Gary over at Animal Writings posted the latest in his series of posts about interspecies relationships, and this one I really marveled at. Go check it out. By the way, hippos are herbivores.
I'm having a back and forth with someone in the comments for an article that I'm not linking here (it's just a student news thing about Peter Singer speaking on campus, but the irritating thing is that this person claims to be an animal rights supporter who eats meat (it appears from arguments offered so far that the individual in question may be conflating animal rights with animal welfare). Talk about cognitive dissonance. It reminded me of this annoying article about actor Hugo Weaving:
Hugo Weaving wears leather shoes, owns a cat and is partial to a fish dinner, but the actor is also a passionate advocate of animal rights.
More cognitive dissonance from him. Maybe he's working on it?:
"Both my children are vegetarians … The more I started thinking about it, the more I thought my son's natural, childish reaction was spot on."
Sorry to hit and run, but I am positively buried in projects, so I'm going to drop out for a day or so to get suitably caught up. See you on the flip side!
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.
I received a letter this past week that probably represents the tip of a modest-sized iceberg out there, so I it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to share it here:
Okay, so I am a vegetarian, environmentalist, animal-lover. I detest any harm done to any animal, but I have a dilemma.
I walk and bicycle everywhere. My neighbors have a very aggressive (probably territorially aggressive, as suggested by the blog) dog, and they refuse to keep it in the fence. I have seen it chase, snarl, and snap at a number of people, including the mailman, gas-meter man, passersby, etc. It has tried to bite me more than once while I have been on foot and on my bicycle.
Advice-givers have told me to just hit it in the face with a stick or kick it, but that seems too violent for me and potentially very dangerous (what if it gets really angry that I smacked it?). The people who own it have seen it try to attack me and others, and only call the dog back but do not try and remedy the situation in any way.
Many people in my neighborhood use bicycles and walking as their main mode of transport. Kids run around all over my street. I had to call animal control on this dog because it is a danger to me and to everyone else that does not live in that house. Since there have been no reports of actual bites, the dog won't necessarily be euthanized (I assume).
I just have such a dilemma because I don't really feel that it is the dog's fault. It is the people's fault for not providing a proper place for this dog (and, of course, their other dogs that run free, but this is the only aggressive one), and I feel bad that the dog will be the one punished. What generally happens to dogs like this? Is there any answer to that question? It is a German Shepherd that looks like it is probably about to reach reproductive maturity.
Thank you for your time,
Delilah Louisiana
I'm not dog trainer or veterinarian but, having accumulated a number of links and done a fair amount of research since starting the blog, I felt confident replying with some resources, though I ask any readers out there who have an expert opinion or experiences with this sort of opinion to contribute their comments for Delilah. I'm sure she could use our support.
Delilah,
Do you know the dog’s gender? I have a hard time reading the depersonalizing “it” over and over again. :)
Sadly, situations like this rarely work out well for the nonhuman, due to their property status and the lack of care exhibited by owners toward them. However, with patience, good will, and a little bit of research, the situation may be improved.
Definitely do not hit the dog. Like people, some animals will consider this an act of aggression rather than correction for a certain behavior. This may just further traumatize the dog and make him or her more aggressive.
Have you and your neighbors spoken with the dog’s owners? If you’re not comfortable doing this on your own, I’d definitely suggest meeting with others in your neighborhood and getting together as a group to stage an “intervention” on behalf of the dog and all the residents in the area.
It’s important that this be done with everyone’s interests in mind, particularly the dog’s, so such a meeting should be as non-confrontational as possible. Otherwise, matters will only grow worse. After all, there could be a health issue with the dog. If this aggressive behavior is relatively new, it could point to an underlying illness of some sort, one only a vet can diagnose.
If it’s not medical (and even if it is), this dog is probably lacking something important: socialization, exercise, discipline, or all of the above. You and your neighbors should express your concerns with a bit of behavioral research provided to back up your concerns, as well as some strong solutions and alternatives, so you’re not just complaining, but offering to help. Solve this as a community, not as adversaries.
Here are some sites that might help, in terms of better ascertaining the situation and handling it:
One of the great things about living on the East Coast must be that jump you get on us West Coasters, who don't get crankin' 'til about 3 hours later. There are many occasions when I'm sent stories to write about, but I always check Bloglines first, and sometimes someone in New York, Florida or elsewhere will have blogged about it already. Sometimes I have something to add, and sometimes all I can do is point at some excellent entries:
California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, long a legislative friend to animals, has given up the fight on AB 1634 this morning, first trying a last-minute amendment to keep the bill alive, then--after a frosty reception from Senate Local Government Committee--choosing not to bring the California Healthy Pets Act to a vote. He asked opponents to work with him to find a solution to the pet overpopulation problem. The bill would have required California cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered by the time they reach 6 months of age. When I think how much time just went down the drain, and how much the bill was compromised in order to get it this far, I have to wonder whether we're barking up the wrong tree.
I want to see an end to the breeding of companion animals for commercial gain, and I want to see an end to the deaths of millions of dogs and cats in shelters across the U.S. every year. I had some small hope that this might be a way in to that, but it is apparent from this failure that society is not quite ready to consider restrictions on what people are allowed to do with the animals considered to be their property.
This tells me that our work ahead must be to transform society's attitude toward animals, not to change industries or laws, but to change minds. Only then will our industries and laws change to reflect our animal-friendly values.
UPDATE: Underscoring the need for rapid communication from campaigns comes this email (sent about half an hour ago) from Judie Mancuso, Sponsor/Campaign Director for AB 1634:
Dear Supporters:
Today’s Senate Local Government Committee Hearing was an important step forward for AB 1634, despite what you may have heard in some incorrect early press statements or from the opposition. Here is what you really need to know...
The bill is VERY much ALIVE and WELL!!!! The Senators on the committee acknowledged there is a pet overpopulation problem that must be addressed (this is huge), and indicated that they are willing to work with us to get the bill through their committee. The Senators were engaged, compassionate and we thank them for their open-minded approach to this important issue. Assembly Member Levine and our witnesses were incredible and reinforced how large the overpopulation problem really is. I cannot answer all your emails, I have over 1,000. So, please visit our site later tonight or tomorrow for the latest information.
Sincerely yours,
Judie
p.s. thank you all again for your incredible dedication to our pets and shelter workers.
Obviously Judie was very, very busy today, but this information would have been nice to receive before all the stories hit the media. Communication in the digital era is so vital. As Judie requested, please visit the CA Healthy Pets site later tonight or tomorrow to find out what's a cookin'.
California's controversial mandatory spay/neuter bill (AB 1634) continues to garner major media attention as it comes up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow: Los Angeles Times
The Senate Local Government Committee, which takes up the proposal Wednesday, has received nearly 20,000 letters, faxes and other communications from animal control experts and thousands of pet owners, with slightly more of them supporting the bill, said Elvia Diaz, a staffer for the panel who said she had never seen so much response to a piece of legislation.
Unfortunately, despite massive public support for the bill, the poll on this page is overwhelmingly tilted against it at the moment, so please click through and vote.
Whenever some time is being spent on animal-related legislation, there's always someone who says, "Don't legislators have more important things to do?" What's clear from this situation is that animal issues are more important to voters than some are willing to admit.
The CA Healthy Pets Act has been amended to address a variety of concerns opponents have raised--including an increase in the maximum age before spaying or neutering from 4 months to 6 months--so you'd think the opposition would turn around and support the bill now, but of course those individual stipulations were never their reason for opposing the bill, despite campaign literature to the contrary. But the only remotely viable concern remaining is over government "intrusion," which we permit in thousands of aspects of our lives and, in many cases, we ask for it. We want our government to carry out our will.
On that note, The California Healthy Pets Act will be heard in the Local Government Committee tomorrow, July 11th at 8:00am. If the act does not pass out of this committee, it is dead, so please take a moment to call all these committee members right now and urge their support of the bill:
Members: Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair) 916-651-4032 Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair) 916-651-4001 Senator Tom Harman 916-651-4035 Senator Christine Kehoe 916-651-4039 Senator Michael Machado 916-651-4005
I really wanted to do a bunch of individual updates but, when I get behind from traveling as I did last week, the potential posts add up, especially since I also cross-post at Zaadz, CrueltyFree.com, and MySpace, all of which have their own individual time-consuming idiosyncrasies (I've given up on VeganMySpace and VegSpace for now, as they are even harder to work with, and I barely have time as it is). So, I'll post another digest and endeavor to get back into a more regular routine again. Thanks for your patience!
The Associated Press (by way of Forbes) neglects to tell readers that the EU's newly-banned cat and dog fur is morally indistinguishable from fur torn from the backs of other animals in EU Douses Cat and Dog Fur Trade.
Also from AP, this time by way of The Boston Globe, an Alaska man pleads guilty to illegally selling seal parts. The man, who once agreed to help "conserve" the "depleted" northern fur seals, if you can believe that, faces up to one year in prison and a $20,000 fine for illegally selling "more than 100 seal penises to a Korean gift shop in Anchorage, where they were to be resold for about $100 apiece in the traditional Chinese medicine trade."
Bernard Matthews, the British poultry processor that last year claimed it was committed to the "highest standards" of animal welfare, is back in the news for animal cruelty at one of its plants (Daily Mail: Bernard Matthews worker caught playing football with turkeys), further demonstrating that animals' welfare will never be assured so long as they are commodified. The story includes the damning photos and video.
From MSNBC.com: Japan kicks off whaling season along coast (WARNING: Disturbing photo of a dead whale being flensed at the top of the page). Japanese whalers, who at this year's International Whaling Commission conference found themselves under pressure for their continued whaling under the guise of science, make clear the attitude toward whales, saying that they should be managed like any other natural resource, rejecting anti-whaling arguments that the animals should be protected. This anthropocentric view of animals as natural resources must be countered prominently with the fact that these are sentient individuals suffering at the hands of the whalers, not "resources." If we are to live by our own humanitarian ethics, all sentient beings ought to be protected from such so-called harvesting.
A more positive article I dug up, from DentalPlans.com of all places, is called Taking Animals Out Of Laboratory Research. It originally appeared in Science Daily, which itself adapted a press release from the University of Nottingham, but it still bears reporting. While the piece does suggest that the immediate abolition of animal testing is not possible overnight--a self-perpetuating perspective I find particularly frustrating--it does bring with that message the good news that FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) will be officially opening its new Alternatives Laboratory on July 6th:
Pioneering work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research — and ultimately remove them from laboratories altogether — has received a major boost at The University of Nottingham.
A laboratory devoted to finding effective alternatives to animal testing has been expanded and completely remodelled in a £240,000 overhaul designed to hasten the development of effective non-animal techniques.
Scientists hope that by developing the use of cell and tissue cultures, computer modelling, cell and molecular biology, epidemiology and other methods, they will one day be able to completely remove animals from medical research — while still maintaining crucial work to defeat diseases that affect millions of people.
While I'm encouraged to see efforts to end animal research, that day can't come soon enough for the nonhuman animals who shouldn't be kept in cages and experimented on for our own specious purposes in the first place.
AB 1634--the California Healthy Pets bill that would make it mandatory to spay or neuter your animal companion by the age of 4 months--has cleared a major hurdle in passing the Assembly Floor at 10:30pm Wednesday night!
According to Judie Mancuso, "An animal-friendly bill of this scope has never before passed the Assembly floor."
Assemblymember Levine and his staff were relentless in their work to get this bill through and we commend them. You can hear the floor debate, and the final vote, on www.cahealthypets.com.
She goes on to address the animal-lovers that have worked so hard to see this through:
And, thanks to all of you for your tireless efforts, calling, faxing, writing and lobbying the Assembly. This could never have happened without every one of you, and that's the truth. Some Assembly members who were leaning towards opposing the bill were forced to rethink their position when faced with the absolutely giant outpouring of public support for AB 1634.
Please take a deep breath, celebrate and enjoy the fruits of your labor. And in a few days, come back down to Earth, and get ready to do it all over again, because we’re moving to the Senate.
Congratulations!
Indeed. I'd like to join Judie in thanking everyone who turned up the volume to make sure the animals' voices were heard over the breeders and other exploiters who would rather see animals suffer for their own gain than to see a reduction in the unnecessary euthanization of unwanted animals.
Now if we could only stop breeding altogether... Then we wouldn't find ourselves in the predicament of messing with animals' reproductive systems in the first place.
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 strongly recommend this surprisingly affecting departure from Vegan Freak Radio: The Vegan Health Show. If you think you're sailing smooth just because you gave up on eating animals, you might find your eyes opened after listening to this episode.
SF Gateblows the doors off the pet food recall in Bigger than you think: The story behind the pet food recall. Another eye-opener. The death toll is much, much higher than is being officially reported.
On March 28, "NBC News" featured California veterinarian Paul Pion, who surveyed the 30,000 members of his national Veterinary Information Network and told anchor Tom Costello, "If what veterinarians are suspecting are cases, then it's much larger than anything we've seen before." Costello commented that it amounted to "potentially thousands of sick or dead pets."
Disturbing.
The foodie mavens at Gourmet Magazine are doing what they should have done a long time ago for their readers; they're taking vegetarianism seriously, and it looks like they're doing it with a fairly strong vegan bent while they're at it, impressing upon all their gourmet-concerned readers that you can be healthy, improve the environment, reduce suffering, and still enjoy incredible meals.
Yeah, I know. Not news for most of us, but it's great to see more and more mainstream nods to the joys of vegetarianism. Color me pleased, especially since the magazine appears to be permanently installing a vegetarian section, starting with next month's issue. In the meantime, Here are a few delicious-looking, mostly vegan recipes from the current issue.
"Isn't it time to put the joy back into the act of eating vegetables? Isn't it time we started to think of all the grains and greens that grow on the earth as a gift? And isn't it time that we realized that eating vegetarian meals is neither penance nor virtue but simply another mealtime option?"
An article in the Los Angeles Times considering the aftermath of the massive pet food recall asks: A dog's life: What's it worth?. Of course, the story focuses on cats, too, but the point is, with the threat of lawsuits somewhat negated by the property status of animals, this incident provides the most thought-provoking examination of our relationship with domesticated animals since Hurricane Katrina.
Animals are more a part of our lives than ever, and many people are making closer connections with their companions than some skeptics imagine to be possible. One elderly couple in Hyderabad, India even went so far as to commit suicide after losing their "only child," their dog companion whose death they apparently could not overcome. While this may be a particularly alarming example of devotion to one's non-human companions, it's not uncommon for U.S. citizens to consider dogs and cats (rabbits, ferrets and others, too) part of their family.
Unfortunately, when an animal is killed, the law treats animals as personal property, hardly different from the laptop computer upon which I am currently typing. It seems almost insane that this is still the case, when it is readily apparent that animals are autonomous sentient beings rather than merely objects, yet it takes major incidents like the food recall to force this conversation to the table and to get The Los Angeles Times to publish articles that deliberate the issue seriously, noting that pet "owners" seem more and more to expect damages for emotional distress in lawsuits against those who harm their companions. [Jon] Katz calls this "a seismic shift in humans' relationship to pets that has occurred in recent decades."
Unfortunately, the story's writers quote this author and others critical of this shift liberally in the closing paragraphs, ending the article on a rather negative note:
As far as Katz is concerned, those human-pet bonds can be too intense. He's troubled by people who consider their pets "fur children" or insist that losing a pet is similar to losing a child.
"As the father of a child and a dog lover, I know it's not the same thing," he said.
Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Assn., a Greenwich, Conn.-based trade group, calls the pets-as-people trend "nonsense." Vetere, a dog owner himself, said, "That guardianship stuff drives me crazy because there's so much confusion that will result."
For Barry Baum, a West Los Angeles veterinarian, the worry is that the legal changes regarding animals' status could translate into higher malpractice insurance premiums. "More insidious," he added, "will be the need to practice more defensively." That may mean doing more tests on a pet and hiking the owner's bill.
Giving animals a human-like legal identity might lead to higher liability awards if, for instance, a dog chokes on a chew toy, an airline misroutes a cat or an animal dies in a car accident, said law instructor Calnan. He also worries that "parties who want to represent the rights of pets could step in and object to euthanasia."
Said Katz, "I don't think people have thought through the consequences here."
I can think of a number of people who might disagree and, in fact, the writers point to a 2004 survey in which half of North American pet "owners" responded that, if they were stranded on a desert island, they would pick a dog or cat as their sole companion rather than a person. I imagine most if not all of those people are single, or simply aren't as happily married as I am, but I can certainly see where they are coming from!
Arguing that expensive designer dogs are basically just overpriced mutts anyway, writer Kim Campbell Thornton urges potential buyers to avoid contributing to the unwanted animal problem by adopting instead:
When you want a dog that’s one of a kind, there’s no need to spend big bucks to get it. Visit your local shelter instead and come home with your very own roughcoated Malibu griffon, Golden Gate Chiwienie dog or North American mottled shepherd.
Whatever you choose, and whatever you call it, the dog will be just as unique and special as a pricier pup.
Far too many dogs end up abandoned after pet buyers become tired of the animal or otherwise realize they're not up to the responsibility of handling what they only too late have realized is much more than just a fashion accessory. Of course, calling animals "it" only reinforces the notion that they are things and not beings, but millions of unwanted animals still die in shelters every year, so obviously we need to work harder to get the word out.
Please pay a visit, rate the story, and forward it to people, which will help ensure that the message gets seen by many. I encourage you also to send a letter to the editor while you're at it. Kudos to MSNBC Interactive for publishing this story.
This is awful. Over 60 million containers of dog and cat food are being recalled due to a number of deaths following kidney failure. Please check this page for dog foods affected, and this page for cat foods. You can also call 1-866-895-2708 for more information.
It's a bit sobering to note that Menu Foods "makes pet foods for 17 of the top 20 North American retailers. It is also a contract manufacturer for the top branded pet food companies, including Procter & Gamble Co." Might be a good time to find a smaller producer that provides healthier food for your loved ones than that mass-produced industrial grade food anyway. I hear a lot of people like to do it homemade. However you do it, you animal companions deserve to eat as well as you do, so please don't skimp on their diets.
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:
Joellen Secondo is a U.S-based animal activist focusing on animal issues in India. She has frequently tipped me off to quality stories, and this marks her first guest post for An Animal-Friendly Life.
Bangalore’s War against Street Dogs By Joellen Secondo
Following two fatal dog attacks on children in January and February, there has been an intense and violent backlash against the street dogs of Bangalore in India.
While the death of a child is tragic under any circumstances, given the number of dogs in Bangalore— approximately 56,000—and the number of people—over 6 million—these incidents are exceedingly rare.
This past week, city officials ordered dogs to be rounded up and brought to shelters. Many were kept in vans for 24 hours without food or water. Some 800 stray dogs have been “dumped” at local animal shelters. Over 200 dogs caught by the city were deemed “diseased” or “vicious” and were killed by injecting chemicals directly into their hearts or clubbing (as reported in a interview with a city employee published by Mid-Day newspaper, which also published a photo of piled-up dead dogs). Other dogs have been killed by angry mobs in their neighborhoods.
Due to a dearth of professional dog catchers, city garbage cleaners had been given the task of bringing in 1,000 dogs a day, but their lack of experience resulted in abusive handling of dogs as well as an inability to meet their quota.
Local newspapers report that the catching and culling will resume in ten days, after the city builds pounds where the dogs can be permanently housed (it is unclear how many or which dogs will be kept there).
The number of dogs killed is tiny compared to the numbers killed in China recently. But what is particularly upsetting is that, up until now, India’s progress in stray dog and rabies control has been a model for other countries. The current culling mandate is a foolish step backward and may set a precedent for other municipalities.
Most dogs in India are free roaming. They are community dogs, who live outdoors and belong to neighborhoods or persons who live or work on the streets.
The management of street dog populations in India is critical, not because of the possibility of fatal attacks by street dogs, but because of rabies. India has more human fatalities from rabies than any country in the world, and virtually all are the result of dog bites.
As stated by the World Health Organization, an animal birth control/anti-rabies program (ABC/AR) is the most effective (and most humane) way to: keep dog populations down; prevent dogs from biting (since mating and protection of litters can lead to aggression); and, subsequently, prevent rabies in humans. For 100 years, street dogs were routinely killed in India. Following the passage in 1960 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, this has been outlawed; ABC/AR has now become national policy for street dog and rabies control. Now there are calls for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to be set aside so that all the dogs in Bangalore may be killed.
In many Indian cities, as in Bangalore, animal organizations catch street dogs, spay/neuter and vaccinate them against rabies (putting a notch in one ear to signify that the dog has been sterilized) and then release the dogs back to their original neighborhoods. Since dogs are territorial, they prevent new, unsterilized dogs from moving in.
As proof of the efforts of animal welfare organizations, most of the dogs caught in the recent round-up had been sterilized.
According to Savitha Nagabhushan of Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, one of Bangalore’s most active animal welfare organizations,
Stray dogs are a consequence and not a cause of civic problems. The cause is really:
a) The exposed meat shops and their wastes.
b) General garbage piles uncleared.
c) Migrant construction workers who keep dogs and then abandon them when they move on.
d) Uncaring pet owners abandoning their dogs.
e) Unscrupulous breeders abandoning weak and unsold dogs.
It is quite clear that dogs are not the problem, but are victims of humans, of the general population and civic authorities. One incident, however tragic, cannot justify the slaughter of thousands of dogs…
Even though the directive is to capture feral/ferocious/diseased dogs, at the ground level, the catchers will catch only the docile, sterilized, harmless dogs to meet their quota. This will only increase the influx of untreated dogs. This “kill the dogs” mania is only making the problem worse.
The suburban area in which the two children were killed was cited in 2002 by an animal welfare NGO as “high-risk” due to numerous illegal butcher shops, which dumped meat waste onto the streets. Dogs gravitated to this highly prized food source. When the butcher shops were closed or penalized for littering, bribes to officials had them quickly back in business.
The government provides some funds for ABC/AR programs to five NGO’s responsible for five areas of Bangalore. The area of the dog attacks does not have an ABC/AR program.
The Hindu, one of India’s leading newspapers, reported on March 9 that T.N. Chaturvedi, the Governor of Karnataka, castigated city officials in Bangalore and in nearby Mysore for ordering a dog culls, calling it a “knee-jerk reaction” and requesting a more scientific approach to the problem.
Having spent time in India with animal welfare organizations, I can attest to the dedication and hard work of their staff (who, in many cases, are not even paid). Now, however, all of their efforts and a great deal of the expense that has gone into the sterilization and vaccination of dogs is being undone by voices calling for the killing of street dogs.
Please write to ask authorities to conduct proper waste management and expand the ABC/AR programs. Emails can be sent to the Chief Minister of Karnataka (Karnataka is the state where the city Bangalore is located) and the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Commissioner, K. Jairaj (this is the city commissioner)
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.
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.
First of all, kudos to The Washington Post's Bill Turque for referring to modern hog-rearing facilities as factory farms. Nice to see that term used so matter-of-factly here.
It's also nice to see another high profile look at the line between the animals we call pets, and those we call food. A Virginia law may actually support a woman's right to keep her potbellied pig as a companion animal, despite a letter from Herndon officials that determined she was illegally keeping livestock on her property. Turns out that the law exempts her ironically-named pig. Since Bacon, a pig rescued from death at an exotic animal farm by Bridgette Suder a couple of years ago, is not destined to ever wind up on the table as a meal or otherwise sold for profit, she qualifies as a companion animal.
Of course, the real irony here is that Bacon's definition changes solely based on human interest in her, with zero legal regard for her own desires. It looks like Suder may win her case and not have to move, but the victory won't do anything to change the schism in most people's minds when it comes to our view of animals. Despite being charmed by Bacon, I'm sure many of Suder's neighbors still enjoy pig flesh now and again.
Despite these gripes, it's a sweet enough article, and opens the door for letters to the editor regarding the status of animals in our society.
This popular front page article from the L.A. Times raises so many interesting issues, I could deconstruct it for a week. But my time is limited, so I will briefly make two points that leaped directly to mind when I saw it:
1) First and foremost, it's not enough that certain human cultures produce millions of psychologically damaged people; these cultures have also created a class of non-humans so dependent on humans that they too develop psychological problems, to say nothing of the neuroses we instigate by caging animals in zoos, which are also examined by the article. Then we rely on our own twisted remedies (yay, more money for drug companies!) to hide the symptoms of these ills, rather than curing the illness that we ourselves perpetrate (that is, bringing forth animals into a world in which they are not psychologically adapted to thrive).
2) The diagnoses of these psychological disorders, and the efficacy of these drugs should remove any lingering doubt that animals have complex psyches, though it's just so sad, sorry, and pathetic... I have an Animal Farm-like image of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in my mind when I consider this state of affairs.
Allow me to elaborate on the roots of this problem.
When I first went vegan, I barely appreciated the implications of that decision. There was sort of a ripple effect from that first connection, when I realized emotionally and logically that the animals I ate and wore were not meaningfully different from the animals I considered family. Ironically, this connection led ultimately to the understanding that we should not be breeding animals or taking them from the wild and domesticating them for any purpose, leading to no more companion animals...
Some people consider companion animal ownership to be a rather benign form of animal exploitation, if not downright symbiotic, but this forgets the point that many animals are bred for our use, and have no say in the matter. Those of us who rescue animals from certain death to care for and bond with them can make a fairer case for symbiosis, but try selling this notion to the animals who endure puppy mill conditions and inbreeding in order to satisfy the commercial marketplace, only to be dumped and possibly put to death when the novelty wears off. Indeed, were there no puppy mills, there would be far fewer animals to rescue in the first place.
Over-crowded animal shelters kill countless unwanted companion animals every year, and this shameful practice would end rather quickly if pet breeding were banned altogether. Yet this proposal shocks many people. As someone whose introduction to animal rights was facilitated by emotional relationships with animal companions, I can understand the resistance to such an idea. But, as the linked article suggests, our affection for companion animals can actually be harmful to them, and they would be better off not being bred for our purposes in the first place. If we truly care about them, we will do what's best for them and end commercial breeding altogether.
I'm assuming this is a coincidence, but law professor and animal rights philosopher Gary L. Francione today posted a blog entry that explicates more fully this logical extension of animal rights theory, basically arguing that ending the breeding and ownership of animals for food, clothing and entertainment also necessitates the end of breeding and owning animals for companionship. To paraphrase Francione, it makes no sense for us to create these problems by bringing domesticated non-humans into existence in the first place.
In other words, if we didn't breed and keep animals, they wouldn't be experiencing these types of emotional problems. Obviously rescued animals will need our assistance for some time to come even after breeding is ended, and it would be nice if they could be kept in circumstances better-suited to their natural behaviors. But, until we can let go of our desire to keep the cute little creatures around for our amusement and companionship, we'll be doing more harm than good.
Choice quote from Fido's little helper:
"What have we done to our animals? In the last 30 years, we've kept them inside, we've made multiple-cat households. A border collie, 20 years ago, was living on a ranch in Colorado, and now he's living in downtown San Francisco. So he can't do his typical behavior."
Regular readers will know that I'm strongly against breeding animals for our use, so it will come as no surprise when I applaud The New York Times for publishing an article that highlights the cruelty inherent with breeding animals for traits that have no inherent value other than making them a unique collector's item:
Rare dogs are highly prized here, and can set buyers back more than $10,000. But the real problem is what often arrives in the same litter: genetically defective sister and brother puppies born with missing paws or faces lacking eyes and a nose.
There have been dogs with brain disorders so severe that they spent all day running in circles, and others with bones so frail they dissolved in their bodies. Many carry hidden diseases that crop up years later, veterinarians and breeders say.
Kiyomi Miyauchi was heartbroken to discover this after one of two Boston terriers she bought years ago suddenly collapsed last year into spasms on the living room floor and died. In March, one of its puppies died the same way; another went blind.
Ms. Miyauchi stumbled across a widespread problem here that is only starting to get attention. Rampant inbreeding has given Japanese dogs some of the highest rates of genetic defects in the world, sometimes four times higher than in the United States and Europe.
These illnesses are the tragic consequences of the national penchant in Japan for turning things cute and cuddly into social status symbols. But they also reflect the fondness for piling onto fads in Japan, a nation that always seems caught in the grip of some trend or other.
“Japanese are maniacs for booms,” said Toshiaki Kageyama, a professor of veterinary medicine specializing in genetic defects at Azabu University in Sagamihara. “But people forget here that dogs aren’t just status symbols. They are living things.”
The article ends with a sensible appeal that promotes a bottom-line form of consumer consciousness vegans will no doubt understand:
“If consumers didn’t buy these unnatural dogs,” said Chizuko Yamaguchi, a veterinarian at the Japan Animal Welfare Society, “breeders wouldn’t breed them.”
Please thank the Times for its quality coverage of this issue (in the Business section, no less), and to extend the discussion to ownership of animals as a fundamental tenent that permits this cruelty or simply to bring up the insanity inherent in buying dogs for $10,000 when others are dying for lack of a home.
Thanks to "mikocat" for making sure I saw the article.
What a barrage of animal stories in the news today! It reminds me of why I started AAFL in the first place -- to help keep you on top of all this stuff, and to encourage you to keep the discussion going in letters to the editor and by sharing these stories with your friends and family. We can widen the circle of compassion, especially when animal ethics seem to be omnipresent in the media.
This one in particular is an Op-Ed written for the paper by long-time vegetarian Jonathan Safran Foer. Writing in support of off-leash hours in New York City parks, the author of Everything is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close speaks beautifully on behalf of all animals, reminding readers why he is considered one of the United States' foremost new writers.
His meditation on the relationship he shares with his companion dog, George, leads to observations that few readers would have predicted from the start:
Our various struggles — to communicate, to recognize and accommodate each other’s desires, simply to coexist — force me to interact with something, or rather someone, entirely “other.” George can respond to a handful of words, but our relationship takes place almost entirely outside of language. She seems to have thoughts and emotions, desires and fears. Sometimes I think I understand them; often I don’t. She is a mystery to me. And I must be one to her.
Of course our relationship is not always a struggle. My morning walk with George is very often the highlight of my day — when I have my best thoughts, when I most appreciate both nature and the city, and in a deeper sense, life itself. Our hour together is a bit of compensation for the burdens of civilization: business attire, e-mail, money, etiquette, walls and artificial lighting. It is even a kind of compensation for language. Why does watching a dog be a dog fill one with happiness? And why does it make one feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
It is children, very often, who want dogs. In a recent study, when asked to name the 10 most important “individuals” in their lives, 7- and 10-year-olds included two pets on average. In another study, 42 percent of 5-year-olds spontaneously mentioned their pets when asked, “Whom do you turn to when you are feeling, sad, angry, happy or wanting to share a secret?” Just about every children’s book in my local bookstore has an animal for its hero. But then, only a few feet away in the cookbook section, just about every cookbook includes recipes for cooking animals. Is there a more illuminating illustration of our paradoxical relationship with the nonhuman world?
In the course of our lives, we move from a warm and benevolent relationship with animals (learning responsibility through caring for our pets, stroking and confiding in them), to a cruel one (virtually all animals raised for meat in this country are factory farmed — they spend their lives in confinement, dosed with antibiotics and other drugs).
How do you explain this? Is our kindness replaced with cruelty? I don’t think so. I think in part it’s because the older we get, the less exposure we have to animals. And nothing facilitates indifference or forgetfulness so much as distance. In this sense, dogs and cats have been very lucky: they are the only animals we are intimately exposed to daily.
Folk parental wisdom and behavioral studies alike generally view the relationships children have with companion animals as beneficial. But one does not have to be a child to learn from a pet. It is precisely my frustrations with George, and the inconveniences she creates, that reinforce in me how much compromise is necessary to share space with other beings.
*snip*
Living on a planet of fixed size requires compromise, and while we are the only party capable of negotiating, we are not the only party at the table. We’ve never claimed more, and we’ve never had less. There has never been less clean air or water, fewer fish or mature trees. If we are not simply ignoring the situation, we keep hoping for (and expecting) a technological solution that will erase our destruction, while allowing us to continue to live without compromise. Maybe zoos will be an adequate replacement for wild animals in natural habitats. Maybe we will be able to recreate the Amazon somewhere else. Maybe one day we will be able to genetically engineer dogs that do not wish to run free. Maybe. But will those futures make us feel, in the best sense of the word, human?
I'll exit quietly here and leave you to the thoughts that this has hopefully stirred, but with my standard plea to write a letter to the paper once you're done "stirring." Thank the editor (and Jonathan Safran Foer) for including this piece in today's New York Times.
This guy was (allegedly) so dumb that he didn't think through the notion that animal rights activists would never burn down a pet shop without saving all the animals inside first. Duh:
Yesterday, police arrested Thanh Trinh , 42, of Charlestown, the store's manager, along with two alleged accomplices. Trinh pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of willful burning of a building, malicious killing of animals, cruelty to animals, larceny over $250, and larceny from a building. He was detained without bail and transfered to Bridgewater State Hospital for a mental evaluation. He will have a dangerousness hearing on Oct. 13.
His alleged accomplices -- Dennis Nickerson , 21, of Somerville, and Zachary Azzam , 17, of Cambridge -- pleaded not guilty to the same charges and were held on $1,000 bail.
Of course, with not guilty pleas, this will be interesting to see through. I'm not sure what the maximum penalty on this could be, as of yet, but I do hope that he's found competent for trial and penalized to the maximum extent.
It bothers me that anyone at any point believed this could have been related to true animal activism:
The store's owner -- Dianne San Filippo , who was also at the scene -- wondered why animal rights activists would burn pets to death. ``Is that kind of death better than exploitation?" she asked.
This type of confusion is one more reason I'd prefer to see less destruction of physical property by actual animal advocates (not that there's really all that much to begin with), and more education of the public, who ought to be well-enough informed at some point to be able to see through something as phony as this.
Here's a much more thorough, detailed reporting on Tammy Grimes (apart from mine, of course).
The post-gazette.com story includes much more information from the Arnold's neighbor, Kim Eicher, than any previous story I've seen. I wonder how that neighborly relationship is doing now...
At any rate, I'm glad to see some news outlet finally listen to her story, since she's seen more than anyone beyond Jake's owners, and is therefore the best eyewitness Grimes has.
I have to wonder, though, did she ever talk directly to the neighbors before calling the authorities, much less Grimes? That's a little strange to me. When did we stop holding our neighbors accountable for their behavior?
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.
The residents of Appleton, Wisconsin have demonstrated their compassion for some animals with enough contributions to outfit 6 fire trucks and 13 ambulances with oxygen masks designed for dogs, cats, and other small animals:
Alderman Richard Thompson initiated the program after he saw a newspaper photograph of a firefighter in Superior giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a cat rescued from a house fire.
Imagine that cat waking up and freaking out. That firefighter deserves a medal for giving that cat so much consideration. And kudos to Appleton for looking out for their furry family members.
Fortunately they're not the only ones:
The Madison department also bought its masks with money raised from unsolicited donations, she said. In fact, the department raised so much money it was able to buy mask kits for several neighboring communities.
Let's hope that more of these programs spring up around the country. Anyone who has shared his or her home with companion animals knows that you can adopt new ones and treat them to a spoiled life in a home, but also understands that no two animals are the same. No one can ever replace a valued family member of any species, so it's great that the odds of four-legged creatures surviving household disasters is increasing, in no small part due to the outcry over the treatment of animals in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Always encouraging to see something good come out of something bad.
Before adjourning for the August recess, The U.S. Senate approved the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act, requiring local and state disaster plans to include provisions for household pets and service animals in the event of a major disaster or emergency, with only 24 no votes.
The Senate also approved the Pension Reform Act, passed last week by the House of Representatives, which closes a loophole in the tax code exploited by trophy hunters to allowed them to deduct the costs of their hunting excursions across the globe. The HSUS brought this scheme to the attention of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who shepherded the key provision through to final passage of the bill.
The president is expected to sign the Pension Protection Act, which is expected to help protect wildlife around the world and save American taxpayers an estimated $49 million over the next decade.
Joellen Secondo has tipped us off (see comments) to another "cull" planned in China, this time in the city of Jining, where 16 people have died from rabies in the past 8 months. The plan for the slaughter has not been announced, perhaps due to the negative publicity received in the wake of Yunnan province's massacre of nearly 55,000 dogs, but officials did say all dogs located within 3 miles of where the rabies had been found would be killed.
“I think this is completely insane,” Zhang Luping, founder of the Beijing Human and Animal Environmental Education Center, said Friday in response to Jining’s announcement.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I have no idea if this will make any impact whatsoever, but if you want to register your outrage, sign this petition.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Timesgets into the story. The last few paragraphs are particularly startling. BBC News also reports the second "cull."
Also skeptical about the usefulness of an online petition, Joellen suggested contacting the embassy directly:
Here is a letter Jill Robinson, Founder and CEO of Animals Asia sent to authorities in Chuxiong, Mouding County, Yunnan Province on August 2nd, along with a sample letter you can modify to send to the embassy address above.
Reader Joellen Secondo strikes again, offering multiple links to stories on a brutal massacre of 50,000 dogs in China's Yunnan province touched off by a rabies scare, after three locals, including a four-year-old girl, died from rabies in the past six months, as well as livestock.
According to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, only 3% of dogs kept by families in China are vaccinated for rabies.
Only army and police dogs were spared, while all other dogs are clubbed to death in front of their owners. Some owners did the dirty work themselves, poisoning or electrocuting their pets, which might have had something to do with the 63 cents per animal they were offered to kill their dogs before the teams were sent in, but not everyone cooperated. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Dogs being walked were taken from their owners and beaten on the spot, the newspaper said. Other killing teams entered villages at night, creating noise to get dogs barking, then honing in and beating them to death.
It's a horrific way to solve a problem the government could have prevented in the first place. But, as BBC News points out, "China has a poor record of animal protection. There are no laws to prevent cruelty to pets."
This is about as inhumane as it gets, and there should be no doubt that any animal-based product hailing from China comes from the same kind of cruel treatment as these innocent creatures, whose only crime was being brought into this world by human interests without the kind of protection they deserved from those responsible, like a simple rabies vaccination.
I kind of wish there wasn't a need for Disney to remind purchasers of its DVDs not to run out and acquire an animal simply because he or she reminds them of the star of a film, especially since many of these films use live animals, rather than animation, but at least they're working with AKC to do one small thing that might minimize the impact these films have on the domesticated animal population in shelters, especially considering most of the animals that people acquire based on movie characters seem to come from pet stores and breeders, rather than adoptions.
Now if only they'd do a movie with a puppy mill operator as the villain, and that shows pet stores for what they really are.
Where most vegetarians have considered the difference between a pig or a dog and decided to eat neither, on his new BBC4 series, Cooking in the Danger Zone, Stefan Gates examined a culture that goes the other way.
In a sense, that people could eat dogs reinforces the potential value of companion animals (a notion that has inspired one of Animals Asia's projects), which, though still a type of subservient relationship, creates an opportunity to make an impression of animals as more than mere commodities, much less food. Once you've shared a bond of sorts with a dog, for instance, it's a lot harder to conceive of eating one, and I'd be surprised if truly befriending any farmed animal would make it easier for a person to eat those again.
The bottom line is that the distinction between who we call our friends and who we eat is rather arbitrary, as is also made evident in my previous post on the horse slaughter bill, and by the Korean attitudes that allow for the consumption of one and a half million dogs every year.
Once one accepts that no animals ought to be bred, killed and/or consumed by humans where it is by no means necessary, of course one would naturally eliminate not just horses and dogs from the menu, but also pigs, cows, chickens, and so on, not to mention bush meat and other flesh foods most Westerners find perplexing, to say the least.
(Once again, thanks are in order to Joellen Secondo for the tip)
I'm pretty upset about this whole mess in the Middle East, and the fighting between Israel and Lebanon only adds to my consternation, especially when I think about the innocent victims, both people and animals. As others have pointed out, animals are often forgotten or forced to be left behind when an emergency occurs, just as they were in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, so it's encouraging to see in these two onlinearticles that one group, Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (BETA) is braving the conflict to care for those even less fortunate in all this insane violence, including pets and zoo animals.
I've often thought of ways to help people relate to what animals go through because of us. One of my ideas is to do an art or museum-style installation featuring various animal pens scaled for humans to get an idea what it's like to live in them, including sow and veal crates, a battery cage, and so on. Maybe I'll get around to that when it wouldn't completely derail my other projects, or someone will tip PETA off to this idea, since they already have their activists get inside cages in a similar way as a sort of street theater.
Gigi Sanchez decided to put herself in the "shoes" of a shelter dog, and you can vicariously experience her time spent as a "dog" in a night kennel, where animals can be placed anonymously. Why does she take this on?
...gather the newspapers you’re reading today and go to the classified sections marked “Pets” (for sale and given away). Count all the animals and all the times you read “puppies” and “kittens.”
For every pet you count that finds a home, one is euthanized at an animal shelter. Did a whole litter find a home? A whole litter was euthanized. This is true for crossbreeds and purebreds.
I'll save the description of her experience for you to read at the site. It's not as thorough as I would hope for, like David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" essay, but it is an interesting first-person account.
You'll want to quickly read the My Turn from the January 9, 2006 Newsweek before reading this new guest post from Armaiti May.
I'll excerpt just the opening, which left me emotionally raw:
Sometimes there are no words—just a look. Upon my command, my Doberman, Jack, sat obediently in the vet's examining room. Four years old and in his prime, with 115 pounds of strapping muscle, he was at once impressive and intimidating. He sat between the vet and me, wagging his tail.
When I gave him the instruction "paw," he offered that big foot to the vet, who placed a tourniquet on his leg. The medicine was drawn into the syringe and pushed into Jack's vein. Two seconds elapsed, and it was during this extraordinarily brief space of time that Jack gave me that look, one I'd never seen before. I couldn't turn away. Then all that bulk went lifeless, and he was gone.
The piece goes on to discuss how Jack ended up here, and you can read that yourself before proceeding further.
I have been wanting to blog about this since I read it a few days ago, but felt that I simply didn't have the veterinary insight to fairly evaluate the situation. Armaiti May, who contributed to An Animal-Friendly Life previously, was kind enough to write this piece for the site:
Along with many other issues that veterinarians face on a regular basis, the issue of how to deal with aggression in dogs safely and ethically is a difficult one. There are many types of aggression, including dominance aggression, fearful aggression, territorial aggression, and food aggression/possessiveness. It is important to recognize the early signs of aggression, such as a dog growling or worse yet, nipping, at his/her guardian, and “nip” these in the bud before the dog gains enough confidence to bite a person and break the skin. Once a dog has bit a human, that dog has in a sense crossed a point of no return and is a liability from that point onwards. Behavioral modification techniques implemented through the guidance of a veterinary behaviorist may help, but one still must exercise caution when dealing with such a dog and especially if around strangers and children, whose actions might cause a frightened or protective dog to react aggressively.
Once Jack had crossed the line of biting the wife in the family ('My Boy' Had Become a Threat to Our Safety), Jack’s guardians were left with some difficult questions: Do they continue to risk their own safety and the safety of others Jack might come in contact with, thereby making themselves liable? Do they keep a muzzle on Jack at all times, or keep him confined to a small area to prevent him from approaching someone and biting? Do they take him to the local animal shelter and reveal the true reason why they are surrendering him (which will make it highly unlikely for him to be adopted)? Even the most progressive no-kill animal rescue agencies will admit that adopting out a dog that is known to be aggressive towards humans and has actually bit someone is a huge liability and many will not adopt out such dogs. Or do they surrender him without disclosing his aggressive tendencies and the fact that he bit a family member in the hopes of improving his chances for adoption? Clearly, this would be unethical since other people could be injured without the knowledge of Jack’s aggressive nature. One must consider what alternatives there are. Is it fair to the dog to keep him locked in a kennel his whole life? Maybe someone on a ranch with no children or other animals could provide a home for such a dog, but that would limit that person’s ability to take in other animals in need of rescue (depending on what type of aggression the dog exhibited). The course of action that Jack’s guardian chose, to have Jack humanely euthanized, although tragic in its own right, is not an unreasonable one. If Jack’s guardians had sought help from a behaviorist early on when the warning signs of Jack’s aggression were evident, this tragedy might have been prevented. From reading the article, I don’t know the exact details that led up to the bite attack incident, or what the circumstances were during the attack itself. It is entirely possibly that Jack’s untimely death could have been prevented if his aggressive tendencies had been recognized for what they were and treated accordingly.
As a vet student, I went on numerous behavior house calls with veterinarian and board certified behaviorist Dr. Sophia Yin. Several of these cases involved aggressive dogs. One in particular was a little Basenji named “Berkley” (cute 20 pound dog that is one-fifth the size of my lab) that had bit the “owner” on a few occasions. They were considering having him euthanized but thought they would consult with a behaviorist first before making such a drastic decision. At first it seemed that Berkley had dominance aggression, because he had bit the wife but not the husband and whenever he bit or showed aggression, it was when he was denied some special privilege such as access to a bed. Essentially, little Berkley had boosted himself to the position of King in the household, with his female guardian below him on the totem pole. Berkley had to be retrained by initially removing all toys, treats, access to favorite furniture, praise, attention, even food. Berkley had to learn to earn all these things by showing appropriate behavior. Painstakingly, this couple worked with him, rewarding him with praise and food when he was “good,” and gradually, he did improve. When his human guardians obtained a second Basenji named Henry, Berkley was able to direct some of his bossy, alpha personality towards the other dog rather than on his human caretakers. In this case, the addition of the second dog served to stabilize his aggressive nature. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that some of Berkley’s aggression could have been fear-induced (apparently he was abused by women before he was adopted from the rescue agency).
If a client brings an aggressive dog to me requesting euthanasia, I always make sure a client has sought behavior therapy before agreeing to euthanize such a dog. From a liability standpoint, a veterinarian may be sued if he/she refuses to offer euthanasia in the case of an aggressive dog and then the dog goes on to bite someone. Behavior consults can be costly and not everyone may have access to a veterinary behaviorist or be able to afford the time and money involved in behavior modification. Unfortunately, behavior modification does not always work, especially when a dog’s aggression has escalated to a dangerous level. Every year in the U.S. there are an estimated 4.7 million dog bites with 800,000 leading to medical care and an average of 16 human fatalities per year from dog bite attacks. Some of these bite attacks have been inflicted on family members, including infants. Even dogs stereotyped as docile, such as Golden Retrievers and Labradors, have been known to have fatal bites, along with Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Dachshunds, Westies, Cocker spaniels, and even Pomeranians! For anyone considering adopting a dog, I strongly recommend reading "How To Behave So Your Dog Behaves" by Sophia Yin, D.V.M. for essential tips on training puppies, positive reinforcement, and behavior modification.
Armaiti May D.V.M.
Thank you so much for your insight on this issue, Armaiti. I learned a lot.
