Animal Person

On Homeless Horses and Hawking Happy Meat

My quest for what appears to be the truth about horse slaughter appears to be over, and though individual owners can certainly slaughter their horses, and even eat them if they wish, they cannot send them to a slaughterhouse to be chopped up for human consumption, here or elsewhere (at least not legally). They can still truck them to Mexico.

Ron directed me to the AP's "Abandoned Horses Pose Dilemma for Ranchers," which states that horse owners are just leaving their horses on ranches and public lands, to fend for themselves, because the price of hay is high and they can no longer send them to be slaughtered for their flesh.

Closure of the plants has resulted in a 400 percent increase in shipments of U.S. horses to Mexican slaughterhouses this year, said Sally Baker, spokeswoman for the 9,000-member Association of Equine Practitioners in Lexington, Ky.

Can't they at least "euthanize" them, you ask? Well, as it turns out, you can't abandon a horse carcass after the horse has been "euthanized" because the drugs used are harmful to scavengers.

Oregon brand inspector Rodger Huffman of La Grande said even a horse that dies of natural causes cannot be left within a quarter-mile of running water or within half a mile of a dwelling for more than 15 hours without being buried or incinerated.

But, they shoot horses, don't they? Can't they just do that? One horse owner interviewed said he "just couldn't bring himself to do" that.

Let's recap:

• Humans have domesticated horses.
• We breed them for our use.
• We profit from their bodies, their natural abilities, and their desire to carry us around on their backs (no chance).
• And then, after we're through with them and we've taken from them all we can, we want to be done with them.
• If we could kill them and send them overseas to be eaten, we would. That's how much we love them. That's how fond of them we are. As the American Quarter Horse Association spokesman said, "A horse is a pet in America. IT'S like a dog or cat." And that's true. We abandon and kill dogs and cats all the time, too, but it's easier because they're smaller and more easily incinerated or buried.

Is it just me, or is it unfathomable to domesticate animals and continually bring them into the world for your use, then abandon or kill them when you've had your way with them? The comment section has an interesting suggestion by a Steve F.

Every government "solution" just creates new problems.

Perhaps we should force the animal rights activists to take care of the unwanted horses?

I don't know whether or not he is serious, but that's a great idea. However, in order for it to work, we would need cooperation: People would need to cease the breeding of horses. It might take a generation, but it would indeed solve the problem.

Finally, a friend who is transitioning to veganism saw I Am An Animal and said: "That Ingrid Newkirk woman is insane, and all those other PeTA people seem just as bananas. Maybe I'll give to the Humane Society. That  handsome Wayne fellow seems nice and sane." Can you imagine?

Speaking of HSUS, check out the debriefing from a lunch they were invited to speak at by the folks at animalblawg. The topics were along the lines of climate change and decreasing your carbon footprint. Being an animal welfare group, you'd think HSUS would concentrate on the overwhelming evidence that all of the misery we continue to create--and then eat--is largely responsible for the no-longer-alleged warming of the globe. But it didn't really pan out that way. They did promote happy meat, though, which is nice. I mean, breeding someone to kill her is perfectly humane, right?

Here's what I don't get: HSUS doesn't even pretend to be in favor of animal rights. We need to stop caring about what they do, regardless of Wayne Pacelle's handsomeness (which, you know, is clearly relevant) and veganness. Him being a vegan is actually part of the problem, it seems, as many people seem to think that means HSUS is going in that direction. But they're not. Look at what they say. Look at what they do. They're not interested in stopping the breeding, using and slaughtering of animals by humans. They're just interested in finding ways to help people feel better about it.

Are Horses Still Slaughtered in the US?

I've been catching up with responding to comments, which I am so grateful to have in the first place, and I need some help on Ron's horse slaughter comment. (It's the most recent one.) I do know that horses are--and will continue to be--shipped elsewhere for slaughter. But --and I could be imagining this because I've been very busy--I thought I received an update from some horse advocacy group stating that the slaughter hasn't actually stopped. I did some research after Ron's comment and came up with nothing.

Naturally, I want Thinking Critically About Animal Rights to be accurate, so I'd like to resolve this. I know the claims of HSUS, but I'm not exactly convinced they've got their finger on the pulse of what's really going on. On the other hand, they could be right.

Anybody have any information? I'd appreciate guidance on this issue.

To Bernie Sanders: It's the animals, stupid!

Animal Person reader, Chris, whom I believe is still in Beijing, wrote to The Nation in response to Bernie Sanders' article "Global Warming is Reversible," where he addresses the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. Check it out. I usually like Sanders, and I'm disappointed he's unable to see--or address--the elephant in the room. Here's Chris' awesome response:

A PAPER AIRPLANE INTO THE SUN:
You Cannot Balance the Tires on a Cow, Change the Lightbulbs on a Pig or Put Solar Panels on a Chicken

I wish SOME of these proposals to halt global warming would address the single most salient factor that literally threatens to doom human civilization as we know it: 

The reckless, wasteful and massively-subsidized propagation and exploitation of several species of life forms ("food animals") by one single life form (homo sapiens), in a way that is largely unnecessary.

The single biggest energy-inefficient act is something most of us do three times a day. Instead of getting our energy directly from plants (you know what those are, right?), we waste most of the energy in a system that makes big corporations richer, little kids more obese and poor nations poorer.

I wish some candidate would run on the slogan: "It's the animals, stupid."

The recent United Nations FAO report on the impact of livestock on the planet attaches some scientifically researched statistics to a reality that anyone can figure out with a tiny bit of brainpower: The average American is going to consume 7,000 animals in his or her life time, not to mention the vast quantities of dairy and other animal products we consume. These sentient beings (born into families, confined, made to suffer unnecessarily and slaughtered for our "happy meals"), consume vast quantities of natural resources through both direct and indirect consumption, transportation and result in the pollution and destruction of entire ecological systems.

But, you ask, how important could this factor be? It's just breakfast, lunch, dinner, ice cream, candy bars, our shoes, leather coats, belts, guitar strap, iPod case, etc. I mean, it's just food, right? JUST FOOD.

Heck, animals can't be THAT important, can they? (There's only a few trillion of them.)

Yet, no one in the mainstream global warming debate, including Senator Sanders, and certainly least of all Al Gore (blowing the opportunity of the century to really advocate change), seems to be addressing this rather large elephant standing and pooping and farting in the middle of the living room called Planet Earth.

They don't even mention it! Like it's a small issue. Like it's not so global that our bodies (inside and out) are literally coated in the results of this single biggest form of "commerce"!

(Try this: If you are an adult, try to go a single month without consuming anything not utilizing dairy products. Just try it. If you're in the west, you'll quickly find you live on Planet Cow, not Planet Earth.)

Senator Sanders' bill seems really nifty to me. It would be a wonderful bill if Planet Earth were ONLY inhabited by a mere six billion humans.

But what is anyone going to do about the trillions of nonhuman animals whose "production" (i.e., breeding, confinement, transport, slaughter) is producing more greenhouse gases than any other single anthropogenic activity!

But I know why it's not being taken seriously. Because, really, when it comes down to it, Big Oil is a tiny little runt compared to Big Meat (which is basically everyone -- we are all meatheads).

I can only imagine the kind of political pressure that would be put on the one political bigwig to say "it's the animals, stupid," and go head-to-head with Big Meat.

I mean, imagine this competition: Two American parents versus the needs of McDonald's. Two American parents have a healthy young child who needs nutritious food and water to grow into a healthy adult. Now, McDonald's has cattle that ALSO need food and water to grow into adulthood (albeit, a rather short-lived adulthood).

Which participant in this contest has the greater resources to guarantee its supply of grain, soil and water to meet its needs?

Do you really think McDonald's is going to sacrifice its cattle's needs for your child? Think McD's is going to say, "we best cut down on pig and cow production so kids can drink clean water and get nutrition directly from a plant-based diet, as humans did mainly for millions of years?"

Dream on.

McDonald's WILL indeed balance its tires, change its lightbulbs and invest in solar panels. No problem!!! "We're loving it!"

But, speaking of legislation that MIGHT save us from global warming, there's a new diet book out called Skinny Bitch. NYT bestseller and all that. Written by a supermodel/nutritionist and her agent. If either of these women -- Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin -- ran for President right now, they'd have my vote.

Now, if some Nobel Peace Prize Winner-To-Be could re-write Skinny Bitch into a global warming bill, then we'd finally be talking.

(Oh, yeah, and there's that other small thing: Er, basic compassion and decency towards sentient beings who want to live, and be free from suffering just as much as we do.)

Let's wake up to reality: Without recognizing the single most destructive inefficiency on the planet -- the human diet -- Senator Sanders' bill is like flying a paper airplane into the Sun.

Check out Sanders' article, and drop him--or The Nation, a note . . . .

On Being the Change

This is Humphrey, a perfectly healthy mixed breed dog who showed up on the doorstep my girlfriend's house one day and wouldn't leave. She called every shelter, had him scanned, put up posters, asked around and no one claimed him. One day, she put him outside and told him if he wanted to leave he could, but if he wanted to stay, she'd be happy to be his new mommy. He fit in beautifully with her wolf-hybrid (no, she'll never get one again), her other rescue dog and her Cairn Terrier (no, she'll never go to another breeder). He's madly in love with my girlfriend and stares at her adoringly all day.

This friend had her first vegan Thanksgiving last week, going to Sublime rather than sitting across from a carcass. Three years ago, she sat across from me and ordered lobster, quite frequently, at dinner. She would only consider pure breed dogs, and she had sheep skins all over her house (um, she still does, but now she doesn't delude herself into thinking that no one was tortured for them and she uses them as beds for the dogs). She has changed her giving plan to include direct service to animals (wolf-hybrid rescue, actually, as a bit of karmic retribution). She is now a vegan.

The rainy evening after Halloween, while returning home after a black tie event, in a gown, she came upon a black kitten with part of his tail hanging off. She stopped her car and chased him down an alley, where he was hiding under an abandoned car. She proceeded to get on the wet, oily ground and shimmy under the car on her belly to grab the kitten.

His tail has been amputated and he has been named Zorro. Inexplicably, he's just about the happiest damn cat I've ever met, and he now has a safe home with three dogs and his very own sheepskin-carpeted kennel (just for now, until we know the dogs won't try to eat him during the night).

Moral of the story? People do change, contrary to conventional wisdom. They can develop empathy, their morals can transform, and they can become activists, in their own way, without ever joining PeTA or HSUS, without getting involved in the welfare versus abolition debate (or being aware that it exists), and without ever seeing Earthlings. All they need is an example to follow, and love and support along their journey.

On "I Am An Animal"

I watched "I Am An Animal" on HBO this weekend (and the "a" in "an" is capitalized in some places, and not in others across the various sites that refer to the film, and may I just say that drove me nuts), and if I were Ingrid Newkirk I wouldn't be pleased (and in some interview footage, she indeed did question decisions about what to include or exclude, and what to shoot or not).

Here are my thoughts:

• Newkirk does clearly state that she is interested in animal rights (as in, abolition), but the way the film plays out makes her look a bit unstable. For me, this was not a sympathetic portrayal of a woman passionate about helping animals.
• Why not? Because it played into every stereotype the mainstream world now holds about animal rights activists: that we're crazy, misanthropic and maybe even criminals. This was achieved solely through choice of footage. While PeTA people are doing their stupid human tricks, the scientists and detractors are perfectly quaffed, well dressed and sound like any "expert" you'd see on the evening news.
• This film, whether it over-concentrates on the stunts or not, however, also contains every reason I don't support PeTA anymore, such as: I don't want my money going to those stunts. More important, though, is that there are a couple of times where some voice of reason comes on the scene and states the real goal of PeTA ("total animal liberation," as Newkirk says), and rather than exploring how that idea might actually be a perfectly sane one, and in fact a simple matter of justice, we are whisked back to more images of media-seeking mayhem. The real point (for me) is not only left in the background, it is associated with lunacy. It's PeTA's nefarious, secret mission (meanwhile it's one of the first things Newkirk says in the film). The juxtaposition of images and words presents the abolitionist message as something to fear. I am being kind to Newkirk when I say this is a problem created by the filmmaker. But it's actually a problem created by PeTA, and the filmmaker was simply doing what PeTA does: take a legitimate message and dump crazy all over it.
• Moderately off topic: I don't understand why it's such a big deal that a slaughterhouse worker sexually molested a turkey or sat on one. Those people are there, by definition, to do horrible things to sentient beings. What's completely unconscionable is that it's considered cruelty to molest a turkey or throw her against a wall but it's NOT considered cruel to de-toe her or cram her in a tiny space in her own urine and feces and then slaughter her. Torture in the direct service of providing unnecessary food is okay, but torture for fun is called cruelty. If I ever have a child, how am I going to explain that one?
• I'm sure thousands of people have gone vegan because of PeTA. For some people, they're doing everything right. The pushing of the envelope, in the way that it's done, is okay with them. But it's not okay with me because I have to constantly distance myself from them and spend time explaining that not every vegan is a member of PeTA or agrees with their tactics or their platform (like the killing of healthy animals or the negotiating with exploiters to help them "produce" animal products for a premium).

PeTA has indeed put us all on the map, but that is now a mixed blessing.

On Open Rescue

Check out this open rescue. I'd rather not embed it here, so as to bring traffic to it on YouTube. Notice there are other open rescues to view on the right.

Every time I see open rescue footage I have three burning questions:

1. How on earth do the rescuers choose who will be rescued?
2. Aren't they heartbroken as they leave the faces who will not be rescued?
3. Does nonviolence include property damage, and should it?

It's good to know what you're good at and what you're not good at, and also be willing to learn new things. One thing I will never be good at or learn how to do is intentionally enter a place ever again (I did go to a slaughterhouse years ago) where I know there is unbearable suffering. I am simply not equipped to deal with that. I've been in therapy since my early teens (that's what happens when your mom's a therapist) and I can't imagine the degree of mental health counseling I'd need to deal with open rescue. The faces of those I left behind would be indelibly etched in my brain and I'm fairly certain I'd experience some sort of breakdown. When I went to the Greyhound kennel to meet Charles, I was in tears the entire time. And it's not as if the dogs were actively being tortured.

As for property damage, I'm not talking about wanton destruction. I'm talking about locks, windows, doors and anything else necessary to gain entry to the establishment and to access the animals. And I particularly like when rescuers pay for any damage; that hits it home that this isn't about vandalism.

Rescuing an animal you happen upon is entirely different from deliberately entering a place of torture where you know that when you leave you'll leave most of the animals behind (or maybe all of them if you're there for video footage and other documentation). And if there weren't people willing and able to endure such pain themselves, we wouldn't know much of what we know today. We'd have to count on whistleblowers (or plant them, and that's a whole other level of suffering, I'd imagine).

Does anyone have an ethical problem with breaking and entering in this context? And do you think it's true that if there were children in a building being tortured, that we'd all suddenly sign up for open rescue? Or are the situations simply not at all comparable because it is perfectly legal to torture chickens, and it is not legal to torture children?

This is where I say that speciesism isn't really the same as Nazism or pedophilia. All three are dreadful, but one is socially acceptable and dreadful and the other two aren't. If my neighbor were a pedophile, it would be socially acceptable to turn him in. But no one is turning in their speciesist neighbors, as that would be absurd considering speciesism is perfectly legal as well as socially acceptable. Is this me being a moral relativist because I'm saying one is wrong but the other isn't objectively wrong for practical purposes? (Meaning, I do think it's objectively wrong, but I don't think you can go around telling people that they're immoral because it doesn't get you anywhere.)

You can't decontextualize speciesism, Nazism or pedophilia. So my saying that Nazism and speciesism are different is probably a direct result of me living where I live in the time I live.  I might believe that they are all equally wrong, but does that give me the right to tell others that they need to change their lives and their ethics because mine are better?

On SKINNY BITCH

I was urged to read SKINNY BITCH, by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, by several friends whose transition to veganism increased in velocity exponentially after reading it. All I had previously heard about the book was that some of the language was a bit vulgar an tasteless, and I usually choose to stay away from books like that. Plus, I'm a vegan already, and I'm thin. Whether or not I'm a bitch is debatable.

Here's what I think: It's probably great for young adults. Maybe 18-25. There is a lot--A LOT--of foul language and the authors do the one thing I am never comfortable doing: Tell people they're idiots if they don't go vegan. But guess what? It's working. The book is a New York Times bestseller. AND, it's also full of information about the evils of sugar, artificial sweeteners, alcohol (except organic, red wine), dairy, and the USDA and FDA, and provides an introduction to the politics of food.

Barely a page is turned without seeing some word that children shouldn't be reading or saying--at least not in my world--but the authors have done a great job tossing a variety of topics together and making you feel like, well, an idiot, if you're not a vegan. As far as raising the level of discourse goes, they authors appear to be deliberately going in the opposite direction. And they do also say things like: "You will be a fat, unhealthy, bloated pig if you live this way" (p. 40, and they're talking about the Atkins diet. My biggest problem with that sentence is the pig reference.).

What was especially helpful for my friends was the focus on reading labels, the glossary, the list of products and the sample menus. Note that the menus are loaded with faux meats, but expecting someone to go from omni to a mostly raw food diet, which would be far healthier, is unrealistic for most people.

If you have a college-aged daughter or friend whom you'd like to introduce to veganism, this is probably a good book for the job. I'm going to give it to a male friend who is a personal trainer and thinks he eats really well (he's a grilled chicken with white rice guy, but because of how much he works out, he could eat anything and be thin). He's youngish and might find the book appealing because he is concerned about being healthy. I'll let you know how it goes.

Finally, please note that there is a page--the last page--that says being skinny really isn't their goal, and that being healthy and taking care of their bodies is.

If the title and the tone and the slant are all about marketing, and they're working for a specific segment of the market, more power to Freedman and Barnouin.

On Abolishing Greyhound Racing in MA

When it comes to low-hanging fruit and abolition, getting Greyhound racing banned in Massachusetts, where there are only two tracks, would seem to be a good choice (as opposed to Florida, where there are over a dozen tracks). But pro-racing and pro-gambling interests have far more money to spend on their campaign to continue to create and profit from dogs and discard them when/if they're not profitable than pro-Greyhound people have to spend trying to shut them down and save the hounds, making the outcome by no means clear.

A group of volunteers including, of course, the folks at Grey2K USA, has collected the over 100,000 signatures needed to put a referendum on the ballot that will phase out racing in Massachusetts by 2010 (phasing out is clearly not optimal for the dogs, but it is better for the people, and the reality is that if people don't get concessions, dogs are unlikely to get anything).

Naturally, the debate about racing is most often about suffering and cruelty, and as in all other cases where that is the focus, it is largely a he said/she said situation, with pro-Greyhound people providing statistics that pro-racing (anti-Greyhound?) people refute, either before or after they say that the dogs love to run. As if that's the point. Go to www.protectdogs.org if you want to see what it's like for racing hounds in Massachusetts, although pro-racing interests will always find a way to make it sound like the dogs are as comfortable and as happy as they are at my house.

As Marissa Dirks of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at Harvard Law School recently wrote in "Work to End Greyhound Racing in Massachusetts:"

If you are a Massachusetts resident and have not added your voice to the chorus, please call 617-666-3526. A few years ago, Massachusetts residents succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot, but it was very narrowly defeated. The racing industry spent unlimited funds airing insincere ads which depicted priests and small kids enjoying a "day at the dog park." One employee even claimed that watching the races helps children with their math and reading skills! Taunton dog park owner George Carney and Revere dog park owner Charles Sarkin have been making campaign contributions for over 40 years to the state legislature to protect their business interests in the dog tracks. Please join SALDF and help defeat this special interest.

The Greyhound Racing Association of America contends:

• Greyhounds love to race and chase by instinct. Absolutely true. Also absolutely irrelevant.
• The prevention of injuries is a top priority of the industry, and it funds research into veterinary issues. I don't think any owner or trainer wants a dog to get injured, as that would nix the probability of profit. So let's say that this one is true, although the phrase "a top priority" seems a bit of a stretch.
• Greyhounds are kept in kennels and are allowed out for light exercise several times a day. Like to pee and poop. Face it. they spend their lives in a cage.
• Ninety percent of retired greyhounds are adopted. Let's assume that's true. Some of the other 10% are killed, and the "best" females must spend the rest of their lives being repeatedly raped and pumping out pups-with-promise. And when they're spent? Do they live a life of luxury? No. They too are discarded. If owners loved the dogs the way they often claim to, why would they instantly discard them when they're no longer profitable, and not even pay for their spaying or neutering? If they really cared about the dogs, they'd take them back to their farm and give them a wonderful life there, and permit them to run whenever they wanted to and never cage them again. The percentage of dogs adopted, whatever it is, is due mostly to the hard work of volunteers who rescue and care for the dogs--and pay for their medical care.

Would anyone advocate for treating pet dogs the way racers are treated? Of course not. The fact that they love to run is not some kind of permission to treat that running--and the dog attached to it--as a commodity and "produce" dogs purely for profit.

I hope the legislation passes. However, I don't happen to have too much faith in the legislative process when it comes to animals. One thing I do have faith in is the power of the dollar. Educate those around you, according to whatever their hot button is, about Greyhound racing so they don't go to the track to do anything. There are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that having a drink at the track or playing poker there doesn't support dog racing. Their faulty (non-existent?) logic needs to be revealed, and if they claim to care about dogs, they should cease their track-going.

The good news for dogs is that people have indeed been voting with their dollars and not going to the track, hence attempts to prop up the industry with slot machines and other forms of gambling. The industry is dying, but it keeps getting revived enough to continue the misery for the dogs.

As for the argument that it provides people with jobs, if there were a sweatshop filled with children in your town, would you campaign to keep it because it gives people jobs and helps the economy? No, because it's wrong to use children to make a profit. Well, children and dogs might not have that much in common, but they do share one trait--the one that matters. They are sentient. And breeding them for the sole reason of profiting from their innate abilities and drives, is unethical.

Why Some Animals Are For Eating

Thanksgiving on the beach on Hutchinson Island was full of surprises, the biggest of which was a discussion about how when we are young we are taught that some animals are for petting and others are for eating, and the details of this lesson are accidents of birth and geography. We aren't born with some kind of condition that says chickens are for eating and cats are for petting. Instead, we are born to parents who believe that, in a culture that reinforces that. We are taught to discriminate against and in some cases despise certain animals because of some rumor, superstition, legend or even papal edict.

Our literature, our holy books and our art from the past all inform our culinary choices and even our tastes. They tell us what was accepted yesterday, and unless we begin to think for ourselves, we'll continue to mindlessly reproduce traditions, whether or not they have any meaning today.

I haven't eaten dog meat, but when I did eat meat I would eat anything and in fact was known to say I'd eat a dog, a cat, or a human leg if I had the opportunity, as if you're going to kill someone to eat them, does it really matter what species they are? If I put the meat in front of you , you might never know the difference between dog meat and human meat and chicken meat. Whether or not you find it "gross" to eat it (I'm not referring to the taste, but to the idea of eating it) is entirely mental and is determined only after you know the origin of the meat.

The reason people who eat hot dogs are appalled to find they might be eating canines, is that they were born into and/or assumed a certain cultural paradigm that includes a detailed list of attitudes toward animals such as: which ones are for eating, which ones are for petting, which ones are for entertainment and sport, and which ones have been domesticated and are now for roommates. If I were born in the UAE, I might be spending a lot of time and money working to abolish camel racing.

Part of our culture is the media that confirms the values we're supposed to have. When we're young, we play with all manner of furry creatures and stuffed animals, and most of us enjoy that experience and feel a kinship with other creatures. At the same time, our parents and the world around us tell us that our instinct of kinship is not acceptable, and they begin to whittle away at any connection we naturally experience with other creatures. Our impulse to play, love, care for, or even simply respect the life of others is pummeled, daily, by just about every message we receive, consciously or otherwise.

The values I innately had as a child were destroyed and replaced with values that are convenient for American culture, but are in reality arbitrary. They're really not values at all: they're a set of consumer specifications. American culture trains me to be a certain kind of consumer--one who fits easily into the existing set up of industries and priorities, while making the least amount of trouble.

Of course, that all came crashing down when I made the conscious decision to take back my morality and my definition of justice, and alter my behavior accordingly. And fortunately, I haven't been alone on the journey to reclaim the ethics of our relationship with nonhuman animals.

Morality involves intention and deliberation, but the perpetuation of our American culture relies on our refusal or inability to attend to the most important aspects of our daily lives. Looking at our behavior through a lens that deconstructs our ethics is not supported in our culture.

It's time for that to change.

On Giving Thanks

Despite the fact that THAT is on my neighbor's front lawn, I'm going to overlook it and give thanks that he mowed my lawn last week, unsolicited.

Today, though I of course must thank the human animals in my life, it's the nonhumans I want to concentrate on, as they have taught me volumes about generosity, compassion, integrity, unconditional love, loyalty and kindness.

To my grandmother, who had a boundless capacity for adventure yet could wring every last drop of enjoyment out of the most ordinary of days, I miss you and I love you and I'm grateful for our time together.

To my mother, with her desire to be involved in the lives of her children, always present, always available to help, listen, talk or simply hug, I love you and I continue to be grateful for you.

To my dad, with his intelligence, wit and creativity, always ready to debate about the Catholic church or deconstruct a classic film, thank you for always being there.

To my sister, whom I despised for the better part of my childhood but have grown to adore, I love you.

And of course, to my husband, for being everything I could ever want in a partner, except for that bit about political affiliation, but which I will let slide, thanks for being you.

My friends, who know who they are and know how important they are, will understand that I love them and am grateful for them, but that Brady is really important right now . . .

The first kitty I ever knew, Brady, who lived  till 17, made me question why some animals are for eating and some are for petting. I'd also like to thank kitties: Bright Eyes, Simon, Tiger, Blue Cat, Budhi, Buddha, The Flutemaster General and Otis.

Muscovy ducks: Mr. Magoo, Big Meanie, Little Girl, Girlie Girl, Wilbur, Starsky, Little Guy, Grey Momma, Dark Grey Momma, Mr. and Mr. Sprinkle, Oreo Momma, New Guy, Speckle Momma, Grey Girl, Yellow Feet, Splat, Kamikaze, Number 2 and Messy Momma.

Pat the Limpkin, Opie the opossum,  Somebody's Warbler, Luna the wolf-hybrid, the Toucan-like creature, and Lovey Dovey  cannot be forgotten.

And of course, Emily Fokker, Violet Rays and Charles Hobson Booger, III, I love you and thank you for all you've taught me.

Over 100 animals have come into my life and died shortly thereafter. Their deaths were a gift for me in that they showed me how important it is to not walk away from suffering. Witnessing suffering, and sometimes ending it, and being present with a sentient being as she takes her last breath--acknowledging her life and death--is a gift to both of you. And of course, there is nothing better, yet more basic, than the simple gift of life, which often comes in the form of refraining from taking life.

Thank you all for reading.

Happy Thanksgiving.

On Allegedly Funny Videos, Turkey Pardons and Grace

Isn't that interesting . . . See what culture can do? (Thanks to Mark from Reno for pointing out the video.) I found it odd that the man with the dog gave what he then thought was dog meat to his dog. So his dog can be a cannibal, yet he can't eat a dog?

As for the turkey pardon, did you know that the first turkey to actually be pardoned was in 1989, by George H.W. Bush"? You know that famous photo of Harry Truman beginning the alleged tradition from 1947? Well, it turns out it was really of Truman "receiving a turkey, kicking off an annual tradition of presidents receiving turkeys from the National Turkey Federation." Check out "Turkey Pardons, The Stuffing of Historic Legend," by Monica Hesse, who doesn't think this story will be a big deal. "[I]t probably won't make a difference to the public, who has grown used to swallowing flexible history."

And speaking of swallowing flexible history, if you haven't seen No End in Sight, check it out.

Finally, a message of thanks and giving. Tomorrow, after I thank my hosts for inviting us and going out of their way to be accommodating, I will express my gratitude that we are all healthy and live comfortable lives. We often take for granted driving in a car from a beautiful home to another beautiful home, on the ocean, on this day or any day, to dine with wonderful friends. Everything that is involved in making that happen is a luxury for many people. We are grateful for the opportunity to have built the lives we've built, and we acknowledge and appreciate the significant advantages we were born into, as well as those we earned. We honor those advantages by making service a significant part of our lives. Most of all, we are thankful for all the hearts and minds that have opened to considering the impact our actions have on the Earth and all of its inhabitants, and who are willing to alter their lives accordingly. May you all have a peaceful day full of love and laughs, and eat food you are proud to eat, that nourishes your mind, body and soul.

On Thanksgiving Responses and Black Cat Days

The Final Chapter
The colleague who sent me the Thanksgiving letter that was accompanied by the turkey quiz responded to me with:

Thanks for giving me this important information, Mary...

I'm appreciative of your making me more sensitive to this brutality....and
the implications of animal eating to the environment....

You are a friend and passionate advocate.....My kind of person!

All my best....

Who knows if I made a real difference, but at least I planted a seed. And this is a man who puts his actions where his beliefs are. Maybe he'll shift his belief system and begin to consider other sentient beings. Maybe he won't. But at least I tried, and I did it with kindness, which is a far cry from what I would've done 20 years ago.

Black Cat Day

"Saturday is 'black cat day,' in Italy, an initiative by an animal rights group to try to stop the killing of thousands of the cats by superstitious citizens convinced they bring bad luck." Where did the people of Italy get such a ridiculous idea?

None other than a papal edict in the middle ages said that cats were indeed tools of the devil. And because of that edict, thousands of cats are slaughtered each year.

The Italian Association for the Defense of Animals and the Environment-AIDAA (hey, we need one of those) estimates 60,000 cats were slaughtered last year for several reasons: to ward off bad luck, as part of satanic rites, and in cosmetics laboratories.

And all of that is indeed horrible. But here's my question: when it comes to abject cruelty that is a result in superstition and outside of institutional uses of animals, why is this about animal rights? Isn't this a law enforcement issue? Isn't it against the law to kill cats because you think they're bad luck? Why did it take an animal rights group to get Italians to see the insanity of their ways? Is the satanic rite an institutional use of animals? Is that why?

Superstition is a tough nut to crack, especially when it's reinforced by the Pope. Pope Benedict seems obligated to try to turn this thing around with an edict of his own, and use the fact that people will do whatever he says to save some kitty lives. Animal rights groups can do outreach all day long, but if the Pope gets involved, we'll see some real progress. Write him at benedictxvi@vatican.va.

On ZooToo and the Right to Stand While Confined

First, I received a response from the folks at ZooToo.com regarding the makeover for animal shelters that I wrote about last week.

Dear Mary
Thank you for your email, as of right now we are considering farm sanctuaries if they have a facility or an enclosed barn, open to public even if it is by appointment only.  It must be a 501C3, and be capable to adopt out animals.  Because Wild life refuges do not adopt out animals to the public we are not including them in this one, but are working on programs for rescues and wild life programs.  Thank you for choosing zootoo where every click helps a pet.

Now, call me crazy, but don't farmed animal sanctuaries often rescue animals from people who had them as pets in the first place? Do they adopt out animals? If they do--if your favorite one does--submit it on ZooToo for a makeover and let everyone know so they can vote for/rate it! Of course, if your favorite no-kill shelter could use a makeover, that seems right up ZooToo's alley.

Next, Chuck Colson, the former chief counsel for President Nixon who was jailed for Watergate-related charges but more recently works for a Christian prison fellowship, wrote "Speciesism and Rights for Animals" for the Christian Post.

Let's deconstruct:

• The article begins: "Five years ago, Florida voters amended their state constitution to guarantee the rights of a previously unprotected class: pregnant pigs. Specifically, the ballot initiative guaranteed pregnant sows 'enough space within which to turn around.' Now, treating animals humanely is a moral imperative, especially for Christians; treating them as if they somehow were equivalent to humans is not. And, increasingly, that is what we are doing." This thoroughly confuses me. Does he mean that granting someone the right to turn around while they're being confined is a right only humans should have? And how important is his moral imperative if it's so easily trumped?
• He continues: "At the time of the initiative, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith noted that at, any given time, there are only 300 pregnant sows in the entire state. Of these, only a handful were not being provided the space required by the amendment. So, the initiative was not being sponsored to eliminate animal cruelty. Instead, its goal was to establish a legal and political precedent that would help redefine the relationship between people and animals—and, in this case, bestow constitutional rights on animals." Okay, I have two words for you: Wesley Smith. Here's just one of his many opinions, called "Pro-Animal or Anti-Human."
• And now, the California initiative: "There, animal-rights supporters are trying to get an initiative on the September 2008 ballot. This initiative would extend the 'rights' granted to Florida sows to the rest of the barnyard. It would, in effect, give animals a right to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs." And clearly, Colson doesn't think they should have that right. Extending their limbs is just too much to ask.
• Meanwhile, he says: "Again, Christians ought to oppose cruelty toward animals and ensure that animals, including those we eat, are treated humanely." So humane doesn't include standing or lying down or turning around while you're being confined before you're sent to slaughter? I'd like to hear his definition of humane.
• He thinks he's figured it all out, as he's heard about speciesism: "But initiatives like this one and in Florida are not really about the humane treatment of animals--€”they are about blurring and eventually erasing the distinction between people and animals. They are about eradicating what animal-rights advocates call 'speciesism.'" The funny thing is that he's got it backwards. These initiatives really are about reducing suffering (I won't get into whether or not that actually happens). How exactly does allowing someone to stand and turn around, whose life you completely control and always will, lead to a blurring of the distinction between man and beast (I'm surprised he didn't have that in there anywhere).
• "For [Peter] Singer and company, the offense is not only that we treat animals badly--€”it is that we think that people are human and, thus, different than animals," Colson writes. But that's not the whole thought. Humans and animals aren't different in that their both sentient. We're not saying we're identical and should have all of the same rights.
• Colson's every value is revealed when he writes: "How far will the animal-rights movement go? Can you imagine pigs enjoying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Don'€™t laugh. Social changes in postmodern America happen very quickly--especially when couched in the language of rights. How quickly, for example, did abortion go from being a crime to a right? Or the demand by gays for marriage?"
• And if you're still not clear about where he's coming from, he concludes with: "Worldviews matter. If you believe there is no God, then you believe there are no God-given rights. And to you, humans are indeed just one of many living accidents roaming the planet. But we know better. And we know better than to cast human rights before swine." The disdain is palpable, for both non-believers and pigs. If I believed in a god, there's no way mine would be the type of god to basically tell me I can run roughshod over the planet and everyone on it, and call that "stewardship" or "dominion."

Here's my problem: How do you communicate with someone who thinks he has the God-given right to his beliefs and behavior? In my own life my strategy is avoidance. Does anybody have a productive, positive way of speaking to religious people that has been met with success? Anybody doing a pamphlet on veganism and religion? I'd pay for that one.

My New, 7-Year Old Hero

Tricia directed me to "Is An Animal A Thing? Or A Being?" where Jampa Williams and her 7-year old son, Noah, write of a stir he caused in school by insisting that animals are not "things" (as in a noun is a person, place or thing). He wanted to classify animals as "beings," and thought the definition of a noun should be revised to "beings, places and things."

Jampa writes:

To be regarded as a thing is to be regarded as an object lacking liberty, protection or rights. A being regarded as a "thing" or an "it" lives or dies, thrives or suffers, according to the consent or even whims of those who hold power over him or her. Often, human beings have bestowed and continue to bestow upon other human beings the classification of "it," and the results are, and always have been, horrific and unconscionable. Treating any sentient being as a "thing" or an "it" produces results no less horrific, no less cruel.

Following her letter is Noah's, and my favorite part is the end:

A rug or something is a thing, but not an animal. He or she is not a thing! This is not funny, it's all true. I would not lie to you about this. It's not a joke.

Do not lie to me, either.

Noah's onto something, there. We do in fact lie to our children by setting up a system of language that puts only humans, and maybe our pets, in a position high enough where they are permitted the almighty words: who, whom, she, he, and, apparently, being. Nonhuman animals are relegated to the status of inanimate objects: things. And that is a factual error.

Check out the comments, where there are: people who miss the point and don't see language as important; people who get the point that animals are sentient but simply don't care to consider them; people who attack Jampa the same way vegan mothers all over are usually attacked; and people who understand the ramifications of the issue and are in awe that someone so young is able to teach us all a lesson.

We are all teachers and we are all students. All of us.

My Response to the Thanksgiving Message

Here's what I wrote to the fine person who sent me a thoughtful (in his world) Thanksgiving message:

Dear xxxxx,

Thanks for the lovely message of both thanks and giving. I'd like to add my own message: that we broaden our circle of compassion beyond humans to other sentient beings who have the same capacity for pleasure, pain, fear, boredom and affection as we have.

The nearly 50 million turkeys bred, de-beaked, de-toed, and pumped with antibiotics and hormones, only to be slaughtered for one day (there's another 230 million slaughtered the rest of the year), many who are dismembered while they are still alive, are also worthy of the justice you speak of.

You can read the story of Melvin the turkey here: http://peacefulprairie.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-were-thankful-for.html.

And go here, http://www.peacefulprairie.org/residents.html and click on Melvin to see more gorgeous photos, and look into the eyes of an individual--an individual turkey.

You wrote of preserving the earth and helping the environment. One of the top few causes of global warming--the real inconvenient truth--as has been demonstrated by the University of Chicago (here's the press release: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml) as well as the United Nations (http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm), is animal agriculture: eating animals.

Please consider this Thanksgiving, that nonviolence is a decision each day that begins with breakfast. Thanksgiving dinner is an opportunity to choose justice and nonviolence and compassion. Or not.

Thank you for reading.

Mary

Dealing with Thanksgiving Messages

Every Thanksgiving week, I get a handful of beautifully crafted messages about gratitude for all we have, including a gentle suggestion to help those less fortunate. Thankfully, at least one is usually from a vegan who is able to connect the dots that giving thanks isn't about sitting across from a carcass.

Ah, but the rest of them . . . .

This year, two were particularly fascinating: One from someone a professor friend who wants us all to "buy a turkey for the poor" as a show of compassion. I guess the compassion's supposed to be for the poor.

The other was from a gentleman who is great at making connections, which is ironic. (Oh, and he's bad at remembering things, as I have told him I don't eat animals, but I digress.) He sent a magnificent letter about thanks, yes, but mostly about giving, and suggested ways to give this holiday season. And I think that's great.

• He wants us to thank the caregivers of our children and our frail elders.
• He wants us to respect our elected officials for their service. He says, "Silence is the antithesis of effectiveness in a democracy." I like that.
• He suggests volunteering, as  "our time is a priceless gift which appreciates in value."
• Conserving energy and consuming less fuel would be nice too.
• "Preserving our environment is self-preservation, as well as a life-saving gift to wildlife, plantlife, and our children's children," he says.
• My favorite one is: "Advocate with assertion, not aggression. Free speech is not an invitation to be offensive. Responsible advocacy requires thoughtful purpose, practical solutions, and open conversation. Clear and consistent communication with allies and adversaries alike sets the stage for progress. Advocacy is the heart-felt expression of a wrong to be righted, with composure and grace. An advocate's power is in persuasive and persistent articulation, and the recruitment of others to the cause."
• Then there's "Health is a form of wealth."
• Finally, "Take optimism pills every morning....the time-release kind. Negativity is contagious. Those who believe they will make a difference can achieve their goals. Pessimism is the mind's way of giving up before the first step is taken. Those who want to make change for the better in their lives, neighborhood, and the world around them, should stop whining and start winning. The power of one, multiplied and magnified, is the only correct formula for success."

This man, who is able to reach out and send a message of compassion and gratitude and service, is missing something that becomes really obvious at the end of the letter.

As we begin to plan for the holiday season, we have the obligation to realize that there are neighbors, young and elder, whose coming weeks are not brimming with joy. For whatever reason, in whatever circumstance, we well know that there are people in need who can be helped if we choose to do so.

There are people in need who can be helped if we choose to do so. True, true. And he concludes:

In honor and remembrance a family member who was there for you when you needed them most, please thank those who illuminate our paths, exemplify kindness, teach justice, and nurture our futures.  What a fitting tribute to the legacy of our ancestors.

Teach justice and nurture our futures. Then, there's a link to a quiz about Thanksgiving and turkeys that manages to ask: Which state "produces" the most turkeys annually, but never asks just how many turkeys are bred and slaughtered for one day. 45-50 million, and many of whom are dismembered while fully conscious, just so you know.

I will respond, in the most diplomatic way possible, to this fine man who does so much for our community, but who is missing an integral part of the compassion picture. And an integral part of the justice picture. And I'll probably link to Melvin's story.

Preserve the environment, conserve energy and use less fuel, improve your health, teach justice and nurture our futures. Just say no to the unnecessary breeding, torture and slaughter of turkeys and other nonhuman animals.

Contact ZooToo.com About Your Favorite Sanctuary

Yesterday on Ellen, she featured a Rocky Ridge Refuge, home of Lurch, whom you must see to believe. Janice Wolf runs the place and she appears to be doing fantastic work rescuing animals, most of whom were supposed to be someone's "pet." Ellen had Wolf on the show because the folks at ZooToo.com are paying for food for the animals for a year (it costs $1,400/month to feed everyone) and are also building a new shelter for them.

But that's just the beginning . . . . ZooToo is having a contest worth $1 million:

Help Your Local Animal Shelter! Join the Zootoo House Shelter Makeover Project Today!
Zootoo House is launching the first-ever Shelter Makeover Program in America. We will provide funding for 20 animal shelters across the country to make much needed architectural improvements. One of the top 20 shelters will receive a makeover valued up to One Million Dollars.

Animal Shelters can win the makeover valued up to One Million Dollars by encouraging their local communities to become active on www.zootoo.com, the first opinion-sharing website that allows all pet lovers to help each other by sharing their knowledge. The 20 shelters that accumulate the most points between October 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008 will be eligible to win the makeover or runners-up cash prizes.

The Zootoo House Advisory Board, which consists of Richard Thompson, Zootoo Founder and Top Cat, Bill Meade from the Shelter Planners of America, and Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States will personally visit each of the 20 shelters to evaluate their needs. The shelter deemed most deserving will win a makeover valued up to One Million Dollars.

To get started visit www.zootoo.com/makeover today! It’s fun, easy and free!

Now, this does appear to be about pets, and I didn't see any farmed animal sanctuaries on the site. But I also didn't see anything specifically excluding them. And the name does have "zoo" in it, so maybe they'd also consider wildlife sanctuaries.

I say submit information about your favorite shelter or sanctuary, and let us all know, and spread the word on message boards and the like. Worst case scenario? More people learn about more places that help animals, and more people learn about farmed animal sanctuaries (most people I talk to say: What good does it do to save one chicken? Meanwhile they wouldn't say: What good does it do to save one dog?) After you've shared info about whatever place you're submitting, people review it and rate it. The Humane Society of North Texas is currently in first place.

I'm going to write to them at: makeover@zootoo.com and ask whether farmed animals or wildlife are eligible, and encourage them to consider including them if they're not. Maybe if enough people write, they'll consider a change in policy. I'll let you know what I hear from them.

For now, check them out, submit a shelter or sanctuary (I'd be interested in whether they're moderating and wouldn't approve a farmed animal sanctuary), and spread the word about your favorite place that helps nonhuman animals.

Free-Range Hens Need Rescuing Too

One hundred "spent" free-range hens scheduled for slaughter arrived at Peaceful Prairie recently (see "Coming Home" and the video ""The Faces of 'Free-Range' Farming". I'd post the video, but I'd rather you go to YouTube so it gets more hits.). They were all debeaked with no anesthetic, they all had severe feather loss, they all endured repeated cycles of forced molting, sometimes being starved for up to 18 days, and at 18 months of age, they were already considered "spent." Though they weren't in cages, they lived a dreadful existence in a sunless, windowless shed, reeking of ammonia.

When they arrived they were terrified and still exhibiting the neurotic behaviors they developed as a result of their extreme abuse. And all for eggs sold for a premium, touted by PeTA, HSUS and Peter Singer.

For those of you who have friends and family who proudly proclaim that they consume only cage-free eggs (and I'm not mocking them here, as they have every reason to believe they are not adding to the problem of suffering by choosing cage-free eggs), please refer them to the story of the hens who are living at Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary. (And maybe send them Thinking Critically About Animal Rights while you're at it.) It's clear from looking at the hens and their behavior, that there was not substantially less suffering at their cage-free facility, contrary to what we are all told. The one thing we do know is true no matter what, however, is that there is no such thing as a cruelty-free egg.

On When it's Okay to Shoot Cats

In "Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty?" (and why is "but" the only word not capitalized?) in today's New York Times, Kate Murphy reports that James M. Stevenson is on trial in Galveston, Texas for shooting a cat with a .22-caliber rifle. The cat, Mama Cat, died.

Let's deconstruct:

• The question at hand is whether it was animal cruelty or not, and this question hinges on one thing: was the cat feral, or can she have been considered owned by a human (a particular human, who fed her, brought her toys and bedding, and named her).
• The message is that it's okay to shoot a cat whom no human owns, but it's not okay to shoot a cat who's been named by a human. The message is it's not okay to mess with someone else's property. But it's not as if the potential owner, a Mr. Newland, would be compensated, which makes the law doubly twisted because property status is what's determining whether or not cruelty has taken place (sort of like with hunting), not whether or not Newland will be compensated in some way. But wait  . . .

"Whether the cat was feral is the crucial point in this case. Mr. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibited killing a cat 'belonging to another.' Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership."

That's a relief.

• Stevenson killed Mama Cat because she was stalking endangered shorebirds, and he leads bird-watching tours and is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society. He also admitted to killing many other cats on his own property. It seems to me that perhaps he could use some kind of mental health evaluation. Lots of people don't like cats or observe them stalking birds, but few of them shoot and kill the cats. That's not the action of a balanced, healthy individual. I'm trying to figure out why no one's talking about his mental health.
• It's bird lovers vs. cat lovers in the courtroom:
  
  “How people feel about the trial depends on who you talk to,” said Victor Lang, a local historian, adding that bird-watchers and cat fanciers obviously had the strongest views.
  
  Though others may argue passionately about whether Mr. Stevenson should be punished, Mr. Lang said he did not have strong feelings about the case.
  
  “But you see, I’m a dog person,” he said. “If he had shot a dog, then I’d be more upset.”

Ah, there's the rub. This case isn't about whether Stevenson's shooting of Mama Cat was a crime: it's not about justice. Instead, it's about cats and birds, and which species is more valued by people. After all, we are the ones who determine whose life has worth, and whose doesn't.

Download "Thinking Critically About Animal Rights"

I'm keeping this post featured here for a while, until I think of something more interesting to do with it.

Here's the pamphlet (Download TCAAR5.pdf), and here's my suggestion: If you like it, great! If you hate it, use it as a prototype for what not to do and make your own, and learn from all of my mistakes.

As you know, the message that animals aren't ours to use is, well, short. Oh, and then there's the reality that most people won't agree, although they're not sure why (they're just protecting their lifestyle), hence the discussion about common misconceptions. If someone is going to tell me it's okay to use animals, I at least want them to know what all of that use entails.

UPDATE: It looks fabulous on 11 x 17 (8.5 x 11 when folded) on 100# paper. The cost difference between that and 80# or 28# laser is negligible. I will also lay it out to be smaller, using 8.5 x 11 paper.