Animal Person

Do You Campaign to Ban Foie Gras?

I don't know about you, but I get annoyed when vegans (it doesn't matter when other people do it) are relieved that cage-free eggs exist for those who still can't kick the habit. They should know better.

Then again, the national organizations--and even local ones--that these vegans give to send them newsletters and magazines touting cage-free eggs as victories, so the question shouldn't be why do they think that, it should be why do I think they wouldn't! I'm guessing we agree about eggs.

But how about foie gras bans? Do you participate in the collection of signatures, etc., or would you? If not, why not? It would be the abolition of one use of one animal, right? I thought it was until I heard someone say it's like banning gestation crates, in that they'll just keep making it, but differently. I didn't know that. And if that's the case, I'm out. Unless someone wants to convince me otherwise.

Of course, I'd campaign for banning Greyhound racing. But not for the endless attempts at getting the tracks in Florida to report injuries (they don't have to). That might produce either effect: people see how lethal racing is and don't go, or tracks change the way they do things and injuries decrease and business booms. That sounds like a bad deal and a waste of my time. Not to mention the presumption is that we're using dogs for entertainment or sport, which is contradictory to my beliefs.

I've asked this before when I discussed getting elephants out of circuses and zoos. It's speciesist, for sure, but it's also abolitionist if they're retired to sanctuaries, right?. But then people might go back to the circus because they stopped going because of the elephants (I think people like that really do exist, as there is quite a movement to remove the elephants and the big cats, but I don't hear any arguments about the rest of the animals. Then again, maybe they're just going for the "low hanging fruit" we all hear so much about, which seems very tricky.).

I presently (in the 2008 calendar year) give to no national group. Not a one. I do direct service and give to direct service as well as to small, local, and/or creative endeavors, or projects far away that I hear are successful (and I'd love it if they were abolitionist).

Am I missing something regarding legislation, or is it the case that there simply hasn't been any that wouldn't compromise my beliefs? The Farm Bill drama, which I didn't follow all that closely as it seemed like folly, wasn't even close to being in alignment with not using animals. Do any of you concentrate on legislation as the way to get nonhuman animals out of the hands/out from under the feet of human animals?  Or, as things are in 2008, do any of you think it's possible to further our cause in the US via legislation?

On Circus "Slaves"

In "Circus 'Slave' Forced to Swim with Piranhas," we learn that two Bulgarian sisters were forced to perform in an Italian circus.

It's a five sentence article but so much about it (not the obvious parts, mind you) struck me as bizarre and made me want to scream: Hello? Is there anybody paying attention to these words? Don't they sound like they can apply to a very, very similar situation?

Let's deconstruct:

• Police rescued the 16- and 19-year olds, one of whom was forced to swim with piranhas "for the amusement of guests." The other was forced into a container where circus staff tossed snakes at her. Not really sure what's entertaining about either, but here's my question: The animals are taken from their homes and forced to do whatever the circus staff wants them to do, for the amusement of guests, and the police aren't doing anything about that. Why not? In one situation, people are enslaving and denigrating others, and in the other situation people are enslaving and denigrating others. It's the same scenario with the exception of species.
• "The women were paid 100 euros ($155.8) per week and lived in a trailer that had previously been used to transport animals, they said." Oh, wait, it's not the same scenario, as the sisters were paid. Not well paid--and the money doesn't make up for what happened to them--but paid.

However the sisters came to be "enslaved" by the circus, the situation was obviously dreadful for them and a violation of their rights. I would never minimize what has occurred to them.

However, this phrase tells me everything: "[they] lived in a trailer that had previously been used to transport animals," as if that's the most degrading thing you can do to a human being.

My hope would be that anyone appalled by this story would think twice about it and wonder why it's so horrifying, and maybe entertain the thought--make the connection--that after the liberation of the sisters, the circus is still horrifying. There are many others to liberate.

On A Real-Life Difficulty of Being Vegan

I used to complain--a lot--to my husband about living in South Florida. I felt a kinship with almost no one, I was a freak to all, and the closest vegan restaurant is 70 miles away. I wanted to move back to New York, or perhaps to San Francisco or even Chicago (where he's from). Maybe even Asheville. All I know is I wanted to feel like my community had a clue and was doing something other than holding events for $500/ticket where $200 goes to the cause, filet mignon is served, few people eat it (because they might gain weight), and it is promptly tossed into the garbage.

Interestingly, now that my husband has got a clue of his own and has stopped eating animals (and even replaced his shoes with NOHARMs), he is feeling a bit of longing. He'd like to be able to walk into a restaurant (he dines with clients a lot, and eats out for at least one meal each day) and order something other than a plate of carbs of some sort--that he actually finds tasty. Going out on weekends isn't interesting to him at all anymore, as there are a few places we go to all the time because they're the only ones with good vegan dishes, and he doesn't have a high tolerance for food repetition.

I, on the other hand, can eat the same thing every day and not have any problem with that.

Though one could most certainly have worse problems, this is an extrovert who grew up white and privileged and never feeling like he didn't want to go to a restaurant. And now he doesn't dread it, but he doesn't enjoy it or look forward to the experience as he's anticipating bad food that he might have to send back (we recently discovered that at the places where we would order pasta with a marinara sauce the pasta, it is made on the premises--with eggs. So we can't even eat pasta when we go out. Or we find out that the vegetarian lettuce wraps, made with wild mushrooms and not a hint of any animals around, are sauteed in some kind of oyster sauce--and they're the non-meat option!).

When people say that veganism is easy, I can't help but think: It's easy for you. Try having to go out to lunch and/or dinner with clients every day in a snooty town that has not one vegan restaurant (oh, and neither one of us enjoys Indian food). Whether or not it's easy to be a vegan largely depends on where you live and how you've set up your life. If we lived in Manhattan I wouldn't be writing this.

Being vegan is easy for me because I have near-total control over my environment. I buy and prepare the food I want to eat, I'm rarely at the mercy of anyone else's restaurant choice, and when I am I might eat before I go and have a fabulous glass of wine and call it a day (or night).

But not everyone has the luxury of living the way I do, and I think we have to acknowledge that and say there are myriad factors involved in whether going or being vegan is easy (like, is your partner or parent/s vegan; where do you live; what is your work situation like; is your community friendly to the idea).

Revisiting the Spectrum

Part of my day yesterday was spent at Caring Fields Animal Sanctuary, about 30 minutes (because you can drive 80 mph on the Turnpike) north of me. I was there because Rae Sikora was facilitating a workshop on communication, and I've been wanting to meet her ever since I heard her on "Vegans on the Hot Seat: Rae Sikora and Gary Francione Respond."

The topic for today is the spectrum idea I raised earlier in the week that, as they say, went over like a lead balloon ("Can vegetarianism be on the spectrum of respect toward nonhuman animals, with omnivores being on the way left, and the impossible perfect vegan on the way right?" I asked.) Rae, coincidentally, conducts an exercise around the idea of the spectrum, the point being that we were all at the opposite end of the spectrum once, and we moved toward where we are today. Now, I haven't done the research so I don't know whether most people do indeed progress toward veganism. I don't know how many people make the switch overnight. My guess is that there's more progressing than not, though.

Personal story for those new to Animal Person: Last year my husband says to me, while I'm cooking him honey mustard chicken, wild rice and asparagus, "The only reason I still eat meat is because you keep buying it and cooking it for me."

My response? "I'm feeling really generous today and if you'd like me to give you the opportunity to take that back I'm delighted to do so. But in the unlikely event that you think you're prepared to follow through on what you just said, I promise you I'll never buy or cook another animal part for you ever again."

Poof, no more animals for him. Just like that. No stepping across the spectrum. One big leap.

I think the sheer number of vegetarians versus vegans can be seen as further evidence of the spectrum. The question really becomes: What do you do with it?

I raised the topic of congratulating people for baby steps yesterday, and the entire room (some of whom were vegetarians) agreed--Rae included--that congratulations were in order. I'm sure many of you know Rae and that's perfectly in line with how she presents herself. The idea is to support others in their journey and provide encouragement.

Of course, the terrier that I am, I couldn't let go of the point and asked the group: If someone stops eating "red meat," before I offer up any congratulations I want to know what they've replaced the red meat meals with. Did they swap chicken for beef, or are they eating vegan meals when they used to eat beef? If they're doing the latter, then I think congratulations of some kind are in order. That one met with some blank stares and we moved on.

With the exception of Rae, I was the only abolitionist in the group, which was disappointing. It was clearer than ever that there's another spectrum involved: welfare to abolition-with-reforms to abolition-without-reforms (how's that for a new way of wording it?) that often plays out as a continuum at the level of the individual. I attempted to begin the abolition discussion without using the word, and I told a personal story from 15 years ago that led me to the idea that dominating and controlling other sentient beings was wrong. I did a terrible job with the story and I don't think I got my point across, which is a shame as perhaps it would have helped someone with their thinking.

Opportunity lost . . . .

I'll leave you with two helpful ideas that Rae presents (and I'm paraphrasing):

1. Asking someone to act on what you believe after you've introduced them to the idea is like asking someone to turn a corner they haven't even reached yet. They don't see that there's a corner, and you want them to turn.
2. Approaching your interactions as potential conversion opportunities isn't productive (uh-oh. I do that all the time.). Instead of trying to get the other person to move to your side (from their side), try to get the other person to go to an entirely different place with you. That way, you both have to move--you're not asking them to do all the work.

I'm not sure where that other place is. Any thoughts? Anyone approach their interactions that way?

On Suspended Exhibitions, New Websites and Questions

Today's post is a combo-grande and I'll only be around at noon to quickly moderate, then a couple of hours later.

First, my mailbox was a-flooded late yesterday (and there was also a comment by tierraist--thanks!) regarding the, um, "art" exhibit entitled "Don't Trust Me" at the Walter and McBean Galleries in San Francisco. Here's the deal:

As a result of the overwhelming response from In Defense of Animals members [AND Animal Person Readers!], SFAI announced this morning that they have suspended the exhibit at the Walter and McBean Galleries, at least temporarily. The Institute will hold a public forum on Monday, March 31st at SFAI's campus to hear criticism of the work. Controversial "artist" Adel Abdessemed will not be present, but the school's Dean of Academic Affairs, two art professors, and the exhibit's curator will be. Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen by urging SFAI to remove the installation, and forwarding our alert to people around the country.

IDA founder and president Dr. Elliot Katz commended SFAI for discontinuing the exhibit, and for holding the public forum. "The Institute's initial defense that the animals were going to be killed anyway sends a terrible message, not only to the public, but to the next generation of artists," he noted. "Their official response was at first rather inflexible and defensive. I am pleased that now they are at least willing to hear the public's concerns relating to the ethical and moral ramifications of this exploitive and cruel exhibit."

- If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please attend the public forum and respectfully express your opinion on this exhibit in person. This is a great opportunity to let people know that it is wrong to hurt or kill animals for "art," and to expand the argument: If they found the images of death disturbing, they should realize that all animals killed for meat suffer terribly, and that going vegan is an ethical choice that saves lives.

What: Public forum to discuss art and ethics, and whether killing animals can ever be considered "art."

When: Monday, March 31st at noon

Where: San Francisco Art Institute Main Campus (in the lecture hall), 800 Chestnut Street, San Francisco

- If you cannot attend the public forum, please Take Action to reaffirm your desire to see this exhibit closed down once and for all, and to urge SFAI to implement a policy explicitly prohibiting exhibits for which animals were intentionally exploited or killed.

The phone number of the gallery is 415-749-4563 and their e-mail is exhibitions@sfai.edu.

Next, Roger alerted me about a new website, www.vegatopia.org, which, according to its creators . . .

. . . is dedicated to providing a comprehensive academic resource on all things vegan. If you are a student, researcher or teacher interested in any aspect of veganism this is the site for you. We aim to provide you with access to as wide a range of academic resources on veganism as possible and hope that through the inter- and multi- disciplinary sharing of ideas, this site will facilitate new areas of research into vegan-related issues. We want Vegatopia to be an interactive forum for dialogue, informing individual and collaborative research and teaching, as well as making a contribution to vegan activism and having a positive impact on veganism in a wider sense.

Sounds like something I've been waiting for!

When you look through you'll notice it is not an abolitionist site (it mentions Gary Francione and Erik Marcus  under "Academic and Research," but don't let that stop you from giving it serious consideration.

Finally, I received an e-mail yesterday and if the question hadn't been asked within a polite, well-meaning note, I probably wouldn't have taken it seriously and thought it was from someone (you know the type) whose intention was to annoy me and waste my time.

With that said, I don't have a bunch of spare time today. As I said, I will be able to moderate at noon for 10 minutes, but other than that, I'm unavailable.

Here's the question, and I'd like you to respond to it in a respectful way, as if your mother were asking it:

I see the human species as one with nature, not separate and subject to different rules. All animals kill other organisms to eat whether they be animal, plant, fungi, protist, or otherwise.

What is the vegan argument for not killing other animals to eat considering that nonhuman animals kill other animals to eat?

I'd go in the direction of because we don't have to, but that's me and when I'm in a hurry my snide comes out. Any productive, kind explanations are welcome.

Are Animal Snuff Films Art?

The Walter and McBean Galleries in the Russian Hill neighborhood of San Francisco are currently exhibiting an installation by Adel Abdessemed called "Don't Trust Me," which they apparently believe warrant support of the San Francisco Art Institute.

From the press release:

Don’t Trust Me portrays six animals—a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe—being struck and killed by a hammer. Each killing occurs so quickly that it’s difficult to determine definitively what has happened. Do these incidents represent slaughter or sacrifice? What are their social, cultural, moral, and political implications? Or are such questions now verging on irrelevance, as if something else altogether were taking place (or about to), something wholly other, unforeseen, unexpected?

If you can stomach it, read the rest of absurd press release--particularly the end:

SFAI’s exhibitions and public programs—a component of which is the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series—are supported in part by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Peter Norton Family Foundation, and the Grants for the Arts/San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund. Additional funding for the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series has been provided by Bob and Betty Klausner. Additional support for Adel Abdessemed’s exhibition, as well as for his Visiting Artists and Scholars lecture, has been provided by the Cultural Services of the French Consulate in San Francisco.

If you have any contacts at the above, please make use of them and express your disgust, outrage, and sadness.

You can call the gallery at 415-749-4563 and leave an articulate message of protest (and few people I know are able to do that without getting enraged, so perhaps a different medium is better), or you can e-mail them at exhibitions@sfai.edu. Of course, ask that the exhibit be removed immediately and that the galleries refrain from supporting such barbaric work in the future.

I have nothing else to say, other than this is one of those moments when I am ashamed to call myself an artist and a human being. If the videos were of our institutional uses of animals, there might be a lesson to be learned. The only lesson I learn here is just how low some people will plunge to garner attention, and just how ridiculous some PR people can be in their attempts to spin the depraved into the honorable.

On Meat-Eaters and Terrified Wildlife

In "The Explorer's Club: Endangering Animals One Dinner At A Time," Diana Odasso explains:

Amidst admirable hours spent reflecting a precarious future and surrounded by accomplished explorers, researchers, and conservationists from the world over, I was therefore shocked to encounter a circus mentality akin to a turn of the century Coney Island freak show: the annual presentation of 'endangered' species. Accompanied by dessert and the cymbal-clanging lame jokes of the organization's honorary president, handlers brought out several terrified animals: a large snapping turtle whose mouth was stretched wide in fear, a monitor lizard, and a mid-sized alligator from the Florida Everglades. . . . And though I eat meat, wear leather, visit zoos, and do not throw tofu pies at Anna Wintour, something in me stirred at the sight of those terrified wild animals.

Here's my question: Do we have any business being angry or annoyed with people who eat meat yet are disgusted by certain uses of animals? In yesterday's comments, Nathan wrote:

I think there are serious problems with anything that associates vegetarianism with veganism, ties them together, or suggests in anyway that vegetarianism is desirable or positive.

Part of me says, "Yes! What's with vegetarians thinking they're doing something so great?" The other part says, "Isn't there something positive about ceasing the eating of flesh? Shouldn't they get a modicum of credit? And the meat-eating, skin-wearing people at the Waldorf who were disturbed by the parade of terrified wildlife--isn't it a good sign that there's actually at least one form of animal exploitation that upsets them?" Of course, that's one minuscule sign if it is one, and if it's accompanied by no change in behavior it could very well be simply a pang of guilt for their complicity in the institutions of animal usage.

And regarding friends and family who eat no animal products except pizza--and that was me by the way: Do we ridicule them for their participation in the exploitation and suffering of animals and give them no credit whatsoever? I realize that the pizza thing really is the height of denial and/or hypocrisy, as you can't get it without killing calves (because of the rennet), therefore pizza and veal are actually sort of cousins. But most people simply don't know that.

I find that most vegans are tougher on vegetarians than omnivores, and the logic is that vegetarians think they're doing so much good, and at least omnivores don't claim to be. And I get that. But is that fair? Is that kind? Does it help move them toward veganism? Is there such a thing as behaving somewhat, but not completely ethically when it comes to animals? Isn't it true that no one is completely vegan if they're living in the developed world in a house, driving a car, etc.? Can vegetarianism be on the spectrum of respect toward nonhuman animals, with omnivores being on the way left, and the impossible perfect vegan on the way right? Do you think of this issues in terms of a spectrum, or is there only omnivore and vegan, with vegetarian being more of a pseudo category, like pescetarian?

On What's in a Name and What We're Missing

The problem with the idea of "Compassionate Carnivores," as I see it, is the name, for two reasons:

1. Compassionate doesn't belong with carnivore.
2. Omnivore is more accurate, as long as we're talking about language.

I should tell you that the website's creator has taken the Niman book off the reading list, which I thought was a nice start, as telling veggies-in-progress how to cook animals seems a bit contradictory.

Next, you know how many of us have friends who claim to love animals and would never hurt one, at least not until their next meal? And you know how we try to educate them about a glass of milk containing as much suffering as a steak? And you know how we try to get them to start with one day a week (or maybe one meal) that is animal free? Well, that's what this group is doing. It's like HSUS, I suppose, or another animal welfare group that encourages cage-free eggs and "humanely-raised meats".

Here's the problem with that, that is becoming more evident than ever, and I write this with the most sincere intention and it's heartbreaking in its reality: Convincing people that there is such a thing as "humane slaughter" is making people go back to meat eating or not stop in the first place. It's backfiring. It is by no means a step toward vegetarianism or veganism.

Take a gander at an article Roger Yates directed me to from last week, starring none other than the Niman Ranch and taking direction from my nemesis, Michael Pollan, called "Back in Rack." Then of course there's the Canadian news show that some of you refused to even listen to because of the way the topic was treated (according to yours truly). And we see print and radio material like this more and more frequently.

Here's the last section of "Back in Rack." It's oh-so cleverly entitled, "What's at Steak."

So given the increasing availability of small-farm-pastured, sustainably produced meat, are former vegetarians turning into omnivores?

"For sure," says farmer Dunlop, himself a vegetarian for a dozen years. "I was in the same boat when I was in school, and did homework on factory farms and saw the suffering, the incredible stress that these animals undergo," he recalls. "But I started eating meat again once I began raising my pigs."

Chef Sims doesn't keep statistics, but he does have the kind of anecdotal evidence that confirms Dunlop's hunch. "Once I started putting Niman Ranch, humanely raised meat on our menu a year ago," says Sims, "two friends of mine, both vegetarians for over 17 years, started eating meat again at our restaurant."

And for the CEO of Niman Ranch, the numbers support a resurgence of thoughtful meat-eating.

"Our company grew 26 percent last year," Swain notes. "And not just in the Bay Area."

What I would like to see is a peer-reviewed study, don't ask me by whom but some independent body of some sort, about vegans and vegetarians who go back to eating animals, and vegetarians who don't go vegan because they have bought the idea that they can get their eggs and dairy products in a way that doesn't involve the disrespect, dominance and slaughter of sentient beings. That's the thing we're missing.

People--and remember that I was one of them--who believe that changing your buying habits and purchasing slightly-less-hideously-cruel animal products will lead to veganism are, as I was, not being realistic. That's not how it works. What leads to veganism is the realization that we don't have the right to use animals for food and there is simply no way--no way--to humanely slaughter anyone. Therefore, no amount of rigging of the system will satisfy the requirement of humane.

On Raising Money for Individuals

After a friend was appalled that Michael Vick's dogs were going to get rehabilitated, I started thinking more about raising money for individuals. Now, the money for his dogs should have come from the money he was ordered to pay, and I'm not sure my friend knew that at the time, and I'm also not sure if that would have changed her mind.

This topic comes up today because the San Diego-based marine who nursed an earless dog (they were cut off) back to health while in Anbar province was reunited with the dog, Nubs. The story was all over the news about a month ago and had everyone crying. Even CNN ran the story, and I believe directed viewers to a fund they could contribute to.

I could be wrong about the fund thing, but this case made me think of others like it. And here's what I was thinking: Are you more likely to give money to individuals or to a cause? You must know that when you give to individuals that contribution is not exactly a value proposition. You're not helping a cause as much per dollar when you're helping only one individual.

When an organization does direct service, do you think about your donation in terms of individuals served and try to get the most bang for your buck?

Furthermore, do you refrain from giving money to groups that concentrate on legislation because you'd rather help individuals? (Or because you think legislation doesn't serve your mission?)

And don't even think about saying I'm only asking about this because we're talking about animals on this blog. I'm the Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of a joint venture that helps foster youth from age 13 to age 23, and the cost per individual is nearly $20,000. When donors hear that number, many will refuse to give and instead look for an organization that has a lower per-unit cost. (Yes, people can be units, too.) Meanwhile, if the kids don't get the services, the donor--and the rest of us via taxes--ends up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars (potentially), per person, per lifetime, in incarceration, institutionalization and public welfare. Though that can help make $20,000 look like the great deal it is, some people simply will not give because it costs too much to help one person.

Obviously this all goes back to the organization's mission, and whether it is designed to offer a full spectrum of services to an individual, like Peaceful Prairie and Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary.

So what about you? Are you more likely to give to individuals or to initiatives (like a TNR program)?

What Would You Say to a "Compassionate Carnivore?"

Imagine, for a moment, that you knew that on this one particular day, you would have an audience with a larger percentage of people who disagree with you than normal.

Suppose those people claimed to care about animals and the planet, and called themselves "Compassionate Carnivores." These are not people (I don't think) who joke about bacon being "pig candy," and they realize we must change the way we eat as a nation, and in fact would like their members to pledge to be Veggies in Progress (VIPs).

On the other hand, they include The Niman Ranch Cookbook in their suggested reading list, and there is nothing that speaks to not eating animals on ethical grounds (Matthew Scully's call for mercy is from a standpoint of us being good stewards of those we reign over), so I'm not sure why they even want people to be VIPs.

I don't understand exactly where they stand, and I'm not kidding.

But who cares about me.

What kind, articulate message would you send to such "compassionate carnivores" (and yes, I did call such people delusional carnivores earlier this week)?

I guess if I could ask them a question, I'd ask: Do you honestly think that you can use the word compassion when you're talking about breeding, dominating and slaughtering sentient beings without necessity? Do you honestly think it's right (/moral/ethical/just) to do such things?

Okay, that's two questions.

If I could send a message, it would be: I was where you are, once. I thought that we should go back to family farms, where animals might have the opportunity once or twice to procreate when they wanted to, or to roll in the grass under the light of the sun, or to eat what they were intended to eat. And when we eventually slaughtered them, we should do it in the kindest way possible.

This is all while I was going vegan.

But I couldn't go vegan fast enough once I got honest with myself and admitted that the phrase "when we eventually slaughtered them, we should do it in the kindest way possible" is ridiculous if you don't have to kill someone in the first place.

And once I learned that there's no such thing as an egg produced outside of the context of the slaughter of baby males and all spent hens; or milk produced without forced insemination, slaughter of the babies for veal, and slaughter of the cow, who spent too much of her life pregnant, I became even more adamant about my choice to go vegan.

I guess I'd say: Is the taste the milk from another species, or the flesh from the breast of another species, worth everything you have to do to those individuals to get their milk and their flesh? What is the cost to your conscience? Are you thinking critically about all that goes into using animals when you don't need to, or are you just trying to find a justification for continuing to use them?

What would YOU say to well-meaning people who call themselves compassionate carnivores?

Another AIDS Vaccine Failure

I have approximately three minutes as I have to go out for the day. However, I did see "Vaccine Failure is Setback in AIDS Fight" by David Brown in the Washington Post this morning. The payoff comes on page three--right at the end:

The researchers did not have any reason to believe the vaccine might be harmful (although they acknowledged it might not be effective), and in any case such a study would have required quite a large number of monkeys, which are expensive to acquire and maintain for research.

Instead, researchers vaccinated a relatively small number of monkeys with the Merck vaccine and then injected them with the monkey equivalent of HIV in a manner that guaranteed they would become infected. Those animals did much better over the long run than infected but unvaccinated ones.

That was once enough to move a vaccine into human trials. But it probably never will be again.

So they're either going to have to raise (and waste) more money for more monkeys, or find a less expensive, more efficient way. I guess when enough people are unintentionally harmed or die after numerous nonhuman animals are harmed and then killed, that's when the red flag goes up.

Is a Dog Coat Better Than a Cow Coat?

I didn't think I'd be reduced to writing about the British couple who made "jumpers" from the hair of their dogs, but here I am.

By now I'm sure you've seen "Hair of the Dog," which appears to be circulating faster than that e-mail about Bill Gates spreading his wealth by giving out checks to people in amounts based on the number of times they've forwarded an e-mail.

The interesting thing is that the initial reaction of nearly every person who has written me about this or spoken to me about this is "Ewwww. That's so gross."

I decided to turn this situation into an opportunity to talk about items such as fur coats, leather coats and wool coats, and how picking up the hair of your dog for decades to have it spun into clothing might be a little eccentric, but at least no one was harmed in the process.

Let's deconstruct:

• The couple in didn't take the hair from the dogs--they took it from the floor and the furniture.
• They did not breed the dogs for this purpose (the dogs, however, were purebreeds, so they were purposely bred, which I of course think is unjustifiable, but that's another story).
• They did not appear to harm the dogs in any way as a result of this process.
  • The dogs were not skinned alive.
  • They were not anally electrocuted.
  • They were not crammed into cages for their entire lives.
  • They were not victims of steel leg-hold traps.
  • They were not gassed.
  • They did not exist solely for their hair or fur.

Why is what the couple did so "gross," when their feet are probably covered with cow skin? Why isn't that "gross?"

Culture, of course, is the culprit here, as we just don't do things like make jumpers from dog hair. But if you have no problem with wearing the skin of others and the hair and fur of others, you have no business ridiculing people who wear dog-hair clothing.

When I reach this part in the conversation, I am inevitably asked if I would wear a Violet Rays sweater or a Charles Hobson Booger III vest, or perhaps some Emily Fokker socks. And my answer is no. Not because of any cruelty or not, but because I don't want people to think that I find wearing the skin, hair or fur of another sentient being acceptable. After all, if I'll wear a Violet Rays sweater, I'll probably won't have any problem wearing leather pants with it.

On Nonhumans and High Culture

I didn't closely follow the case of Hiasl the 26-year old chimpanzee, for whom a lawsuit was brought to have him declared a "person" and assigned a legal guardian. I'm not one who thinks chimps should be granted personhood unless the rest of the sentient nonhuman world qualifies as well.

On page 18 of the April 2008 issue of Harper's, there's a translation of a brief (from German) from the lawsuit that was apparently in response to the notion that Hiasl shouldn't be granted personhood because he is a chimp and does not have culture. Here's the gist:

Admittedly, they have no high culture. The produce no computers, build no skyscrapers, write no books. Homo sapiens has done these things, however, for only a short time span--about 1 percent of the existence of the species. In spite of the influence of industrial societies, there are still indigenous peoples who live as if now is the Stone Age. To deny these peoples their humanity because they have no high culture would be absurd. . . . Homo sapiens needed roughly 190,000 years to develop anything like high culture. Chimpanzees already have a culture, a language, tools, and awareness; they can produce pictures, and, under the right conditions, they could take on a Western way of life. Perhaps chimpanzees will develop a high culture later. . . . If one does not wish to deny the human rights of Homo sapiens as it lived 150,000 years ago, one must give chimpanzees today at least as much consideration.

The court ruled against the suit.

Of course those petitioning for Hiasl had his best interests in mind; I have no doubt about that. However, they were using speciesism as a weapon against speciesism, and I'm not sure why they thought that would work.

Listen to this NOW

Angus Taylor directed me to this Canadian radio show, which might not be available too much longer, and you have GOT to listen to it. Scroll down to "Part 3-Carnivore Chic," an interview by a former vegetarian (Matt Galloway) OF a former vegetarian (author Susan Bourette) about how to be a compassionate carnivore. After that interview is one with a butcher who is also a former vegetarian.

Everyone has a grand ol' time, the mood is light and jocular (Bourette says "Bacon is like pig candy"), and we learn that eating animals is fine and fun and in fact vegetarians and compassionate carnivores should not be at odds at all (that gem comes out in the interview with the butcher at The Healthy Butcher).

Can you be a compassionate carnivore, asks the interviewer? E-mail your thoughts to Soundslikecanada@cbc.ca.

UPDATE (thanks Angus!):

That first link to "Carnivore Chic" is down, but it's now available at the podcast page. Click on http://www.cbc.ca/soundslikecanada/podcast.html and then scroll down to the March 17 link, or simply access that link directly: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/slc_20080317_5031.mp3.

Nathan Schneider's "Time to Get Serious"

For anyone who would never entertain printing or handing out "Thinking Critically About Animal Rights" because it's too long or too expensive to print, I give you Vegan-Abolitionist Nathan Schneider's "Time to Get Serious: Rethinking Our Relationship with Non-Humans" (he gave it to you over a week ago). No photos, one page (both sides), focuses on use, easy to read, difficult to refute. Done.

Read it, print it, use it, and if you have any suggestions or comments, e-mail the author of the handout at nathan22t@gmail.com.

Good News for a Nonhuman Animal

Sometimes I feel like I'm too much of a downer.

I might have to start making Mondays Good News Day, if I can find enough appropriate news, that is.

Today I celebrate the individual nonhuman animal, one Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle) named Jezebel. Jezebel arrived at the sea turtle rehabilitation center up the block from me in December of 2006. I started volunteering there a couple of months ago in the "turtle yard," helping to keep the tanks clean and telling visitors about the plight of sea turtles. Turtles come to the center to be rehabbed, then they are released back into the ocean (or a lagoon).

Jezebel's an adult who had what is either one or two separate injuries at the tail end of her carapace (shell) that is/are likely to be caused by a boat strike or propeller strike, or perhaps the blunt trauma of being stuck in a net and dropped onto the deck of a boat. We weren't there, so all we can do is guess based on the nature of the wounds.

Though the carapace injury did definitely look bad, Jezebel's real problem was that she was buoyant, meaning she couldn't dive. And because loggerheads feed on lobsters, crabs, and other bottom dwellers, she might have to dive hundreds of feet to get her food, and if she can't even dive 10 inches, she's certainly not diving hundreds of feet and she's going to starve to death.

Which is what she was doing when she arrived at the center at 221 pounds.

The staff at the rehab center were unable to determine the cause of Jezebel's buoyancy, and she remained at the center, hardly moving in her tank. Until very recently.

Jezebel was moved to Mote Marine Laboratory, on the west coast of Florida, where she was put into a much larger, deeper tank than we have and she pulled herself under water and started to swim! Apparently, she is doing so well that she will most likely be released back into the wild.

Check out the blog entries about Jezebel, including lots of photos and a video of her swimming. The story begins after the first entry on the page (about the arrival of two new patients, Rhett and Fido). Actually, that's where it ends and you should scroll down a couple of posts to start from the beginning.

I know sometimes it can be depressing when you consider the tens of billions of land and sea creatures we slaughter every year for no good reason. For me, to brighten my mood and remind me of all the good we do as vegans, I like to concentrate on an individual and celebrate her life. Today, I celebrate Jezebel!

Boycott Rooney's for St. Patrick's Day

The Rooney family, founding owners of the Pittsburgh Steelers, owners of several "Public Houses" (read: bars) in Palm Beach County, and also local politician-hopefuls (Republican), own the Palm Beach Kennel Club.

I think you know where this is going.

The Rooneys are once again trying to get the okay for slots at their track to bring in more people and prop it up, just like tracks in Broward County and Miami Dade have done. Of course, that just spells more suffering for the dogs.

And though many people do care about the dogs, apparently their moral compass is easily spun in a different direction in the right circumstance. In "Kennel Club Counting on Slots" in today's Palm Beach Post, staff writer Stacey Singer reports:

The Villas of Delray widows had never been to the Palm Beach Kennel Club's dog track and poker room. They weren't comfortable betting on dogs. They worried about the animals and couldn't make sense of the handicapping. Poker wasn't for them, either.

But if there were slots at the track, they'd go, they said.

Wow, that's some serious moral fiber talking.

A bill (SB 970) to allow video gambling (video slot machines) at dog and horse tracks passed the Senate several days ago. The bill would also lower the amount of taxes the tracks pay. Let's make sure our congresspeople know that we are against expanding gambling in Palm Beach County.

Oh, and if you're Irish or at all interested in celebrating St. Patrick's Day in Palm Beach County, boycott Rooney's (and that really would be a boycott, as I've got no problem with football, though it doesn't interest me, or with someone running for Congress as a Republican. If they sold the track, I'd go over there immediately and have the first mug of beer in 41 years).

New York Times Finally Catches On. Or Not.

For a moment I though that the New York Times, or at least sports writer William C. Rhoden, just might be beginning to understand that animal rights isn't the same as animal welfare.

Then I read the article.

In "Vick Case Exposes Rift Among Animal-Rights Advocates," Rhoden writes:

But there remains a widening divide still simmering within the animal-rights community over the treatment of abused, high-risk animals. The friction boils down to a matter of life and death. PETA generally advocates euthanizing rescued fighting dogs, while other groups lean toward rehabilitation.

True, and I'm glad he points this out. He then writes:

The public disagreement is eye-opening for those of us who assumed animal-rights and animal-welfare groups were all on the same page.

What I don't get is why people assume that when they have different names: animal rights and animal welfare. He says there's a difference, but then he calls them all animal rights. I'm confused.

Rhoden continues:

After talking to both camps, this much is clear:

They all love the animals, but can’t seem to get along with each other.

If they have different missions, I'm not quite sure why they need to "get along" or why that's even an issue. But my favorite part is next:

The divide surfaced in the aftermath of the Vick trial  . . .

. . . when the judge decided Vick would pay restitution and the dogs would not be euthanized.

THAT'S when the divide surfaced? Where's he been?

What's worse, it appeared as if maybe Rhoden was going in the direction of discovering the real difference between animal rights and animal welfare (assuming PeTA is an animal rights organization, which is not a good start), but then the story he recounts, though true, doesn't address that like he thinks it does.

For anyone unaware, Rhoden reviews the situation: PeTA thought the animals should be killed, and Best Friends--an animal welfare group/sanctuary thought they could be rehabilitated and some could be adopted out. In other words, killing them wasn't the solution. Now, you'd think that the rights group would be saying that, wouldn't you? And Michael Mountain of Best Friends agrees:

“I don’t think PETA’s argument is with us, I think it’s with themselves,” he said from Utah in a telephone interview. “It’s really difficult as an animal-rights, animal-protection, animal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization to explain away the fact that pretty much all the animals you rescue, you kill. It doesn’t make logical sense; it doesn’t make emotional sense.”

I agree with that, but this sort of muddles Rhoden's rights versus welfare theme, as he doesn't articulate the difference (again, putting aside whether or not you believe PeTA is really an animal rights organization). And what's worse is how the article ends. The third paragraph from the end is:

I must confess that the dogs were often background music to my perspective on the Vick case. I felt the sentence was unduly harsh. But this is not really a dogfighting issue or an animal-rights issue or an overpopulation issue.

Dogfighting, which is illegal, isn't a dogfighting issue? Is it not a legal issue either? What kind of issue is it, Mr. Rhoden?

This is a caring issue: If we, as a society, cannot treat the defenseless with kindness, how can we ever hope to truly care for one another?

The defenseless. Like cows, chickens, fish, pigs and sheep? Are they defenseless? Or is it just doggies and kitties who are defenseless? Given how the third paragraph began, and dogs were the "background music" (their cries and whelps?), I'm fairly sure the behind-the-music of breakfast, lunch and dinner aren't going to be explored anytime soon, which makes the whole caring statement difficult to, um, swallow.

The article ends without the rights versus welfare issue every being explored, which is probably good because this situation doesn't expose a rift "among animal-rights advocates." Rhoden says there's a difference between rights and welfare while putting them all under the animal rights umbrella. And this is after speaking with PeTA and Best Friends.

Rhoden gets the story of what occurred correct, and highlights that PeTA kills animals, but misses the core differences between rights and welfare that he claims are being exposed.

Maybe those issues, crucial to us, are just more background music to him.

Donor Will Match Gifts to PPS in March

In case you didn't read the comment left by Michael Prejean, he has generously offered to match donations to Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary through the end of March. E-mail him at Smash_HLS@comcast.net.

Thanks Michael!

On Slaughter/Euthanasia and Goats

Did you see Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. President Steve Mendell on the news yesterday? He defended himself and during his statement he said that the cows in the HSUS video "were not harvested . . . were not slaughtered . . . . They were euthanized and removed."

What the heck kind of doublespeak is that? They killed the cows after they tortured them, end of story. Technically, if euthanasia is the killing of someone who frankly is better off dead, and slaughtering is killing as well, slaughter could be considered euthanasia, no? And if it's not, because euthanasia is humanely ending someone's life, what does that say about slaughter?

And "harvested?" Isn't that what you do to crops?

Finally, Mendell says, "[I]t would be financial suicide for a company to harvest or process a cow that it believes to be sick." Anyone who has seen any large-scale farming operation of cows, chickens or pigs, knows that to be false, and I think that the fact that his company is "ruined" is evidence that. Sick, mutilated chickens enter the food supply; crippled, spent dairy cows enter the food supply; and horses with fractures are drugged so they can race (ditto for Greyhounds). Exploiters claiming it doesn't make economic sense to use injured animals (when they get caught doing so) should not be believed. If your business is set up to get the most out of an animal, your mission is to do that for as long as possible to maximize the return on your investment.

As for goats, I know many of you have given up on the folks at Ideal Bite. Their latest tip is to get a goat to replace your lawnmower. In the comments on the blog post discussing the tip, no one has said the obvious: Get a Neuton battery-powered mower rather than having an animal bred and transported to you, whom you will have to (I hope) care for, including veterinary care, and provide plenty of space for. Not to mention the idea, on the face of it, is profoundly offensive (at least to my sensibilities, but that's me). It's tough to know where to start with this one.