Roger,

I've been in northern Finland and seen something of the situation myself.

I agree with your sentiments here. As I see it the Sami are like many other indigenous peoples in that they are trying to make modern incomes (at least enough to raise themselves above "survival" existence) within the environment of their tradiational way of life.

It's not easy. In northern Finland at least, many Sami women work at the tourist hotels while the men attempt to continue to operate their small reindeer farms. In some cases the families (or is it just groups) pool their reindeer and they farm within the large areas of the fells which are subdivided by government-erected fences.

I note also that in the late 1800's (I think) the Finnish and Swedish closed the borders to Sami people, thus denying their normal migratory movement and blocking the trade between coastal and inland groups.

The Sami have my sympathy and I support your argument.


cheers

Roger - You are confusing those who seek to secure a sustainable future with those who seek to protect the rights of individual animals.

Greenpeace's campaign is partly based in its long standing support for the rights of indigenous groups to continue a traditional way of life. Protecting the opportunities of reindeer herding fits neatly into this objective. Are you suggesting that every Greenpeace member is vegetarian? (OK, they might be!) What makes this an even more totemic campaign for Greenpeace, is that this herding is occuring on communal land, in a (so far) sustainable way. So many 'global commons' are used unsustainably - fish stocks, for example.

It can be argued that agriculture in Australia is not carried out in such a sustainable way, and certainly not in 'traditional' lifestyles. Hence perhaps Greenpeace's criticism of one and not the other.

Some Greenpeace campaigners may support the concept of giving 'rights' to individual animals, in much the same way that humans have 'rights'. Indeed, most nations already do this indirectly, by outlawing animal cruelty or hunting of certain species. Even domesticated animals are afforded some rights in the sense that they must be slaughtered both humanely and quickly.

But most Greanpeace members would support the broader ecological objectives through the protection of the 'rights' of entire species or ecosystems. In addition to these protectionist instincts, human activity should be sustainable and respectful of all ways of life.

There is really little ethical dilemma to consider.

Andrew,

I agree with your sentiment that the individual Greenpeace activist might well be a carnivore or a herbivore ( or maybe an omnivore). I even heard a Greenpeace activist who was a vegan but prefered to dress himself in animal skins and fur since he claimed it was a more environmental friendly way and reduced greenhouse gases.
However I accept that there are a lot of ethical believes in the Greenpeace parish. I am not convinced that Greenpeace has got a formulated policy in this matter on sustainable farming and us humans use of natural resources. My main reason for writing the article is actually to convince Greenpeace to announce on their web site what their policy visavi animal husbandry is. Then the individual donor of money to a worthy cause could make up their mind if they want to support Greenpeace or PETA instead of giving them one bob each because they are indistinguishable and probably both equally worthy. This would put some accountability back on lobby groups who themselves say that it is not the facts that matter but how well the campaign sells and taps into peoples mythical beleives i.e in the necessity of protecting Santas reindeers. If you read the weblog the Santa factor is discussed as a BIG + by the the image conscious activists.
Quite revealing of their mind set- ie lets not get into animal rights issues but focus on the 'feel good factors' wouldn't you agree?

I agree that it is important to establish the precise Greenpeace agenda here in relation to the commercial farming of animals (although the animal rights/welfare and sustainability agendas are not mutually exclusive). PETA's position is clear and unequivocal; it is against CRUELTY to animals. It is not PETA's intention to shut down farming industries in Australia; it is clearly stated on the www.savethesheep.com website that once the practices of mulesing and the live export trade are ended, PETA will end its campaign in relation to Australian wool. However, the farming lobby seems to be totally lost in the hysteria of it all. As a result, PETA has successfully been able to put its leaders "on the back foot" at every opportunity. The live export trade cannot be justified on any grounds - moral, ethical or economic. Senior economists and agricultural scientists point towards the job losses in Australia (estimated at 20,000 including down stream processing) lost GDP, and lost household income, and fragmented, marginalized regional communities as direct outcomes of the live export trade, demonstrating that the live export trade benefits the few at considerable expense to the taxpayer (in the millions). Two million animals have died, just during the shipboard phases of their journeys to countries who have few, if any regard for, or legislation in, animal welfare. The ships used are mostly 20 years old or more, converted freighters, car transporters, container ships and bulk carriers. And while the deaths of these animals can be counted (but not apparently truthfully recorded) the suffering of the animals is simply unquantifiable. The other aspect of PETA's campaign also is breathtakingly simple: find an alternative to mulesing. And it is reported that a significant percentage of farmers have already done just that. PETA has now offered to pay AWI's court costs; most generous under the circumstances, on the condition that negotiations begin. Greenpeace appears to have found itself caught in the divide between the "indigenous" "rights" and the "commercial farming" dichotomy, and should state its position more clearly.