The main thing I find shocking about this Washington Post article on cruelty at a California slaughterhouse is that some people still think cows are not harmed in dairy production. Everything else about the story is only a surprise to people who aren't paying attention (like those people who ask why you're vegan and then, after a brief pause, say, "Nevermind, I don't want to know.")
Putting aside for a moment that so many of us have been brainwashed into believing we need to imbibe the mammary secretions of another species in order to be healthy (secretions intended for calves, not humans, mind you), there are some who justify consuming cheese and so forth because they think you don't have to kill cows to produce milk or other dairy products.
Putting aside also that the theft of calves' milk from their mothers is generally a very cruel and horrific experience to behold in its own right, and that the abduction of calves from their mothers after less than 72 hours is traumatizing to both parties (especially the calf, who is typically treated worse than his mother for an even shorter period of time before being killed and sold as veal)...
Putting all that aside, after a cow's "productivity" decreases to the point that she is no longer a valued profit center (at 4-5 years, well short of her total lifespan), she is crammed into a transport truck with other cows and shipped hundreds and hundreds of miles to a place like this (video), where she is killed and chopped up into products like hamburger, so that the "producer" can squeeze every last cent out of her. When you treat living beings as things--as commodities--cruelty is not only inevitable, it is inseparable. The only way to avoid contributing to this suffering is to take the exploitation out of your own choices by going vegan.
There are, as in many cases these days, comments below the article. There you can read with incomprehension the sheer inhumanity with which some people regard nonhuman animals and, should you choose to register, weigh in with your own thoughts as to the remedy for this appalling human activity.
I'll warn you right now. This story is just awful. Talk about inhumane.
Back roads, gorges, and garbage dumps on this tropical island are littered with the decaying carcasses of dogs and cats.
An Associated Press investigation reveals why: Possibly thousands of unwanted animals have been tossed off bridges, buried alive, and otherwise inhumanely disposed of by taxpayer-financed animal control programs.
Witnesses who spoke with the AP said that, despite pledges to deliver adoptable strays to shelters and humanely euthanize the rest, the island's leading private animal control companies generally did neither.
Good grief. How Animal Control Solutions' employees can sleep at night is beyond me. Fortunately, former employees of ACS and its previous incarnation, Pet Delivery, have stepped forward, lending some authority to activists' claims that animals are being brutally disposed of (900 of them, "on a good month"), rather than being brought to shelters, as promised.
A former Animal Control Solutions employee told the AP that he witnessed another worker in 2005 dragging 12 to 15 small dogs out of a van along a road outside San Juan. Normally, workers injected animals with a euthanasia drug but on this day there was none. The animals were instead given an overdose of a sedative and flung 50 feet into a trash-filled gully.
Some of the dogs were alive as they crashed on top of junked beds, bottles, and other garbage.
"I could hear some of the dogs whimpering as they hit the tree branches and then the ground," the former employee said as he stood with AP journalists in the muck at the site, which still holds the stench of death.
As bad as the shelter situation is here in the U.S., this news from AP is appalling. Reporters found that no shelters had ever been brought an animal by ACS, and the government in Puerto Rico has done nothing to ensure animals are treated humanely. They send ACS $20,000 a year to handle the problem and then turn a blind eye, allowing shocking cruelties to occur.
The AP saw and was told about a scale and brutality far beyond even what animal welfare activists suspected, stretching over the last eight years.
According to the article, Puerto Rico has at least 100,000 stray dogs and cats and no spay or neuter programs. Not only have strays been rounded up and tossed 50 feet to their deaths, but people in city projects have also had their animal companions forcibly taken from them and disposed of in this fashion. It seems animals are not allowed in the projects. Miraculously, some animals occasionally survive this ordeal, and one of them was actually returned home.
Clearly there are many people in Puerto Rico who care about animals, but it seems that the overall picture there is very grim:
Cockfighting is legal, with matches shown on television. One of the island's beaches is known as Dead Dog Beach—a place where teenagers drive over live puppies sealed in bags or cruelly kill them with machetes and arrows, according to animal welfare groups that photographed the atrocities.
Thanks to Lily for bringing this story to my attention. She also included the following:
I tried to find some information about who to contact about this, and all I've found is Puerto Rico's American representative, Luis Fortuno.
Here is the information I have for him:
Washington D.C. Office 126 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-2615 Fax: 202-225-2154
District Office 250 Calle Fortaleza Old San Juan, PR 00901 Phone: 787-723-6333 Fax: 787-729-7738
I know it's sad, and it doesn't seem like there's much we can do, especially when there's so much wrong in people's attitudes toward animals in our own countries, but it could be worth taking the time to contact Luis Fortuno. If he hears from enough outraged people, the pressure might be enough to get the government to start paying more attention to the problem.
I'm not going to hold my breath, but international opinion seems to be relatively important to most countries, and no one wants their dirty laundry aired, so it can't hurt to let them know what we know, and see if they do something to improve the conditions there.
Today we've got no less than two opinion pieces pointing out the "moral schizophrenia" or hypocrisy of condemning Michael Vick for dog fighting while continuing to eat the flesh and other products derived from animals. The first linked below is from an avowed meat-eater, while the other is from vegan animal rights advocate Gary L. Francione:
Of course, Courtland Milloy treads water, briefly touching on this conflict, teetering on an epiphany, but ultimately preferring to ponder why Michael Vick is being hit so hard with these charges, which seems kind of backward to me, especially given public sentiment. At least we can count on Gary Francione to expose the connection between cruelty to dogs and cruelty to animals typically considered food (which, lest we forget, includes dogs in certain other countries, as well as horses and so on, further highlighting the arbitrary absurdity).
Two opinions in major city papers drawing attention to this connection in one day. That's what I call a nice day.
There is so much wrong with this front page (Column One) L.A. times article that I don't know where to begin. I suppose I shall start by deconstructing the title, an obnoxious play on the false notion that animals are meaninglessly brutish. I can come only to this interpretation based on the fact that the story is about drive-by shootings of farmed animals.
Where in nature do animals kill each other out of boredom and pathological rage? I'm not saying it doesn't exist somewhere, but it would certainly be the exception that proves nonhumans are not the brutish beings in this equation. Rather, this article goes one step further in proving that there is more of a violent streak in humans than other animals, who generally only kill to eat.
And that leads me to the other problems I had with the article, wherein ranchers who kill animals that they purport to care about (and even name, for crying out loud) for food that no human needs for proper nutrition, have the gall to rant at these anonymous shooters for senselessly and cruelly killing their "livestock."
I have no problem admitting that killing animals in the sundry ways described in this article are more cruel than the allegedly "justifiable" killing of animals for food, which at the very least is demanded by the population at large (though that only makes this practice socially acceptable, not morally defensible). After all, there is a sense that these sick people (teens, the article suggests) intend for the animals to suffer, whereas the institutionalized slaughter of living beings at least makes a show of reducing the suffering involved in animal "husbandry." But taking the life of another being for any reason other than sheer necessity is cruel, and this article seems to miss that connection entirely.
There is a bit of irony operating here as well, as these supposedly caring ranchers--who spend so much time and money exempting their "property" from cruelty laws--find themselves lacking the cruelty legislation for "their" animals that protect dogs, cats and other animals labeled "companions" instead of "food.":
Although 43 states have passed felony animal cruelty laws, they rarely apply to livestock -- thanks in part to a strong cattleman's lobby -- as long as ranchers follow "accepted husbandry practices."
In California, state law provides some protection for large farm animals, but enforcement varies among counties. As a result, prosecutors in farm cases often settle for convictions on lesser vandalism charges.
Further highlighting this issue, the article suggests that more attention is paid to cruelty toward animal companions than to animals farmed for their flesh, but that is exactly how these ranchers want it. For, even though they seem to find within themselves the ability to grow attached to animals and send them off to slaughter, it's conceivable that, if the average person felt about cows, pigs and chickens the way they do about cats and dogs, the United States would become a vegan nation.
I won't get into the usual warnings in the article that violence toward animals often leads to violence against humans, which has been much substantiated. The twist here is that the animals are much larger. But, morally speaking, there's no difference between torturing and killing a cat or a cow.
Combine celebs and animal cruelty, and you have a recipe for unusually prolonged national media coverage of an important issue. If my neighbor wanted to tell America that dog fighting is cruel, he'd have a much tougher time getting in the headlines, but even an actor standing in front of a microphone and telling the world that dog fighting is cruel would receive less coverage and interest than when highly-paid NFL star Michael Vick becomes the center of controversy.
While I'm not one to amuse myself by following the lives of entertainers and sports figures, it is nice to see that some good may be coming out of this scandal. Not unlike the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina or the tainted pet food recall, this case has created an opportunity for a national dialogue over our relationship to animals.
I have a number of links to share, in case you want to read updates on this story, starting off with a letter to the Los Angeles Times from Sharon Hall, a friend of mine from Vegan Toastmasters. I liked how she used this topical situation to draw a parallel to the cruel treatment of animals used for food, which is always a great strategy for encouraging an animal-friendly life.
Next up is the transcript (audio and video available) of a PBS interview with HSUS president Wayne Pacelle and Bobby Brown, director of "Off the Chain," a 2005 documentary about dogfighting.
This Thursday night, 8pm EST/5pm PST, you will find coverage of the story on CNN's Paula Zahn Now. Thanks to Karen Dawn and one of her readers for making sure we knew about it in advance. Karen also reminds us to write in with our thanks for covering the issue.
Vick's $7 million in endorsements have also been shaken up by the indictment. Nike has decided not to proceed with a 5th Michael Vick shoe they had planned to release this summer, the Air Zoom Vick V, which is likely costing them a decent amount of money. However, they have not yet terminated the endorsement contract, as they have chosen to wait until a verdict has been rendered.
I'm inclined to agree with due process, myself (just imagine if you were accused of things you did not do and your whole life was destroyed), but for those of you who aren't eager to wait until our "justice" system decides whether or not Vick is guilty (and how guilty he is), you may choose to petition Nike to drop Vick or boycott the company until they do so. I can think of some other good reasons to boycott the company, but that's another blog...
An ESPN story from last week suggests the football star's career was already in decline before the revelation. According to the BBC, Vick has been ordered to stay away from training. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is reviewing whether Vick has violated league policies.
But the U.S. Senate is now calling on the NFL to immediately suspend Vick, with Sen. John Kerry additionally planning to introduce anti-dogfighting legislation. [Click here for a collection of all CNN's related pictures, video and stories]
I particularly liked Kelly's approach in the conclusion, so I will end this entry with that:
Men who support wives fighting breast cancer are tough; men who raise disabled children are tough; men who work to protect the vulnerable are tough; men who stand up for what they believe in are tough. Men who put dogs out to fight are not tough.
You know, I have been strangely silent on the animal cruelty case of Atlanta Falcons football star Michael Vick...
I think part of the reason is that I see dozens of stories much like this almost every day, only the ("alleged") perpetrators are anonymous. Vick merely provides a juicy target for those wishing to bring attention to dogfighting and other illegal animal cruelty: the second highest paid player in the NFL.
With the 18-page indictment that came down this week, it looks pretty grim. Dog fighting is a felony in 48 states and, if convicted of all charges, Vick and three others involved could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines, plus restitution. Due process is due process, but I'd like to see Vick prove himself innocent in light of the assembled evidence, including this oft-quoted sentence:
"In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."
Read the articles below for further descriptions, some accompanied by photos and video, and you'll see what I mean. Among the sordid details, you'll read how female dogs are raped to force them to reproduce, not unlike millions of animals confined in factory farm operations.
It's just sick how some people (an estimated 40,000) find entertainment in two dogs fighting to the death, dogs that would otherwise have no motivation to harm one another. They are doing so because they are provoked by humans, which doesn't say much for our species.
The case also speaks to animal rights. If we did not breed animals for our own ends, they would be less likely to wind up in extreme situations like this. But, of course, the media focuses only on how the animals were treated, not their property status.
You can read more by following the links below, which were compiled by Karen Dawn and DawnWatch:
I had a fairly busy animal-friendly weekend, including a fundraising brunch with Dennis Kucinich at Madeleine Bistro in Tarzana, CA, along with readying my home to receive some out-of-town guests coming to visit this week, so I had time to sift through stories, but not enough time to post. Lots of stories I wanted to highlight, and I have little time, so this will be yet another overview. Hopefully I can find the time to write about Dennis and the brunch this week.
In the meantime, check out his stance on the issues, and send him $50. If a million citizens who care about getting corporate money out of politics contribute at least that much, Dennis will be able to compete with those candidates beholden to their big-ticket sponsors.
I'll let Kinship Circle kick things off with an important alert:
5/2/07, from National Horse Protection Coalition -- Following the passage of Illinois HB 1711 by the Illinois House of Representatives on April 18, 2007, the bill now moves forward for consideration by the Illinois State Senate.
HB 1711 has been assigned to the Illinois Senate Committee on Public Health and a public hearing on the bill is scheduled for May 8, 2007. It is now more important than ever following a ruling by the DC Court of Appeals granting Cavel's emergency stay motion. The two judges in the majority issued no opinion on their ruling while the lone dissenting judge wrote a detailed opinion agreeing with the humane community and district court judge who earlier rejected their request. This ruling allows Cavel to begin killing horses immediately.
Please contact all members of the Illinois Senate asking them to vote "YES" on HB 1711. The order of priority for calls and faxes is as follows:
1) Public Health Committee Members. 2) Senators who are "new" and/or "did not vote" on the previous IL bill. 3) Senators who voted "yes" on the previous bill. Please ask them to continue their support. 4) Senators who voted "no" on the previous bill.
EVERYONE CAN COMMENT: CONTACT INFO for Senate Public Health Committee members. CONTACT INFO for members of ILLINOIS SENATE.
For further background, the Star-Telegram has this story from the Chicago Tribune. (Illinois horse-meat plant gets reprieve)
In related news, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey has proven quite adept at generating publicity for himself in the UK by stirring up controversy. This time he is encouraging Britons to take up the consumption of horse flesh, provoking mixed responses, though mostly revulsion. Fortunately, many people are seeing the hypocrisy of not eating one animal while finding others to be perfectly acceptable. The Daily Mail is a bit annoying in how it veers back and forth between strongly considering the merits of Ramsay's exhortation and genuine disgust for the notion (mainly because of the charismatic horse's exhalted status among humans), but there are plenty of choice quotes, like this one:
I ate horse last year, in Kazakhstan. And while it was perhaps not at its gourmet best (served in huge boiled chunks in a lukewarm greasy stew with a sheep's head perched on top) the thought of what I was eating - and I'm not talking about the sheep's head - was a thousand times worse than the nasty taste.
But why is that? After all, we happily eat cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks and even deer on a regular basis. Over recent years, we've embraced all manner of faddy meats - ostrich, emu, even kangaroo and crocodile. But a nice juicy horse steak? Never.
There's a Borat gag in there, but I'll leave it alone. The main thing to note is that the line between the species we eat and those we don't is incredibly arbitrary. The more we highlight that, the clearer it becomes that we shouldn't be eating any animals. You can send letters to the Daily Mail and the Sunday Telegraph. Don't forget to keep them short, to the point, and to include your location and contact information for publication.
On to other animals most people arbitrarily wouldn't consider eating...
This story from Pennsylvania's Tribune-Democrat drives home the need to ban the commercial sale of animals:
“I’ve had pet stores approach me and say, ‘How can I find quality puppies?’ I say, ‘You’re not going to.’ ”
This from a county Humane Society Officer, though she also suggests those interested in buying animals do so from a "reputable" breeder. This, as opposed to purchasing from pet stores that seem to be getting a lot of unhealthy animals from Amish puppy mills in the Lancaster and (now) Somerset County areas of Pennsylvania. It's sad that she'd suggest buying animals at all, rather than taking the opportunity to recommend adopting needy animal companions. But at least she paints a vivid picture that will hopefully keep people out of pet stores:
“The tragedy is with females who live their lives in cages, and their value is measured in how many puppies they can breed,” Gower said. “When they can’t breed anymore, they’re excess dogs.”
While I'd like to see commercialized breeding banned entirely, I'm not too thrilled with breed-specific bans, or any legislation singling out a single breed of dog, as frequently happens with pit bulls. Some Massachusetts legislators are planning a hearing next week to consider crackdowns on certain breeds of dogs, including the possible outlaw of breeds linked most frequently to attacks. I'll sum this nonsense up with a quote that mirrors my own thoughts on the issue:
"It's prejudiced to put a ban on a breed," said Milford Animal Control Officer Rochelle Thomson. "It's all about the individual animal - each one should be judged themselves."
All that said, if we didn't breed animals for our own ends in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.
On to some more positive legislation, Indian Gov. Mitch Daniels signed an animal cruelty bill on Friday that would make it a "Class D felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, to kill an animal with the intent of threatening, intimidating, coercing or terrorizing a household family member." "Deviate sexual conduct" with an animal is now also a Class D felony. I can only say "finally," to that. Isn't all sexual conduct with animals deviate? Despite Peter Singer's assurance that sexual relations with other species is not transgressive if no cruelty is involved, I don't see how you can make an honest case for mutual consent. Besides, if animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, or any other self-serving purpose, why on earth would it be okay to have sex with them?
Oh, the Google hits that will bring up this post now...
Next up is a rather lengthy op-ed condemning the trial in Vienna over granting a chimp named Hiasl certain rights previously granted only to humans. Now, this trial has been controversial for numerous reasons, including the complaint that all animals should be granted the right to life, liberty and happiness.
But this piece is rather specious in its straw man set-up, pitting this trial against the neglect of deprived humans around the world, as if one cannot simultaneously move forward in various areas of ethical consideration. One need not neglect animals to aid humans, and vice versa. The authors don't even seem to understand what rights are!
I wish I had more time to deconstruct this piece, because it is a grievous wrong to attack any justice movement solely to raise awareness of the plight of others. There are more constructive ways to make a case for compassion.
A big thumbs-up to Colorado State University's Tissue Engineering Laboratory for working to reduce the use of animals in research.
"As a researcher, I want to understand tissue cellular responses and develop a greater capacity to mitigate or prevent damage," said Dr. Tom Eurell, veterinarian and expert in toxicology and immunology and director of the laboratory. "As a veterinarian, I want to minimize or eliminate painful experiments in animals. Tissue engineering allows me to do both
It's nice to see movement forward in this area. The article tells readers that "recent developments in soft tissue research, including corneas, skin and muscle, can greatly reduce the number of animals used to test compounds and research tissue repair after trauma." While it would be preferable to end animal experimentation based on their right not to be used as a lab tool, I'm sleep just fine if it can be ended even sooner through replacement technologies. In effect, the race to find these replacements is a tacit acknowledgment that animals have a right to not be used this way; we're just not willing as a society to state it openly until it serves our interests to do so.
Source: High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal: CSU engineers tissues to reduce use of animals in research
It's a pretty short, straightforward article, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals restating its "strong opposition to rodeos" ahead of last weekend's State of Origin international rodeo in Melbourne. The RSPCA's president, Dr. Hugh Wirth, said the government should go further than regulating rodeos, arguing that they should be banned altogether:
"What we're saying is that it is morally wrong to make horses buck and for humans to be riding cattle just for human entertainment, its shades of the Roman Colosseum."
Here's a bright, organic carrot of encouragement to Dr. Wirth!
On that note, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus officials have cried foul about pending legislation in Connecticut to ban the use of common elephant-herding tools, saying that it would end their appearances in the state. Cry me a river.
Oh, wait. This is about money. Silly me.
Circus officials said the economic impact if it cancels annual runs in Hartford and Bridgeport would be about $2.6 million, including $200,000 in state and local taxes and $400,000 in locally purchased supplies.
Gotta love it. The circus is going to boycott Connecticut if they ban bullhooks. Is it just me, or is that the essence of what this is all about? Not delighting audiences, and it's certainly not appreciating and respecting animals. No, as always, it's about greed, pure and simple.
If you're looking for a juicy quote from this piece, I'm happy to oblige you:
...for them to say they won't come to Connecticut is like saying 'we won't bring our corporation into the state unless we can beat up our employees.'
(part-time activist Karen Laski)
But let's not forget something very important. The real issue here is about the use of elephants in the first place, not just the tools used in their abuse. Priscilla Feral, president of the Connecticut-based Friends of Animals puts the issue into sharp relief:
"I really see it as nonsensical, because it purports to regulate the treatment of animals," Feral said. "Whether the bullhook is banned or not, you have to deprive the animal of its freedom. They're hoping to regulate the circus to make it palatable. We're saying animal acts have to go because depriving animals of their freedom is the mistreatment."
I hope this collection of top animal stories from around the world will tide you over until I am free to post again. As always, comments are welcome, but not required!
I know I haven't posted since Friday. I had a nice dinner at Native Foods, as planned. But, since then, I have been stretched very thin, and some computer issues that have plagued me over the past 30 hours only made matters worse. But you don't visit AAFL for the excuses! You want content! So, without further ado, here's what's been crashing my Safari browser lately (thank goodness for Saft):
World Week for Animals in Labs began Sunday the 22nd. The purpose of this annual event is "to expose the plight of animals used for testing and research. WWAIL seeks to arouse concern for animals in laboratories as well as educate the public about the scientific, moral, and economic objections to animal experimentation, also known as vivisection." To learn what's happening in your area this week, visit the WWAIL website set up by In Defense of Animals.
Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I found it striking that, on the same day that WWAIL began, The Los Angeles Times | West Magazine published a fairly lengthy piece written by J.R. Moehringer from the point of view of Cheeta, a former chimpanzee "actor" who, in all his 75 years, was fortunate to avoid becoming a research subject (yes, 75 years is a very long time for a chimp).
Cheeta Speaks is kind of a fluff piece, but it doesn't shy away from describing the cruelties involved with exploiting animals for entertainment and that's a good thing, especially because many people will no doubt be reading this story with fascination.
On Monday, SignOnSanDiego's Animals get Legislature's attention took a look at the considerable amount of animal legislation being voted on by lawmakers in Sacramento this year. Read the article for analysis and quotes. Below is a sidebar from the article highlighting the bills:
Spaying and neutering: Requires all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered at 4 months. Breeders are exempt.
Farm animals: Requires ranchers to provide space for animals to stand, turn around and spread wings.
Elephants: Bans the use of bullhooks and chaining. Requires more space and exercise for those in zoos or performing in circuses.
Condors: Prohibits the use by hunters of lead shot in condor ranges.
Rodeos: Changes definition of rodeos to require small Mexican-style charreadas to provide an on-call veterinarian during events.
Restraining orders: Allows judges to add pets to restraining orders issued as part of domestic abuse cases.
Kangaroos: Authorizes imported kangaroo products, except those made of kangaroo species that are endangered.
Trapped animals: Requires trappers to inform property owners of nonlethal ways to remove pesky mammals, such as raccoons.
It's a pretty weak lot of welfare-oriented bills, if you ask me, but we can't afford to let pro-animal legislation lose and animal-hostile legislation succeed simply because we'd like to see animal exploitation end altogether. A couple of these measures could offer tangible improvements in the lives of animals while we're working to secure their freedom. If you live in California, you may want to contact your representatives to ensure your views are considered. Do I even need to suggest opposition to authorizing kangaroo product imports?
Let's hope this is not some flash in the pan, but a sign of a long and lasting trend toward compassionate fashion. For more animal-friendly shopping options, please explore the "Links" menu above.
It's not common to hear the deliberate killing of an animal "murder" in print, but here we have it:
"Leopard murder can only be provoked by cowardice or stupidity, in this case most likely by both," Pavel Fomenko, WWF's biodiversity coordinator in Russia's Far East, said in a statement.
Hunters in Russia's Far East have shot and killed one of the last seven surviving female Amur leopards living in the wild, WWF said on Monday, driving the species even closer to extinction.
Last week environmentalists said there were only between 25 and 34 Amur leopards — described as one of the most graceful cats in the world — still living in the wild.
When people poo-poo you for suggesting there are powerful interests at work to prevent animal cruelty from being exposed, show them this story:
Wyeth was known for strongly defending its drugs from claims of harm. It had rallied for its estrogen replacement and for its half of the fen-phen diet combo. Its veterinary subsidiary, Fort Dodge Animal Health, had sold 18 million doses of Proheart 6, worth tens of millions of dollars. It surely wouldn’t give up without a fight.
Many vets also liked replacing pills with the twice-a-year shot, which put heartworm prevention back into their hands. One vet with ties to Wyeth lectured colleagues about seizing on Proheart 6 as a “hook” to pull in healthy pets for profitable regular exams.
As the FDA meeting unfolded, the company said [Victoria] Hampshire was inflating her side-effect numbers. Things turned nastier when Hampshire said Fort Dodge had previously expressed its own concerns over tumors. Fort Dodge said it hadn’t.
“Either you’re lying, or I’m imagining it,” Hampshire erupted.
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, FDA’s veterinary chief, grabbed her hand under the table, silencing her, Hampshire says. (He didn’t answer messages seeking comment for this story.)
“Tory did not have experience dealing with animal pharmaceutical community people, who are not different than the human pharmaceutical people. They make a lot of money on this stuff. They will never ever admit there’s something wrong,” says Tollefson, who is now FDA’s assistant commissioner for science.
On Sept. 4, 2004, in the face of Hampshire’s damning data, Wyeth ordered all Proheart 6 back from vets — without conceding it was dangerous.
It was perhaps the largest recall ever of a pet drug.
When reading animal-related stories at The New York Times, I'm finding that 99% of all Dining & Wine articles raise my blood pressure. This one aggravates me more than most, since the headline says that it's possible to eat veal without feeling guilty.
I'm sorry, but the newfound availability of flesh sold from calves who actually got to spend a short span of time with their mothers and were possibly even allowed to graze on pasture (until their lives were cut brutally short), doesn't mean it's suddenly humane to kill animals just because some people like the way they taste. As long as animal-free alternatives abound--and I assure you that, in New York City, they do--killing animals for food is inhumane.
A story from the Science section offers a more animal-friendly view. Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter looks at the "socially transmitted adjustable behavior" seen in chimpanzees that is a hallmark of culture. Unsurprisingly, the writer--and many scientists--base much of their fascination on how similar chimpanzees are to people in terms of their intelligence, pointing out that chimpanzees excel in certain mental tasks where humans have greater difficulty, using the example of a short-term memory test. These researchers seem more interested in discovering "insights into the abilities of early human ancestors." Fortunately, primatologists don't have their heads quite so far up their asses, noting that "these are sentient beings and the closest living relatives of humans, and their survival is threatened."
Is this the best we can offer other species with whom we share the world (regardless of how closely related to us they are)? The threat of extinction in the wild or a life of providing insights in a lab? What insights have we really gained, if this is how we behave toward non-human animals?
The animal found boiled and skinned along Four Mile Creek Road in St. Clair Twp. last month was not a dog, officials said this afternoon.
What was believed to be a 2-year-old dark brown male chow/pit bull mix following a necropsy — an animal autopsy — was really a coyote, according to the Butler County Sheriff's Department.
No charges will be filed as a result because coyotes are not considered domestic animals, such as dogs and cats.
That anyone could consider this case less horrific simply because the victim was a coyote instead of a dog speaks loudly to the moral schizophrenia exhibited by our culture.
There is no meaningful difference between killing and skinning a dog or a coyote. Morally speaking, what difference does a species make? None, of course. All that stands between the two is our legal distinction of "domestic." We have chosen to protect one species of animal and not another because doing so serves our interests.
What could have been an opportunity to make the connection is instead just business as usual. Incredible.
The United States Senate passed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act with a voice vote last night, sending the bill to the president for ratification. Upon signature, the bill would amend the Animal Welfare Act and title 18 of the United States Code, strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting. It would, for instance, become a federal felony to move "fighting animals" or cockfighting "implements" across state lines or foreign borders, though prison time is capped at three years.
Thanks to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, U.S. Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) are aware of the cruelty involved in rodeos, and now the politicians are taking the Army to task over the $2 million it spends annually to sponsor rodeos, citing animal cruelty concerns.
While perhaps a small handful of individuals will have their eyes opened to the suffering of animals in live entertainment and will no longer support it, and while the Army may well withdraw financial support of the industry, nothing meaningful would be gained on behalf of the animals if this is successful. Sponsors will be found elsewhere and rodeos will continue on, seeing as how there has been no fundamental challenge to their existence.
Rooting arguments in cruelty and welfare might raise some awareness of animal suffering in the general public (for those that are more inclined to believe PETA's stance on cruelty than the industry's stance on welfare), and a very small handful of people might even be moved to abandon some exploitive lifestyle choices, but the foundations of animal exploitation that allow rodeos and bull-riding to continue operating remain completely unshaken.
It's a conflict not unlike what we see with the fast food industry. While in this case welfare improvements have the potential to make a direct impact on animals' quality of life, they are minor, and the victims are still doomed to life as a commodity and all that is inherent in being treated as someone's property, such as the opportunity for abuse. So McDonald's and Burger King adopt the tiniest of welfare improvements, but animals continue to be viewed as commodities for our consumption. Without challenging the tenets of our traditional subjugation of animals, the institutions go nowhere.
I've heard and read the statements of a number of people who argue that it's better for exploited animals to have lived for a short time and to become a sandwich filling than to never have lived at all, but I have never been able to find justification for this. Their genes are tinkered with, they are pumped full of hormones, and their lives are generally unnaturally short, cruel, and entirely free of self-determination. How is that preferable to never even knowing what existence is? If you could get me to believe that never being brought into existence is a form of eternal torture, alleviated only by being born, you might get me to think about this differently. But, as far as we all know, if you don't exist, you can't suffer. If you don't exist, you cannot be treated as a means to some other entity's ends.
With this in mind, let's examine some statements from animal exploiters in entertainment. One bullrider was recently quoted as saying
"If they don't buck in the rodeo, they're Big Macs," said Soksoda, who owns five bulls himself. "If I was a bull, I'd rather be out here."
This is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. The bulls, if they had real choice, they most likely would prefer other options more suited to their interests, if not the option to have never been bred into the world at all. They would most certainly prefer to neither wind up as a Big Mac nor as captive, exploited entertainment. Where in those two options are the bulls' interests taken into consideration? The only acknowledgment of a bull's interests given is that, in the conflict in which humans place bulls, the bull's sole desire is to get that "cowboy" off his back. While it might be in the best interests of the bull to do this, it would certainly be in the better interests of the bull not to place him in this conflict in the first place.
Yet a spokeswoman for Professional Bull Riders states that "These are bulls that buck and enjoy bucking," emphasizing that they've been bred for this behavior, as if animals are machines that can be manufactured to do just one thing over and over again, and have no other needs or desires. As if animals ought to be bred for any other species' purposes in the first place. Honestly, people. These bulls--if given an option--would likely skip the bucking, preferring like most animals to do a lot more eating, sleeping, and mating.
Clearly the core problem is the use of animals as commodities for our own ends. Even if it was possible for bull-riding, calf-roping, or steer-wrestling to be done without cruelty (and let's not kid ourselves; it isn't), it is inherently inhumane and exploitive to keep an animal captive and to use that animal as entertainment so that humans can make a fortune off a non-humans' misfortune. Welfare campaigns that fail to focus on this fundamental inhumanity fall short of what is necessary to transform society into a more humane world for everyone.
H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, has been approved by a rather large margin of 329 votes in the United States House of Representatives. It now proceeds to the Senate for a vote, where similar legislation has been passed three times.
Should this act pass there and be signed by the president, it will amend the Animal Welfare Act and title 18 of the United States Code, strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting. It will, for instance, become a federal felony to move "fighting animals" or cockfighting "implements" across state lines or foreign borders, though prison time is capped at three years.
Now, a lot of the focus is going to be on the obvious cruelty displayed by two-time Iditarod runner-up Ramy Brooks when he hit all 10 of his dogs with a trail marking lathe, causing him to be disqualified from this year's event.
According to race marshal Mark Nordman, after two of Brooks' dogs refused to get up and continue running on an ice field, “He lost his temper.” I realize emotions can run high when you're only 90 miles from the conclusion of an 1,100 mile race, but when you're basing the entire event on the exploitation of innocent animals, your frustration is the least of anyone's concerns. Unfortunately, the race marshal is complicit in all this, he goes so far as to cover for Brooks, saying he "spanked" the dogs, to make it sound more like what some parents will do their children (as if that somehow makes either behavior more acceptable).
What people ought to be focused on, in addition to Brooks' behavior, is that the whole race is cruel. Nordman stated that inconclusive necropsy results on Kate, one of Brooks' dogs who died the next day on the trail, give him no reason to believe that the death was related to the beating she received previously. And two other dogs died during the race as well, one from pneumonia and the other due to a hemorrhage stemming from a gastric ulcer. That's three innocent lives lost unnecessarily due to this "sport."
The good news in all this sickness, if you can call it good, is that this confirms for all who care to see the innate cruelty of the event, apart from the chance of additional abuse. It's cruel to run 10 dogs at top speed for 1,100 miles, dragging a human behind them, who will do just about anything he or she can to win the race. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokeswoman Lisa Wathne put it succinctly:
“When is enough going to be enough with this event? There is no way to do this humanely. No one who has any feelings for dogs should condone this event, or could possibly think it’s acceptable.”
And yet it continues.
Norman quoted Brooks as saying he "made a mistake and wants to learn from it, and become a better person." My first recommendation on that note would be to stop mushing dogs. Brooks' disqualification doesn't bar him from competing again, but he'd be showing himself to be a much better person if he came back instead to speak out against sled dog racing.
It's a heavy animal news day, and I barely have time to break out one story, much less all of these, so I'm just going to turn you on to them for the sake of information, and you can feel free to respond to the ones that grab you the most:
At Animal Person we have a blog entry called Cognitive Dissonance at the Niman Ranch that intelligently deconstructs the linguistic gymnastics employed by Niman Ranch's Nicolette Hahn Niman in a New York Times Op-Ed.
The Guardian also has an important piece, Film shows neglect of pigs, turkeys and ducks sold under ethical label, that further exposes the sham that is "humane" meat (ThisIsLondon.co.uk also covers the story, with Undercover film shows a farmer punching a duck). The articles, published yesterday, refer to footage that aired on a program last night criticizing the RSPCA's popular "ethical" Freedom Food labelling scheme meant to reassure consumers of high animal welfare standards. The video (included with the ThisIsLondon.co.uk story) depicts scenes of neglect and, yes, ducks being punched, kicked and thrown around by staff. There's your "humane" foie gras...
Perhaps this will give pause to people in the U.S. hoping to assuage their guilt over consuming animal flesh by purchasing products labeled Animal Compassionate or the like. After all, as this story amply demonstrates, comfier cages and labeling are not enough. If you want to avoid contributing to animal suffering and exploitation, the clear choice is to simply not consume them.
If you're interested in promoting a flesh-free lifestyle, it's not too late to look up local Meatout events and plan how you're going to spend your Meatout Day this coming Tuesday, March 20th. For all things Meatout 2007 (it's no longer just the Great American Meatout, haven't you heard?), visit FARM's meatout.org website.
Speaking of lifestyle changes, New Scientist reminds us that a popular pastime (skiing used to be one of my personal favorites) is not so good for wildlife, in Snowboarders may be stressing alpine wildlife. Appears we're stressing out the native species, with numbers declining by up to a half in some areas close to ski resorts. Of course, nobody's doing this on purpose, but it's one of those side effects that comes with encroaching into natural habitats. This article is certainly more incentive to find less impactful ways of enjoying nature. After all, if you're destroying nature while you're enjoying it, there won't be much left to enjoy for long.
I'm out of time, so I'm just going to bang out these last few links from MSNBC that got my attention:
Commercial animal breeding has to be one of the more despicable exploitations to masquerade as a cuddly business. It is the source so much misery in our world. The more our society spends on pets, the harder it is to conceive of people supporting legislation that would at least ban the commercial breeding of animals. But they should.
Trading in the lives of animals cheapens their lives and ours, and results in unimaginable amounts of suffering. Countless government dollars are spent sweeping animals under the rug at so-called shelters, which means basically that taxpayers are footing the bill for irresponsible customers and subsidizing the breeders who serve them. Too many millions of animals' lives are taken far too early, ending quite pathetically in death for the crime of simply being brought into existence by an unscrupulous person, not to mention the person who abandoned the animal when he or she no longer fit into the family lifestyle.
At the beginning of a dog's life, he or she may well have suffered squalid conditions at a puppy mill designed to generate a buck on the backs of malnourished and sick animals. And the lives in between aren't always much better. You should see how many stories come across my screen every day about the abuse some animals receive at the hands of humans, and I don't just mean dogfights. People find the most cruel, bizarre, and disgusting ways to take out their own pathological problems on animals who are, for all intents and purposes, defenseless against their tormentors. And, to think, several states still consider animal torture worthy only of a misdemeanor.
Which brings me to animals bred for biomedical reasearch. Millions of mice and rats are bred for experimentation, tens of thousands of cats, dogs, and quite a few others creatures are bred into a life of cages, poking, prodding, electrodes, and any number of unthinkable uses.
I know people generally don't like to see animals suffer, but that doesn't mean we should hide the problem. It means we should stand up, do what's right, and make the problem go away. Yet, for all the activism out there on behalf of animals, precious little focuses on breeding. Regrettably, this is because there is so much strong opposition against ending breeding of animals for human interests. After all, why would anyone benefiting from the exploitation of animals want to see their business dry up? Breeding organizations like AKC are but one opponent responsible for the millions of animals killed in the U.S. every year. It's in their best interests to justify their use of these creatures, which ought to let you know they're not really speaking for what's best for animals right there. Truth is, without the demand, the supply would dry up, and far fewer animals would suffer.
Despite this obvious fact, how is that so many animals continue to be bred in backyards and kitchens, and so many more continue to be bought at pet stores, as if animals are some kind of manufactured product to be packaged, shipped, priced, and discounted before they grow too big to be cute anymore? (hint: they're living beings, not doodads)
How is it that pet buyers still aren't getting the message? Perhaps it's not clear enough? Maybe if I shouted:
Hey! People! Bringing animals into the world only increases the net misery on our planet, despite how nice you might treat your own companions. If you love animals, you'll save one from death by adopting one, you'll tell everyone you know to do the same, and you'll let the pet stores go out of business.
And continuing on down the line, you'll want to abstain from make-up and other products tested on animals, and you most certainly won't want wear animals bred to be worn or eaten. Considering that none of these products are any longer necessities for just about all of us in the modern world (and quite simply harm us and our environment), the kindest, most sensible choice is to simply stop consuming any products of animal breeding and to stop treating living beings as objects.
Many thought the momentum was there to make animal torture a felony in Utah, but SB190, after passing 15-11 in the Senate, died when foes of the bill in the House tacked on amendments at the last minute, which didn't give Senators time to go back and reapprove the bill with the changes, despite overwhelming approval for the bill in the House.
Is it just me, or is it ridiculous that a law like this, which had enough support to pass both the House and the Senate, was killed because of a time issue? What is this, Jeopardy?
A bill to make animal torture a felony has finally passed Utah's Senate, which had previously blocked legislation from the House. It was a fairly close vote at 15-11, and opponents were certainly going overboard in their attempts to shoot down the bill:
“It almost establishes animal rights, which is a chilling idea under our Constitution,” said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper.
I have no idea what this dimwit was talking about. How does making animal torture a felony affect our constitution? I can't fathom his concern. For that matter, how does protecting the rights of animals not to be treated as property affect our constitution? I don't see the connection. There's nothing chilling about this, other than Sen. Stephenson's ignorance. Sure the bill provides greater punishment for harming animals, and I'm happy with that, but it has nothing to do with actual animal rights.
This same scaremonger goes on to suggest that Utah is mirroring the sci-fi film “Minority Report,” in which police arrest people before crimes are committed.
“What this bill seems to establish is a pre-cog indictment of anybody who has ever been cruel to an animal that they are going to commit further crimes against people, and I reject that notion,” he said. “This is a dangerous, dangerous step.”
He must be responding to the evidence that activists have used to push this bill forward, that people who abuse animals go on to harm humans. Fortunately, Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, has more sense:
“I don’t think the analogy is quite right. Here’s why: This bill does not find an animal torturer and predict this person will move on and harm and torture human beings and punish them in advance,” McCoy said. “Let’s not confuse this. This bill is punishing behavior that must be proven to have happened.”
Senate Bill 190 defines torture as intentionally or knowingly inflicting on an animal extreme physical pain or serious bodily injury and doing so with extreme cruelty or depravity.
Utah is one of eight states where torturing an animal is not a felony. Animal cruelty charged as a class A misdemeanor holds a maximum penalty of only one year in jail, but cases are often charged as lower class B or C misdemeanors and jail time is rare. However, a third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The bill needs one more formal reading before heading to the House, where it has a strong chance of passing.
Wow. Mississippi's legislators don't appear to care about animals or their constituents that want to protect them. Not to slam on Mississippi, but talk about being backward:
Rep. John Reed said nine versions of a bill making extreme acts animal cruelty a felony died before the House and the Senate.
Animal cruelty became a strong focus in Mississippi last July when Buddy, a 16-week-old Labrador was found in Gautier tortured with PVC pipe glue and left for dead. The puppy was later euthanized by a local veterinarian.
Mississippi has one of the weakest animal cruelty laws in the country, and is one of only eight states with no felony provision for extreme acts of cruelty.
"I would have really like to have seen a change," Reed said.
A campaign to change the animal cruelty law was launched as animal lovers and animal rights activist across the country spoke out in support of a revision to the Mississippi law that has been in place since 1972.
House Bill 1538 would have enforced a misdemeanor for acts of simple animal cruelty, such as neglect and abandonment, and a felony for malicious abuse and torture towards animals. Three conviction of simple animal cruelty would execute a felony as well.
Senate Bill 2097 also made similar distinctions between misdemeanor and felony charges for animal cruelty.
Both bills, as well as the seven others, died before the Agriculture and Judiciary B committees on Jan. 30.
It's amazing to me that a legislature would actually vote against tougher animal cruelty laws in this day and age. The article gives no indication what reasons there might have been for killing these bills. Were the legislators afraid they themselves would be accused of animal cruelty? Do they not care about animals? Do they not care that animal abuse tends to lead to human abuse, and worse? Mind-boggling.
Interestingly, I spotted this news at NOLA.com, which is fitting, I suppose, considering Louisiana is the only other state where cockfighting remains legal. The 31-11 vote sends the ban to the House, where it has passed before. With Governor Bill Richardson's vocal support of the bill, it's pretty much a done deal. Finally.
Several groups, led by animal-rights activists, have been trying to get a ban passed in the state for more than two decades. The latest development adds momentum for a movement that even the cockfighters acknowledge is showing no signs of slowing.
"Politically, it's over with," said Ronald Barron of Artesia, president of the New Mexico Gamefowl Breeders Association. "But we'll file lawsuits. We've got a lot of money to do it."
Well, if you don't spend it on a last-ditch effort to save your pastime, I don't know what you are going to spend it on, since cockfighting's going to be illegal soon. It's a shame, though. All that money could be spent for a much better cause.
It's been informative watching the bill get watered down in order to assure its passage. Politics at work:
Penalties were reduced, so a first offense would be a petty misdemeanor, a second offense a misdemeanor, and a third or subsequent offense a fourth-degree felony.
It would be illegal under the bill to organize or participate in a cockfight. Spectators would not be subject to prosecution under an amendment that was adopted during the debate.
Opposition to the bill included concerns over a slippery slope on animal legislation, including worries "that rodeos and farm practices like branding, calf roping and castration could be the next targets for animal-rights groups." One can only hope...
Controversial bill SB10 passed what was expected by some to be its toughest test yesterday when it was endorsed by the Senate Conservation Committee, which killed the bill two years ago. It still has to pass through the Judiciary Committee before heading to the Senate floor and then the House.
What made the hearing different this time was the sheer amount of turnout. The hearing had to be
moved from the normal committee room to the Senate chambers to accommodate the hundreds of people who came to Santa Fe to be heard on the bill. It was standing-room-only in the Senate gallery, with people lined up two and three deep behind the final row of chairs.
Debate was limited to 30 minutes for both supporters and opponents. Committee Chair-man Phil Griego, D-San Jose, explained that lawmakers have heard the debate several times in the past few years.
While the arguments this time were similar to those made in the past, Garcia had additional support for her bill this year, with Gov. Bill Richardson and the New Mexico Catholic Conference both joining the fight for the first time. She said there were also hundreds of phone calls made to lawmakers in support of the bill.
New Mexico and Louisiana are the only two states that allow cockfighting, though it is illegal in 13 New Mexico counties. The bill would add cockfighting to legislation outlawing dog fights, making both activities a fourth-degree felony.
With support from Governor Richardson, we know the bill would be signed into law should it pass both the Senate and the House. If you live in New Mexico, now's the time to make sure your representatives know you are against animal cruelty.
The cockfighting bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, 7-3, but not before decreasing the penalty for a first offense.
Before voting on the bill, the committee added an amendment making a first offense a misdemeanor for those who “cause, sponsor, arrange, hold, or participate” in a cockfight “for monetary gain or entertainment.”
Second and subsequent offenses would be considered fourth-degree felonies. Under state law, misdemeanors carry a maximum jail sentence of 364 days. Those convicted of a fourth-degree felony, the least-severe felony category, can serve as much as 18 months in prison.
[Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, D-Doña Ana] agreed to the amendment but noted that 33 of the 48 states that ban cockfighting make it a felony for first offenses.
The bill now goes on to the full Senate. Garcia said a final vote could take place by the end of the week. Look for a new entry at AAFL if and when that occurs.
A former employee of the nation's largest traveling circus Tuesday claimed she witnessed vicious acts of animal cruelty and urged the Common Council to ban events in Buffalo that include exotic animal acts.
"The abuse was not once in a while, it occurred every day," Archele Hundley told lawmakers. "The elephants, horses and camels were hit, punched, beaten and whipped by everyone from the head of animal care down to inexperienced animal handlers hired out of homeless shelters."
The West Virginia woman claimed handlers are taught to keep the animals afraid.
Ringling Brothers denies the claims, of course, and attempted to cast doubts on Hundley's testimony. But she countered with
"When I voiced concerns to Ringling management about the animal abuse, I was either ignored or told, "If you don't like it, pack your bags,' " she insisted.
The Council's Legislation Committee held the hearing after advocates lobbied for a law that would make Buffalo off-limits to circuses that use lions, elephants and other exotic animals. More than 20 municipalities across the nation already have imposed such bans, including Hollywood, Fla.
North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr. will likely sponsor legislation proposing such a ban in Buffalo, and Majority Leader Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr. of the Niagara District said he might co-sponsor the bill.
The circus' vice president of government relations and animal policy (interesting title, no?) replies with the limp and exploitive chestnut, "Circuses help to reinforce the role that people play as caretakers of animals." In other words, circuses reinforce a paradigm that animals are ours to do with as we please... Nice try, bub!
The education argument was dismissed by Jennifer Radecki of Animal Advocates of Western New York. She said exhibiting elephants "dressed up and performing silly tricks" contributes nothing to people's appreciation for animals.
Now we're talking. If anything, this treatment of animals (irrespective of the inherent cruelty) diminishes the audience's respect and appreciation for these magnificent beings, and animal use in circuses ought to be abolished on those grounds alone.
Follow the link above to help curb organized animal fighting:
On the first day of the 110th Congress, a bill designed to help law enforcement crack down on animal fighting was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), John Ensign (R-NV), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a parallel bill in the Senate the following week.
The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (H.R. 137 & S. 261) would make it a felony to transport an animal across state or international borders for animal fighting. It would prohibit the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.
Animals in staged fights are pumped full of drugs and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as gouged eyes and pierced lungs. Authorities recognize that animal fighting is an interstate industry — often associated with other crimes such as illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and acts of human violence, as well as public health threats like bird flu — that requires the federal government's help to curb.
The Humane Society of the United States has made your job as easy as visiting that link, filling out your info, and sending off a letter in support of the legislation. Please take a moment to do so today! They also provide a link for you to look up your representatives' info so you can call, if you like. Phone calls provide more immediate contact when you can get through.
Between the e-mails and newsletters I receive, and the RSS feeds and key word alerts that I monitor, I am exposed to a mind-numbing amount of cruelty every day. I don't share a lot of it here, because there's not much more to say once you've said it, and frankly it would be too depressing.
But it occurred to me to juxtapose a couple of stories that might seem different to some people, while both portraying the same fundamental cruelty toward innocent animals. The only superficial difference is that a sales demonstration could coldly be labeled as useful for humans, while burying a dog alive can't even dredge up that much of an excuse.
IFAW reports that China has ended its dog slaughter in response to international protest.
According to the South China Morning Post, Chinese President Hu Jintao "was unhappy about the complaints and international media coverage" of the crackdown and put a stop to it.
Thank you so, so much to the organizations and individuals who got involved in campaigns to help end this nightmare for China's dogs and their loved ones.
Here's some worthwhile stories from the past few days that I couldn't get to while working on Carnival of Empty Cages #5 and prepping for an interview I'm shooting on Monday (for a documentary I'm working on - more news on that at a later date):
Proving that popular culture can offer a (rare) hook into more meaningful discussions:
Of course, as a vegan himself, he surely knows there's no such thing as humane slaughter, but is playing along to get something happening among his colleagues in Congress. As WKYC's program shows, no one wants to see animals treated the way they are in factory farms, and that means legislators have to pay attention.
WKYC's first news program airing the cruelty received tremendous response, and was acknowledged in the follow-up piece, proving the power of the well-placed letter. In fact, they referred viewers to their site, asking concerned citizens to send letters to Rep. Kucinich, so he could share them with other members of the House. Maybe you'll do the same.
Steel yourselves. This is pretty awful. I regret that I haven't posted about the new Chinese dog cull sooner, but I've been waiting for photos that convey the horror.
Now that I have them... Well, I hope I don't lose you as a reader, but I'm going to include one here, trusting that you will be motivated to do something to help the dogs in China that are being massacred:
The photo comes from a heartbreaking page that features plentiful evidence of the cruelty inherent in this cull, as well as many contacts for you to reach by address, phone and e-mail. Please take a few minutes to register your outrage at this slaughter.
In addition to the cull, new restrictions limit households to one dog and ban larger breeds entirely.
Sadly, and quite disturbingly, animal cruelty is a daily occurrence around the developed world, and that's not even accounting for the vast amount of cruelty inherent in factoryfarming. I decline to report on the many domestic animal cruelty stories I see every day. I figure no one really wants to be barraged on a daily basis with knowledge that animal X was found dead from animal cruelty, or that person Y was arrested for said cruelty. After all, numbing you won't make the problem go away. Suffice it to say, it's a big problem, and it needs solutions that take the issue seriously.
With that in mind, we look at this story on a proposed law that would finally make animal cruelty a felony in Utah. While this looks like good news on the surface, it is a bit of a mixed bag.
Utah is one of only eight states where animal cruelty is only a misdemeanor, so it's high time that it become a felony. But, while the penalty for cruelty to companion animals would increase, the law would strengthen exemptions for such "traditional" animal exploitations as hunting, farming, and ranching, despite the inherent cruelty typically involved in their most standard practices, like the slaughter process.
Defending the bill from opponents in the Senate, Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan said ''It's an animal cruelty bill, and they assume that it's an animal rights bill and it's not that." Note the distancing from animal rights in order to give even such a limited bid for compassion any shot at passing.
Ironically, it may be better for animals if this bill doesn't pass, in order that it might not institutionalize cruelty to some animals so that others might be avenged more fully in order to curtail the transfer of violence to humans some day. After all, making animal cruelty a felony is less likely to decrease these sorts of crimes of passion by someone that doesn't come from a paradigm of respecting life in the first place. The abuser will not likely think to himself, "Gee, if I slice open my wife's cat, I could end up with a harsher sentence. I guess I ought to calm down and get some counseling." Sure, a stiffer penalty would feel nice for those who care about animals, but we should bear in mind that the system sees this more as a domestic violence issue than as an animal cruelty issue, despite the Congressman's quote above. To wit:
The link between animal cruelty and domestic violence is becoming increasingly clear. Last April, Maine was the first state to adopt a law including pets in domestic protective orders.
''It means that the courts are acknowledging that [the abuser] may stop abusing the wife and the children, but he'll still scare everyone to death by abusing the pets in the home,'' said Frank Ascione, a psychology professor at Utah State University.
It is important to remember that many animal cruelty cases do occur outside of these types of relationships, though, whether wayward teens commit cruelty to ferals or outdoor pets, and so on. Again, this is leaving aside the billions of cases of cruelty committed annually in the world of intensive agriculture.
Then again, we shouldn't be leaving that aside. The point of living an animal-friendly life is, of course, to be friendly to all animals. No one animal deserves special merit over others, simply because of tradition, including ourselves. This bill presents a dichotomy that is rarely discussed publicly, and perhaps ought to be pursued in the editorial pages of The Salt Lake Tribune.
While I do support making animal cruelty a felony, I'd like to see public criticisms regarding the exclusion of wild and farmed animals, which deserve the same consideration as companion animals, for reasons you may want to share with readers, seeing as how pigs and cows are just as feeling as dogs and cats. By codifying cruelty to farmed animals while making cruelty to pets a felony, this bill actually widens a cruel schism in the human heart and mind that ought to be shrinking instead, for own good as well as the animals.
From the editors:
E-mail letters lacking full name, postal address and daytime telephone number and those sent to other e-mail boxes will be deleted.
E-mail with attachments will be deleted. The letter must submitted as a plain text in the body of the message.
Or, fax to (801)257-8950
When submitting letters to the Public Forum, please include your full name, signature, address and daytime telephone numbers. Information other than your name and the city in which you live are kept confidential.
Keep them to 250 words or less. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published.
For hard copy submissions, please type and double space throughout.
Letters are condensed and edited.
Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published.
I've been informed of a wonderful editorial from the editors of The Arizona Republic, taking a strong stand in favor of Arizona's Prop. 204, which would ban gestation and veal crates as part of a less inhumane approach to farming animals for food. The support of the paper for this ban is a big slam against the corporate powers fighting this proposition as election day comes in about two and a half weeks. One representative excerpt:
Opponents of this measure say it is being run by animal-rights extremists from outside the state. In reality, it is championed by local and national branches of the Humane Society, hardly a radical group. You don't have to be a raging vegan to support humane treatment of animals.
Opponents of the measure say their hogs are well cared for. But Arizona's large hog farm has refused to let reporters in to see for themselves. Operators do not deny that sows are kept in crates too small to allow them to turn around.
Imposing new regulations on an existing industry is a serious step. But it is appropriate to restrict business practices that fall below a level of basic human decency. This is one of those times.
There's much more to it than that, but I want to encourage you to visit the page, and to write a letter of support to the editors for their stance on this vote.
While the most humane treatment of animals is not to breed them for food in the first place, it is encouraging to note the growing agreement that even animals considered by mainstream America to be meant for food are also meant to be treated with vastly greater consideration than they are currently granted, and that is a form of progress that gives me hope for a future where we respect animals enough not to eat them when it isn't necessary for our survival.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger finally signed Senate Bill 1578, making it illegal to tether a dog to a stationary object for more than three hours.
In a press release, the governor called such tethering "inhumane." The offense will be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 per dog and/or up to 6 months in a county jail.
The bill joins two other animal-friendly laws recently signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, one that will make it an actual crime for pet owners to leave animals unattended in vehicles on hot days and/or other dangerous conditions, and another that increases the penalty for causing any animal to fight with another animal to one year or less in the county jail or up to a $5,000 fine, or both. Second offenses could result in prison time, a $25,000 fine, or both.
Last Friday, I wrote about Tammy Grimes, founder of Dogs Deserve Better, who was arrested for stealing Doogie (Jake), a dog that she rescued from someone's property after neighbors called her. She took Doogie to a veterinarian after determining he needed medical care and that his owners weren't around to talk to her about the situation.
If this is the first you're hearing of this story, please read the link above, then visit Inside Edition | Where to Watch to find the show time and station where you can watch Inside Edition's coverage of this story today. After you've watched the show, send your comment to the producers by e-mail. You might want to thank them for covering Grimes's and Doogie's story, as well as sharing your animal-friendly thoughts about the situation.
From Pennsylvania (at one time called the Puppy Mill Capital of the East) comes more proof that we have a long way to go when it comes to protecting animals, and in this case we're talking about our companions.
Tammy S. Grimes, founder of Dogs Deserve Better, was arrested on Monday for freeing a sick chained dog in East Freedom, PA, after a couple of neighbors' repeated calls for assistance to Central Pennsylvania Humane Society went unheeded after two days.
Grimes, after giving the CPHS time to come out on Monday (the office was no doubt closed over the weekend), responded to those neighbors' calls due to concern for Doogie's health. As you can see in the photo below, it didn't look so good:
Grimes photographed and videotaped Doogie upon arrival, determined his owners were not home and, while their neighbor (Kim Eicher, who has agreed to testify) came over and cried about his condition, they assessed his condition and Grimes decided that he needed to see a vet. I'm no professional, but I was tipped off to this story by a DVM, and I've known many a dog. It doesn't take a vet to see that there's something amiss with Doogie in this video:
But, of course, only a vet can diagnose and treat. According to Grimes,
The vet documented [Doogie's] general negligent condition, low weight, sores, missing fur, and took xrays of his back and hips. He determined that he has very bad back spurs that are causing him a lot of pain and are most likely responsible for his inability to walk. He also saw an undetermined mass near his hip on the xray. He gave him a shot for pain plus some B vitamins for energy, so that perhaps he could have even one good day or a few good hours. He wrote a letter stating his condition.
The story continues with Grimes bumping into the CPHS Humane Officer Grimes at the vet, of all coincidences, and supposedly the officer was just out on the way to respond to the neighbors' calls and visit Doogie.
It's understandable that the officer would be concerned that Grimes took the law into her own hands, as the law is pretty clear about animals being property, and with her not being Humane Officer, she basically did commit theft. This goes right to the problem of considering animals property, as if a table needed fresh water frequently, or a TV needed to be fed.
As evidenced by Doogie, chained dogs typically lack adequate veterinary care, food, water, and often even shelter. They are rarely exercised or socialized with other dogs or people and suffer from neglect. Even if they do receive adequate care, they lead what amounts to an unhappy, frustrating existence for such social animals. Dogs on chains suffer intense boredom, anxiety, even neuroses; their lives are very sad and lonely.
It's inexcusable that a compassionate individual who rescues a dog in an egregiously bad situation is arrested out of hand and treated like a genuine criminal. Didn't we treat all those that rescued abandoned animals in the wake of Katrina as heroes, and rightly so? Anyone that rescues an animal from potential starvation should be considered a hero. According to Grimes, none of the law enforcement involved with this case, including CPHS and the police department asked to see any of her evidence, as they were more concerned about her breaking the law than the crimes against Doogie.
If anything, criminal charges should be filed for leaving Doogie chained without food and obviously needed medical attention. Unfortunately, only California is anywhere close to an anti-tethering bill, with S.B. 1578 having recently passed out of the legislature and on to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, where it awaits signature. If that bill passes, it will be an infraction or a misdemeanor to would to tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog to a dog house, tree, fence, or other stationary object for longer than 3 hours.
Some states do have cruelty laws that penalize owners for leaving animals without access to food, but you shouldn't have to be an officer to do something about an urgent situation unless you're going to have those officers on the streets 24/7, just as we do for people. I realize that we can't just have people picking up animals whenever they feel like it. There's obviously a need for professionals on the job, but Grimes documented her rescue and was very responsible about it. She clearly tried to do the right thing.
But instead of being praised for her heroic measures, Grimes was arrested by no less than four police units that descended on her home, charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. She was later released on a $50,000 unsecured bond and ordered to appear at a preliminary hearing September 21, 2006. If good-hearted people think they will be arrested and possibly jailed and fined beyond their means, they may not take the opportunity to help those in need, risking death to countless innocent animals.
Don't wait. Call today to insist that the charges against Tammy S. Grimes are dropped, and that animal cruelty charges are instead filed against the Arnolds of East Freedom, Pennsylvania:
PA Governor Edward G. Rendell is very sensitive to his state's reputation for insensitivity toward animals, and has recently cracked down on puppy mills. If he gets enough calls on this issue, and it gets enough media attention, he may become interested in this case as well:
Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office 225 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-2500
The D.A.s office at Blair County District Attorney David Gorman, Esq.:
(814) 693-3010
The Altoona Mirror, whose front page story was evidently biased, not showing any photos Grimes took of Doogie, nor did they interview the neighbor that brought Doogie to Grimes's attention:
WJAC-TV 6, on the other hand, did interview her. Thank them for their willingness to hear the story:
(814) 255-7600
You can learn more about this situation, and what you can do to help Grimes and Doogie, by visiting the page DDB set up to get the word out.
And if you're a California voter, call or write Gov. Schwarzenegger immediately as well to politely request he signs the bill for the sake of our furry friends:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 e-mail the Governor
The HSUS also has a handy webform you can fill out to take action on this bill.
Special thanks to Armaiti May for getting the word out on this injustice.
With the help of Peninsula Humane Society and a couple of farm sanctuaries, 32 turkey chicks that survived a July 13 Northwest Airlines flight, during which more than 9,000 other chicks perished, have found a new home, not on someone's plate.
I'm happy the survivors can live out their lives without fear of becoming dinner, but I can't be more sanguine about this good news. Saving 32 chicks is not going to end the shipment of nonhuman animals as if they are cargo.
(hat-tip to story-finder extraordinaire Joellen Secondo, as usual)
You know something, I realize sometimes you have to make hard choices, and sometimes that means some die, and some live, but the firefighters in this situation weren't saving people. They were saving property. They didn't have to risk their lives to fight that fire, so the choice set up by the farm's president is totally false.
They could have let the building burn to the ground, containing the damage, but evidently it was more valuable property than the 35,000 - 40,000 chickens that died from excessive heat when power was cut to help the firefighters battle a "smoldering blaze" on a battery-cage egg farm. Surely that fire could have been contained without endangering any lives.
No crying over lost chickens, though. Rose Acre vice president Tony Wesner said, “Some of the others (chickens) are going to suffer some, too. They’re not going to be at peak production for a few days until things get turned around.” Ah, well, good to know that they'll be "productive" again so soon. That's a real relief for the chickens, I bet.
This story shows that animals do need rights. They shouldn't have been bred like some kind of commodity and kept in that battery-cage operation in the first place. But the law doesn't recognize a nonhuman animal's right to freedom, so this is their fate until people stop eating eggs.
A minor success that nevertheless underscores a fundamental acceptance of leather, as if wearing the skin of any animal has a place in modern civilization -- US retail giant to boycott Indian leather
Finally, in a new poll, 79% of people in the UK opposed testing the safety of household products on animals, but 23% backed feeding a dog with a chemical found in food wrap for three months to test its safety. This despite poll results that showed that even though 58% of people agreed with testing for medical reasons, support slumped to just 16% when respondents were asked to agree to the use of surgery to make a dog incontinent in a bid to aid research into a bladder disorder.
The thinking behind all this is unfathomable. And, of course, they don't want their money going to this research: 57% of the poll respondents opposed the use of taxpayers' money to build new laboratories. Evidently, it's okay as long as the work is hidden from them, paid for by someone else (though they'll end up paying for it later, in the form of product costs), and so long as it appears to be done to cure some scary human disease, many of which are preventable or even reversible through exercise, meditation, and a diet free of animal-derived foods. It's like some kind of mental disorder, isn't it?
I was away all day Thursday for jury duty, which was... interesting. Though I'm still part of a jury selection pool, we don't report back until Tuesday, so you have me back for a few days.
I'm not ready to call this duty a privilege yet, but despite many boring patches, I met a couple of cool people while waiting around. I even gave out a Why Vegan? pamphlet in a totally non-threatening context, which kept that conversation going through lunch. I also learned a bit more about our legal system, from the side of the defense table I prefer to be on...
On that note, I have a wonderful guest piece to post from Armaiti May, DVM:
I was deeply disturbed to hear Dr. Jerry Vlasak’s comments on CBS 60 minutes as well as Bob Linden’s “GO VEGAN” show this past Sunday. Condoning violence against animal abusers sets a dangerous precedent for the animal rights movement. Dr. Jerry Vlasak claims that current non-violent tactics being employed are not working because animals continue to be tortured year after year. While it is true that many animals still are being tortured, this is not because non-violent tactics are ineffective. To the contrary, as a result of compassionate non-violent educational outreach, people are becoming increasingly aware of abuses occurring in factory farms and slaughterhouses and we are seeing more vegan restaurants opening, as well as more stores supplying delicious vegan foods than ever before. Also, animal protection organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States are successfully leading campaigns to outlaw horse slaughter, outlaw dogfighting and cockfighting, and improve the treatment of animals raised for food.
As activists we must realize that animal exploitation has occurred for centuries and is deeply intertwined in the fabric of our culture. Consequently, achieving positive change for the animals is a slow process requiring patience on our part. Currently, less than 3% of the U.S. population is vegan. Despite multi-billion dollar advertising to increase consumption of animal products, Vegan Outreach has passed out ¾ of a million Why Vegan pamphlets in 2005 alone (which is 25% more booklets than all of 2004) which have been shown to have a very powerful effect influencing people towards veganism. Many people who receive these pamphlets have reported they had no idea how badly the animals were treated and subsequently went vegetarian or vegan. Imagine if one of those people who had received a booklet on the animal abuses going on in factory farms had instead read in the morning paper that an animal researcher was assassinated by a militant animal rights extremist. That person would likely come away feeling sorry for the human victim and his/her family, appalled at the violence committed against that person, and yet have no concept of the animals’ suffering. The animal abusers want themselves to be portrayed as victims because that allows them to gain more public support as well as encourage legislators to pass increasingly restrictive laws which put restraints on our civil liberties. Resorting to violence ultimately puts the cards in the favor of those abusing animals, not the animals suffering from such abuse.
Having activists in prison for years does nothing to advance the cause of animal liberation either; it actually does harm because it strengthens the pre-existing negative stereotype of animal activists as crazy extremists. Dr. Vlasak’s ideas about introducing strategic violence into the animal rights movement take this stigma against animals rights activists to a new level which is even more alarming and disturbing. It places us in the same league as Al-Qaeda and substantially decreases our ability to be effective and make lasting positive change for the animals. Now that one of the vocal “leaders” in the animal rights movement has advocated stopping animal abusers “by any means necessary,” it is incumbent upon all non-violent animal rights activists to speak out against this to avoid being lumped into the same category as terrorists.
More importantly, violence goes against one of the core principles that our movement stands for – compassion for all animals, human as well as non-human. Jerry Vlasak himself was once a vivisector, yet somehow he turned around completely and became a vegan and outspoken animal advocate. Everyone has the potential to change and we as activists must recognize that in order to maximize our chances for success. There are numerous others in our movement such as Steve Hindi and Howard Lyman who also were directly involved in animal exploitation before they became vegans and staunch advocates for the animals. We can thank our movement’s progress in large part to Howard Lyman, former cattle-rancher turned vegan activist. What a horrible thing it would have been if some violent “activist” had assassinated him! Where would that have left our movement today? If our movement ever gets to that extreme point, more repressive laws will be passed and more animals will suffer as a result.
While anger and frustration over the injustice of animal cruelty and exploitation is justified and understandable, we must channel that anger towards productive efforts such as raising public awareness if we are to garner more public support and make lasting positive changes for animals. With less than 3% of the U.S. population vegan, we cannot afford to turn people off to veganism or animal rights because of the irresponsible actions of a those who advocate violence as an acceptable means of advancing animal liberation.
Armaiti May graduated from the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, Class of 2005
Many thanks to Armaiti for sharing her thoughts with AAFL and its readership. I am so appreciative of her readership, support, and for taking the time to write this. I hope you'll consider sharing your thoughts below in "comments."
