I'm really excited to hear this, Dillon. I was kind of expecting the opposite response. Good on you. I appreciate your open mindedness and support for animal welfare. 

Great thinking! I'll DM you. If others are interested in doing something like this send me a message.

Excellent! Appreciate you <3

You rock, thanks!

Great case study! Thanks for offering yourself up as a data point. If you don't mind me asking, do you find it convincing to do something about factory farming (donate, diet change, political action, etc)? 

Yes, I agree. These are all good takes, and I'll own that I did not word my thoughts carefully enough for a constructive dialogue. 

My point is that FK has some media acumen that the entire movement is struggling with. We are not in the news nearly as much as we should be. Yes, there is a line of taking it too far. But FK has seen what doesn't work. They are experimenting and having nuanced success of getting earned media. I'm not saying it is justified, but I do think it is on the right track.

Kidnapping somebody would be a violent action. 

A better analogy of non violent direct action would be breaking in to disable the clinic's capabilities to provide abortions (without harming anybody).

In this case, the protesters would be subject to the same penalties under the law that the Ridglan protesters are. That being said, there is a case that what is happening to the dogs is illegal (311 counts of animal cruelty documented already). I'm wary of an appeal to authority bias here--just because they are not enforcing the law doesn't mean what Ridglan is doing is legal. As pointed out, the necessity defense is being tested here, and has reason for consideration. 

I'm really appreciating this conversation! 

Thank you Dr. Knight for raising awareness about a prospective cause area that is certainly neglected. I appreciate you working through the counterarguments you received and offering rebuttals. 

Really appreciate the folks offering guidelines to help craft conversation that gets at the best possible outcome. Comparing efficacy of cause areas can be a heavy research lift for one who wants to get a convo started, but I can see how commenters would want the burden of proof to fall on the person who made the claim. 

I like the synergy around teasing out viable interventions. It sounds like there are some initial leads, and more research would add confidence. 

It seems to me that people look to their vets for determining a nutritious diet. Dr. Knight has already made tremendous headway to get the veterinary community to relax restrictions or even support plant-based diets for companion animals. Expanding upon this could be a key step toward social validation. It begs the question: if vets supported plant-based diets the way the medical community does, would people see it as superior product for their beloved furry friends?

Overall I'm excited about the potential of this being a backdoor approach to getting animals out of our food system without requiring (human) diet change.

Good point to be cautious about manufactured opposition. On the other hand, isn't rage baiting a common way to garner attention in today's environment? Isn't that exactly what makes your comment so attractive to respond to/rebuff? 

Perhaps I'm conflating rage baiting with manufactured opposition, but I do think FK is onto something here.

Thank you for saying this Wendy, it is very big of Veganuary to have the bigger picture in mind for animals.