Animal Person

On the Keeping of Endangered Fishes

An Animal Person reader wrote me with the following question:

There are many species of cichlids in Lake Victoria that are on the verge of extinction, and most are hardy and small enough to be kept in an aquarium. There are conservation efforts to save these species by individual aquarists, who are keeping and breeding them in hopes that they can someday be reintroduced into the lake. Assuming that the fish are kept in a large aquarium that mimics their natural habitat, and that the keeper treats the fish as family (as they would a rescued dog, cat, rabbit, etc.), would you see keeping these fish confined in an aquarium as a rescue effort or as a selfish act by humans that interferes with Nature?

I think my feeling on it is that it's more of a rescue effort; that we humans made the mess that endangered the species in the first place, so we should do our best to fix it. As I share a home with rescued cats and rabbits, I can't help but think that it's better for them to live their lives cared for and loved than to be put to death in a shelter somewhere due to irresponsible overbreeding, even if they are now confined to the house.

Of course that also brings up the dilemma of feeding cats and fish, who are omnivores and actually need to eat some meat in order to be healthy. I adopted the cats before I became a vegan, and although I don't like the fact that they eat other animals, it is my responsibility to keep them healthy.

(I intend to stick with rescuing rabbits from now on.) I have always loved fish, and I'd like to be able to keep a species from becoming extinct, but is this an appropriate activity for a vegan? I'd really like to get your opinion on this.

For me, part if this goes to the question of whether or not we should breed or otherwise try to restore endangered species, in general. The answer to that question could, for some, be dependent upon whether the endangering is our doing.

The analogy to mammals we rescue is interesting; it's a good point. Is keeping animals because they're endangered any different from keeping them because they are homeless? 

Can we ever meet the needs of fishes by keeping them in our homes?

What do you think?

--Photo of 72 gallon african cichlid tank from Flickr Erica_Marshall's photostream.

On Betraying Your Family

Yesterday, in the comments of An Affront to the Idea of Family, Brian wrote:

I understand your concern for those cows that were beat by that man and the unfortunate death of all the cows that died in the snow storm. As a dairy farmer I even had a hard time reading that. I love my cows and I don't anyone touch them in that manner. I am always working for the best environment and the most comfortable situation for my cows, who I consider part of my family. You say that "Family Farms do not exist and that they don't care about their animals." That is not true. I work with my mom and dad twenty other caring individuals to provide the best, most comfortable place for my family members, all 2000 of them. Please talk to us before you start to accuse us of not taking care of our cows, and making what one farmer who is not right the truth of everyone else.

It's a relief to hear that Brian disapproves. However, let's deconstruct his language:

• "I love my cows . . . "
• "who I consider part of my family."
• His family members total 2000.
• "Please talk to us before you start to accuse of of not taking care of our cows."

How, I would ask Brian, does he define "love?" Does it include ownership of individuals ("our cows")? Does he own the human members of his "family?" Does he control their reproduction, their food, when they eat, where they live, and how and when they will die? Does he really equate the cows with the human sentients in his family? Can the humans come and go as they please? Are the humans providing Brian with something he is profiting from (maybe hard work, he'd say), and when they stop he will kill them?

What does it mean to love and take care of someone and consider them part of your family? What does that look like?

Allow me to suggest an answer: It looks like Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary or Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary or Maple Farm Sanctuary or another place where animals are rescued from certain betrayal and death, often under the guise of "love" and "family."

For more on the "love" animal farmers have for "their" animals, see also On Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal.

More Clarity About Family Farms

In "Move to Limit 'Factory Farms' Gains Momentum" in today's New York Times, we learn that farmers in Ohio have agreed to phase out gestation crates within 15 years and veal crates by 2017. I won't get into whether I find that to be a victory. Here are the sentences that I want to bring attention to:

The family of Irv Bell, 64, has been growing hogs in Zanesville, Ohio, since the 19th century. Where males and females were once put into a pen to mate, sows are now inseminated artificially and most are kept through their pregnancy in a 2-by-7-foot crate, in which they can lie down but not turn.

“I work with the hogs every day, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with gestation crates,” he said.

This adds another layer to yesterday's discussion about family. Irv Bell's farm is a family farm. It's also a factory farm. The marketing of an operation of breeding and slaughtering sentient nonhumans as a family farm (here, Bell straddles the line) is supposed to trigger some kind of compassion for the humans. Whatever judgments you might have about what Bell does and whether or not he finds anything wrong with what he does, you should put them aside. After all, he's part of a family business.

The important word in the phrase "family farm" is the same word that is important in "factory farm." It's the one that matters most to beings who simply want to live their lives without betrayal, disrespect, enslavement and slaughter. And all of those are implicit in "farm." It doesn't matter what word you put before it.

An Affront to the Idea of Family

I'm not one of those people who thinks family is composed of only humans or humans who are biologically related. That's one of the reasons adopting wasn't a stretch for me at all mentally.

The idea of family is currently being used by the dairy industry in a series of commercials with the tag line: "99% of dairy farms are family owned." You see midwestern folk in overalls with tired faces. There are children. Girls. They are proud to be dairy farmers.

Of course, you're supposed to hop onto the following train of thought: These are good people. Good Americans, just trying to keep their families together and eke out a living in these tough times. Buying dairy products supports them.

It doesn't matter to me, but let's for a moment examine the 99%. Ninety-nine percent of dairy farms are family owned. That doesn't mean that 99% of dairy products are from family farms, as the average number of cows on each family farm is just over 100. It's not necessarily the case that buying dairy likely supports one of the families that comprise the 99%.

What you're supposed to be buying into is the idea that if a family owns a farm it is somehow qualitatively different (and of course, better) than a farm that isn't family owned. Families, so the commercials go, don't engage in untoward aspects of animal husbandry that might hurt the cows. The cows are walking around green fields, similar to those in the criminally misleading California cows commercials. The cows' tails swing in the breeze. The family isn't wealthy and they're not sophisticated, but they're proud of what they do. And they certainly wouldn't hurt anybody; that's what those big factory farms do that aren't owned by families.

There's an assumption that a unit known as a family is better to deal with than, say, a person who is merely a member of a family and who wears a suit and drives a fancy car rather than a tractor. When it's put that way, doesn't it sound silly? Families are just as capable of horrendous policies toward animals as anyone else. Their goal is to make a profit from the breeding and slaughter of animals. Period. Just ask former cattle rancher Howard Lyman, who is now a vegan and animal rights activist.

My daughter has given me an extra layer of sensitivity regarding the treatment of female animals. As a woman, I always found it offensive that females are forcibly bred, have their children taken away from them and are milked within an inch of their lives. But now I think about all of that being done to my daughter and I must say the disgust I experience at the notion that a family farm is somehow a wholesome place is a bit overwhelming.

One of the most important things about Deb's blog, Invisible Voices, is that many of the fortunate animals who end up at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, where she volunteers, came from family farms.

Yes, factory farms are the stuff of nightmares for nonhuman animals. But so are family farms. I don't care about scale. If someone owns me, forcibly breeds me, takes my kids and ends my life, it's a living hell for me.

--Photo from publicenergy's Flickr photostream.

Please Share "Silencing the Lambs"

Thanks, once again, to James LaVeck and Jenny Stein of Tribe of Heart for kindly and carefully bringing attention to what should be a stunningly-obvious moment of hypocrisy by groups that exist to advocate for and save animals.

I understand how someone who supports the Humane Society of the United States might think an event celebrating "humane" farms would be a good idea, as HSUS isn't an animal rights organization. What I fail to understand, however, is how advocates whose life's work revolves around justice for animals we use for food would ever--ever--sponsor or benefit from an event that puts those same animals on a plate.

Diabetes and Vetsulin Recap

I somehow became the non-vet, go-to person regarding dogs and diabetes, I suppose due to my frequent blogging about Violet Rays (left), my greyhound who has been through diabetes, blindness (then cataract replacement), glaucoma and retina detachment.

As you may know, Vetsulin has been discontinued and diabetic animals are being transitioned to Humulin N (or a similar human insulin appropriate for dogs and some cats) or Lantus/glargine (for cats).

"On the Vetsulin 'Recall'" has been very active with over 60 comments, and I get e-mails several times each week with specific questions or comments regarding Vetsulin or transitioning a beloved animal.

Here are some highlights/tips from that post and its comments:

• The insulin types are:

Humalog/Novolog which are very fast acting (within minutes);
R Insulins, which are fast acting;
N or NPH (intermediate acting);
L (Lente)-a bit longer acting;

U (Ultralente)-very long; and

Lantus (glargine)-the longest.

• Always have a spare bottle of insulin in the refrigerator. The spare bottle was a bigger deal with Vetsulin, as if you dropped a bottle on a Friday night you might not be able to replace it by Saturday morning, but you would with Humulin (because you can get it at your local drugstore).
• Do NOT use the syringes for Vetsulin (U-40) to administer Humulin, which need U-100 syringes.
• The vets I work with agree that testing an animal's glucose level via urine strips is not effective, as you have no idea how long the drops of urine you are testing have been in the bladder. You'll find out what the glucose level in the urine is, but that doesn't tell you what the glucose level in the animal's system is at that moment. The only--only--way to ascertain what's going on with your dog or cat is to take their blood glucose. I use the Accu-Chek Compact. Please note that many of the features of many glucometers aren't that helpful for you and your nonhuman companion. And those features cost money. The one feature that I find very helpful is the preloaded meter with a drum of strips inside it. Otherwise, you have to load one strip at a time, and that involves two hands, one of which you might not have available.
• Doing a blood glucose curve at the vet isn't necessarily best, as emotions do play a part in the blood glucose puzzle and they are different while at the vet. The internist who helped Violet and I most actually told me to stop going to the vet and to regulate Violet myself at home. That was the best advice I got during that period six years ago.
• The following factors affect blood glucose: emotions, exercise, food and insulin. When one variable changes, the blood sugar changes. When Violet goes to the baseball field to sprint for 20 minutes she needs an entire extra meal or one less insulin unit. When we have visitors I have to monitor her every couple of hours. Sometimes all is well until the visitors leave, and the following day she comes close to crashing. When someone she's visiting thinks it's a great idea to give her a donut, she needs more insulin. During the summer when it's over 90 degrees and she barely gets two 20-minute walks each day (in addition to walking in and out to pee several other times), she needs more insulin because of her lack of activity. Finally, rolling a bottle of insulin in your palms slowly must be done consistently, particularly with a new bottle. Otherwise, an unusually concentrated or diluted dosage could result, with the accompanying hypo or hyperglycemia.
• Always have a bottle of Karo syrup or tubes of glucose gel readily available in your home and even your car if your animal travels with you frequently. And make sure everyone in your home and everyone who cares for your animal knows where they are and how to use them. Please note that the effect might not be instant. With Violet, it takes her a couple of minutes to look like she's out danger physically. I've learned that if I administer Karo (or glucose gel) until she stops seizing, in an hour her blood glucose is over 300. Two tablespoons (rubbed on her gums) does the job best, I've learned. It gets her to 60, when she can have a small meal and catch up to her regular curve.
• Vetsulin had a quality/consistency problem. For me, the problem was that the product was too weak. So her usual 9 or 10 unit dose was 13 or even 14, depending on the bottle. Sometimes it was 9 or 10. My vet's other clients, however, often had the opposite problem, and hypoglycemia resulted. My experience, because I test frequently, was relatively uneventful. And my transition, because I tested frequently, was also uneventful. But I can't imagine attempting a transition without knowing how to test at home. Violet ended up with the same dosage of Humulin that she should have had with a quality bottle of Vetsulin (9 or 10).
• Take blood glucose before feeding and alter dose if necessary. Don't "chase the perfect curve," attempting to always stay between 90 and 150. That could easily result in hypoglycemia if you don't test frequently.
• It's true that low blood sugar looks a lot like high blood sugar. But very low blood sugar is life threatening and has a look all its own, complete with tremors and seizures. If your animal ever looks drunk and bumps into walls and falls and flails, don't even bother taking her blood glucose--just start administering glucose.

Please let me know if I missed anything for this post and I'll add it. My goal to be as helpful as possible.

On Nonhuman Animals and Human Babies

Surprise!

On Friday, June 25, I received a call from an attorney who said a little girl was born the evening prior, her adoption fell through and she needed a family.

And on Sunday, June 27, we brought her home! We named her Skylar and she's adorable and sweet and has a very punk hairdo. Her daddy is madly in love with her and I practically have to pry her out of his arms to get a moment with her.

Because we planned to adopt I had been researching eco-friendly, vegan nursery items but had yet to purchase a thing. Instead, in 24 hours (Saturday the 26th), I collected secondhand everything locally, and then friends brought clothing and other supplies from when their little girls and boys were newborns. By the time we brought her home on Sunday all I needed was formula (Earth's Best Organic-Soy).

I did go to Babies-R-Us for some odds and ends and here's the Animal Person-related experience. Animals are all over the place at Babies-R-Us. As long as the animals aren't on a farm or otherwise being used by humans, I love the idea of animals in the lives of babies. Much of the baby clothing has animals on it, and animals are of course the focus of stuffies and other toys. I chose a cow for Sky's first stuffed animal, and I hope that she will grow up to honor and respect the lives of cows the same way she will honor and respect the lives of greyhounds.

And speaking of the other creatures of the household, Violet is indifferent, as usual. She sniffed Sky up and down and walked away. Charles, on the other hand, loves her. He's always been a baby magnet and baby lover, lightly touching them with his cool, wet nose, and allowing kids of all ages to hug and kiss him. Emily has taken to sleeping right next to wherever Sky is. And when Sky's in the bassinet, Emily sleeps in the storage area underneath it. It's very cute.

I've chosen cloth diapers (bumGenius), and I'm working my way through a box of disposables I was given as a gift while waiting I wait for the cloth ones to arrive. There are so many decisions to be made and we're excited to raise our little girl with intention. We want her to be aware of what the rest of the world does, but also know that she can always choose nonviolence. She can always choose justice and respect. Human animals and nonhuman animals share many characteristics, but one trumps the rest:  the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, boredom and frustration. And of course, the desire to live their lives without being viewed as--or turned into--food, clothing or entertainment.

The message Sky gets at Babies-R-Us is largely that animals are her friends. At least at this stage. Our job is to make sure that her respect for animals doesn't turn into insult and betrayal. I doubt any parent creates an environment of betrayal intentionally. Instead, they simply raise their children with the values of the dominant culture. But we're going to intentionally create an environment of respect, justice and nonviolence. And we hope that Sky chooses to continue living those values later in life.

Only time will tell.

On Wipeout and Lion Burgers

Have you seen the ridiculous television show, Wipeout? There's something hilarious about people intentionally putting themselves in a position to be beaten up like Wile E. Coyote. It's all in fun, with much of the humor coming from the commentators and the special sound effects.

It does get old, however, after about 10 minutes. At minute #9 for me last night was a young woman going through one of the obstacle courses and getting pummeled, just like everyone else. The commentator says that part of her winnings will go to abolish animal cruelty (yes, abolish).

Cut to a conversation with the contestant . . .

Interviewer: "Are you a vegetarian?"

Contestant: "Nope. Well, sort of. I mean, I eat chicken and fish."

Interviewer: "Wait, so you want to abolish animal cruelty, except for chickens and fish, (pointing at the contestant) because she doesn't like them?"

Contestant (flustered): "We, well, we used to have chickens on our ranch."

Interviewer: "Oh, so you've killed chickens."

Contestant: "And turkeys."

Interviewer: "Wait a minute now, hold on, so I'm getting a whole different thing. Now you kill turkeys, chickens, fish and--"

Contestant (mortified, laughing, with hand over her mouth): "Cows."

Interviewer: "Cows, okay, there's another one you kill. I think you actually support animal cruelty."

Contestant (laughing): No.

I don't watch much television, so I don't know how extraordinary this moment was. But for me, it was remarkable. I can only hope that even one person watching in the comfort of their great room had an epiphany regarding what they claim to believe and what they do.

If you kill animals or pay someone to do so for you, you support animal cruelty. And no amount of donations to groups that supposedly want to abolish animal cruelty is going to make up for the fact that until you stop having animals killed for you you are part of the problem.

Finally, in my e-mailbox this morning, and probably in yours, was the Care2 newsletter, including a link to a column about a restaurant in Arizona that will soon serve burgers made from lion meat. I was curious about why it's so terrible to eat lions. They're from a legal farm in Illinois, so the law isn't the reason. It's probably going to come down to culture, I thought. Lions aren't food in our culture. But that wasn't it either.

The last paragraph states:

In the U.S. there may be any number of restaurants serving game. However, with lions the story is different because they are a vulnerable species in the wild, and their numbers are declining. Two recent surveys estimated the range of African lions to be 16,500-30,000, or 29,000-47,000.

Here's my first problem with this: The number of lions in the wild is not affected by the farming operation in Illinois. I respect the lives of lions, no matter where they live, and I don't believe that they should be used for food any more than cows should. But I don't feel like I was presented with a compelling argument for not eating lions.

Then come the comments, including one by Devon N, who thinks that the restaurant "is owned by someone without a conscience or soul." Devon N is joined by many others who are appalled by the idea of eating lions.

I understand the impulse to be repulsed by the idea of eating lions. Enculturation includes instructions on when to feel disgust. But once you step outside yourself and you look at whatever the issue is from the perspective of whomever is most affected by it--in this case lions--culture is meaningless. Respect for the natural lives of others and wanting justice for them shouldn't be determined by an accident of birth and geography. Or even by a weak argument about near extinction.

Lessons Learned, The Finale

After all this time it seems that . . . the Island's sideways world was a purgatory of sorts where the Oceanic 815 survivors were supposed to learn more lessons or go one way or the other (good or bad), but Desmond intervened to bring them all together and move forward to the light.

Oh wait, wrong series (and by the way I watched only the last season of Lost, so I could be completely wrong about the above).

My random number of 20 Lessons Learned From 4 Years of Blogging at Animal Person (for the others go to #1-6, #7-10 and #11 & 12) ends today with #13-20, which is far longer than I thought it would be. Sorry about that . . .

Lesson #13

Design and multi-media matter.

The design of Animal Person is probably as uninviting as it could possibly be. I don't frequently use photos, I rarely use video, and my posts are often long. As with other lessons, whether this one matters is contingent upon what you're trying to achieve. I usually had a message or an idea and my goal was nothing more to put that out into the world, usually in the easiest and quickest way I could. When I did podcasts they took hours (and that was after learning how to use the program and hardware) and the quality wasn't even that great. If I had it all to do again, I'd do a video blog and I'd get at least proficient at the technical aspects. People are lazy and want to be entertained. Reading thousand-word long posts in black type on a plain white screen with nothing interesting to look at isn't exactly a satisfying sensory experience. So I failed.

Just Two Lessons Learned for Today

I've decided that 20 lessons is a good number to stop at, and today I'll discuss what are probably the two most controversial ones, about the animal rights movement.

Lesson #11

The Appeal of Cliques

The first six Lessons Learned from 4 Years of Animal Person and numbers 7-10 hinted about cliques, but only the negative aspects. For me, preaching to the choir wasn't satisfying and also became ugly and time consuming because I positioned myself to be part of a clique and that didn't work well for me.

There's tremendous appeal in cliques. Particularly when vegans and animal rights advocates are a tiny percentage of the population, some find it necessary and desirable to go to a place where they are among friends (for the most part). There is comfort in a place where everyone is on the same page and uses the same language and the context is the same (more or less). Where the work of one or a couple of people is followed and promoted. I think it's great, given how hostile the world is to our minority opinions and lifestyle, that there are safe places, even if those safe places have ranting as their modus operandi. If that's what makes the people in that particular insider group happy, that's fine. To finally feel like you're among friends when most of the world--even people within the movement you belong to--appear to be on a different team, fighting a different cause, is a relief, and there's a place for that.

Lessons Learned From 4 Years of Animal Person, Part 2

Yesterday's lessons learned were primarily about blogging. Today they're about language.

Lesson #7

Obsessing over language can become counterproductive.

And this, coming from a person with a doctorate in Applied Linguistics. I can talk about language all day, every day. How it shapes our lives and our culture. How it changes because it's not static--it's alive. How precision is vital in order for us to successfully communicate. And how, for the love of God, people have got so stop saying things like Vegan Before 6! It makes no sense! (See Vegan Between Meals for more).

From the vegan equals vegetarian discussion, to the nonviolence does or doesn't include property damage, to certain abolitionists deciding that they are in fact the only real abolitionists, it has gotten comical. And embarrassing. Some of these discussions make me think: Boy, that Rick Berman, that FBI, those people who spend their lives using and killing animals for fun and profit--don't need to do much to bring this movement down because we're doing it ourselves.

I understand the need for critique and productive criticism within a movement. I understand the impulse to separate yourself from others who are doing things you don't approve of, whether they are PR stunts or tactics employed to liberate animals. And I've spent many, many posts separating myself.

But when vegans are such a tiny percentage of the population, I've come to the conclusion that for me, a woman self-described as obsessed with language, a shift needs to happen away from how other vegans are doing things wrong to getting more omnivores and vegetarians to change their behavior. If others want to keep that battle raging and make it the focus of what they do, that's fine. But I think I'm officially retiring from that line of work.

Happy Mother's Day!

Check out "On Motherhood and Pizza" at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, by yours truly, and have a Happy Mother's Day!

Creature Update

As many of you know, 2009 was chock full of creature-related drama for me. From the feral cats of Project Treadstone to Charles' back surgery to problems with Violet's Vetsulin (insulin for dogs), we had more than our share of issues. If I told you what I spent last year doing work-wise, you probably wouldn't believe me and you'd definitely suggest I write a book about it.

At least Emily the kitty, though not at all skinny, had an uneventful year.

I receive frequent e-mails from readers asking how everything's going, so here's an update and some cautionary information.

Greyhound skin is very thin. The greyhound people tell you that, not to mention it's pretty obvious. Sometimes when they get a tiny cut or tear, it behaves like a zipper, depending on where it is, hence:

After a couple of weeks stitched up, it's now fine. She also had a tumor removed from her eye. Both of those events required the dreaded "cone of dysfuntion," as my husband calls it.

 
We were approaching our the end of our supply of Vetsulin and transition to something else was inevitable. The only problem was that there are few options and the number one option (NPH/Humulin N) was the insulin that she had a severe reaction to back in 2004. Furthermore, the insulin that was best for her back then, a long-acting one called Humulin U, for Ultralente, is no longer in production. Vetsulin was the perfect new product, except for the fact that it's animal (pig) based, unlike human insulins, and then there was the problem with quality control that was first reported last year. Though there was no actual recall, everyone using Vetsulin was told to be vigilant. Dogs have died from hypoglycemia due to Vetsulin and there is a class action lawsuit.

I am with Violet almost all day, and her communication skills are fantastic. She tells me when her blood sugar is getting low and we haven't had any episodes of hypoglycemia that needed to be treated with glucose in well over a year. Also, I check her blood glucose level at least once a day, so I always have a good idea of what's going on with her. For these reasons, my vet had no problem with me stockpiling Vetsulin.

Like many people with diabetic dogs, I haven't had major problems with Vetsulin. But alas, the supply has dwindled. I have some left but wanted to save it in the event that the transition didn't work and I needed to buy some time.

Fortunately, I can report that Violet's transition to Humulin went swimmingly. It's almost twice the cost, but it's not animal-based, she has no adverse reaction and there are no warnings about the quality. What a relief!

Also a relief is that I tried Nature's Recipe vegetarian dog food for Charles, and there's something about the ingredients (soybean meal is the 2nd ingredient--and Natural Balance doesn't have soy--maybe that's it) that he responds well to. So he is being re-veganized (Violet's already vegan), as long as his back and leg aren't adversely affected. For a little while I was convinced that he needed to eat a grain-free diet to control inflammation, but I no longer believe that grain-related inflammation is his issue. While grain-free, there was a time of improvement for him, but that improvement soon disappeared and probably wasn't related.

The success of Charles' back surgery, which was about a year ago, is at this point . . . inconclusive.

(Who can forget this?)

He has had periods where he greatly improves and looks almost normal. And then there's now, when he doesn't use his leg at all and bounces around like a bunny. The original diagnosis was severe nerve root compression at L7/S1, and I bet if we did an MRI right now we'd find not only that, but some kind of injury further up in the thoracic region due to semi-regular hopping. The vets say that Charles' condition doesn't warrant another surgery, and that sometimes it takes a couple of years (!) to see the full effects of this type of major surgery.

As for Project Treadstone, after several false starts, trapping, spaying and neutering will resume next week.

Once again, I am reminded of the micro aspect of helping animals. One at a time, each life as worthy as the next. So many, so little time, so little support and so few resources. Sometimes all we can do is care for the animals we share our homes and lives with. And sometimes, despite what we do, we can't fix everything.

But we owe it to them to do our best.

Animals Have Personalities? No WAY!

When I started blogging in May of 2006 I was very snarky. Snark defined blogging back then. And of course, as a (pop) culture whose sensibility has been formed by The Onion and The Daily Show, it's no wonder.

My snarkiness increased, and turned into ranting, but then ranting for some reason got old. It's very, very easy for me to use language as a weapon; I've done that my whole life. While other people might trade barbs or even turn to fisticuffs, I'd dig deep for the most hurtful thing I could say, in the fewest words, and deliver it without even raising my voice.

Not a great quality, but dreadfully effective. It comes from a desire to not waste time. Whatever it is, I want to get it over with and move on. I'm a bit of an efficiency junkie.

The husband and I took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) a couple of months ago and received the most unremarkable results. He is, in fact, an extrovert (five minutes with him will tell you that), and I am indeed an introvert (ditto if you can catch me, as I will cross the street to avoid talking to you). The personality characteristics we were both deemed to have can all be found by observation as well as a 500+ question test.

Riddle me this: Why would any human animal use as a default position that nonhuman animals do not have personalities as rich, distinct, obnoxious, obsequious and varied as human animals? Have they not ever observed nonhuman animals?

I'm going to try hard to have this not become a rant, but "Even Among Animals: Leaders, Followers and Schmoozers," by Natalie Angier in yesterday's New York Times begins with "even." Why "even?" Why is it surprising that nonhuman animals have personalities when human animals do? We're all animals, aren't we? We're sentient. We think, we plan, we make choices. Why can't some of us be daredevils? Or "even" obnoxious?

Angier writes:

"Scientists studying animals from virtually every niche of the bestial kingdom have found evidence of distinctive personalities — bundled sets of behaviors, quirks, preferences and pet peeves that remain stable over time and across settings."

Look, I think it's great that scientists are observing the nonhuman world and reporting back to us that we are in fact all animals and as such we all have personalities (though I don't really get that vibe as the angle). This is great news for animal rights because it's one more piece of evidence that humans aren't as exceptional as we like to think we are.

Inevitably, there's this:

"Some critics complain that the term 'animal personality' is a bit too slick, while others worry that the entire enterprise smacks of that dread golem of biology, anthropomorphism — assigning human traits to nonhuman beings."

That's the kind of nonsense that makes me want to scream. No one is assigning human traits to nonhumans. They are saying (and at least I am saying, and Marc Bekoff has said): "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (Wild Justice, 41). At least there is a similar response given by the scientists in this article who study animals.

A bit of what I would consider bad news for animal rights is:

"Reporting in this month’s issue of the journal Animal Behaviour, researchers from the University of Glasgow addressed the widespread concern that the findings of animal personality studies, so often performed on captive subjects, may be laboratory artifacts, with scant relevance to how the creatures behave in nature."

Researchers conducted experiments in a lab, then released the animals into the wild, making sure to note that "This was a much harder part of the study, and involved lugging around of batteries," and found similar results. Angier can't resist writing: "A bird in the lab worked like a bird in the bush." So working outside of the lab is more difficult and yields the same results. That's the perfect argument for keeping animals in a lab if your priority is you and your research rather than the animals and what's best for them.

I'd be remiss, snark-wise, if I didn't bring attention to a hypothesis of the scientists:

"Scientists suspect that small inherited predispositions are either enhanced or suppressed by experience, and computer models show that tiny discrepancies at the start can become enormous over time, through feedback loopings of positive reinforcement."

Methinks scientists would express the same suspicion of humans, and they might even use the similar language.

The end of the article stumped me:

"Highly sensitive pigs squeal a lot; highly sensitive people feel a lot. Sure, it’s painful at times. But just switch on some Bach and I’ll squeal my thanks for thin skin."

The attempt to be cute notwithstanding, I'm confused. Highly sensitive pigs squeal, yet highly sensitive people feel a lot. Does that supposed to mean that the pigs are "vocalizing" for no reason? Isn't there any feeling at the origin of that squealing? "Sure, it's painful at times," for Angier, so she switches Bach on. What about the pig? Didn't she just provide support for how acutely pigs feel? Little help, here?

Angier mentions neophobia, which, as you might imagine, is the fear of novelty. What's the word for fear that human animals aren't all that much different from nonhuman animals and humans' continuous attempts to not recognize the obvious?

Deadline Approaching for Animal Essays

"Creative Nonfiction is seeking essays about the bonds--emotional, ethical, biological, physical, or otherwise--between humans and animals. We're looking for stories from a variety of viewpoints . . .

For the past 16 years, Creative Nonfiction has devoted itself to publishing vividly-written literary nonfiction on a variety of topics . . .

The postmark deadline is April 2, 2010."

Submission guidelines are here:

PASS IT ON . . .

Operation Nix-the-Petting-Zoo, Part Deux

Coincidentally, last night was a board meeting for our homeowner's association, and though I wasn't on the agenda there's always time for homeowner comments about, say, the petting zoo and pony rides that are scheduled for the spring "BBQ" (here's part one of this story).

I printed pages of information about petting zoos from the Internet, mostly about health risks but also about animal treatment. Of course none of them come close to the most important reason for my objection: that we have no right to use animals for entertainment or other reasons that are not necessary.

I knew that if I talked about the Center for Disease Control's recommendations about washing stations or proximity to food (which is ironic, considering many of the nonhumans in the petting zoos are also considered "food"), I'd just get a rehearsed statement about the practices of the vendor being in full compliance. And there's not much from the health angle for pony rides. Most important, the event will require scores of dead animals to nosh on, so objecting to using animals for entertainment is a less-than-optimal approach.

The event will also have a bounce house and a handful of other activities for children. Basically, it's for children who eat animals and their parents. There's really nothing there for people like my husband and me; we're not the target market. And realistically, availability of a vegan burger isn't going to make me want to participate.

As for the creation of the picnic, there was no event committee. The board made the decisions based on what other communities have done (uneventfully and successfully, by their standards).

Here's what I learned and will do:

• Though I recently ended a complete nightmare of an experience on a couple of boards of directors and have sworn off them, I might have to get involved, perhaps at the committee level. At the very least, I can keep informed about the activities that are being chosen and always send a letter or comment at the meeting from the vegan perspective.
• I touched on all points, focusing on the petting zoo, and will investigate the vendor in case there are any complaints against them. But I should have presented a stronger use argument. When I uttered the words "not everyone in this 350 home community eats and wears animals or believes in using them for entertainment," all board members looked at me as if I was not speaking a language they understand and I think I lost them.
• I couldn't help but ask what kinds of animals were in the petting zoo, where they came from, where they are housed, and whether the kids would get the opportunity to pet the same kinds of animals they would be eating at the event. Is the point a before and after scenario? The reason they gave for the petting zoo and pony rides was that other communities have done them and seemed to like them. Clearly, not a lot of thought went into this decision and it wasn't by consensus of the community. That's what happens when people don't participate.
• Our clubhouse is a large house, complete with a kitchen made for entertaining and I'm going to survey the neighborhood for interest in a vegan cooking class.
• I'm going to send a letter to the board and request that it be added to the minutes, stating my position more clearly.

Did I accomplish anything? That depends. If my goal was to present a perspective the dominant culture isn't used to hearing about, maybe. From the looks on their faces, everything I said was a surprise to them. They should never play poker. If my goal was to nix any part of the event, no chance did I succeed. But at least I showed up and was one tiny voice for the voiceless.

Operation Nix-the-Petting-Zoo

After my long weekend up North I returned to a message from our neighborhood association announcing a picnic on April 11 on the Village Green. We paid a heap of extra money to live on the Village Green, so anything that happens there is basically happening in our front yard. Like a "BBQ, pony rides and a petting zoo!" Naturally, upon reading such words, my stomach turned and I immediately thought of making plans to be away from the house that day so I wouldn't have to see any of the festivities or try to negotiate walking the dogs around them.

When I started thinking about trying to get the association to cancel the pony rides and petting zoo (which are often part of one business as a quick Google search of "traveling petting zoo" will demonstrate), my several-year vegan husband said, "What's the use? It's not like these people care about animals. It's a barbeque for heaven's sake. Their kids are probably gonna be petting the animals they're eating and they might not even know it." Though I don't disagree, I guess my thinking was to at least take some business from the places that use living animals for profit because trying to affect the ones that have already killed the animals is not as urgent at that point, not to mention there's no way that would work. I might be able to nix the petting zoo, and maybe even the pony rides, but the "BBQ" will remain untouched. (Here's a factsheet about petting zoos, which at least in Florida have been a public health threat, to say nothing of the exploitation and suffering of the animals.)

I'm fairly confident that I don't know anyone who won't say that they don't approve of animal cruelty. Everyone claims to like animals and want the best for them and be against cruelty. Many will say they "love" animals. Meanwhile, most eat them, wear them and "love" the Kentucky Derby, yet don't approve of dog racing. It boggles the mind. Actually, it boggles my mind. But it shouldn't because it makes perfect sense. Their values are simply a reflection of the dominant culture, which they have either consciously or otherwise chosen not to challenge.

What would you do? Is it silly to go after the petting zoo when the event will likely require hundreds of pig, cow and chicken corpses?

I'm thinking leave town is the best answer.

On Honoring Living "Things"

William Horden's, "The Sacred Space of the Shared Heart" is exactly the type of piece I am talking about when I express frustration over "spiritual" people who kill nonhuman animals or who have them killed for a meal.

"My father once explained to me that he felt the profoundest guilt for having to kill other living things in order to survive, so much so that he never took more that he needed and he always apologized to the spirit of the animal or plant for cutting its life short. He always promised to use its life wisely and never waste it on trivial pursuits. In this way, he had come to hold sacred everything he encountered in life--and come to have a sense of his own sacredness. It took a while before I really began seeing everything the way he did, but now that is the view and those are the feelings that I carry with me all the time.

. . .

The big change, of course, was my realizing that I didn't feel any remorse for having to eat animals and plants to live.

On The Respectful Emperor

I've been having a difficult time blogging both here and at Animal Rights & AntiOppression lately because I feel like my thoughts are like "Groundhog Day." Not the day, the film, where Bill Murray experiences the same day over and over again.

There are few animal rights stories in the news. We are not people who are interested in discussing animal rights, as in, the right of sentient nonhumans to not be used by humans for potential profit, for sport or for lunch.

That leaves us with animal welfare, which I do think we are genuinely interested in, mostly because of the myriad videos, documentaries, books and websites that have made it tough to avoid over the past few years. People are talking. And acting. Of course, what they are talking about and how they are changing their behavior is very frustrating for someone who doesn't believe we should be using animals at all. Most of the talk and the action is about treating animals differently---better, allegedly--while not addressing what is of paramount importance to all living creatures: staying alive.

When I think about the language that has been used by people who kill animals or have someone else do it for them, a couple of years ago the "compassionate" trend began. Farmers were bragging about how much they "loved" the animals they would soon betray and slaughter, and many omnivores who had discovered how animals are treated wanted to assuage their consciences a bit by "at least" giving the animals a better life prior to their untimely slaughter. I wrote often about such farmer/authors and found their rationalizations quite creepy. (Here's "On THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" from September of 2008.)

In short order it was clear that The Compassionate Emperor had no clothes, however. You didn't have to think too deeply about that one before you reached its fatal flaws. It wasn't long before The Humane Emperor came on the scene, and is still around, telling folks that with a little mental acrobatics you can include forcible breeding, captivity, separation of family, killing of day-old chicks, and of course, untimely death in the definition of "humane." The Humane Myth debunks any definition of humane farming you can create though, and it would help animals enormously if we coached more people in the deconstructing of the notion of humane.

Maybe "humane" is already on its way out for the folks trying to convince themselves and others that humane killing isn't an oxymoron. Yesterday I saw what could be the next such attempt in The Atlantic's "Last Clucks: The Death of a Chicken," by Sara Lipka. Lipka introduced me to the idea of killing "respectfully." There's so much to deconstruct here, but after this lengthy intro I'm feeling the need to go in the opposite direction and just provide the highlights. And by highlights, I mean sentences that made me want to scream.

• "Our friend Miranda had her eye on Tina, the only bird distinctive enough to be named." That one left me speechless.
• "My boyfriend, Daniel, wanted to kill his hen, quietly and respectfully, and eat it." Wanted? His? Respectfully? It?
• "Our friend James caught our hen and put it in a hay-lined waxed-cardboard box. It calmed down and sat quietly in the box, on the floor of my car's backseat." Our. It.
• "the chicken waited with me, its head sticking through a gap in the top of the box. It was funny, maybe even cute." Its. It.
• "We took the chicken to Daniel's parents' house and left it in the box in the garage overnight." It. Okay, I can't keep doing this. There are more than 15 more "it"s.
• "Blood splattered on my pants and on Daniel's face, which made him, in a hooded sweatshirt, look like a murderer." He had indeed just murdered a chicken.
• "Feathers: animal. No feathers: food. I didn't feel sentimental anymore." That's an honest observation.
• "I'm still glad we did it. I confirmed my weird personal right to consume chicken." I find it sad that Lipka views the killing as some sort of right of passage that gives her permission to pay to have others kill other chickens and who knows what other animals when she in fact does not need to eat (or wear or otherwise use) them.
• "Our little chicken was very much on my mind as we ate her." What was on her mind, I wonder?

The stories we humans create for ourselves to justify--or even glorify--our behavior are fictions. If we really want to respect chickens, and if we really want to be "mindful" of them, we would remove them from the table and allow them to live their lives. That's respect.

--Photo from Flickr user gunp0wder

On Animal Abuse Registries and Anthropolatry

This morning I posted "On California's Animal Abuse Registry Proposal" over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression and welcome any discussion about it. I should be able to watch the press conference about the bill this afternoon if a conference call doesn't take too long, and I'll update if there's anything new and exciting.

Also, I couldn't resist mentioning a word that was new to me until today, and it's surprising that it's new given what is is:

Anthropolatry: The productive suffix -latry (from Greek, meaning "worship") clues us up that this is a form of worship, and the anthropo- part means "humankind," as it does in many related words. The outcome: "worship of human beings." You don't hear much about it as a religious practice but it's probably what aliens would conclude about us after a stroll past department store windows!

What a fitting addition to discussions about speciesism!