For many of the years in which I have been involved with animal rescues, I was a carnivore. Yes, I did feel guilty, and yes, I tried to buy my meat products (read: carcasses) from local farms where the animals were treated well while alive. And my conscience bothered me constantly.

I also admit to feeling a little pressured and a bit offended whenever I read on rescue boards that we who helped 'pets' but still ate meat were hypocrites. I agreed with the theory but did not feel ready to make the commitment to veganism. Obviously my process towards a kinder, gentler diet took longer than some, but I eventually made that decision.

My concern now is that others who work hard and thanklessly to keep various species alive and well will feel shamed when being compared to dog abusers such as Mike Vicks, and may turn their backs on the whole rescue movement. I understand that is not the intended message when we speak of murdering some animals and saving others, but there are many who read these forums whose egos may be more fragile - well intended folks who do a great job for rescues but who are not able to change their lifestyle.

My conversion came about by reading straightforward messages about the plight of farm animals during their sad lives and horrendous deaths. These facts did more to point me in the direction of veganism than the negative connections made to hunters, dog fighting rings and other abusers.

I understand exactly why people equate carnivores to abusers - in theory, this is indeed correct. However, I remember which facts made the difference for me, when speaking to others about lifestyle changes, and I try to make an argument for change without leaning towards more brutal equations that induce guilt. The simple facts about the horrendous pain and suffering the animals we eat go through in their lives and death are likely enough to send many more of us running to the vegetable aisle.