will have to agree to disagree that what we do by saving lives perpetuates their exploitation.* I respect wholly and completely your voice. I appreciate immensely your willingness to challenge mine and that of the organization I work for. And I encourage you to support and engage in methods of advocacy that fit with your ethical belief system. I am not in a place to think what we’re doing is a disservice, not when I know the program can help create behavior change and not when I know what it means for a hen to have her life cut brutally short in a slaughterhouse.
*Although I will acknowledge that all sanctuaries exploit the stories of these nonhumans. It is how people are moved, by the stories of the rescued residents themselves. There is no sanctuary that does not do this.
Marji: You are deliberately not engaging in what I am saying. The words in your post do not match your/Animal Place’s actions. You are rescuing “spent” hens, promising them sanctuary, and then *not* providing it. It is disingenuous for you to phrase the issues I brought up as “either slaughter or life”. I do think that acting according to one’s advocacy and rhetoric is a matter of integrity and is blac k and white.
You are also missing my point about perpetuating exploitation. I am not talking about telling their stories and creating an emotional connection with your audience. I am talking about continuing the cycle that treats them as commodities, I am talking about not challenging their use in the first place. The initiative perpetuates and, in fact, encourages the perpetuation of the cycle and is a despicable and hypocritical euphemistic sham because it purports to prevent cruelty to farm animals when it does no such thing.
The relationship you/Animal Place forge with exploiters perpetuates the cycle because it creates a convenient avenue for them to rid themselves of hens who are no longer profitable and then replace them. Nothing changes in what they continue to do and it will not end the cycle of exploitation as you continue to imply.
“Respect” looks very different to me. That, in essence, was my point.
Hey mct,
This was a personal post from my personal blog. It was not intended as a jump-off point for you to slam Animal Place, me as a human being, or a program that literally saves thousands of lives and places them into permanent homes (which can be a form of sanctuary).
You are right, I’m not going to discuss this in this venue. It is neither the appropriate forum, post or time to do so.
If you wish to pursue this, wish to continue slamming Animal Place or me as a human being, please find somewhere else to do it. If you wish to discuss your perceived feelings of inconsistency in the sanctuary or animal rights world at large, then perhaps I or one of the other bloggers could open up that discussion in another post. But I’m not doing it here.
Thank you,
marji
@Marji
There’s no dispute that you’ve worked hard to rescue and provide care for chickens. This is not the issue.
How about this scenario: given a choice between being in a battery cage and crammed in a huge shed with thousands of other chickens, a chicken would probably prefer the huge shed. Or given the choice of being slowly clubbed to death with a baker’s rolling pin, a harp seal pup would probably prefer two quick, efficient blows to the skull with a hakipik. The illusory concept of the choice of a “necessary lesser evil” only confuses people. When animal protection agencies or animal advocates accept “the necessity of taking tiny, incremental steps toward change”–submitting themselves to the rules set up by the animal agriculture industry, as PeTA and HSUS have docilely agreed to–then change is reduced to a hollow promise. Change is postponed decade after decade.
It’s simple to rationalize for a seemingly lesser evil. But to do so is to jeopardize the truth: animal activists cannot make concessions to animal exploiters without enabling the perpetuation of exploitation. Look at the situation of the Three Rs supported by animal welfare advocates AND proponents of vivisection. The Three Rs sound good, especially the part about reducing the number of animals used in labs. However, this is only a PR campaign that allows vivisectors to continue squandering tax dollars in futile animal experiments and animal welfare organizations to claim “victories.” Call a defeat a victory but it’s still a defeat. More animals are used in labs than ever, especially rats and mice.
Oscar Wilde wrote about how moderates erroneously sought to harness a corrupt, dysfunctional existing political system and attempt to use it to do good. Inherent corruption cannot be miraculously transformed to serve the citizens. How can we ally with animal killers, accept their premise of animal subjugation, and expect society to change? A corrupt system shouldn’t be tolerated; it should be dismantled and replaced.
Compared to other social justice movements, the animal liberation movement has only begun in America. If we fail now to take a stand with uncompromising clarity, we betray the animals–and ourselves. I say this not as an idealist in an ivory tower but as a practical person intent upon total resistance to injustice toward nonhumans and humans. Truth matters. Were this an issue about commodifying human lives rather than animal lives, no doubt there would be well-meaning moderates who urge for a “less cruel” system of enslavement while we struggle toward liberation. However, it might be much more obvious how such sentiments are ludicrous and unjust.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Marji: It is unfortunate that you chose to respond in the way that you did. Questioning an individual or an organization about the contraditions between what they say and what they do is a valid inquiry and should lead to rational dialogue, not to your puzzling defensive reaction.
I fail to understand how you can refuse to see that selling rescued hens to backyard enthusiasts, and each one for a lower price the more they buy (!), perpetuates the commodification of nonhumans. Selling hens into people’s backyards sends the message that it’s perfectly acceptable to use hens, be it for eggs or as “companions”. How is that possibly compatible with animal-rights/animal-justice philosophy and advocacy? How is not rescuing them into sanctuary (selling them to homes as “companions” is *not* sanctuary) and not allowing them to live out their lives on their own terms compatible with animal-rights/animal-justice philosophy and advocacy?
What happens when this novelty wears off, when the hens no longer lay eggs, when they get sick, when taking care of them becomes too much of a chore? Ask the shelters and the sanctuaries.
For a “sanctuary” to champion this trend is disturbing at best.
I hate that it has to be either/or.
Either we pursue a relentless abolitionist agenda and give no quarter, even when it means individual non-humans who were once exploited could potentially live a long life, life free from harm are dead, when they could have been spared.
Or we adopt chickens to people who may love them and keep them their whole lives but don’t (yet) share our viewpoint about how eating their eggs is exploitation, and thus say good-bye forever to our dream of ending exploitation period and instead welcome in another era of welfare reforms that may reduce suffering somewhat.
Isn’t it sad that those are our only two choices? This isn’t me saying one way is the right one, or that there aren’t significant issues with either… it’s just maddening and saddening that we’re even potentially faced with such a choice.
Please don’t think I don’t understand both sides. I do. I see the reason for both, and am torn.
“I hate that it has to be either/or.”
But I don’t think it does. I don’t see why we can’t be in favour of abolition as a goal AND reduce suffering however and whenever we can. Abolition OR reform is a false dichotomy as far as I’m concerned and it maddens me when “activists”* like mct keep presenting it that way. It also bothers me when people deem chickens in the abstract or in the future more important than individual chickens living in the here and now. Because isn’t arguing against saving current lives if it doesn’t fit an ideology just another form of using or exploiting those chickens?
I share your frustration, Jennie, and wish there were clearer and better answers!
* I used scare quotes here just to show how arrogant and disrespectful this tactic can be
There is a false dichotomy, but it’s one constructed by animal protection agencies and individuals who refuse to challenge the societal norm of using animals. I don’t think anyone on this thread neglects to take into consideration the life of each individual chicken or any other farm animal when calling for the end of using animals. Certainly there are less cruel ways to treat animals, but should that arbitrary line drawn by human captors be where justice dies? Suffering less is vastly different from having one’s independence and having opportunities to experience the fullest joys. Suffering less pales when compared to freedom. To a fearful culture so enslaved, especially economically, human freedom has frayed into abstraction. Perhaps that’s why many will settle for a token reduction in suffering for other species.
The main point raised was that actions should match philosophy and words. In a culture that consistently fails to do so, few even recognize irrational discrepancies that span between actions and words. An activist friend once said to me that many activists won’t challenge the erroneous premise of animal use because that is to challenge the very foundation of our civilization. Well, should we ever hope to strike at the heart of the problem, then the conversation must begin with questioning is it right for people to use animals. That animal exploiters do everything to dodge or suppress this issue (and distract us by framing the issue as one of animal treatment) is proof of its power and significance.
Chickens can be adopted by individuals who won’t exploit them for their eggs, who will truly offer sanctuary. It takes effort to place chickens in such homes. That is a problem in some cases. A fabricated solution is not better than admitting there is not yet a satisfactory solution and to work with integrity toward a real answer that is aligned with our values. If a person doesn’t have a bowl of food for a dog, he doesn’t give her a bowl of rusty nails for nourishment and say, Sorry that’s the best I got. He keeps going until he secures her a bowl of food, one way or another.
If the discussion were about the adoption of human children, few–if any–activists would settle for homes that will be only a little exploitative of the children rather than to provide them with true safety and respect.
The point that was first raised on May 12 is a valid one: when there are contradictions between words and actions, it’s necessary to resolve that conflict by aligning actions with values. What troubles and disappoints me are the rationalizations against or condemnation of the validity of the issue raised.
Have Gone Vegan: You present so-called reform initiatives as though they save lives here and now. Hens, who are already at any point in the “line of production”, will have been deemed “spent”, unprofitable, and slaughtered long before being able to benefit from any so-called “reform”.
Reform initiatives are meant to appease the public, allay the fears of animal-exploiting industries, and to ensure that the large organizations’ donor base isn’t scared off. They are dishonest, meaningless, politically-motivated documents that not only leave unchallenged the injustice of nonhuman exploitation, but actively promote its continuation. Read the proposed initiatives. They are filled with exceptions and euphemisms, are often worded as recommendations, propose effective dates far into the future, and may never be implemented anyway because the political players will have changed.
If we advocate for respect and justice, we have an obligation to act accordingly. Selling “spent” hens as egg-laying “companions”, i.e. “pets” and as entertainment for humans in their living-rooms or backyards, rather than providing true sanctuary, where they ought to be able to live out the rest of their lives on their own terms, is a profound betrayal.
There *are* clear answers: If our goal is the end of exploitation, we must demand and advocate for the end of exploitation, not negotiate with exploiters about how to modify the abuse. We must demand and provide true sanctuary for those who we rescue. We must pressure so-called animal “protection” organizations, who have the resources and influence, to stop being party to exploitation. We must challenge them when their rhetoric does not match their actions and when their actions perpetuate exploitation. If we don’t, we are complicit.