How does going vegan save animal lives?

It doesn't. Every animal produced to be food will be slaughtered for their meat. I'll eat it, it will go for pet, zoo, food or be shipped internationally for human consumption. But just because you choose not to eat it doesn't mean the farmer is going to feed and care for it for the rest of its natural life. He can't afford to.

In 2007 (?) The Vegetarian Times claimed there were a million vegans in the US. If each vegan saved the life of 100 animals a year, there should be almost a billion "saved" cows, chickens and pigs out there somewhere. Where are they? Who is feeding them and providing their vet care?

It's another vegan lie.

Despite the claims given in previous answers going vegan does not save the life of any animal. Ultimately it may prevent the birth of an animal or two, over the life of the vegan, from being born however that cannot be claimed to be the same as or compared to saving a life. It does not prevent animals, who were raised to provide a source of food, from being slaughtered.

One interesting fact I read in an article recently, the average beef consumption per person has dropped in recent years but the actual number of beef cattle being sent to the various slaughterhouses has increased. In addition consumption of poultry products has increased so while it appears that more people are replacing beef with chicken and other similar items, at the same time more people are including beef in their diet, just using smaller cuts.

As for protecting animals from abuse and how that relates to animal testing some of the most active opponents of this are people who eat meat or other animal products (dairy and eggs) as a part of their diet. The truth is that it is people who eat meat, for example, that make up the vast majority of a cosmetic company's client base so it is these individuals that have the ability to change, in reality, the actions of this company. It is true that some organizations associated with Vegans in the past have been partially responsible for these changes however their effectiveness has decreased over the years due to many radical actions and outright fabrications. As a result their influence over the majority has suffered significant decreases in effectiveness. It is the average person that has acted, not a special dietary group, to continue pressure related to animal testing and other treatment.

It doesn't. People who claim it does are either misguided and actually believe the animals they have "saved" are peacefully living out their lives somewhere at the farmer's expense or they have simply re-defined the word "save". These people believe that the animals they don't eat have never been born and so are "saved" from being slaughtered - they have "saved" something that has never existed. Obviously this is the logic of disturbed minds!

The number of vegans is so small that it has no affect on anything. The latest "vegan trend" seems to be to claim that any advances in attitudes to animal welfare and related laws are down the vegans. I imagine they see themselves as being responsible for the fact that bear-baiting and dog fighting are now outlawed. Considering that they seem to see their main enemy as the >98% of the population who consume meat and animal products, it's strange that their "success" seems to have been mainly in other areas. Also, considering that most vegans, judging by this site, are children who have never even seen an animal, it's absolutely amazing that they have been SO effective!

Added: it's just occurred to me that the vegans answering seem to be answering from a vegetarian perspective and considering only meat. What about milk, eggs and honey? What about an avoidance of wool, leather etc. - how does that "save animals"?

Again, I find myself agreeing with Moderator here. I have no doubt that vegetarians/vegans have played their part in driving improvements in animal welfare. It is the idea, that some present, that vegans are SOLELY responsible for these improvements that I find silly. Taking into account all the improvements made in the last hundred years or so, and the number of vegans that exist (many of whom are children) it stands to reason that the majority of those involved in these changes are not vegans.

I see that some people have tried to argue that being vegetarian/vegans reduces demand which results in few animals being bred. I don't accept this but it's irrelevant because the question asked about animals being "saved".

Actually the "vegan movement" has had a tremendous success story this decade. About a dozen countries have outlawed animal testing on cosmetics. There is still some work to do but this is an excellent first step. I see this as similar to the first states decriminalizing marijuana or the first states allowing same sex marriage. I think this is the start and the movement only picks up speed from here on in.

anyway, when a animal testing lab in Spain closed their doors, they had to dispose of 40 beagles. Activists from around the world mobilized and "rescued" the beagles from (add spooky music here) certain death.

I'm sure that many of these activists weren't vegan but can you think of another group of people more concerned about animal cruelty.

For a little heart warming video check this out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg6e_20Fkl4

If it wasn't for activist groups, animal organisations, vegans and other people that have a concern for animal welfare the legal requirements placed around raising and harvesting livestock wouldn't be up to the standard that it is today, it may not even be a thing. If you look at some asian countries, where they have no animal welfare laws put in place, the animals raised there for meat consumption often suffer great deals of pain and distress. Including the pets we all know and love in the western world, such as dogs and cats. You could also say that by not buying meat, or at least buying less, means that less animals will be bred. Less animals being bred means less animals going through the process that some may deem as unsuitable or cruel to the animals, for example the use CAFOs seems to raise a lot of animal welfare concerns, as well as environmental and human health. .

it doesn't except in theory.
veganism is more of a protest than anything that actually saves animals.
in fact since there are more people being born on the planet and a better standard of living it means even more animals than ever before are being raised for food.
so it is true that since there are millions of vegans it does save more animals from having to be born to become food it doesn't save any animals that are born from becoming food.
so vegans saying less animals are killed isn't true because the animals that aren't needed for vegans are non existent. no animal is saved. many many billions are slaughtered yearly

It wouldn't lower demand like other answers said. If anything, it would do the opposite, lower the supply and raise the demand. Do vegans take economics? For the people doing it for ethical reasons, you should know this isn't any grassroots strike on companies or food. It carries no weight at all, and you'll end up putting yourself at health risk for no reason or contribution to society.

What I'm hearing is, "Let's spend trillions of dollars so that we can save animals that will die anyway." Don't we have bigger fish to fry at the moment? What about people? Your fellow man? Your government? "No," I hear, "The animals get a right to vote too."

Seriously, how many people have been brainwashed by Disney movies? The reason I'm speaking in an upset manner is it's obvious more than half the accounts on V & V are kids that probably have never seen a wild animal except on TV. Maybe instead of watching PETA crap, they should watch how violent a real animal lives and dies.

Sadly it doesn't save the lives of the poor innocent animals who are already in the system, but what it does do is reduce demand. And while one single person might not have any discernable impact, a multitude of single people deciding to do the right thing does. The meat and dairy industries have already been impacted by the awareness being raised by the 2%-5% of the population that are choosing meat and dairy alternatives or just stopping consuming them altogether. 2%-5% might not sound like much to you or me, but it *does* sound like a lot to people who are marketing meat and dairy, because in the US alone that represents something like 7 to 18 million people. The more people who make a personal decision not to participate in the animal holocaust, the more our numbers will increase, and the more change will be affected.

Look at it this way: If you lived in a country where public stonings of humans were legal, and crowds would gather round chucking stones at some poor person buried halfway in the sand, you choosing not to participate in chucking the stones wouldn't save that person's life - but it would change who *you* are and what you stand for. And as the next person, and the next person and the next person standing in the crowd refuse to chuck stones, eventually a tipping point is reached where it becomes clear that there's a moral issue at hand that people are increasingly refusing to look away from. Then change will happen.

It doesn't. Its all propaganda and lies. A vegan saves nothing. It has no impact on the demand. Everything you own and use still causes animals deaths so the only way you'd save any lives is to move into a some hippe retreat in the middle of no where, build a crap house of trash and grow and make everything yourself

In reality it helps very little since most of the human population are meat eaters. The only chance it would help save animal lives is if more than say 20 million people became vegans/vegetarians. Most of the world populace eats meat therefore for the meat industry too slow down at all and to reduce the production of meat you have to have to reach a level of vegans that surpasses meat eaters sadly even myself having converted to veganism not seeing this occuring anytime soon. Although with the rising cost of meats in the marketplace more and more people could convert however produce is also getting pathetically expensive.