In response to Frank Salzano’s note on [the letter], “What Defines Ethical Slaughtering?” [Jan. 10, Xpress]: Since we began our campaign against Wild Abundance, they have been using the same excuses to justify the violence they perpetuate. Mr. Salzano’s comments are a prime example of this. The words “traditional” and “humane” are used as excuses. First, tradition never justifies violence. Traditions of violence and discrimination have long existed in our society, but that does not mean that they are acceptable.
The use of the term “humane” is just as bad. The idea that you can “humanely” tie up a living being, cut their throat and let them bleed to death is outright absurd. … I’m surprised that Mr. Salzano still found the term [“humane”] appropriate to use.
I am disappointed that any activists deemed it necessary to send Wild Abundance instructors threats, and I would like to see the harassment against them stop. However, I would like to point out that other activists and I received several death threats as well, but didn’t go running to the media for attention. Both sides of this campaign should remain peaceful and nonviolent through their words and actions.
As Mr. Salzano requested, I would love nothing more than to leave Wild Abundance alone. Unfortunately, as long as Wild Abundance continues to abuse and kill other beings, we will continue to fight for their freedom. We are all animals, and all have the rights to our lives. No flashy word like “humane” or “ethical” can change that reality.
— Jeremy Sagaribay
DxE (Direct Action Everywhere), Asheville chapter
Editor’s note: Xpress contacted Frank Salzano of Wild Abundance with a summary of Sagaribay’s points. He offered the following response, which says in part: “Please know this: We do not experience harvesting animals as fun or light work. The same is true for harvesting vegetables, weeding gardens, felling trees, blacksmithing, using cars or computers, buying salt or garden amendments, flying to visit sick family members or participating in any subsistence or ‘basic needs’ that hurt any form of life. Jeremy, there is a deep grief and heaviness in surviving and thriving in this world of flesh, bone and stomach. Let’s all do our best to honor that grief and love life.
We are not interested in debating semantics with you any longer. That can too easily slip into an abstract and fundamentalist brand of political discourse. Please take a big step back and look at yourself. … I am genuinely confused by what you are doing. We know behind it all is a caring for life. We respect and appreciate that, but you can do better. This world needs you to flower, mature your political content and style, and create more strategic and helpful political ambitions. I am praying and cheering for you to step it up!”