Animal Person

On "Hogwashing"

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you're probably familiar with the term "greenwashing," which is a marketing strategy that paints a corporation (usually one with a less-than-stellar reputation regarding its treatment of the environment) as environmentally sensitive or friendly when the opposite is the case.

Last year, we were introduced to "hogwashing" by James LaVeck, who defined it as "the practice of generating the public appearance of having compassion for animals while continuing to kill millions of them for profit." In "Hogwash! Or, How Animal Advocates Enable Corporate Spin," Lee Hall of Friends of Animals is rightfully stunned that Niman Ranch presented its "infomercial" at the "Taking Action for Animals 2007" conference (and the Animal Welfare Institute probably footed the bill and may even have paid Niman). Add that insult to the injury of Wolfgang Puck, the national obsession with cage-free eggs (because they're humanely-produced, you know), and the spate of labels that now tell us, thank heavens, that animals really are okay to eat. And what's worse, all of these developments tell us who is on the cutting edge of animal welfare: ranchers, chefs, and vegan grocers who sell dead animals.

Hall writes, "Viewing animals as commodities, even well-handled commodities, isn’t animal protection. . . . To take animals’ interests seriously is to opt out of animal agribusiness." And later, "We the people of the already affluent world, who have been able to make time for activism, ought to provide rational advocacy models, in which the point is not to accept animal use."

(I think I've got a new quote for my pamphlet!)

Telling people (as I once did, remember) whom you do not think will ever give up meat to eat free-range, grass-fed beef is not rational advocacy. It's intellectual dishonesty. And it's not helping the animals. Oh, and it's making us look like fools.

There is one solution and one solution only. It's easy, it's affordable, and it's light on the conscience: stop using animals. Period. And tell others to do the same. Maybe just one day a week at first, or even one meal a week, but it's better than telling them that if they shop at Whole Foods or dine at Wolfgang Puck's, the animals will thank them.

The Real Deal on Gambling and Greyhound and Horse Racing

I try check the blog for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida weekly, as I do live in Florida and they appear to be the only group that goes beyond cats and dogs and, of course, wants to banish greyhound racing. The August 15th post had me perplexed, as it asked "Should anti-dog racing activists embrace slots and poker?"

The conclusion was:

If dog tracks make more money with cardrooms, slot machines and video-lottery games, it is inevitable that they will curb live racing or eliminate it entirely. That would be a significant blow to greyhound racing kennels, and would decrease the number of dogs that are bred– and killed– by the racing industry.

I posted a comment three times and nothing registered, so I'm left to do it here. (And you should be aware of this anyway.) I contacted Christine Dorchak, Esq., President of Grey2k USA because I was certain--and I've been writing about this for nearly a year--that card rooms and slots are a way to prop up the greyhound racing industry, and wherever we see them on a ballot we should vote against their introduction.

Here's her reply, and she asks that it be cross posted widely:

Dear Mary,

I ask that you join me in opposing any expansion of gambling at live racetracks.  In states where tracks have been awarded slot machines, high stakes poker or any other new gambling right, the implications for our fight to end racing are completely destructive. 

There is an assumption that with the coming of slots, the dogs (or horses) disappear.  This is not the case. The pari-mutuel law in Florida and nationwide sets a statutory minimum, designating the  number of races that must be held in order for a track to remain open.  In plain English, this means that the animals must run in order for track owners to layer their initial "racing product" with other gambling opportunities.  Slots and high stakes poker seal in live racing, they do not usher it out. [Emphasis mine.]

In West Virginia, where Wheeling Downs and Tri-State both won approval for slots machines years ago, the poor dogs continue to run in circles around unkept, dangerous tracks while patrons in other parts of the facilities treat themselves to a fancy meal and a night of chance.  The glamour and lights of the casino as compared  to the abandoned track setting is stunning.

In Rhode Island, where Sol Kerzner and his South African apartheid-era partners recently bought the embattled dog track for a song, Lincoln Park has now become a gigantic gambling enterprise called Twin Rivers. Meanwhile, the dogs continue to live in tiny cages and from time to time run in circles surrounded by near-empty grandstands. 

As in West Virginia, the handle (the dollar amount of bets made) at Twin Rivers does not matter because, by law, the kennel operators (or dog men as they call themselves) automatically get a statutory percentage of all slots profits.  It does not matter if their dogs win or lose, they receive millions of dollars just for "being there" when the slots came.  {A nice amount of this money is "invested" each year in electoral campaigns to keep doubting lawmakers at bay about this strange profit-sharing agreement.}

Perhaps the best example of the danger of slot machines for animals is drawn from recent activities in  Kansas.  Slot machines were just approved by the state legislature this Spring, and as soon as the news hit, the first party to react was the long-shuttered Camptown dog track. After remaining closed for almost a dozen years, it decided to reopen in order to get a piece of the action, and lay claim to thousands of slot machines.  Now, a minimum of one thousand (1,000) more dogs will be born and bred each year to serve as  platforms for video lottery terminals.  Conversely, Wichita Greyhound Park, which lost its pitch for local authorization of slot machines, immediately announced its closure.

Every greyhound advocate who receives this e-mail should work to prevent dog tracks from  propping themselves up with slots or anything else. This is the life support that these ailing facilities need.

Thanks for caring about the dogs!

Christine

I hope that settles it. Gambling = bad for greyhounds.

How about those ears on my boy Charles, by the way! And yes, those are tattoos on the insides of his ears. That's how the dogs are identified. Oh, and if someone wants them to be unidentifiable, that person cuts the dog's ears off.

Check Out This Abolitionist Organization

The moment I went public with my development of a small abolitionist brochure, I received seven--SEVEN--e-mails from people saying they are doing the same thing (several of which were from abolitionist organizations that I didn't know existed).

Here's one you may not know of (I didn't until very recently)--Responsible Policies for Animals, which states

RPA is an abolitionist organization: It works to end all forms of animal exploitation and abuse. These include the breeding of animals by human beings for any purpose; the destruction of animals for alleged conservation or pest control purposes; and all other human uses and abuses of animals, alleged human benefits notwithstanding. For every human use or abuse of animals, better practices are available that meet human needs without harming animals.

RPA's mission (#1 on the About page) is to:

[explain] to those in a position to influence others how they can protect nonhuman animals and prevent animal suffering. Human enterprise developed almost entirely without responsible policies for animals. Naturally, since animals live legitimate lives, have their own needs, and can suffer, responsibility includes taking account of our effects on them in addition to meeting obligations to people and society. With today's technologies, people constantly affect animals for the better or for the worse. RPA works to ensure that businesses, organizations, agencies, and influential individuals will establish and adhere to responsible policies for animals so that others will follow.

There are some great resources on the site, my favorite being RPA Factsheet #5, "Human Causes of "Too Many Deer:" What Decision-Makers and Residents Should Know About Organized Deer Kills"

Perhaps the most audacious of RPA's campaigns is called "10,000 Years is Enough: Time to Stop Teaching Animal Agribusiness." The idea is to stop America's 105 land-grant universities (LGUs) from teaching "animal agribusiness," which is really the study of how to most efficiently and effectively use nonhumans (and Planet Earth) for food. According to RPA's Founder and Executive Director, David Cantor, in Satya (April 2006):

[T]here can never be a “humane” raising of animals for food; nonhuman animals have moral rights that should be established in law and custom; animal agribusiness rapidly wastes vanishing fresh water supplies and topsoil, contaminates water and soil, and otherwise threatens ecosystems; and flesh, milk and eggs harm human health.

In RPA's newsletter ("Thin Ice") of November 2006, Cantor wrote:

[I]t is important that we not confuse animal-welfare legislation with progress toward animal rights.

The illusory nature of "protection" provided under the animal-welfare system makes animal welfare essentially a public-relations arm of animal exploitation. Believing animal-welfare laws and calls for compassion afford protection, the public does not consider whether animal ownership, exploitation, and destruction should be challenged altogether (page 2, in "Why Democratic Party, Like GOP, Will Not Advance Animal Rights").

Go to www.rpaforall.org and check out the material. You might want to use some for your personal advocacy.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Turn on Thy Radio!

Professor Gary Francione will be a guest on the Bill O'Reilly Radio Factor TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29 (my dad's 74th Birthday!). Check out which local radio station will broadcast the segment, and at what time.

The Animal Person Minute:: There's Hope for the Animal Planet Series

Our photo today is of Violet Rays. That's her excited face. She's going to the completely fenced in middle school grounds that has four different fields for her to run in, and no, she doesn't run on the baseball fields or dig holes, and yes, she has already been for a walk and pooped for the morning.

Unfortunately, her three different kinds of eye medications are still fresh on her face here, sort of staining her eye, but other than that I think she's beautiful.

Now, onto my topic for today. At various points in the Michael Vick saga, I've heard that the HSUS had the dogs and the ASPCA had the dogs. I even heard that the dogs would be euthanized within 48 hours. That was last week. And as I wrote about a couple of days ago, Wayne Pacelle was on NPR talking about the options for the dogs, assessment and rehabilitation basically being expensive and improbable.

Meanwhile, the ASPCA now has the dogs and is assessing them and won't say more and it's all very double secret, hush-hush. I think we should flood the ASPCA with e-mails regarding that Animal Planet series with Cesar Millan I had conjured up. I'm sure they are documenting the assessment of the dogs meticulously (or at least I would hope so), but I don't know if they're filming it in any way.

So here's the deal, we e-mail, comment, call and suggest:

• Filming the assessments
• Enlisting the help of Cesar Millan for the rehabilitation (whether you like him or not)
• Making a season-long Animal Planet series out of the process
• Highlighting dogfighting
• Addressing breed specific legislation
• Addressing dogs that are considered pit bulls and how many are in shelters and what they're like when they haven't been trained to fight
• A percentage of the advertising dollars would go as a donation to the ASPCA (that's why they'd do it--they need to get something out of it and I don't know if publicity is enough. I know lots of people don't like the ASPCA, particularly because of their failure to help carriage horses, but I've got to make this idea workable for them, and a large donation seems like the way to do it).

If you're a member of the media, you can contact Shonali Burke, Vice President of Media and Communications at shonalib@aspca.org or 212-876-7700, ext. 4565. Everyone else, I went through the dozens of ways to contact the ASPCA and I think that leaving a comment on their blog is a fine idea. If you've got a way to make this hypothetical TV series more appealing, let them know. And let me know.

As far as I know, the dogs aren't dead yet, so maybe we can save them.

UPDATE: I left a rather lengthy comment on the ASPCA blog, pending approval, introducing this idea. If it gets approved, all you have to do is add your own message of support, fill in any details I neglected to mention, and add some of your own.

Thanks!

On The Importance of Appearing Sane

In yesterday's comments, Terry apprised us of a rather odd column in the Toronto Sun by Michael Coren, a TV/radio talk show host and syndicated columnist (who is a social and religious conservative) called "Doggone Fools" from August 18, where he writes: "No need here for compromise or silliness. Animal rights types are mentally ill." He then proceeds to demonstrate his ignorance regarding animal rights, insult "animal nuts" some more, and conclude that animals "exist for us."

On the 25th, his "Dogged by Oddballs," was published, in which he described what has occurred since the original article, he changes his opinion from animal rights people are mentally ill to we're "psychotic and dangerous," and he pastes some of the e-mails he received, sans expletives (and here are some comments to that article).

Now, I'm not asking anyone to respond to him (but if you'd like to, you are directed to do so through his website and his e-mail address is mcoren@sympatico.ca), because, as Kenneth commented, he wouldn't even know where to start. A letter to the editor of the original article at torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca might be nice, though.

What I'm asking is that you read the articles and the comments, as they are telling us something about how we are being portrayed and perceived. Now, Coren clearly has issues that prevent him from composing an article without resorting to irrationality and name-calling, but I don't care about him. From what I know of him as a human being from his website and his columns, his life and his opinions don't interest me. The people I care about are the ones who are supposed to be speaking for justice (or at least the desire for it), and for the ethics of humanity to catch up with science, and align the way we behave with what we know: sentient nonhumans suffer in the same way we do. There's nothing insane about that; it's a fact. And attempting to integrate that fact into our daily lives is nothing if not perfectly sane.

I understand the fury of those who read Coren's articles and want to "cuss him out," as they say down here in the American South. But don't you think that plays right into Coren's hands? Don't you think he had the follow-up article half--if not completely--written five minutes after the first one because he knew what was going to happen?

This is my plea: No matter how incensed you are when ignorant people demonstrate their lack of knowledge, not to mention their lack of manners, in a newspaper, on the radio, or on television, don't react initially. It's like when you were a teenager and you broke up with someone who cheated on you (or whatever) and your mother told you to write the person a letter but not to mail it. If you must curse and rant and rave, do it in your personal journal or to a friend, but don't do it for all the world to see.

If, however, you can articulate your rage in a reasonable, logical way, without the use of profanity, go for it. And if you can address the writer's points and refute them--even better.

Abolitionists are at a significant disadvantage (hey, I'm just being realistic here) because we are constantly associated with PETA, which we do not belong to but which has cornered the market on publicity, and because we are a tiny minority, even in the world of "animal people." We cannot afford to make mistakes, we cannot afford to look like crazy people, and we cannot afford to let our anger, which is legitimate and entirely rational, turn into something that can easily be used against us.

Look, I have no idea who the commenters to Coren are. Maybe they're abolitionists, maybe they're not. But it doesn't matter because you will immediately be lumped in with them by some because your beliefs are more like theirs than his. We cannot control the unreasonable nature of others, but we can control our own responses and reactions and make a concerted effort to present them in the most productive way possible.

Pass it on.

We Have Michael Vick to Thank for . . .

Last night, my husband queried, "Honey, why not give your peeps a break tomorrow and write about something positive?" Am I that much of a downer?

I spent ten or so minutes doing research and then realized my topic was right under my nose the whole time. Due to Michael Vick's celebrity and bad behavior (let's face it--people here in Florida do what he did every day, but they're not getting any attention. It's all about the celebrity.), people are talking about dogfighting, yes. But more important, they're asking questions like (and this is just a smattering. Google the topic and see how any dozens of stories you get):

• "What's Wrong with Killing Dogs?" (by Huffington Post blogger Lawrence O'Donnell, who also asks, "Which is weirder, killing an animal or eating its dead flesh?") The post, published Friday, had 319comments as of 7am this morning.)
• And they're asking whether Mitt Romney's hunting hobby is that much different from Michael Vick's dogfighting hobby ("Hare Splitting? Romney vs. Vick," by Robert Sargent of the OpEd News). This post was published on Thursday and had no comments as of last night. (Be the first!)
• There was also "Animal Cruelty Isn't Judged on a Level Playing Field," by Courtland Milloy on washingtonpost.com on Wednesday (which now has dozens of pages of comments).
• And finally, there's Gary Francione's "We're All Michael Vick" on Philly.com, which was originally published on his blog, and has dozens of comments.

The good news is all of the conversation about dogs being the same as cows (or not, but at least there's a discussion and people respond to those who use the culture argument or whatever for why dogs aren't the same as cows). Yes, there are many disconcerting comments by people who see nothing wrong with killing animals for food (or even fun), but at least there are some reasonable people attempting to kindly, tactfully educate them.

It is rather shocking to spend so much time reading blogs and websites that have to do with respecting the natural lives of nonhumans and then go to a mainstream site and read what the average American is thinking about the issue. Though the existence of the debate (?) is definitely good news, the comments, in toto, remind us of the depth and the breadth of the struggle we have before us.

UPDATE: There's also an article by actress Emily Deschanel called, "The Sad Truth About Dogfighting" at cnn.com, and it has generated dozens of comments. Because of the popularity of CNN and the vastness of its audience, maybe that's a good place to submit a well-crafted, dispassionate comment.

On The Omnivore's Real Dilemma

In yesterday's continuing discussion, via comments, about the veal "victory," Colleen from Compassionate Cooks alerted us to "Hard to Swallow," in The Atlantic, by B.R. Myers, which is actually a review of Michael Pollan's bestseller, THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA (the paperback has just been released).

You know how most of the letters you write are to correct or counter what was presented in a publication? Well, here's your opportunity to say, Bravo! Nice work! What took you so long? (Okay, maybe not that last one.) If you haven't read the book, subtitled, "A Natural History of Four Meals," and you don't recall his "Unhappy Meals" in the New York Times from January (which I deconstructed), think Nina Planck, but better educated about nutrition. Myers calls the book, "a record of the gourmet’s ongoing failure to think in moral terms." Read it if you haven't. (Borrow it from the library so you don't support the book financially or add to book sales numbers.)

Pollan analyzes four meals adequately enough, but the one thing he neglects to do in 411 pages (that's for the hardcover) is treat the issue of the morality of slaughter seriously. Yes, factory farming is hideous. He even calls it "evil" (319). But he is easily convinced, by all manner of convoluted logic, that it's ultimately okay to eat animals, though not factory-farmed ones, because, well, he likes the way they taste and he's not about to stop eating them.

The omnivore's real dilemma is whether or not to deny that every excuse he conjures up for continuing to eat animals, from The C-Word (culture) to because we're smarter (and remember that we've designed the test based on our own kinds of intelligences), to because we can to because God told us to, to because we need to (we don't), will collapse (if they haven't already due to the weight of how incorrect or irrational they are) the moment we add one more factor to the equation: ethics. Because every usage of a nonhuman, regardless of how she was raised, will end in her death at the hands of another, at that other's convenience, and in a way that other has chosen, there is simply no way to call the scenario "humane slaughter." Doing so is an insult to my doctorate in Applied Linguistics as well as my ability to recognize rationalization when I see it.

The payoff of the omnivore's capacity for denial is simple: He gets to eat whatever he wants and not feel guilty about it. Pollan might have temporarily convinced himself and millions of English-speaking readers that they need not consider slaughter in their ethical equations, and he might be responsible for the piffle spouted by "conscientious omnivores," but the jig is up.

Write a letter to the editor at letters@theatlantic.com, and thank them for publishing Myers' review.

UPDATE: I'm a nitwit. Though I linked to Colleen's site, I didn't link to her genius blog about this very topic. Check it out!

Animal Person Solution for Vick's Dogs

As you may know, Michael Vick's dogs will most definitely be euthanized, perhaps even today. As you might not know, I had a potential solution that would have had a different outcome. When the story first broke, I sent an e-mail to Animal Planet, Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS, PETA and Cesar Millan regarding using the dogs as the centerpiece for an Animal Planet series, starring Cesar Millan.

The series would obviously include the backstory about Vick. But the focus would be the medical treatment of the dogs, the assessment of them, and the rehabilitation of them by Cesar Millan, who has said that there have been only two dogs he could not rehabilitate. The show could bring to light dogfighting, the history of pit bulls, and even breed specific legislation. It could educate about the number of pit bulls already in shelters in urban areas (and the number of dogs in shelters, in general, as well as the percentage that are purebreds).

I saw it as a win-win for the network, the dogs and the viewers (and Cesar Millan if he could pull it off, and if he couldn't, we'd see that a human being like Vick can damage a dog so severely that the poor dog found it impossible to see anyone as anything but a threat to his life. And by the way, this is in no way an endorsement of Millan's tactics. But to get the most advertising dollars and the largest audience, I think he would be a necessary part of the show.). Maybe this was a stupid idea that would be impossible to execute because the dogs are so aggressive. But even that could've been educational. And if some dogs could be rehabbed, I'm sure they'd get adopted quickly after all the publicity about what they went through.

I have no idea what went on behind the scenes. But it seems like the dogs never had a chance. Wayne Pacelle (in the NPR interview linked to above) said there were three options: euthanasia, warehousing, or assess the dogs to see if they could be rehabilitated, which would be expensive. I guess he doesn't think the dogs are a good investment for some of the HSUS' hundred million dollars of reserve funds.

I write this today because a friend of my husband's (who, like Pacelle, went to Yale) said:

Let me get this straight. Vick was killing dogs and might do jail time for that, and the people who confiscated the dogs are going to kill them anyway? Isn't that ironic?

Tragic is more like it. And maybe even avoidable.

We are the Stewards of the Vegan Meme

Back in June, Seb commented on veganism being a meme, and I completely agree. In BREAKING THE SPELL: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin 2006), Daniel C. Dennett explores Richard Dawkins' meme concept and in Chapter Six: The Evolution of Stewardship, he writes:

Memes that are fortunate enough to have stewards, people who will work hard and use their intelligence to foster their propagation and protect them from their enemies, are relieved of much of the burden of keeping their own lineages going (170).

The responsibility of meme stewards is to keep the lineage strong. We vegans, and particularly the small number of us who do not want to spend our time fighting for regulations of the institutional use of nonhumans, should consider ourselves stewards of our meme and should take that job very seriously. The survival and spread of veganism depends on it and we have many, many factors against us.

As a steward of the meme, as you know, I'm creating some material that states my position. I recently heard from two other vegans who are creating literature (one in Canada), and my first thought was, PRAISE GOD! I don't have to do it now! But that would be most irresponsible, not to mention lazy of me.

After that impulsive, passing-the-buck moment, I realized the more the merrier. Welfarists have dozens of pamphlets available to them because they have dozens of organizations that serve their mission (and in that I'll include new welfarists, with fewer than dozens, but still way more than we've got!). Though we might not have any national organization that we all support, we can begin spreading seeds--our message--through the voices of various members. The more voices, the more slightly (or very) different ways of sending our message, the greater the odds of reaching more people, right? So I create some stuff, you create some stuff, and we all put it out there for everyone and there will eventually be less complaining that there's no literature that's up to snuff.

If I really wanted to base my material on Gary Francione's work alone, I'd copy and paste a bunch of it, ask for permission, and just hand it out! Done! But I dare (as many of you dare) to find my own voice and write in my own voice. And if others don't like what I produce, the marketplace (that's y'all) will tell me that and the new work of others will emerge, or the existing work of others will overtake my work (or whoever's).

Net message for today? It's up to all of us. Let's all create literature. Let's share ideas, even. Maybe in a year or two, if enough people create material, an organization will emerge (maybe not, but stranger things have happened). All I know is that when I create my material, I understand the importance of sending the message that time is limited for all of us, and my personal priority--the best use of my time--is to educate people about what animal rights is and why becoming a vegan is necessary.

The Veal "Victory:" Behind the Music

When I heard about the "victory" claimed by PETA regarding ceasing the use of veal crates by 2017 (to replace them with another housing system), at which point I'll be nearly 50-years old, my first thought was: that's a victory? I wallpapered my family's kitchen with photos of male calves in veal crates in 1982, for heaven's sake! If there's a poster animal for torture, it's always been the veal calf. And 25 years after the wallpapering incident, there's some kind of apparent victory that will end the torture in a decade? Clearly, there are pieces to the puzzle that I don't know, as I must admit I haven't actually been following the veal cause because cow-eating is cow-eating, no matter what you call it.

Enter James LaVeck, who sent me an article by Dan Murphy, an animal industry pundit, published in Meat & Poultry, which by the way has a Tuesdays with Temple feature each week, with Temple Grandin (and has since 2002). The article is called "The Real Deal on Veal: Industry Should Get the Credit for Investing in Change, Not Interest Groups," and you have to be a registered user to view this particular article (it seems that's easy enough to do). In case you thought PETA (or the HSUS, for that matter) should get the, um, credit (?) for the change in the way male calves are treated before they're slaughtered, read what Murphy has to say . . .

The news reports appeared in both mainstream media and trade journals last week. They stated that the American Veal Association’s board of directors had unanimously voted, in effect, to re-invent its own industry, approving a total transition from the use of crates to group housing systems by the end of 2017.

Momentous news, but there’s one problem.

The actual vote took place in May, and the only reason it attracted attention three months later was the publicity generated by the Humane Society of the United States and PETA, who both took pains to crow about the "victory" they’d achieved in forcing the industry to abandon the use of stalls.

"For years, the humane community in the United States has said that these crates are inhumane and unnecessary," stated an HSUS news release. "We are pleased that the industry now agrees and is taking some steps to phase out this confinement system."

PETA, not surprisingly, went even further over the top. "We are popping champagne corks this week because veal crates – long symbolizing the worst of the worst of farming practices – are on their way to extinction," the group announced.

None of that's a surprise. But what was a surprise to me was that the veal industry has been setting the stage for the PETA/HSUS "victory" for  . . . guess how long? Since before I started wallpapering my parent's kitchen. Murphy continues . . .

Here’s the real reason the change was made – and by the way, this is an evolution that veal industry leadership has been exploring for longer than PETA has even existed. The vote came about not just because customer surveys indicated that longer term growth mandated a switch from stall to group housing but more importantly, because technology enabled the change. "The truth is that we now have computer systems that allow veal producers to automate the management of group housing in ways that at least approximate the efficiencies of individual housing," explained Bryan Scott, the American Veal Association’s executive vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs. "When you have to monitor feed intake in a group, you need a system sophisticated enough to track and control what each calf eats in order to maintain optimum herd health."

Murphy explains: "Often, there are simply no economically viable alternatives to unwanted production practices." In other words, if pig slaughterers were to house pigs in an environment that the average meat-eating American would deem humane, the meat that is the end result of their slaughter would be far too expensive for the industry to produce.

Joseph Stookey, professor of Applied Ethology at the University of Saskatchewan’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine addresses why voter initiatives to demand changes in the way we treat nonhumans bred and raised for slaughter for food  are necessary. Because the slaughter industries are so powerful that they don't have to change until they're darn ready, and all of their technology for more efficient slaughter and lower mortality rates (that's unplanned mortality prior to the planned mortality) are in place.

Now, pay attention to this last part that I'd paraphrase or summarize if I thought it would help. But the words speak for themselves.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that the argument advanced against industry being "forced" to make changes dictated by consumers – or their surrogates in the activist community – is that the end point of such a process is industry’s eventual abolition, a word that activists love to connect to slavery. But they’re wrong – about both the diction and the destination. When industry fixes the "sore spots" that trigger consumer concerns (and ballot measures), the result is greater support, improved sales and increased approval for the farmers, producers and processors involved.

Animal welfare is a goal in and of itself, as Dr. Stookey points out. But it’s also a steppingstone, not to eliminating the meat and poultry industry, but to ensuring its ultimate viability.

Did you get that? I think it's worth repeating.

When industry fixes the "sore spots" that trigger consumer concerns (and ballot measures), the result is greater support, improved sales and increased approval for the farmers, producers and processors involved.

Animal welfare is a goal in and of itself, as Dr. Stookey points out. But it’s also a steppingstone, not to eliminating the meat and poultry industry, but to ensuring its ultimate viability.

That's according to the industry, folks. Maybe this real-life example will help put the seemingly-unending debate at ANIMALBLAWG to rest.

The Animal Person Minute: On the Only Thing More Controversial Than Abolition

This is one of the many, quite large brown spots on my lawn. We've been having a drought and were subject to phase three water restrictions, which meant exactly one day of watering the lawn, for no more than twelve minutes per zone. Naturally, I'm the only one in the neighborhood who actually paid attention to the phase three restrictions, and I'm the only one whose lawn doesn't look like it belongs in Hawaii.

Today's topic is the only thing more controversial than abolition: religion. I guess I was a bit ambitious in my initial plan for the pamphlet/leaflet thing I'm going to put together. I didn't want to speak about any religion specifically. My intention was to get people thinking.

Here's the thing: for me, what you eat is the same as what political party you associate with or what your religion is in that it warrants questioning. Why do you eat meat? Why do you vote Democrat? Why do you believe that birth control is immoral? (Why don't you eat meat, why do you vote Republican and why do you believe that birth control isn't immoral? you get the point.)

If there's anything I want people to get from this blog that I've written in every day since May 22, 2006, it's that nothing is sacred. No information is sacred. No belief, no idea, no person, no newspaper should go unquestioned. That's what I got from my liberal arts education at the City University of New York at Queens College (and no, I didn't know Jerry Seinfeld). And that's what I got from my doctoral study at New York University where we asked questions like: what is learning? What is teaching? What is education? What is schooling? Why do we think learning and schooling should look like "x" or it's really not learning and schooling? Everything from desks in rows to the usage of textbooks to separating subjects into different "periods" or "modules" was questioned. Why was writing only pertinent in English class rather than across the curriculum, we wondered? And later, why were questions the purview of Philosophy class, which tragically was always an elective.

It makes sense, then, that when approaching veganism or abolition or animal rights, I (me, Mary Martin, Animal Person) would contextualize it rather than decontextualize it and treat it as if it can be dealt with in the narrow sphere of food and animals. Instead, I'd broaden my treatment to include the universe of topics that are similar in any way or that inform veganism, abolition, or animal rights. I'd get the whole messy picture and try to work my way through it.

Ah, but that's not a good plan for a short marketing piece if my goal for that piece is to get people to go vegan. I agree with most people who have e-mailed and commented. Probably the only thing most people are more attached to than their eating habits is their religion. And to try to deconstruct and challenge both of those notions in one pamphlet has got to be a really bad idea.

Contribute to Abolitionist Literature

Because I want to create material that is as useful as possible and addresses gaps in other leaflets and pamphlets, the best people to help me are those who actually use such things. (I don't  . . . go figure.) This is what I had envisioned:

• Animals are not ours to use, rather than "look how much they're suffering." I'd love to touch on religion, as so many people use the idea that God gave us animals as a reason to eat meat, etc... (If I quote anyone, maybe Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins or some funny stuff from Christopher Hitchens).
• Sentience. If you wouldn’t do it to a dog, don't do it to a chicken or fish, yada yada yada. (And now sentience is a scientific fact. Maybe some Jonathan Balcombe and some Jeffrey Masson, the latter to show different kinds of intelligences, as "because we're the smartest" is often a reason given to use animals.)
• Property. The root of the problem. Lots of quoting of Gary Francione here, as you might imagine.
• Maybe a page of tips for how to get going and how to deal with family members, social events, etc...
• Obviously veganism as baseline, but it's not just about food and shoes (other consumer products, investments, philanthropy, and as Professor Francione wrote yesterday . . . Ibuprofen).
• Also, there's got to be a differentiation between rights and welfare. I wouldn't want people to go join PETA as a result of anything I produce (I'm not asking for a welfare/abolition debate, here). I want to try to show how to look at the world around you with a critical eye.
• I'd imagine links to the health and environment material (protein, b12, climate change, etc...).
• The whole thing could probably done as "Myths and Facts about" veganism or animal rights or abolition or even abolitionist animal rights.

Here are my questions:

1. What do you think about all the references? Do you want links, names and books? None but Professor Francione are abolitionists (maybe Jeff Masson and Jonathan Balcombe, but I haven't asked them for a confirmation, and they certainly seem like abolitionists but I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths).
2. This seems like it could be quite lengthy. What's too long? Is there such a thing as too short?
3. Is there anything else you'd like to see? Please note that I'm not trying to duplicate what's already out there. I'm trying to do something a bit different.
4. How important is it to have the word Vegan in the title?
5. How important are photos? I want to make a product that is easy and inexpensive to reproduce for everyone (remember, I'm not getting into the pamphlet production and distribution business). Are photos a must-have?

Again, as a businessperson, I want to know what the users of my product need and want, and the best way to learn that is to ask them. I'm all about community creation of the best material to fit your needs.

Thanks, in advance, for your help (and thanks to everyone who e-mailed and commented). I'm at mm@animalperson.net and I look forward to hearing from you.

Your 401(k) Experiments on Animals

Just in case you were thinking you don't contribute to research involving live nonhumans, I've got news for you: If you have a 401(k) or other retirement plan at work that requires you to choose from a list of mutual funds, your hard-earned money is going to vivisection. Even if in the list are a couple of socially-responsible funds (like those offered by Calvert or Domini), you're still not out of the woods.

Many funds use the shareholder-activism approach: if you own shares you can have a say in the direction of the company. Clearly, the more shares the better. In fact, sort of like restricted donations, the number has to be rather large to make a difference in the mission of an organization/corporation.

Rocky Mountain Humane Investing is the only company that I know of that screens out nonhuman animal experimentation (and I'm not just talking about for non-medical purposes, as a lot of them do that), however it isn't included as an option in most retirement plans and you must have a minimum of $100,000 to invest. And though it also screens out factory farming, there's no way it's vegan. Ah, another area in your life where you realize you're not a vegan. I hate it when that happens.

I frequently say that I don't like to talk about a problem unless I have a solution. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no viable alternative that completely solves the problem. But there are things you can do.

• Know your funds. Most people pick a fund, usually based on prior performance (meanwhile, every prospectus makes it very, very clear that past performance is not a guarantee of future results), and they have no idea what's in it, who's managing it or what that person's track record is. Go to the website for your fund, look at your prospectus (if it's recent), and get to know the companies YOU are funding with your precious pre-tax dollars. Only after you've gotten to know your funds are you in a legitimate position to complain about anything.
• Talk to your benefits person and voice your discontent. The options offered by your company aren't changing significantly anytime soon, but supply will never change if the demanders (that's you) don't start making demands. (Okay, you're not really in a position to make a demand, but you can say you'd appreciate more options that screen for the things you care about.)
• Do NOT take all of your money out of your funds and put them in some under-performing vehicle like a money market account because you're nauseated by your complicity in animal testing. Why? Because you won't be able to comfortably retire if you do that. You might not be able to retire at all.
• There are funds that are better than others for those interested in minimizing their impact on animals. Look at the companies in your fund. If it's composed mostly of pharmaceuticals, tobacco and factory farming, you might want to switch to one with companies involved in eco-friendly products, sustainable development and green technology. (If you have an alternative energy fund as an option, check it out, but also remember that diversification among sectors isn't a bad idea.)

Unfortunately, most Americans unwittingly contribute to all sorts of industries and products they abhor simply by checking off which fund they want to invest in for their retirement. The least you can do is find out where your money is going, and register your malcontent if indeed you are not happy with what you learn.

Is There Any Corporation I Shouldn't Be Boycotting?

This is one of those days when I have to buy a couple of things and I wonder: Is there any store I can go to that's near me where I can feel like I'm not compromising at least one strongly-held principle as soon as I walk in the door. (Okay, maybe not by walking in the door, but definitely by buying something.) And when I get my mail and pay my bills, say, our household cellular phone bill, even that is a compromise. So not only is it impossible to leave the house and go shopping without compromise, but I can't even stay in the house without compromise.

Let's take that cell phone bill. We use AT&T/Cingular Wireless, which I have recently come to despise because they are now sponsoring rodeos, along with Coca-Cola, the United States Army, Jack Daniels, Wrangler (shocker!) and DaimlerChrysler (so they make the $400,000 Maybach and fund the crippling of calfs? What exactly is their mission, I wonder?)

If there were ever a, um, "sport," that needed to be retired, like yesterday, it's the rodeo. It is a hideously senseless and cruel combination of events. And anyone who denies that simply doesn't know the facts or seen the footage. The folks at SHARK have plenty of footage, photos and other evidence of the wanton cruelty that defines rodeo. Defines. The cruelty isn't an accidental byproduct or an infrequent mistake. The cruelty is the point. The cruelty is the centerpiece.

When I look at the photos and footage, what disturbs me as much as the animals being tortured is that grown humans bring their children to these events and give them front row seats to horrifying cruelty, as if it's entertaining. (The photo below is from calf roping. How on earth can someone think that would be entertaining for a child to watch? How can someone think that child won't be permanently scarred from watching such a "sport?")

Rodeo is one of those things that exists because it existed yesterday: because it is part of our "culture." For me, there's something quite sick about harming animals for the fun of it. The intention is to harm them (although pro-rodeo folk love to say things like: "it's fun for [the animals], they enjoy it, it's their natural instincts to do that sort of stuff"--check out that and more here--and make sure no children are reading over your shoulder as it gets very offensive).

How can we ever hope to get people to think using animals for food is not ethical when they think that using animals for abuse is ethical and entertaining?

Check out the list of corporations (and bands, like Bon Jovi) that sponsor rodeos, contact them, and let  them know how you feel.

Does Anyone Want Abolitionist Literature?

I'm doing an informal survey regarding leaflets, pamphlets, and the like. I know there is ambivalence about what is available, and I was wondering if an abolitionist pamphlet would appeal to anyone. (And after I do this, I'm retiring The A-Word again.)

I've previously written that I had an abolitionist impulse and was a vegetarian prior to college (I didn't stop eating products like muffins and scones, made with eggs or milk or butter). But when I got to college I was bombarded with Peter Singer and information about reducing suffering and cruelty, and my abolitionist limb atrophied and disappeared. I always wonder if things would have gone differently if I had been bombarded with abolitionist literature.

I've asked a handful of people already, and I was surprised to learn that 80% question the need and/or effectiveness of pamphlets in 2007. Perhaps something downloadable to phones or other hand helds would be more appropriate. Then there are the environmental concerns of all that paper and ink, and many of the pamphlets will end up in the garbage.

What do you think?

And here's the clincher: I'm happy to design, write it, and give you a disk, but you'd print out what you need when you need them. (There's no way I'm adding "pamphlet producer and distributor" to the myriad things I have to get done in a day. I wouldn't want to promise something I don't think I could deliver on.).

I have no idea what the length of the piece would be (although I don't think it would be as long as the one available from Friends of Animals, which I like and has a lot of recipes, and that's where the length comes from), but I can say that the content would be largely based on Gary Francione's theory, and he would look it over. I wouldn't want to spend time to develop something that activists either don't have a need for or wouldn't use for other reasons. Maybe a pamphlet that included the health and environment reasons why we shouldn't use animals would be more appropriate. I don't know.

Finally, please ask your activist friends and take an informal survey of your own and get back to me. I know that I'm not a favorite in some circles, and some of my decisions have been, shall we say, unpopular, but try to look beyond that. Is this a good idea for you and the way you do your own activism? Is there a better, more appropriate medium for the average college student?

I appreciate any constructive advice.

Grazie mille.

The Short Memories of the Women of "The View"

Instead of eating lunch (at 11am, as I get up very, very early) at my desk or while doing the laundry yesterday, I turned on the television and "The View" was on. Barbara Walters tries to broach the topic of: when you have a dinner party and people have special dietary needs, do you take that into consideration (either that or the vegansexual thing, I'm not sure what her point was. All I know is it was a non-starter.). She does this by talking about veganism, and Joy and Elizabeth act like they don't really know what a vegan is.

Meanwhile, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, no, wait, in May of this year, Alicia Silverstone was on The View talking about veganism. Rosie O'Donnell knows what it is and is very respectful, while Joy Behar jokes and Elisabeth Hasselback goes right for the cliche (after Alicia Silverstone talks about her Stella McCartney shoes): You know, the vegetarians who walk around in leather shoes, I always question that.

So what happened between May and August to make Joy and Elisabeth forget what a vegan is (Joy does think maybe vegans don't eat cheese)? They ask the audience, and there isn't a vegan in the bunch, so the audience is no help.

Here's my suggestion: Let's write to Barbara, Elisabeth and Joy (there's an "E-mail Your View" box on the top left) and educate them. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but loads of people watch this show, therefore it's a fabulous venue for education. And from what I saw, there's a dire need for education on the set as well as in the audience. (I was so surprised that not one person could articulate what veganism is.)

Remember, these people probably think PETA equals animal rights and all animal rights activists and all vegans and that animal welfare and animal rights are the same thing. This is an opportunity to start a mainstream discussion. And while you're at it, why not suggest a segment idea that has something to do with veganism? (If I suggest one here and then we all use it, that wouldn't be as helpful as everyone thinking of their own.)

So we have two important components of our individualized education plan (IEP) for "The View:" inform them about veganism, and inform them that PETA doesn't represent all vegans. As always, be tactful, concise and kind.

The Animal Person Minute: On Greyhound Racing and Horse Slaughtering

While in Princeton over the weekend I was accused of favoring Charles in my blog. I have a gazillion photos of Violet to choose from, but not with my new camera, though, so they don't count. Once again, here's Charles. I was trying to get him with his ears up, and I wanted to show his musculature, and they best I could do was one ear and a couple of muscles. And that was after about thirty tries. I gave up. And this is all you're gonna get.

I've got two topics today, one is a genuine abolitionist victory: two more greyhound tracks will be closing for live racing. One is in Wichita, Kansas, which is especially thrilling for me as Kansas actually changed its legislation to exclude greyhounds from the designation of dog (because they're not bred as pets), thereby making them unable to reap any benefits of pet protection laws. When it comes to abolishing greyhound racing, which is already dying, what Grey2k USA does is fights attempts to add slot machines and other types of gambling to the tracks. The gambling props up the industry, thereby preventing the dogs from being freed of being forced to race. The industry's still dying, but with subsidies, slot machines and poker rooms, it's kept alive.

Last week, Kansas voters rejected a proposal to approve slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park, and without that boost in income, the track would not be able to survive and its owner, Phil Ruffin, who has been losing $200,000 a month, has said he'll close it. Talk about a bad investment!

The other track to end live racing, due to "dismal attendance figures," is Tampa Greyhound track, that "will cease live racing indefinitely after the conclusion of August 18th's evening performance." Evening performance? The poker room will remain open and simulcasting of races from other tracks will continue, as well. The track will supposedly care for the greyhounds housed at the facility until adoptive homes are found. So if you or anyone you know lives in or near Tampa (tater, I'm talking to you), think about adding a greyhound to your home. You won't regret it.

There are 36 operational tracks remaining in 13 states, with Florida, of course, being the biggest loser of a state with the most tracks, by far. If you live in a state where there's a track, I'm sure you're telling everyone not to go, as greyhounds aren't here for us to make money off of. But what you also need to do is tell your gambling friends to stay away from tracks that have poker rooms and slot machines, as every time they go to the track, even to play poker, they're hurting the dogs because they're helping keep the track alive.

The other topic for today comes from Ted Pappas, the Executive Director of Encyclopedia Brittanica, which as a blog that had a post about horse slaughter in America yesterday written by Gregory McNamee. Now, I don't know if anyone at Encyclopedia Brittanica knows anything about abolition, but I think this is a fine time to enter a mainstream national discussion in a civil, informative, non-hostile way. Though I don't think anyone in their right mind is for the slaughter of horses, I understand the place culture plays in this discussion, similar to the dogfighting discussion, and I see the fetish aspect, I'm somewhat appalled that so many people are in an uproar over the slaughter of maybe a couple hundred thousand horses, while ten billion animals in the unfortunate position of being less culturally esteemed, get slaughtered in ways just as brutal or worse, and most people don't bat an eyelash.

There's a fabulous opportunity to address animals as property in the post, with the following: "[I]ndustry lobbyists set to work mounting a vigorous opposition on the Senate side, one that centered on the argument that animals constitute private property and so banning the slaughter was an unconstitutional restraint of trade." This is one of those times when the property component is front and center, and not just from an abolitionist's point of view. I'll be commenting as soon as I can. When you comment, remember that most Americans don't understand that animal welfare doesn't equal animal rights, and when people say animal rights they're not necessarily talking about the same thing. Be clear and concise with whatever you decide to write, and be kind.

The Return of The A-Word

First off, there will be an Animal Person Minute tomorrow, as I just returned home from Princeton and cannot locate some important items without which I cannot download my terrible photos.

I achieved my goal of refraining from using The A-Word, abolition, for at least a week. I feel compelled to use it today to respond to Bruce Friedrich's guest blog at ANIMALBLAWG. Here's how I look at the abolition vs. new welfare debate: How does it affect me? (It's all about me, I guess.)

1. It dictates which groups I give money to (don't even start with me about Rural Area Veterinary Services. I won't be giving to them again, as I've figured out a different way to help. I know some vets involved and I'll pay their expenses).
2. It dictates what I say to people on a day-to-day basis regarding what they could be doing to help animals.

Regarding #1: I don't want to give money to an organization that believes part of their mission is to spend time working with exploiters to help them create products they can charge more for that make people feel better about eating animals. Period. I see daily evidence that more and more vegetarians are becoming flexitarians (read: they eat whatever they want), and it's because they think if they buy at Whole Foods or eat at Wolfgang Puck's, it's okay.

Friedrich's pitch largely hinges on the fact that he believes "that with welfare reforms comes a decrease, not an increase, in the number of animals eaten." I see absolutely no evidence of that. I see the opposite. Nearly every article I've blogged on in the past year (that's related to this) says the opposite. My own life is filled with examples of people who think it's okay to eat meat now. After all, PETA, HSUS, and Whole Foods have in no uncertain terms told them that it's okay. That's how the general public interprets the reforms and the labels. That's my reality.

Where's the study that shows people are eating fewer animals than ever, and veganism is spreading like wildfire, due to welfare reforms? More animals are dying than ever for food, and no one denies that.

Regarding #2: If I want people to go vegan because I believe we have no right to use animals, why would I add: But if you eat an animal from Whole Foods, or whatever, it's okay. I've just made a complete fool of myself if I do that. What kind of dedication to my principle do I have if I'll toss it for a shed that replaces a cage?

Here's my advice: Follow the money. Who stands to gain financially from what someone is saying? Financial gain probably isn't the only concern, but it's a big one. Who stands to get more donations? More subscription money. A greater fee for services or for their time. An increased price for the product they offer. When you follow the money, you discover part of what motivates someone to say something. You discover who is investing in them. I believe Bruce Friedrich believes every word he says. But that doesn't mean you should.

On My Goddaughter Who Rides Horses

I've been in Princeton since Friday, visiting my three god children (I'm their legal guardian too, which is kind of scary for both them and me). The oldest, Gillian (age 9), is showing and jumping horses, and yesterday was her first competition. I opted out of attending.

I don't talk to the kids about what I eat and why, and their parents (my cousin and his wife) eat the Standard American Diet. Evidently, Gillian's been paying attention and has begun asking her mom why I eat the way I eat. Gillian loves animals and is a sensitive, compassionate girl. Riding horses, for her, is an extension of her love of animals, and no one is offering a different perspective.

Yesterday morning, Gillian refused to come downstairs all dressed in her riding gear. She was crying, and when her mom asked why, she asked: Does Mary think horseback riding is wrong? And her mom said yes. Gillian was afraid to face me. But when I went to speak with her, she didn't cop to any of it. She just said she was nervous, and I wasn't about to interrogate her as she had to leave the house in five minutes.

Does anyone have any suggestions for Gillian's mom (or me)? Gillian is clearly developing a moral limb, all by herself, and there's really no support for what she is thinking and feeling in her house. Her parents would want to support her, but they don't know any vegetarians in Princeton and they're not about to stop eating meat themselves.

What are the best books for 9-year olds? Anyone know of websites for meat-eating parents whose children are questioning eating animals?

The dicey thing is that I'm not Gillian's parent, and I don't want to appear to be "pushing an agenda." The door is open a tad, but I don't want to fling it open the rest of the way, as that's not my place (in my mind), and my veal-eating cousin is like a brother to me and I need to tread lightly.