Humane Society Under Fire for Serving Meat

The Humane Society of Ottawa has come under fire from another animal advocacy group for serving meat at its upcoming fundraising dinner, the Fur Ball.

The Ottawa Animal Rights Defence League has asked the Humane Society to consider an animal-free meal at its $300 per plate dinner. Last year the group protested outside of the Fur Ball when the Humane Society refused to consider their request and served meat at their dinner.

The Humane Society has given the group the same reply as last year, but a spokesperson for the Defence League has yet to say if the group will protest again this year when the Humane Society (presumably) serves meat again at the event on March 26th.

The Humane Society’s reply to the Defence League states that the Humane Society is an animal welfare organization, not an animal rights organization and that it sees no ethical conflict with the raising of animals for food, only with the way that they are treated prior to and during slaughter.

They also stated in their letter that they offer a vegetarian option for the meal, but less than five percent of those who attend the event opt for it.

This means that over 95% of people who support the Ottawa Humane Society enough to pay $300 to attend one of their fundraisers see no problem with killing and eating animals. 

Last year’s Fur Ball raised $175,000.

The Defence League was instrumental in having foie gras removed from the Winterlude kickoff dinner. If the Humane Society’s history and statements are an accurate indicator, it believes that it already has the moral high ground and will almost certainly refuse to change their menu regardless of any pressure they receive from outside groups.

It is almost impossible for the two sides of the animal welfare/animal rights debate to see eye to eye on issues like this because the goals of the two movements are mutually exclusive.

The animal welfare movement is based on the premise not only that animal consumption will always continue, but that it should always continue. It seems that while the Humane Society fights for humane treatment of animals, it refuses to acknowledge that not killing an animal at all is a humane treatment in and of itself.

The fundamental problem with the animal welfare movement is the idea that some ways of torturing and killing animals are acceptable and others are not, and no one can seem to decide where that line should be drawn or by what standards it should be judged.

The only ideologically consistent way to advocate for animals is to refuse to support any form of animal torture, exploitation, or murder. You can’t change the way we treat animals while you eat them, pay to see them imprisoned in zoos, and support frivolous testing on them.

Related Stories: 

Foie Gras Off the Menu for Canadian Festival Dinner

Abolition or Regulation? New Book on the Animal Rights Debate

HSUS Uncovers Violations at Battery Cage Factory Farm


Photo: Iversonic


William C
William Cabout a year ago

Thanks for caring.

W. C
W. Cabout a year ago

Thank you.

5 years ago

As for Colin's suggestion that you read what T Colin Campbell seems he just shot himself in the foot....
.... just check wikipedia.....

"Campbell has followed a 99 percent vegan diet since around 1990. He does not identify himself as a vegetarian or vegan because, he said, "they often infer something other than what I espouse."
He told the New York Times: "The idea is that we should be consuming whole foods. We should not be relying on the idea that genes are determinants of our health. We should not be relying on the idea that nutrient supplementation is the way to get nutrition, because it’s not. I’m talking about whole, plant-based foods."

That first sentence says a lot......and so does the second what is the other 1% of his diet?...and I wonder why he says what he says about vegans and vegetarians .... "they often infer something other than what I espouse."

colin blew a huge hole through his own argument!
It just goes to show have to read ALL of the words!

5 years ago

It's your attitude that turns people off, Colin.
Try a little compassion for your fellow humans if you want them to respect you enough to care what you say.

Colin Wright
Past Member 5 years ago

If you have any kind of sympathy or empathy in your body at all, you'll watch this video. It's a video of a speech by a man named Gary Yourofsky. It's a little over 1 hour long, and is well worth every second. You may have already seen this video but if you haven't, this video will CHANGE YOUR LIFE:

The next video is by a psychologist named Dr. Melanie Joy who talks about the psychology of eating or not eating meat and how Vegans can be better advocates for Veganism:

The next video is by a medical doctor and scientist named T. Colin Campbell who explains the findings of his research OF 50 YEARS into the causes of certain disease:

Next, watch this video with Steve-O. Even a Jackass can see killing animals is wrong, why can't you?

Doris Muller
Doris Muller7 years ago

You are wrong. We live in a toxic world, and it is difficult for society in general to get proper nutrition from standard store fare, regardless of your diet. That is why there is a push to organics.

"Heart disease and diabetes are hereditary for the most part." You better go back to school on that one. I'm glad you are not my doctor.

Some want to turn all these stories into vegans v meat eaters. I actually don't remember reading a story (I haven't read them all) on care2 that was a vegan v meat eater issue. It seems to me the issues are related to animal suffering, slaughter, animal cruelty, and factory farms v greed, animal commodification, humane treatment of animals, and what can be done to reduce the horror. While we could plan to blowup the slaughter houses and/or introduce bio terrorism onto factory farms, or demand that government create laws to ban animal slaughter, the realistic solution is to be a compassionate consumer and to stop eating animals to satisfy our taste addictions.

"Radical extremes are not healthy, and the vegan diet is radical and exclusive, which makes it extreme." It's a radical extremist that would believe such a thing. Heaven help us when compassionate living is seen as radical and extreme while self-serving, pleasure seeking is considered righteous.

Doris Muller
Doris Muller7 years ago

"I guess the vegans would rather the animals not have the $175,000 raised for their cause..." The answer to this is a resounding CORRECT! Since the participants attended to support the cause, the meal did not play into the reason. The Humane Society instead of offering a veg alternative should have served only a vegan meal out of respect for all animals and respect for their own philosophy. Many other animal advocate organizations do fund raising meals that support their commitment to be cruelty-free without loosing supporters.

"You don't have to be vegan to love animals." True, but it does indicate creature-specific hypocrisy, and a sheeple mentality: You love the ones you have been indoctrinated to love, and you support standard consumerism that has been indoctrinated into you.

"So what are they spending the money on??? Salaries for the hypocritical??" I love this question/statement. It is very apropos to this issue.

Some commenters are offended when others post comments contrary to their own attitudes, yet those same people arrogantly chastise others who have a different opinion. They belittle vegans and call them names. Mmm, I think that's called a double standard.

"...leave us meat eaters to 'die in peace'." Unfortunately bad health is a serious drain on the tax-supported health care system.

"If it was so healthy, vegans wouldn't be dependent on supplements and would get all their nutrients from their diet, which is not the case." You ar

Angela Lien
Angela L7 years ago

People should have some wisdom to identify the "Humane". If Humane Society served meat for fundraising, either they are afraid nobody would support due to vegetarian meals or HMS is being very contradictory. When it comes to killing, there's no humane way. Try to cut your own body and feel the pain, the same goes to animals. Is anyone willing to sacrifice to be killed and fed to other hungry animals or human? My point is if we don't want to be tortured, therefore, we should respect other sentient beings because we all feel pain when we are hurt. It is also contradictory to say I love animals, but I still eat them. It's best to restrain oneself from meat assumption in order to save animals from suffering. I used to eat meat also but I love animals enough to give up meat and now going into vegan.Otherwise, there's no ending of saving animals. I hope people do not argue with words of how they are being used, but rather use some common sense and wisdom to judge, it's good for all. Please work hard together to help animals. They need our help.

Hannah S.
Hannah Short7 years ago

that picture makes me sick, i'm not joking either, looking at it really does make me want to barf

Diane L.
Diane L7 years ago

Funny how someone shows up once every six months to do nothing but post personal attacks and insults and call regular contributors to many different topics on Care.2 "trolls". If the person making such hostile, and untrue remarks bothered to read the article, it's about a shelter trying to raise money to save animals. How does this compute with being a non-vegan or being "for farmed animals", except that I admit, I'm all FOR naturally raised livestock. The accusation of being "informed" comes from somebody who has done nothing but judge others, post personal insults and call others names. Before someone runs their mouth with libelous accusations, one should be prepared to back it up with proof. PROVE that either Marilyn or myself are even employed, since I know I'm not (I've been retired from the transportation industry for over 9 years) and I do believe Marilyn also is not employed in any way. I'll only speak for myself, but since I've been attacked, I feel justified in refuting such ridiculous remarks. It would be nice to be able to comment on Care.2 without fear of being attacked, personally, by judgmental and closed-minded bigots.