I've been spread thinner than a layer of Vegenaise lately, which explains the pitiful lack of posts in recent days. Among all the proposals I am trying to finish up (for a variety of non-AAFL but definitely vegan/animal-positive projects), I have been very busy with Boston Vegan Association stuff, mainly getting off to a good start on our activism in 2008.

With a grant from FARM's Sabina Fund, we are ready to conduct our first vegan feed-in in a couple of months. Our public speaking workshop is starting to find its feet, our new vegan pamphlet is coming together, the new movie screenings committee has been formed, and we are holding our first committee meeting next week for cooking (and even un-cooking and baking) classes. I'd go into more depth, but you can get a sense for what types of work we are planning by reading our About page at the BVA site. There's also a Boston restaurants guide over there.

Then we have the "social activism," if you want to call it that. Last night, two and a half dozen BVA members and our guests joined some local friends for a gourmet vegan dinner at a French Cuban restaurant in Cambridge. Not only were we able to get together and socialize some, but we hopefully increased the viability of fine vegan dining in the city by at least a little bit (look for another, similar event to come this March). You can read more about the Chez Henri dinner here (food pictures!) and, if you live in Boston, you can experience this sort of cuisine for yourself by calling the restaurant directly.

I can't claim that I will be posting with any greater regularity between now and mid-February. After my proposals are all finished up (hopefully), I am traveling to Portland again to hang out with a bunch of my awesome vegan friends and to visit the new vegan minimall with a couple of other BVA members who have never been. I'm eager to see the reaction on their faces when they experience this vegan mecca.

So, after I return on the 11th, you'll probably be seeing more frequent updates. In the meantime, Taste Better is running my February AAFL column in three parts. I got a little long-winded about various forms of individual activism--and I barely scratched the surface!--but hopefully something in those installments will grab you and get you busy on behalf of our animal friends.

Look for the first batch of ideas ("Beginner") to go up this Friday, with "Intermediate" going up a couple of weeks later and "Advanced" going up two weeks after that. I'll return to a monthly schedule in March. If you have any topic suggestions you'd like me to consider for future columns, please email me through the contact link above.

PS - This administration can't end soon enough...

PSS - "Betrayal." Haha, that's rich. I can't decide if that is a choicer quote than "respectful distance" or not. Read the New York Times article and decide for yourself. Apologies in advance for the upset this will cause.

Labels: meta, restaurants, vegan food, whales, whaling

I don't have time today to do more than just draw your attention to these, but obviously I shake my head at the utter barbarity of these slaughters:

Associated Press: Japanese Fleet to Hunt Humpback Whales

Daily Mail: Massacre at murder spring: The shocking cull of wild horses in the Aussie outback

Labels: horses, whales, wildlife

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.

Labels: animal experimentation, animal testing, companion animals, fur, pets, poultry, turkeys, whales, whaling, wildlife, wildlife trade

Whenever I do these round-ups, I almost feel like I should just be podcasting again. Then I remember how long it takes to record, output, compress and upload the podcast, all in addition to writing up show notes. I could probably write full blog entries for each of these before I would have time to do all that.

So, in the interests of getting these links out while they're still relatively fresh, here goes another batch of news updates. I really do want to comment on them, as there is much to say. To that end, I have included very brief notes after each link, along with a sample quote from each article, but I don't have the time (a real problem lately) to dissect any of these thoroughly. I hope that my faithful readers will easily see the many issues with some of these pieces, including the first headline:

The New York Times: Being Nice to the Bacon, Before You Bring It Home

Retailers clearly see advantages in appealing to the demographic of kinder and gentler meat-eaters, according to Ron Paul, president of Technomic, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm for food suppliers. “There is a growing realization that the humane movement is a long-term movement,” he said. “It’s not going to go away.”

NOTE - Fair warning: The above quote is one of the least aggravating to be found in the article. Letters to the editor

Feedstuffs FoodLink: Producers urged to speak out

Dairy, meat and poultry producers are urged to form a food industry "force" before activists distort even more benefits of modern production practices.

NOTE - I'm always interested to read industry newsletters and websites. It's clear from this and other recent industry reading that large-scale animal exploiters are reeling from the heightened scrutiny over their practices these past few years--including the announcements of this past week or so--putting them on the defense. It appears there is a concerted effort by some in the world of animal exploitation to stir up well-financed and unified campaigns to subvert activist campaigns with more misleading feel-good imagery. "Happy cows," anyone?

The New York Times | EDITORIAL: Japan’s Whaling Obsession

A few outlying countries continue commercial or dubiously scientific whale hunts, notably Japan, which clings to its whaling ways long past the expiration of any defensible reasons for doing so.

NOTE - The above quote is the most "vocal" criticism voiced in this New York Times editorial, which is the official (and in this case, seemingly rather guarded) opinion of the paper. I had noted not long ago that it seemed NYT was providing fairly animal-friendly coverage these days, but that it was trying to "balance" that out more lately, which the previously-linked "bacon" article would seem to corroborate. Letters to the editor

The Observer | World: Court to rule if chimp has human rights

'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'

NOTE - It seems just a little strange to me to give a chimp human rights, when what we ought to be doing is securing fundamental animal rights for all species, but I will be very curious indeed to see the outcome of this case. I will certainly be pleased to see rights recognized for at least one species, even as I rue the speciesist mentality that bars other animals from basic rights consideration.

The Wall Street Journal: Recent Cases Point to the Limitations of Animal Drug Tests

Animal tests at least give a broad sense of the effects of a drug. In one famous early example, a pancreatic extract successfully tested in diabetic dogs in 1921 helped to illuminate how insulin would help people with the disease. And many experimental medications are eliminated after very serious side effects show up.

Many times, however, subtle results in animals are unclear and scientists just don't know what to make of them. In the case of the new Novartis drug Galvus, James Shannon, the company's global head of pharmaceutical development, told investors that Novartis researchers "do not understand -- do not know -- the mechanism of the skin findings" in monkeys. They do know that "humans appear to react to Galvus in a very different way."

NOTE - Yup, you read that right. This was published in The Wall Street Journal. Of course, the focus here isn't at all the rights of animals not to be treated as non-consenting experimental subjects. But, while the article falls far, far short of condemning all animal testing--in fact it ultimately concludes that we need to develop better translations (models?) to make animal research more effective--it does add a rather conservative voice to the scientifically-grounded criticisms of animal experimentation.

Chicago Tribune: Happy ending unlikely for horses that escaped DeKalb slaughter

[Hooved Animal Humane Society] Executive Director Barbara Geittmann, who said she was disappointed Cavel sent the 200 horses back to suppliers, cheered that so many in the horse community had volunteered to help.

"I'm glad I don't have a face for those [horses] because that would make it harder for me, it would make them individuals," Geittmann said. "But it doesn't stop us. It makes us want to try harder."

NOTE - Focuses on the fall-out from the federal decision to uphold a total ban on horse slaughter in the U.S., including a note that some horses would likely be shipped to Canada for slaughter (until a federal ban on transporting horses for slaughter is passed). I can't help but remark that this would be a non-issue if horses weren't bred or "broken" for human purposes in the first place.

Labels: animal agriculture, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal intelligence, animal law, animal testing, animal welfare, horse slaughter, horses, whales, whaling

news @ nature.com

Not that intentional whale kills aren't a problem, but this story refers to the incidental deaths of extremely vulnerable western grey whales caught in the nets of Japanese fishermen:

In January, fishermen found the dead body of a juvenile female in fixed fishing nets in Yoshihama Bay, northeastern Japan. It was the fourth such whale to be found trapped, entangled and drowned off the Pacific coast since 2005; all of them have been female.

Can I just point out that this is one more good reason not to eat fish? In addition to plundering our oceans beyond their capacity to reproduce fish for the human population to consume, the process of commercial fishing affects countless other species as well.

Unfortunately, this critically endangered species doesn't have a lot of help, as of yet. While fishermen are not compensated for their damaged nets from these accidental captures, it is not yet illegal, and there are no methods in place to avoid trapping whales (other than not fishing with nets anymore, of course).

Toshio Kasuya, a retired researcher in Tokyo who specialized in marine mammals, says the government should take more initiative. They should call for a greater effort to get whales out of traps alive, he says, and develop technologies to prevent whales from getting trapped in the first place. Kasuya says nets that produce warning beeps may be one way of doing this.

"So far, we don't have technologies that could work effectively," Kasuya says. "And the government's efforts are far from enough."

Special thanks to my wife for making sure I saw this story!

Photo by Dave Weller

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife

...as if more evidence were needed at this point. (And let's not go into how they got this information to begin with today, shall we?)

The violent, unnecessary killing of any animal is barbaric. The more we learn about whales, the more it becomes apparent that whaling itself is particularly egregious, owing to what appears to be a heightened sense of self-awareness seen only in big-brained mammals like cetaceans and great apes (perhaps in some elephants, too?).

CNN.com: Study: Humpback whales have 'human' brain cells. Also at MSNBC.com (same exact Reuters story, different photo).

Labels: animal intelligence, whales, wildlife

Independent Online Edition | Environment: The whale's tale

It is estimated that there are only about 100 western north Pacific gray whales left alive. According to the article, the death of "just one female a year for the next three years would be enough to send the population into catastrophic decline.":

The whales' feeding ground lies directly above huge reserves of gas and oil, which some of the biggest companies in the world are determined to exploit.

This small stretch of water off Sakhalin island, in the far east of Russia, has become the battleground for a struggle between environmentalists determined to save these whales from extinction and oilmen equally determined to push ahead with what one of them calls "the mother of all projects".

It wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, whales were so plentiful that it was dangerous to send boats through the waters. But,

In the mid-1800s, the Sea of Okhotsk was the region of choice for the whaling fleets of Japan, Korea and the United States. Intensive whaling had its inevitable effect - numbers dropped off steadily towards the end of the century, and by beginning of the First World War, the whale was thought to be extinct.

Russian marine biologists "rediscovered" the whales in the 1980s, at around the same time that the massive oil reserves were found. The projects to exploit these reserves are massive and well-funded by companies such as Shell and Mitsubishi. Billions are at stake, and so are lives.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), along with about 60 local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are working to protect them, their main fear that the noise from drilling, pipe-laying, and construction will distress the whales, driving them away from their feeding grounds. As western grays are seasonal feeders, surviving for the over half of the year on blubber reserves from a feeding period that can last as little as 4 months, an interruption to this cycle threatens their survival:

Scientists have observed apparent behavioural changes in the whales in relation to the operation of seismic survey ships working up to 30km away. They also reported 14 "skinny" whales in 2005, a considerably larger number than in any year since 2001. The cause of their emaciation is unknown, and it cannot be scientifically linked to the oil projects, but the environmentalists are deeply concerned.

And this says nothing of other risks posed to the magnificent creatures, including the threat of ships hitting them, and damaged pipelines releasing oil into their habitat.

Despite all these concerns, the projects are moving forward. Currently 75% complete, the construction will continue once public banks step in to invest $6.9 billion, which looks it could well happen. With that kind of money at stake, the environment takes second position to politics. Environmentally-concerned citizens can only hope that the prospect of transparency inherent in public financing is as realistic as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's director of the environment, Alistair Clark claims:

He refuses to say whether the loan will go ahead, but it is probable, given the EBRD's views on the value of its involvement. "It's a bad thing for the environment and people if public institutions don't have involvement, because we bring transparency to the process," Clark says.

As much power as we have to protect animals in our daily lives, this is one area where I feel the issue is way above my head. Maybe if I was a multi-millionaire investment banker or something... All I can recommend at the moment is for you to reduce your fuel consumption in every way imaginable, certainly removing any financial ties to Shell and the other financiers, as well as supporting the IFAW, which seems to be the most empowered to hold the involved parties accountable.

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife

MSNBC.com | Environment

It seems that all the whale news I relay on to my readers here at AAFL is bad. I'm sad to say the trend continues with this story on beluga whales:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - In the 1970s, there used to be about 1,300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet, delighting locals and tourists alike in the body of water around Anchorage. Last year, the number was estimated at just 278.

Why their numbers are dwindling has scientists puzzled — and scared. The National Marine Fisheries Service is embarking on a status review to determine if the belugas need the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.

[snip]

One cataclysmic event — a large stranding in the inlet’s 20-foot tides, perhaps, or an oil spill or tsunami — could push the remaining whale population over the edge, said [Lloyd Lowry, a professor of marine mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks].

“Having a small population for a long time is very risky,” he said. “If the decline continues we are going to get to very critically low numbers soon.”

In contrast to the isolated belugas whales of Cook Inlet, belugas overall are thriving in Alaska, with at least 35,000 to 40,000 animals in four Arctic stocks.

[Brad Smith, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service] said the status review will be expanded this time. It will include a prediction at what point the inlet whales — considered a genetically distinct population — could go extinct. The last review was done about a decade ago and the data shows the decline.

“It certainly does not look encouraging,” Smith said.

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature

Killer whales have become the most contaminated mammals in the Arctic, new research indicates.

Norwegian scientists have found that killer whales - or orcas, as they are sometimes known - have overtaken polar bears at the head of the toxic table.

No other arctic mammals have ingested such a high concentration of hazardous man-made chemicals.

This is terrible. Of course we all knew pollutants in the oceans were affecting the animals, but I didn't know until today just how grim the situation was.

As the article later points out, the higher up on the food chain you are, the more contaminated you have the potential to be. This includes humans, too, who eat very high on the food chain, mainly meat-eaters who eat contaminated animals, fish like salmon and tuna being a great example.

So, while this is awful for the whales, and contaminants must be removed from the oceans, something we can all do right this minute it to eat lower on the food chain, and preferably organic.

More at MSNBC.com, too:

“This research re-confirms that the Arctic is now a chemical sink,” said WWF campaign leader Colin Butfield. “Chemicals from products that we use in our homes every day are contaminating Arctic wildlife.”

I thought it important to include this observation, as many of us can also reduce our consumption of household chemicals by simply shopping for products that don't contain them. A lot of natural cleaners from brands like Seventh Generation and Ecover are now available at many mainstream grocery stores as a response to the market's demand for environmentally-friendly products. As this article reminds us, environmentally-friendly can be very animal-friendly, too.

Labels: pollution, whales, wildlife