Animal Person

Personal Changes Doesn't Equal Political Change

Derrick Jensen comes right out of the gate mentioning Hitler (as opposed to later as per Godwin's Law) in "Taking Shorter Showers Doesn't Cut it: Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," which might annoy some people. But what's more annoying is the reality that the personal choices we make and hold so dear, that we're so convinced are going to change the world, might not really be working as effectively as we would like.

Here are some highlights, just from the article (the comments are a bit of a maze, but if you can negotiate them I think they're worth reading through). They are all Jensen's words exactly, except what's in brackets (not parenthesis-they're him too).

• Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance.
• People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
• I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
• If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. 
• Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. [And by the way, I would not have said that, necessarily, and perhaps this is a language issue here.]
• [Neo-Luddite] Kirkpatrick Sale . . . : “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
• [Capitalism] redefines us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming.
• We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

It's posts like this that make me feel like an ineffectual white, suburban elitist. I have such a difficult time giving up the notion that I can buy or not buy my way out of a problem, and that my one vote to buy or not buy really does count because if more people did it we'd develop the mythical critical mass that would indeed change the way things are or are done.

While I go to bed in my cushy home each night after a long day of blogging, reading, writing, working, baking vegan cookies, buying local, organic and vegan foodstuffs, recycling, taking short showers, driving very little, volunteering a lot, taking care of the creatures, wearing the same "Life is Good" T-shirts and flip-flops and trying to buy only what I need, and feeling like with each of those decisions--my decisions--the world gets better, I must admit that that last part just might be an illusion. It might be a lie I tell myself to make me feel like I have power to change the world and am changing it with my choices.

What are your thoughts?

On "The Botany of Desire"

This is coming very, very late, but part of why "Food Inc." wasn't impressive for me is because I'm not the target audience. I'd already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen "The Future of Food" and "King Corn." And though The Omnivore's Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were "farmed" a certain way (and locally), there's so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it's tough to tell people not to read it.

Because The Botany of Desire doesn't address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there's no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore's Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.

From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that's the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.

And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).

Chipping Away at Greyhound Racing

In March of 2007 I wrote, "in a horribly-depressing vote of 198-138, New Hampshire's House voted AGAINST a bill that would shut down live racing at its three greyhound race tracks." E-mails were exchanged between yours truly and NH legislators, and though I knew the hounds would someday be free of racing, they were going to have to wait at least another year. At least.

Nearly two years later, one of the tracks closed. The Hinsdale track ceased operations in December and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

And this year, according to Tom Fahey in "Dog Racing May Be Gone Forever," the two tracks that remained "won permission to drop all racing dates. They will continue to operate as simulcast betting centers, and to host gambling events for charities."

If "won permission" sounds odd, that's because not every track wants to force live dogs to race. Not because it's wrong but because for most tracks it's not profitable. Other types of gambling are profitable, but not usually live dog racing. However, the law in most states where there is live dog racing specifically states that if there is to be gambling there must be live dog racing. So NH tracks "won permission" to drop dog racing, thereby also winning permission to be able to maintain their gambling operations.

This is not a ban on dog racing, but that does often come next.

Thanks to the folks at Grey2KUSA for their tireless efforts for greyhounds.

Finally, I'm off to Orlando to see the neurologist again. Charles looked great the first week after his surgery, and his condition has progressively deteriorated to the point where he is about 80% lame. Not 80% better--80% lame. I'll tweet (http://www.twitter.com/mary_martin)--or you can see updates over on the right column.

Wish me luck!

On Being Upset by Carnage That Comes Too Soon

It never ceases to amaze me that people will get upset about the death of an animal whose killing was their job.

This time, and thanks to a tweet from CaptainGraviton, it's "beef farmer" Jim McDougal in Scotland. In "Cows Killed by Lightning Strike," by Angie Brown of the BBC Scotland, which today was updated to "Lightning Strike Kills Bullocks," we learn that Mr. McDougal was "very upset," numb and shocked by "the carnage he saw." That carnage wasn't observed after the animals were slaughtered, but before he could get to slaughter them. The evildoer responsible for the carnage . . . was lightning.

What I don't understand is why this moment was so upsetting to Mr. McDougal. Perhaps he can no longer profit from the animals. But if he can still carve them up or have them carved up, it would seem to me that nature merely helped him do his job, no? They were going to die anyway, as that's why they were brought into this world--to be slaughtered. Why the phony concern over the death of animals?

And finally, wherever the animals were to be slaughtered and whether or not it was scheduled to be at the hand of Mr. McDougal, in that place, at that moment, would Mr. McDougal use the word "carnage" and would he be "very upset" or numbed by what he saw?

On Flow and Water

I watched Flow last night and though I did know about the evils of water privatization in other countries, I had no idea that communities (Michigan is featured) right here in the US are fighting huge multi-nationals for their own water. I suppose I just hadn't put enough thought into it, but oil and water are in fact very similar in the way large corporations have swooped into areas where they have no business being, to take the local resources and sell them back to the local people at enormous mark-ups.

I did know that such companies steal water (and oil) from local people in other countries, promising them improved access or health or housing, and I did know of the very, very dark side of dams (particularly the Three Gorges Dam in China, with its environmental ravaging and displacing of over a million people).

And as we've all heard by now, I did know that most bottled water is basically the same as tap water. (And there's a hilarious yet sad Penn & Teller segment where restaurant goers buy expensive water in a bottle that has a french name on it, and the water was from a hose.)

And let me just say that on the occasions that I have bought bottled water, such as in airports because I couldn't bring my own, I felt nearly as bad as if I bought a hamburger. But it's time I feel as bad as if the water was a burger. I don't want to be part of this particular problem anymore, and though it's not much of a big deal, I am committed to getting herbal tea rather than water in airports.

The remaining issue, which is geographic in nature, is that we need to keep probably a dozen gallons (I usually buy distilled water) for hurricane season, which started this week. We needed to use them only one year (2004, when Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne came a-calling), but also discovered that we should keep more than a dozen. You don't realize how much water you use until you don't have any or can't use what you have and also don't have the means to boil it. I don't know what to do about this, and I have looked into some rainwater capture ideas that my neighborhood would allow and that are affordable.

One billion people on Planet Earth do not have access to clean drinking water and 80% of all sickness and disease is caused by unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation. Charity:Water brings clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations and their site explains how dire the situation it is. Water is killing them, and water can save them.

I probably take water for granted less than the average suburbanite in the US because I've been surrounded by it, yet been unable to use it (after Hurricanes). For that to be my long-term relationship with water is unfathomable. Yet that's what a billion people deal with every day.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Solution For Bottled Water (slideshare.net)
• China Wants 20 More Dams on the Headwaters of the Yangtze River (treehugger.com)
• Bottled Water Sales Drop Off (worldchanging.com)
• Drinking Bottled Water Kills the Earth (chrisabraham.com)
• Drink Tap Water! (anishvshah.com)

Slate on Pepper: Stolen for Research

Daniel Engber, senior editor at Slate, has posted the first of a five-part series about animals used for research. "Pepper, the stolen dog who changed American science," thankfully wasn't called Pepper, the stolen dog that changed American science," so that was an encouraging sign.

Pepper was a beloved family pet. A Dalmatian, stolen and sold for research, she was likely terrified and probably in enormous pain when she was killed, a couple of weeks after she was taken. The story, rich in details about people who steal, scoop up and trade or sell animals, is disturbing on many levels, but a worthwhile read for its historic significance.

Here's the final paragraph of the piece, which I'm sure you'll have some thoughts about:

Pepper's journey in the summer of 1965 helped start a national media sensation and a broad panic over the theft of pets for biomedical research. Her death on an operating table in the Bronx would help animal welfare advocates break a long-standing stalemate in Congress and push through the most significant animal-protection bill in American history. At the same time, she became a martyr to the cardiology revolution at a crucial moment in its development. Pepper also represents a turning point in science, from an earlier age when animals for experiment would be plucked from the road or the river, to a new era of standardized, mass-produced organisms that can be shipped right to the laboratory door. In a five-part series to be published over the course of this week, Slate will explore her legacy.

I look forward, with a tad of trepidation, to the part about Pepper being a turning point in science.

Perhaps I am mistaken or misreading, but didn't she really represent a turning point in the commodification of dogs and other sentient nonhumans used for research?

Didn't she represent the dawn of a new age of profiting from the "production" and sale of animals? The birth of a new business model?

Do you think she represented a time when people were relieved that their beloved pets could (technically, legally) no longer be abducted and tortured because some nameless, faceless other dog would be instead, and that dog had no significance?

Was what followed animal protection or pet protection, as pets are the animals who really matter?

Stay tuned. I look forward to the rest of the series.

Montana Horse Slaughter Bill Not Vetoed

From Elizabeth Forel, of the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages . . .

On Friday, April 3rd, Montana Governor Brain Schweitzer returned House Bill 418 to the legislature with suggestions for amendments. The danger is that the amendments will be made and the bill will be signed into law. PLEASE TAKE ACTION. We must keep the pressure on the governor to VETO this bill. Call the governor's office at (406) 444-3111 and ask him to veto it.   Tell the governor's office that (live) horses are a symbol of the American West and Montana should not want to be known as the horse slaughter capitol of the country.

Please read this excellent and compelling letter by former Mayor Paula Bacon about the disastrous effects of having a slaughter facility in her hometown of Kaufman, Texas.  The letter was written to the Montana legislature.

You can contact the governor online here. And you can read more about this issue in the Thoroughbred Times and JAVMA News.

On Horses too Thin to Slaughter

Stephanie wrote about horses dying across the pond yesterday. This morning I read that they're dying here too, and those who defend thoroughbred racing might want to pay careful attention to who died and why. In "Prominent Horseman Faces Questions About Neglect," Joe Drape of the New York Times reports:

Four undernourished and neglected former racehorses belonging to Ernie Paragallo, a prominent New York thoroughbred breeder and owner, were rescued from a New York kill pen last month, one step from being slaughtered. They were among more than 20 horses from Paragallo’s Center Brook Farm in Climax, N.Y., that were sold to slaughter for $680.

This is an interesting moment in the story:

Paragallo said Thursday that he had given the horses away to a Florida-based breeder, whom he did not identify, in December with the agreement that he could breed the mares back to one of his stallions based in New York or Florida. In fact, Paragallo said, he had intended to ship another batch of horses to the man.

. . .

Paragallo said he could not remember the last name of the man he gave the horses to, his telephone number or his farm address.

The transporter of the horses discovered that the horses were in such poor condition (hundreds of pounds underweight, infested with lice and worms and riddled with infections) that they wouldn't have survived the trip to Florida. So he took them to the kill pen to sell them for slaughter.

[T]hey were in such bad condition that [the kill pen operator] had to feed them for several weeks just to get them in shape for the trip to the slaughterhouse.

What does the average horse racing-loving person think happens to horses when they stop winning? Or have to stop racing? And what do they think happens to the horses who aren't ever good enough to compete? And how many horses do they think live the decades they can live, in a natural environment, eating what they're supposed to eat and not being forced to somehow earn their keep/pay their way. The horses who are well-cared for (because they can make someone money) that we see on the television represent a fraction of the horses who are created by people in the hope of profiting from their natural ability. Not all of the ones who win, as this story demonstrates, are repaid with respectable retirements.

Imagine what happens to the ones who lose.

Listen Today on WALO Radio

Responsible Policies for Animals Members & Friends!

Today, March 30th, at 3:00 East Coast time, Susan Soltero of  Puerto Rico will interview me live on the air at WALO Radio about Responsible Policies for Animals' 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign to get our universities out of the meat industry!

Susan e-mailed after receiving RPA's news release on the organization's recent mailing to the governors of all 50 states about our land-grant universities' (LGUs') meat-industry problem.

The interview is scheduled for 10-15 minutes of Monday's one-hour show.  For our non-Spanish-speaking friends: The station works in Spanish.  During the interview, my responses to questions (in American English) will be translated.  Some key words are in English at the website, which gives clear instructions for streaming.  There's an Archive icon for possible later listening.

The University of Puerto Rico, an "1862" LGU founded in 1900, operates a slaughter facility killing small ruminants -- typically goats and sheep, cattle being large ruminants. 

(Ruminants are four-footed, hoofed, even-toed, cud-chewing mammals with four stomachs.  We humans, herbivores like ruminants, are fine with one stomach -- we don't eat the really tough stuff like grass.  Unlike many humans, they don't burden their bodies with flesh they didn't evolve to eat or factory stuff like hydrogenated oils or tooth-eroding sugar & acid concoctions unless given them by humans.)

Like almost every one of our other 105 LGUs in the 50 states and other territories, the University of Puerto Rico, along with its immensely valuable services, unfortunately gives the meat industry inestimable millions of dollars' worth of training, research, and promotions.  Achieving humane treatment of animals is inconceivable with our big, popular universities teaching the opposite!

Thank you for making it possible to represent the animals' -- including the human animal's -- interests!  Let me know if you hear the show!  Have a great day and evening!

David Cantor
Executive Director
Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc.
P.O. Box 891
Glenside, PA 19038
215-886-RPA1
RPA4all@aol.com
www.RPAforAll.org
www.ExpertsOfConscience.org
www.EatForSports.org

Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc., a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization, shows people how to establish responsible policies for animals that are also responsible policies for people and ecosystems – meaningful, enforceable basic rights for nonhuman animals, the only means to humane treatment as public policy rather than personal choice. 
    RPA’s 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign aims to end our land-grant universities’ support of the meat industry -- see www.RPAforAll.org and www.ExpertsOfConscience.org. 
    RPA's This Land Is Their Land campaign aims to protect wildlife by ending armed assaults and destructive land-use practices.  See Campaigns page at www.RPAforAll.org.
    RPA's position statement opposing violence and other antisocial behavior in association with animal advocacy is available at www.RPAforAll.org or by request. 
    Donations to RPA are tax deductible as allowed by law and may be made at the above address or www.RPAforAll.org.

Publish Your Own AR Book or Magazine

As you may know, I'm a writer/ghostwriter/editor. That's how I've made my living for over 20 years.

My clients have always been a combination of experts who already have book deals with large publishers, and entrepreneurs who say Why on Earth would I let them take so much of my potential profits? The latter form a publishing company, get their own block of ISBNs (like Social Security numbers for publications of all kinds), and print and distribute the books themselves (or outsource those parts). Sure, it's a lot of work, but if you're already an entrepreneur, and you have a bunch of products that could be made into books, workbooks, CDs, and DVDs, why not self-publish? (And just for clarity, I'm not talking about using Xlibris and the like, which are print-on-demand companies.)

Many vegans and animal rights activists "have a book in them" but soon discover, despite their well-crafted book proposal and sample chapters, that most mainstream publishers aren't interested. Unless you have already published a book that has sold well, you're too big a risk, and in their minds the market is way too small and specialized to roll the dice on you. The book publishing business is not doing well, and taking big risks on unknown authors with tiny markets isn't on a publisher's Top 10 list of things to do.

In my experience, what holds back most authors from self-publishing is one word: ego. They want the approval of the "real" publishing world (usually meaning New York), and regardless of the reality that the real publishing world probably isn't going to lift a finger to help sell their book, they'd choose that over making an e-book or self-publishing and selling a bunch of books on the Internet.

But what's the goal? Isn't the goal to spread your message, whatever it is, in the most effective and efficient way possible? Sometimes the goal is indeed to get a big NY house to publish your book, as perhaps your career trajectory requires that. But if you have something to say that you'd like the world to hear sooner rather than later, and you have an Internet connection and maybe some layout software, you don't need much money to get started creating your own books and magazines.

The big secret of self-publishing is that you can figure out what you need, sample different paper and fonts, find an artist for your cover, and do all of the work yourself, or you can write your book and have someone else do all the rest very inexpensively. You can even have someone else write it, though that's not so inexpensive.

Check out Booksjustbooks.com, which is one-stop shopping for all of your self-publishing needs. They have already negotiated prices for you, they have designers and editors, and links and articles that answer every possible question you'd have about the self-publishing process for every kind of book you'd want to produce.

And if you want to produce a magazine (or even a longer brochure), check out MagCloud, which enables you to print your own magazines from a pdf for as little as 20 cents per page. I've been thinking about revising Thinking Critically About Animal Rights, as I gave away the 1,000 I printed, and they were very, very expensive. Cost prohibitive in a major way and I'm not sure what I was thinking. They sure looked great, and the paper was fabulous, but I won't even tell you how much they cost because you'll mock me for the rest of my natural life for doing something so stupid that wasn't even tax-deductible. (Though I'm not sure about that--it might have been--I'll find out next week. Been delaying going to the accountant as long as possible.)

So all of you authors-in-waiting, start writing and publishing. We're all waiting to hear what you have to say!

Maple Farm Sanctuary Needs Your Help!

Late last night I received this message from Jenny Stein . . .

I'm concerned about Maple Farm Sanctuary, whose founders are two of the seven subjects in our new film, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to reach out through your blog to let people know that the sanctuary is in a financial tight spot right now. As you know, Cheri and Jim are in the early stages of setting up their sanctuary, after a long journey of conscience that began with them closing their dairy goat operation, then transitioning to a vegan way of life, and eventually, creating a loving, lifelong home for farmed animals in need. Amazingly, they are now staunch abolitionists (Cheri is one of the former farmers who contributed to the Humane Myth web site). They currently care for about 80 animals, almost half of whom are special needs cases who require extra time, attention and medical care. I'm including story below about Willie (below), just one of such animals they helped this year.

Maple Farm Sanctuary is a charitable 501(c)3 organization that Cheri and Jim have made tremendous sacrifices to found. They have basically been donating all their waking hours for several years now, and have also used much of their their life savings to buy food, bedding and medical care for the animals under their care. The sanctuary runs on a very modest budget of approximately $55,000 year. Right now is a particularly hard time for them, as the sanctuary is short on funds to keep its animals in food and bedding until the summer months, when their crop of hay generates some income.

When our film comes out, more people will become aware of the inspiring journey that led Cheri and Jim to doing what they do today. In the meantime, I hope other animal advocates will join me in supporting this sanctuary to help it succeed, as Cheri and Jim represent the journey we hope more farmers will make, away from exploiting and killing animals to cherishing and helping them live full and natural lives. It’s been a hard, steady climb for them to get to the point they are today, and in spite of enduring many hardships and setbacks, they have not given up, and are still actively working to improve their skills in running a nonprofit organization and sanctuary. The shift they have made in consciousness is profound, sincere, and something I hope we can all get behind.

....................................................................
Written by a volunteer at Maple Farm Sanctuary:

I first heard about Willie the Saturday before he was taken in. I was walking through the main barn with Cheri and she was telling me about Jitterbill when she mentioned a downed goat that had been living in poor conditions somewhere nearby. She said that she probably wouldn't be able take him in, but even after knowing Cheri for only several months I know her well enough to know that wouldn't be the case. Her heart is so big that you can see it from space - I knew that I'd meet the goat during my next visit to the farm.

The next weekend Cheri brought me into the goat barn to meet Willie, and I immediately felt a warmth in the room. It wasn't the space heater, though - it was coming from Willie. As I found more out about his living conditions and how he ended up in the condition he was, it broke my heart. I spent almost three hours in the barn with Willie that day, just sitting with him and comforting him while he was up in his sling, giving him the attention and care that he didn't receive at his last home. After sitting in one position for too long, I'd need to get up and move to another part of the room to get comfortable again, and every time I moved Willie would start trying to walk and would use his back legs to swing around in the harness so he could face where I was and nuzzle his head into my lap. It was clear that Willie wanted nothing more than human contact and affection. The attached picture is one that Pete took on that first day.

Over the next two weekends, I spent more time with Willie in the barn. It was as if when I was there that was my "job" to do on the farm - just be with Willie and give him the attention and love that he didn't get at his previous home. Cheri and Jim repeatedly thanked me for it, but I was the one who should have been thanking them for the experience and the opportunity to know such a gentle soul. Though Cheri and Jim were doing everything they possibly could for Willie, I had a sad feeling in my gut that was telling me that he wouldn't be in this world for much longer. When I left this past Sunday I knew I wouldn't see Willie again; as I left the barn I put my arm around him and gave him a hug as best I could while he was in his harness and told him that everything would be OK soon.

It's going to be sad going back to the farm without Willie there, but I know that everyone else will miss his calm presence and affection, too. I've had experiences getting to know a lot of different types of animals at the farm since I've been volunteering there, but this was the first time that I have felt so connected with a goat; I had no idea just how loving and peaceful these always-smiling animals could be. While my gift to Willie in his final days was the affection and time that I was able to give to him, I can truly say that his gift to me was the exact same in return.

I'll miss you, Willie - I think we all will. You are a kind and gentle soul and I am grateful for the time that we shared together.

______________

Please help Cheri and Jim and the animals. Their budget is so small--even $20 will help. Even $5. Their story is amazing and their journey took enormous courage, sacrifice and heart. The animals are lucky to have them, and we are lucky to have them.

-Mary (Animal Person)

On Florida Legislation

Florida's legislative session began last week and some rather odd tax exemptions are now under review including:

•     nets used by commercial fisheries;
•     generators used on poultry farms;
•     fuel used to heat the huge warehouses in which chickens raised for meat (broilers) are confined;
•     bait used by commercial fishermen in the entrapment of lobsters, crabs and other crustacea;
•     feeds for poultry, ostriches, and livestock, including racehorses and dairy cows;
•     the sale of racing dogs by his or her owner/breeder.

And speaking of racing dogs, several bills were filed that will help them, if passed. 

• Senate Bill 2594/House Bill 1437: 

Provides that a greyhound permitholder who meets certain requirements may engage in specific wagering activities without meeting a minimum number of live performances. Imposes a moratorium on the issuance of new greyhound racing permits. Conforms provisions. Revises the number of live performances that a greyhound permitholder must conduct in order to renew a cardroom license.  EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2009. 

In other words, what currently ties greyhound racing to gambling activities unrelated to the dogs, is a certain number of live races. Without a minimum live racing requirement, fewer dogs will be forced to race, and the real profit-making activity can increase.

The sponsors of this legislation, are Senator Don Gaetz and Representative Mike Horner. Drop them a note or call them to thank them and mention either SB 2594 or HB 1437. 

Senator Don Gaetz:

850-487-5009
gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov
web site

The Capitol
Room 320
Senate Office Building
404 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100

House Sponsor, Representative Mike Horner:
850-488-8992
mike.horner@myfloridahouse.gov
web site

The Capitol, Room 323
House Office Building
402 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300

Thanks, and have a greyt day!

"The Food Lobby Goes to School"

In the event you thought school lunches were about feeding kids nutritious food.

A lot has changed since I was in school. We had no soda or snack machines.

And how about having to rename "Adult Onset Diabetes"?

It boggles my mind that the children of our country, and the places that are supposed to feed them, are merely consumers.

On Attempts to Bring Dog Racing to Jamaica and South Africa

A member of Parliament for East St. Andrew (Jamaica), Dr. St. Aubyn Bartlett, has declared his intention to bring dog racing to Jamaica. Though I often write about greyhound racing, I thought that I'd pull quotes about parts of the process that you might not be aware of, such as these from "Killing for Profit" in the Jamaica Observer:

Dog racing is exclusively and vulgarly about making profits at the expense of defenseless animals. A racing greyhound's welfare at each stage of life is largely dependent on the dog's ability to generate money. Greyhounds typically begin racing at the age of 18 months. To qualify at an official track, the dogs must finish in the top four in two "schooling" races. If successful, the dogs enter maiden races. As they win, the dogs advance up through grades D, C, B, and finally grade A, as they finish in first, second, or third place in three consecutive races. Alternatively, as they begin losing, they decline in grades using the same criteria in reverse. By failing in grade D, the lowest grade, a dog is considered "graded-off", and may be sent to a less competitive track. Once a dog has graded-off at an end-of-the-line track, he (she) is either killed, kept for breeding, or turned over for adoption.

And what about the financial viability of the industry? It is now a known fact that dog racing is a dying industry. With attendance at racetracks dwindling in countries like the United States, greyhound racing is generally on the decline. Gaming industry statistics paint a bleak picture. Of the entire $61.6 billion gaming market in the US, greyhound racing held a 0.7 per cent share in 2000. That's a decline of 6.65 per cent or 32.6 million, from 1999 figures. State revenue from dog racing also dropped significantly. Even Florida, widely believed to be the last bastion of dog racing, has been experiencing diminishing returns. As a result, many tracks have lost enthusiasm for dog racing, and instead, are concentrating on gaming. Currently, five tracks in three US states are introducing slot machines to buttress declining revenues from dog racing, a development now described as "Racinos".

You can send your thoughts to: 

Prime Minister, The Honorable Bruce Golding 
One Devon Road 
Kingston 10 
Jamaica 

You can also respond to the article or send an editorial to:

Jamaica Observer 
40-421/2 Beechwood Avenue 
Kingston 5 
Jamaica W.I. 
editorial@jamaicaobserver.com 

Not to be outdone, South Africa, which banned greyhound racing in 1946 (not because of the dogs, but because of the gambling), is exploring legalizing it. Other forms of gambling are now legal and regulated in South Africa and the companies pushing for legalization appear to have a fight on their hands from the SPCA. There are illegal races already, and of course racing proponents say that the dogs will benefit from legalization as then welfare organizations can monitor the industry. 

Here's more on the story, and your thoughts can be sent to:

Professor Elizabeth Snyman-Van Deventer
University of the Free State
Faculty of Law
P.O. Box 339
Bloemfontein
9300 South Africa
Snyman.rd@ufs.ac.za

The Citizen Newspaper
P.O. Box 43069
Industria 2042
letters@citizen.co.za

Grey2KUSA's Christine Dorchak's letter was printed last week. Check it out!

On Veal, Victories, and the OED

You may have seen a comment yesterday by Lisa M. Keefe, Editor of Meatingplace in Print, clarifying that Meatingplace isn't affiliated with industry associations despite the appearance to the contrary on the site where the press release is posted. For more substantive material by Ms. Keefe, check out this bit of her work in Meatingplace, regarding the Hormel debacle, which includes:

Whether the issue is animal handling, pathogens or downer cattle, the goal is to provide context and shift the conversation from how poorly the industry treats its animals to a discussion of evidence showing that the event in question is an anomaly, and how practices are changing as quickly as new information comes to light and business conditions allow them to do so. We need to get that information out of the conversations between meat people and into conversations with consumers, activists and the media.

Then there's this editorial in Meatingplace called "The Eighth Plague" which includes:

[T]ake note of what the eat-less-meat activists have to say. Look for any small or large way to reduce emissions that won't financially damage the enterprise. . . . Be willing to bend, so that you don't break. As the veal industry has learned, a few changes can go a long way toward robbing opponents' campaigns of necessary fuel.

This is an invitation to animal "rights" activists and environmentalists to work with the industry, to compromise, to do a little give-and-take so that all parties can in some way claim a victory. Animal advocates can have a slight moral victory (bigger or no crates), environmentalists can have the slight victory that is a modicum of reduction in emissions (as long as it doesn't cost too much to get it), and the industry wins because they get to keep exploiting animals, people and the Earth, while simultaneously claiming to be making the world a better place.

So . . . what's the definition of victory, exactly?

On that note, I sent an e-mail to the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary, out of sheer paranoia. Here it is, followed by their response.

From: Mary Martin1 [mailto:mary@marymartin.net]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:09 AM
To: Customer Support
Subject: Terms and conditions
 
I am an individual with a paid subscription. Am I permitted to help my
friends and family members by looking up words for them? I wouldn't charge
them for this and they wouldn't have access to my password or user name. And
I can't imagine I'd do this for more than a couple dozen words.
 
Mary Martin, Ph.D.

------------------------------

Thank you for your email.

Oxford University Press prohibits publishing or sharing password information to our paid online services with the general public.  The type of usage described in your message below does not appear to violate these guidelines.
 
However, if the login is abused, OUP reserves the right to cancel it.
 
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
 
Sincerely,
 
Customer Support - Online Products
Oxford University Press
Tel: 1-800-334-4249 ext. 6484
Fax: 212-726-6476
E-mail: oxfordonline@oup.com 
Visit www.oxfordonline.com <http://www.oxfordonline.com/> 
 
-----Original Message-----

 
 Let the games begin! I already have a handful of requests. I'll probably begin to get to them this weekend.

Grandin and Niman Launch New "Humane" Seal

Thanks to Bea for directing me, unfortunately, to "Meating Place" (courtesy of the "American Association of Meat Processors: Serving the Meat Industry Since 1939"). Here's the entire press release, dated 2/11/09:

Temple Grandin, renowned designer of humane livestock handling facilities, is launching a new certification program that evaluates both sustainable and humane practices, according to a statement issued by Niman Ranch, which helped Grandin develop the program.

Starting in August 2009, companies that wish to carry the certification seal will be audited on 21 core principles which must be met by all farmers and ranchers receiving certification. The 21 core principles include the following:

• Animals must be given the opportunity to care for, interact with, and nurture their young. In the case of swine, farrowing crates are not allowed.
• Practices must be implemented that prevent soil loss or degradation in production areas, minimizes unacceptable or unintended poor air quality for family, workers, and neighbors, and prevents water quality degradation of surface and groundwater resources.
• Animals must be fed a 100 percent vegetarian diet and have a feeding plan that will guarantee a sufficient, well-balanced diet to appropriately meet their nutritional needs at their stage in life and maintain required Body Condition Scores. Animals shall have access to their feed as long as is necessary for them to satisfy their nutrient requirements.
• Pasture and/or bedding are the preferred environments. To qualify as pasture, 75 percent or more of the land occupied by livestock in this program must have vegetation with a root system

. With the core principles completed, Grandin and Niman Ranch are now in the process of developing separate guidelines for each species of animals, as well as an auditing plan.

Niman Ranch said it plans to be one of the first companies to be audited to carry the certification seal for their humanely and sustainably raised natural beef, pork, lamb and chicken.

"Using animals for food is fine, but we've got to do it the right way. This program provides farmers and ranchers a practical and affordable way to give animals a decent life and minimize the impact on our environment at the same time," Grandin said in the statement.

"Using animals for food is fine, but we've got to do it the right way." Says who? The woman who designs ways to kill them.

Way back in March of 2007, I wrote "Cognitive Dissonance at the Niman Ranch,"and I maintain that the use of the word "humane" is absurd. Sure, you can make little changes here and there and you will, perhaps, make the lives of the animals you are dominating and exploiting and slaughtering a tad better. But it's insulting to them, and to the public, to sell this concept by misusing the word "humane." Maybe it's "less hideous," but I'm not even sure if that's true given why they were brought into the world and what their end will be. The nature of doublespeak is that if you use it and use it confidently, long enough, 2 + 2 will indeed = 5.

Our job is to stop each person in their tracks when the word "humane" is used, and remind them of what is going on in the name of "humane."

Good News/ Bad News for Guam Greyhounds

The good news is that the only greyhound racetrack in Guam, which had about 250 dogs, abruptly closed after its owner, John Baldwin, could not get casino-style gambling approved for the property. The bad news is that Baldwin just started giving away greyhounds to anyone who came to the track. None of the hounds were spayed or neutered, and no records were kept. Obviously, no home studies were done and no background information was taken, and some of the hounds were given to dog fighting enthusiasts who used them as bait dogs. Many who took dogs later dumped them in remote places. It is not known exactly how many escaped from their new "homes" or how many have died (until their corpses are found, as a handful have). Evidently approximately 120+ dogs are ready for forever homes (more on that in a bit).

Guam Greyhounds writes:

We received a call from a passerby about two dogs tied to a boat in Umatac - down at the very southern part of the island. I spoke to the owner and he said he got them from the race track in the first week when they started giving them away. He took a male and female to breed them for later on and also to guard his fishing boat. They were both emaciated and when I questioned him about feeding them, he said he didn't know how to care for them anymore, because they wouldn't eat what he gave them. With some friendly persuasion I convinced him to sign them both over to GAIN. He wanted to be assured that we won't use them to race and then " make money out of them". I informed him that they are now officially retired and will never race again.

The human moral compass is a fascinating thing. This person apparently didn't think it was right to race the dogs for profit, yet breeding them as guard dogs, or basically starving them, or tying them to a boat, presented no problems for him.

We humans are quite a conflicted species.

Not all of the dogs were given away. Some were simply released into the villages and jungles to fend for themselves. There is an also unknown number of dogs at the track whose futures are unclear and in the hands of the track management. Why any of this occurred this way when any rescue group would find a way to take them, I have no idea.

The island, a U.S. territory, is about three times the size of Washington  D.C. with a population of 175,000 people.  Imagine a hundred greyhounds running loose. Imagine the future ecological catastrophe and public health problem when even a few surviving females come into heat.

Volunteers of Guam Animals in Need (GAIN) are coralling/rescuing, rehabbing, and sending dogs to Homestretch Greyhound Rescue & Adoption in California, every three to five days, for further treatment and relocation to other west coast rescue groups.

You can donate to GAIN through Grey2kUSA here (and mark the gift "for Guam greyhounds), and to Homestretch here.

On Fur is Evil vs. Google

If you don't know how to connect Google, AdSense, Supervegan, Treehugger, Grist, China, Aretha Granklin, and the skin and fur of cats, dogs and other sentient beings, visit FurIsEvil. The site was launched recently, so you can get a feel for the entire story, with all of its tentacles, fairly quickly. You can also sign a petition to the Board of Directors of Google.

I was astounded when I learned how AdSense worked and then I was doubly astounded to learn how sites that are supposed to be vegan and/or environment-focused responded to the call to do something about the ads for fur that ended up on their sites (in a word: disappointing). It's fascinating how what appeared to be a great use of technology has a monumental flaw that actually results in promoting the opposite of what a site should stand for.

Colorado Votes Against Re-opening Dog Track

I didn't know about this until it was over, and thank heavens it all turned out okay, but greyhound racing came close to being revived in Colorado. Mile High Greyhound Park was almost given a window of opportunity to reopen.

Thankfully, Charmaine Settle, a Grey2K USA board member, sprang into action. According to an e-mail I received last night from Grey2K USA:

With just 48 hours notice, Charmaine and her husband Bill created a presentation for the legislative committee considering a bill to restore dog racing to Colorado. She also engaged representatives from the Rocky Mountain Animal Defense League, Colorado League of Humane Voters, Focus on the Family and the Humane Society of the United States to testify for the greyhounds. Thanks to these efforts a vote to advance HB 1095 failed.

If HB 1095 had passed, Mile High Greyhound Park might have re-opened and the cruelty of dog racing would have recommenced in Colorado. Thanks to Charmaine this will not happen and we will remain vigilant to ensure this harmful proposal is not revived.

Greyhound racing is per se illegal in 35 states. In five others the tracks have closed but a statute that actually prohibits dog racing hasn't been enacted yet. Pari-mutuel dog racing remains legal and operational in 10 states: Arizona, Texas, Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Alabama, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Rhode Island (and a ban will go into effect in Massachusetts in 2010). If you'd like to know more about greyhound racing and how to stop it, contact Grey2k USA or the Grey2K USA Education Fund.

Hospitals Take Animals Off Menus to Cut Carbon

Across the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, hospitals have a plan to cut their global warming emissions that includes curbing meat and dairy use (among a slew of other strategies), according to yesterday's Guardian. (Here's the article, and thanks to Bill for the tip. And how about the photo of the pizzas? A bit odd given the topic, which does include dairy, as it should.) The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe and accounts for 3% of the emissions in England and 25% of public-sector emissions in England.

Among the most talked-about is likely to be the suggestion that hospitals could cut carbon emissions from food and drink by offering fewer meat and dairy products. Last year, the United Nations climate chief, Rajendra Pachauri, provoked a global debate when he said having a meat-free day every week was the biggest single contribution people could make to curbing climate change in their personal lives, because of the chemicals sprayed on feed crops and the methane emitted by cattle and sheep. Last week, the German federal environment agency went further, advising people to eat meat only on special occasions. Pencheon said the move would cut the relatively high carbon emissions from rearing animals and poultry, and improve health. Last year the NHS served 129m main meals, costing £312m, according to Department of Health figures. "We should not expect to see meat on every menu," said Pencheon. "We'd like higher levels of fresh food, and probably higher levels of fresh fruit and veg, and more investment in a local economy."

There is a suggestion (in the accompanying audio) that this is just "cost cutting with a green wrapper," which might be somewhat true, but the cost/emissions-cutting ideas all seem to be valid. (What do you think about them?)

I don't know the first thing about influencing the menus in hospitals in the US (though PCRM does), and I'd imagine that private hospitals are analogous to private schools, and public ones are analogous to public schools (translation: private ones are easier to influence, particularly if you're a stakeholder). If you work in a hospital, contacting PCRM for help would be your first step.

The poll connected to the article, "Will you be eating less meat?" by the way, is currently split nearly 50/50, with "No, I'm an omnivore" slightly in the lead. I guess you can look at that as either a glass half empty or half full.