Animal Person

On Greyhounds and the Economy

Supporters of a ban on Greyhound racing in Massachusetts have submitted 45,000 signatures (11,099 were needed) and in November the people will decide whether or not to shut down Raynham-Taunton and Wonderland Greyhound Parks (yes, "park" is part of the name). Or at least you'd think that's how it would happen, but a lawsuit, courtesy of the dog track owners, is pending.

If on the ballot and approved, the measure would close the tracks down by January 1, 2010. George Carney has been the owner of the Raynham-Taunton track for 40 years.

If the court does not block the measure this year, Carney said he will wage a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to swing voters against the measure. He said that at his track there are about 650 full- and part-time workers, jobs that would be lost if the ban was approved.

"I feel the economy is in our favor," Carney said.

Of course, a bill to add slots at the tracks to prop them up is already in the works, and a plea has been made to supporters of racing "for dramatic action to reverse a years-long slide in attendance at races."

Though public opinion appears to be against the dog tracks (evidenced by the dwindling attendance), fears about the economy are going to work for the track owners. They will use the unstable economy and their 650 full- and part-time workers to their advantage. "You don't want people to lose their jobs in an already terrible economy, do you? Do you want to be responsible for that?"

What I would want to ask each voter in Massachusetts is: Would you want your dog to be kenneled, lying on shredded newspaper, and muzzled for some or all of 22 hours a day, possibly drugged, forced to run when someone else wants her to run, denied veterinary treatment as it's cost-prohibitive, and then "discarded" when she wasn't fast enough? Forget about the broken bones, cardiac arrest and paralysis. Forget the killing of thousands of dogs who were never fast enough to make it to the track. Forget the mass graves full of dogs and the dogs found, injured or dead, with their ears cut off (that's where their tattoos are). Do you think it is right to force your dog to race because you want her to race? Because you might profit?

If the answer were No, then they'd have no choice but to vote to shut down the tracks (if they wanted to act in alignment with their beliefs).

But if the answer were Yes, I'd ask: Do you think it's right to hold a human person captive and force her to race because you want her to race? Because you might profit? And if not, why not?

Because dogs aren't human? True, true. But so what? Might humans and dogs have something in common that's crucial to this issue?

I think I can name one thing: They have an interest in not being held captive by someone with the intention of profiting from their natural inclinations or their skills. And if you agree with that, you'd have to vote to shut down the tracks if you wanted to align your actions with your beliefs.

People can get new jobs all by themselves. They can relocate if they choose to. They can get trained for a new career if they have the inclination, the time and the resources (and some programs are free!). But the dogs cannot choose to leave the tracks. They need the voters to speak for their interests.

On Big Brown as a Commodity

There are few things more tragic to me than when someone almost takes his thoughts to their logical conclusion, falls short, and then appears to think he's onto something really big.

Allow me an example to elucidate using Peter Thomas Fornatale's Opinion piece entitled, "If Big Brown Wins, Racing Loses," in today's New York Times.

Let's deconstruct:

• Fornatale won't be rooting for Big Brown at the Belmont Stakes today. "Yes, Big Brown is a magnificent animal whose efforts I can’t help but admire. But he also represents the worst aspects of the sport." Not a bad start. Too early to make any judgments.
• Ah but wait. He then writes: "This might sound obvious, but it’s worth stating: horse racing is nothing without the horse. And yet right now the horse’s best interests don’t seem to be paramount in racing." Right now? As opposed to the long and glorious history up until now when the horse's interests were paramount?
• If you've been following the story, you know about the legal and nonlegal issues with Big Brown's owner and also his trainer. But I don't think they're as significant as Fornatale and others claim, and it should become clear why in what Fornatale writes.

"Big Brown’s main owner is not a venerable stable like the Phipps family’s or even a group of casual investors who bought a racehorse on a lark (like the old high school friends who went in on Funny Cide, the 2003 Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner). Instead, his main owner is International Equine Acquisitions Holdings, whose stated purpose is to be an equine hedge fund that delivers profits to its investors by consistently racing winners. When you run your stable like a hedge fund, the horse becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold like a share of stock, with little concern for its fate."

In case you missed it, that last sentence said: "When you run your stable like a hedge fund, the horse becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold like a share of stock, with little concern for its fate."

Fornatale would have us believe, then, that it wasn't until Big Brown and International Equine Acquisitions Holdings (IEAH), that horses began to be treated like commodities, with little concern for their fate. (And after appearing to care so much about horses, referring to them as "its" doesn't help his cause.) Horse racing is a business wherein horses are treated like commodities every day. Nothing has changed about that. In fact, I think IEAH shouldn't be painted as a shady company, doing something untoward. I find the idea of them refreshingly honest. They are saying what traditional stables don't want to say: that the horses are bred and trained to make a profit, and if they don't they will probably be slaughtered, either immediately or after they get bought and sold a couple of times by various other exploiters of horses.

• Fornatale isn't worried about Big Brown, though. "He has already been promised to the reputable Three Chimneys Stud Farm — but I worry about the less talented horses Equine Acquisitions owns." What about the less talented horses owned by everyone else? Where does he think they're going? IEAH is an easy target, I admit, with its spokesperson and co-president having a checkered past, and its trainers (former and current) being well known for drugging horses. But horses have been drugged for years, and the "win at any price" mentality that Fornatale attributes to IEAH is not new in horse racing (can you say Eight Belles?).

Look, I'm not defending anything IEAH has done. My point is that they haven't done anything new, and picking on them seems more like an attempt to push out a company that's actually being honest about what horses mean to owners, trainers and racing. IEAH isn't being sentimental, gushing about their love for the horses they are using and might send to slaughter. They are clear about being in business to win and to make money. "Venerable stables" may find that behavior tacky, but I think it's refreshingly blunt.

• Fornatale doesn't want to see Big Brown win, as that would validate the tactics (and existence) of IEAH. He writes:

"But a Big Brown victory could make the fundamental problems of the sport even worse, encouraging other outfits to be as aggressive with the rules as the scarily named Equine Acquisitions is. Until we find ways to protect horses and make owners and trainers more accountable, the real problems aren’t going away."

So the "outfits" can be aggressive, but not too aggressive. And Equine Acquisitions is scary why, exactly? Because it is honest and there's no doublespeak?

You don't have to look far to "find" ways to protect horses and to get rid of the "real problems." All you have to do, if what you want is the "best interests of the horses" is to stop doing what you're doing to them. Stop breeding them. Stop training them. Stop racing them. End of problems.

• Fornatale ends with: "No horse is going to save racing. Racing must first save itself — and for that reason, I’d rather see Big Brown lose."

Ah-ha. The real story. Fornatale isn't primarily interested in saving the horses; he's interested in saving racing.

Do your part to save the horses. Don't support industries that exploit them. We've forced horses to do enough for us. And for several hundred years (in the US). It's time to leave them alone.

Send your thoughts to letters@nytimes.com.

NYT Has an Epiphany

Because we all spend a greater-than-average amount of time thinking, reading, writing and talking about issues related to sentient nonhumans, when someone says: "What's wrong with drinking cow's milk" or "It doesn't pay for farmers to abuse their animals, they'd never do that," I understand the temptation to say, "Where have you been?"

However, when what is still considered by some to be the newspaper of record, which has reported on factory farming many times and has been a platform for factory-farming critic, Michael Pollan, has an epiphany  like:

In short, animal husbandry has been turned into animal abuse. Manure — traditionally a source of fertilizer — has been turned into toxic waste that fouls the air and adjacent water bodies. Crowding creates health problems, resulting in the chronic overuse of antibiotics.

  . . . it makes me say: "Where have you been?"

Evidently, the Pew report and "CAFOs Uncovered," by the Union of Concerned Scientists (released in April) were critical to the development of The New York Times editorial board's opinion about factory farms, and the University of Chicago study and Livestock's Longshadow, both of which they reported on last year, didn't make much of an impact. Or maybe the two more recent studies were the tipping point.

"CAFOs Uncovered" is a welfarist's dream. Its Executive Summary begins:

The livestock industry (including poultry) is vital to our national economy, supplying meat, milk, eggs and other animal products and providing meaningful employment in rural communities.

(Meaningful employment?)

And it ends with policy recommendations such as reducing CAFO subsidies and "Substantial funding for research to improve alternative animal production methods (especially  pasture-based) that are beneficial to the environment, public health, and rural communities."

That last one is particularly amusing, as no research--let along "substantial funding" would be needed. If these welfarists were paying attention, they'd realize that their biggest concerns (not mine--don't yell at me) are all a direct result of intensive farming, and all they'd need to do is stop working that way and their problems would be solved.

Not to let the Pew report go without commentary, I always cringe when I read something like:

The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and  damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food (viii).

We wouldn't want to cause any unnecessary harm.

The Pew report's conclusion states:

While industrial farm animal production has benefits, it brings with it growing concerns for public health, the environment, animal welfare, and impact on rural communities (19).

My favorite line of all, on page 43, is: "Unfortunately, it can be difficult to define what actually constitutes a decent life for animals because doing so includes both ethical (value-based) and scientific (empirical) components."

How about this: if you wouldn't do it to your kid, don't do it to a sentient nonhuman. Done. What's so "difficult" about that?

There is talk about the "Five Freedoms" on page 47 that must be read to be believed, as it assumes that they can actually be satisfied by farming. Noticeably, tragically absent, is any discussion of the word "freedom," and what it would mean for farming (probably because farming and freedom are mutually exclusive).

As you might imagine, the Pew report wants "food animals" to be treated well because they will be "healthier and safer for human consumption (38).

It's so strange to me to read about using sentient nonhumans, treating them like machines, and referring to them as if they're inanimate objects. And when the editorial ends with, "These are all useful guideposts for the next Congress and a new administration," that doesn't make me feel any better about the future for sentient nonhumans.

If you desire, you can respond at letters@nytimes.com.

On Why I Can't Let Go of Capitalism

One of my two current Gray Matters is capitalism. I have a difficult time seeing it (rather than greed or unethical behavior) as the core problem. Like any system, it's only as good as the people involved, which I guess is the problem.

I don't think profit is bad, I don't think money is bad, and I don't think everyone should have equal amounts of everything. Equal opportunity would be optimal, though we all know we don't have that.

Why can't we simply (and by that I don't mean it would be simple) replace the businesses that are founded on principles of exploitation with businesses that aren't? Why can't we create new ways to deal with all of the problems we have caused, and then profit from those technologies or products? I'm not talking about greenwashing; I'm talking about a legitimate alternative. What's wrong with the idea of vegan businesses that are in business to make money? Is a system based on the production of commodities to be sold for a profit necessarily bad? Is it the system that has to be replaced? Can't we instead work to transform the ethics involved? (I realize that hasn't worked in most corporations with accounting practices and executive pay, but it has had some success.)

Do you think that:

A)    Capitalism is the problem?

B)    The way we do capitalism is the problem (subsidies, etc...)?

C)    People are the problem?

D)    All of the above?

And finally: If sentient nonhumans were not relegated to the status of property, would capitalism still be the problem in your mind?

On What We Should Do With Race Horses

I watched "Hidden Horses" a couple of nights ago on REALsports, which is an HBO series hosted by Bryant Gumbel. Here's the blurb:

Few casual horse racing fans are aware that many former racing horses are slaughtered for profit. When a thoroughbred race horse reaches the end of its career or is simply no longer profitable on the track, it is often taken directly to auction and sold for meat. Because horse slaughter is no longer practiced in this country, these thoroughbreds are now being shipped by "killer buyers" to slaughterhouses abroad, which are frequently less regulated and less humane than former U.S. slaughterhouses. Correspondent Bernard Goldberg, who recently won the 2008 Sports Emmy(r) for Outstanding Sports Journalism for his 2007 REAL SPORTS story on the NFL concussion crisis, traces the disturbing journey many of these young and healthy horses take from the track, to auctions, to slaughterhouses, and finally to the plates of European and Japanese diners who pay top dollar for the delicacy.

There wasn't any talk of not racing horses, which of course would eliminate numerous problems, both for horses and humans. And there was the usual vague disdain for anyone who would eat a horse, in addition to some fairly gruesome footage of the slaughter of horses. Meanwhile, slaughter just like it occurs hundreds of times per second--but not with horses--and the uproar about that fact is minuscule. The number of horses slaughtered per year is in the tens of thousands, which is horrible, but the outcry isn't enormously disproportionate given what occurs to non-equine sentient beings all day long.

Still, it's great to see a mainstream, manly kind of show (if sort of intellectual-manly) address this topic, as I've come to discover that most people have no idea what goes on in the horse racing industry. If that segment turned one person against horse racing (I'm not sure how it would, though), I'm happy.

Here's the real reason I'm writing about this, though. I had no idea the Preakness was yesterday, therefore at first I didn't understand why there was a flurry of news stories about what happens to horses when they lose--and even when they win. In "Hidden Horses,"as well as in "Saving Horses, One Thoroughbred at at Time" in yesterday's New York Times, and the AP's "Losing Racehorses Killed in Puerto Rico" from Friday, the focus is on the killing of horses used to race. There is no mention of how many horses are killed on the way to determining whether they ever will race, and there's no talk about the horses used in rodeos or pony rides or polo or the other ways we use horses, but at least they're covering this aspect, I thought.

Upon closer inspection (actually it doesn't even take that much effort), the real story emerges. Rescue organizations cannot keep up with the number of horses going to slaughter but they try. They try to outbid horse killers at auctions, and often succeed. They often go to sleep at night haunted by the faces of the horses they couldn't save.

Here's the rub (and these quotes are from the NYT article): The rescuers speak of "fixing the industry" (said Diana Koebel, owner and trainer at LumberJack Farm, which rescues and rehabilitates thoroughbreds). Then there's ReRun, "which prepares discarded racehorses for a second career — as jumping show horses, maybe, or just as pets — and then makes them available for adoption." Just as pets.

"But there is a lot of life left,” the ReRun president, Laurie Condurso-Lane, said. Horses can live to 30 years or longer. “They are young. So why not find them new jobs?”

In other words, there is no hint in any of the articles, or in the REALsports segment, that we shouldn't be using horses--that they might not be ours to "find jobs for." And where do they go when they're fired from their second jobs? Are the rescuers merely postponing the inevitable slaughter of the horses by filling the time with a new form of enslavement? (I don't know the answer, by the way. I'm just asking.)

In the AP article, a businessman is quoted as saying:

"A lot of times people will have good luck with one horse, that horse will make them a lot of money, and they feel they can do that with every horse. What ends up happening is this renewable resource, which is the racehorse, ends up being treated like just another raw material. When it doesn't produce, you toss it away. And that's sad."

What's sad is considering them a renewable resource or a raw material.

Finally, today the editorial board of The New York Times gives us,"The Horse, Familiar and Unfamiliar," with the stunning statement: "It becomes clear that we are human by virtue of horses and that horses are what they are by virtue of us." We are human by virtue of horses? What they really mean is that we have used horses for a long, long time, and bred them and trained them for our use. We now use them less.

"Horses are what they are by virtue of us?" Where's the virtue in enslaving sentient beings and forcing them to work for you? Where's the virtue in breeding them for the sole purpose of using them and even profiting from who they are and what you make them do?

You can try to romanticize the bloody history of the relationship between horses and humans, but the reality of what we've done to them since they were unfortunate enough to meet our acquaintance, doesn't bring the word "virtue" to mind. Yes, "by virtue of" is an idiom, but a different one--one without "virtue" could have been used.

On "King Corn"

"King Corn" is:

a feature documentary about two friends, one acre of corn, and the subsidized crop that drives our fast-food nation. In King Corn, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, best friends from college on the east coast, move to the heartland to learn where their food comes from. With the help of friendly neighbors, genetically modified seeds, and powerful herbicides, they plant and grow a bumper crop of America's most-productive, most-subsidized grain on one acre of Iowa soil. But when they try to follow their pile of corn into the food system, what they find raises troubling questions about how we eat-and how we farm.

Yes, the film features Michael Pollan, but you'll get over that. And his "Americans are corn chips with legs" quote is verified when the filmmakers get their hair analyzed and find out the dominant ingredient in their make up is indeed corn.

The oddest thing about the film is that after having visited feedlots and seen the conditions cows are forced to live in, and been within inches of a cow's diseased stomach (while she's alive and in a contraption that holds her still while a researcher reaches into her stomach through her side), they still have no qualms about eating meat (or anything else, for that matter). There is one moment at the end where they enter a convenience store (which they do often in the film) and realize there isn't one thing they can purchase that doesn't have a corn-based ingredient in it (they look through the products to check). You think there's going to be some commentary--some hint that the young men have changed as a result of their journey.  And maybe they have. But if so, I missed it. That moment in the convenience store was ambiguous, and perhaps as documentary filmmakers they didn't want to comment. But let's face it, with every frame of them eating another hamburger, they're commenting.

Check out PBS' Independent Film arm, Independent Lens, which has an interactive section dedicated to King Corn. It provides behind the scenes details, clips from the film, an "eating challenge" (Can you go a week without eating corn?), corn facts, and of course a page on Cows and Corn. I found the Learn More page useful, particularly for its sources.

Though this film addresses the eating of animals, it in no way--no way--makes a statement that eating them should stop for any reason or is terribly unhealthy. In fact, in the section of the film where corn syrup is addressed, soda is painted as the real evil, causing obesity and diabetes. And when medical experts are consulted regarding diabetes and they talk about diet and exercise, they at no point mention any particular foods as being unhealthy (except soda and other sweetened drinks). If I were an average American, this film might scare me into exploring "sustainable" meat (which is more expensive, and it's our requirement for cheap food that largely got us into this mess) and eliminating soda from my diet, but that's about it.

King Corn is great for enviros, though most I know are already familiar with the story. For those of you who are filmmakers, there's make a statement about food contest that closes on May 30. You make your own short using clips from the film and your own clips (and the Eyespot tool), and you can win $1,000 and lots of other prizes.

I wouldn't recommend using this film as a tool for conversion to anything other than meat produced someplace other than a factory farm. There are several clips of cows--and calves--meandering across grassy fields on sunny days that would make the average person run to Whole Foods because, you know, the meat they sell there comes from places like that, which makes it okay to eat. Oh, and healthier. In that sense, this film is a 90 minute commercial for grass-fed beef. However, it's not to be completely dismissed because of its treatment of the history of corn (and farming and subsidies) in America, which every American needs to know.

On "The Edukators"

It's Mother's Day weekend, so I'm allowed to do whatever I want and everyone has to do what I say and I make all the decisions. One of my decisions was that we would watch "The Edukators," which is in German, and because my husband played golf all day he was barely able to read and I ended up reading the entire movie to him.

Off to a great start. Happy Mother's Day to me.

The Edukators won the Golden Palm at Cannes in 2004 and a slew of other awards and though it's far from perfect and it includes that seemingly-ubiquitous Jeff Buckley song (written by Leonard Cohen), Hallelujah, it's definitely interesting commentary of the political, social and psychological kinds. It's a love story, yes, but it's also about three young people (2 male, 1 female) whose anti-establishment idealism and activism collide with their opposite.

Under cover of darkness, the two young men break into the homes of wealthy people, rearrange their furniture (often by piling it up to the ceiling) and leave a note saying: "Your days of plenty are numbered" or "You have too much money." The girlfriend of one of them gets involved, for all the wrong reasons, and the trio ends up abducting a wealthy man to whom the girlfriend owes 94,000 euros for totaling his Mercedes-Benz. She falls in love with her boyfriend's best friend, and cliches abound.

Oh, and the man they abduct was an SDS member in the late 60s, and when we discover that tidbit, irony takes over.

Here's what the film brings up for me:

I fail to understand the targeting of wealthy people. No one has too much money, in my mind. And no one should be judged as being part of the problem because they have more money than you.  In my mind, shopping at WalMart and Target is worse, morally speaking, than having $300 shirts custom made. Yet the person whose clothes are made-to-measure is more often ridiculed, and that's certainly true when the ridiculer is anti-capitalist. What you do with your money is your business, but it would be nice if you gave at least 15% to some kind of charitable cause. Hating people--abusing people--because of their wealth is mere scapegoating.

Now, if someone makes their money by hurting people, the animals or the planet, ridiculing what they do is definitely reasonable. You should be sure you know what they do first, though, as assuming that harm is involved just because wealth is involved is not reasonable.

According to a recent study, the idea that young people are idealistic because they have heart, but later become conservative because they have wisdom (or something like that) isn't true, and people get more liberal as they grow older. This film represents the conventional wisdom that we get more conservative as we age, and our ideals make way for the realities of homeownership, families, careers and retirement (which makes sense to me and I must say I see that more often).

When you deconstruct all of the messages sent in this film after you've gotten past the fluff, you are left with questions such as:

• What is the best way to make a point?
• Is it property damage justified to make a point? If so, are there certain kinds of points this doesn't apply to?
• If you've committed a crime, should you be prosecuted, or does that depend on whether the crime you committed is worse than the one you perceive is being perpetrated by your victim?
• What is the definition of "terrorist" or "vandal?" (I recommend Terrorists or Freedom Fighters, edited by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, and Will Potter at GreenIsTheNewRed for exploration of such issues.)

Finally, and related to Friday's post, you can find out if your mutual funds are terror-free with the Terror-Free Calculator, which is not a joke. I'll write more about this, as well as bills for making state pensions terror free tomorrow, as I'm still getting over the fact that they exist.

Check out The Edukators, and let me know what you think.

On Blue Marbles and Vegan Stories

As you may know, I've ghostwritten several dozen books, a dozen of which are about personal finance, and several of which were New York Times bestsellers. Furthermore, my husband is a CFP (Certified Financial Planner) who manages the money of a bunch of families in addition to my measly retirement accounts. Measly, as in, if I weren't married to him I wouldn't be able to invest my money with him because I don't have enough.

Vegan and otherwise-activist friends constantly ask me for investment advice, which of course I am not qualified to dole out, but I can sometimes point them in a helpful direction. I must first say that I think everyone should have a financial planner who communicates with them about their goals and needs and time horizons (i.e., when you'll need what money), and of course their principles.

Principles are what cause most problems for vegans regarding investing, as there are few options for the (financially) average person. When you eliminate all of the industries you don't want to support, and when you consider that most funds have many companies in them, most funds will have a company or two (or ten) that you don't want to support, not to mention the exact companies (though not the general make-up) of the fund are not static. This is not even close to an ideal situation.

Another thing that trips up many vegans--in my experience--is that their anti-capitalism stance translates into not appreciating money or how necessary it's going to be when they reach 65. I know I've said this before, but needing money for retirement is real. Most of us are going to reach an age when we are not as appreciated as when we were younger, and that will be reflected in our dwindling opportunities for income generation (again, this won't happen to everyone, but it is most often the case). How are you going to take care of yourself after you're 60 or 65? Do you know how much money you'll need for food, health insurance, a home, a car, and the insurances they require?

Recently a couple of people close to me who have gone vegan and are unabashed capitalists, noted (and this is just one quote that expresses the sentiment): "What's with all these vegan people wearing their poverty on their sleeve?" Granted, that's a judgment from a person entirely on the outside, who has peeked in for all of three hours (he went to his first vegan gathering), but there is a grain of truth in it, at least from what I've seen in 20 years.

Okay, enough of the lecture. Today I bring you Blue Marble, a "Socially Active Investment Firm" that "specializes in services that serve green and social investors with SRI accounts such as: Retirement, College, Trust, Estate, Business, Non-Profit and Charity." (SRI means socially-responsible investing, by the way.) The site has great calculators in the "info kiosk," and you can invest with under $10,000 (I pretended I wanted to start an IRA with under $10,000 to see if that was possible, and it was), which doesn't happen too often when it comes to highly-specialized investments. There are also helpful and informative articles, graphics and slideshows, and I found that nothing was condescending.

You won't agree with everything or all of their choices, but if you're looking for a way to invest or even for some venture philanthropy opportunities that might return some cash (that's the way I look at some investments), Blue Marble might be a good match for you.

And finally, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine needs your vegan success story.

Have you been able to improve your health with a vegan diet?

Have you lost a significant amount of weight from being on a vegan diet and kept it off? Have you had success in treating diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arthritis, migraines, acne, or some other condition with a vegan diet? Well, we need you!  

Please share your experience with us so we can share it with others. We often hear from journalists looking for success stories and we may want to put them in touch with you, feature you in one of our publications, or post your experience to our Web site. If you have a compelling story you're willing to share with the press, please submit your story here.               

Thank you and we look forward to hearing about your success story soon. Due to the large number of submissions, we will be unable to contact each person individually.

Questions can be sent to success@pcrm.org.

Appreciate our "tiny, lovely, and fragile blue marble" today, and every day.

On Racehorses and Ignorant Neighbors

Jane Shakman's Letter to the Editor under "The Welfare of Horses" in today's New York Times is about welfare rather than abolition, however its other points are worth recognition:

• "But let us also give thought to the thousands of horses that are bred every year for racing and don’t make the cut or outlive their usefulness to the investors and owners." Ah, if she only wrote "who" are bred I would have been more thrilled. Then again, the editor would likely have "corrected" her.
• "Most wind up auctioned off for a few dollars each and sent to the foreign slaughterhouses to be made into pet food or dinner for someone overseas. Even the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand ended up in a Japanese slaughterhouse because he wasn’t proving his monetary value as a stud."
• "It’s not just the injured horses that suffer. It’s the thousands of faceless colts and fillies we never see that suffer from this so-called sport."

Most Americans are ignorant about the process that creates a horse, and then what happens after the horse no longer wins. When I let my thoughts about the Derby known to a neighbor who invited me to his Kentucky Derby party (few people in my community know I'm a vegan, and the others don't even know what it means), he told me that "those horses live better than we do," and that of course they love racing.

Now, this is a 60-year old man who has a green grill shaped like an alligator, that is longer than a pick-up truck (and is in fact hitched to one). Every weekend he shovels coal into it and, in his driveway, he grills hundreds of pounds of nonhuman animal flesh, and I have to close my windows so I don't spend the day with the stench of charred corpses. (I live 100 yards away and it feels like the grill is in my living room.) I'm not sure what he does with all of the meat, but I do know he isn't supposed to be doing it according to our association rules (he's not even allowed to have the 8-foot high, 15-foot long grill-gator shaped or not), but he's in law enforcement and therefore apparently above all kinds of laws.

I tell you this because this man is the last person who would ever understand veganism. He still goes to the track to watch Greyhound racing, and whenever he sees me he asks about the racing careers of my dogs. And every time I tell him that none of that matters to me, that they have to be rescued for a reason, and that I don't think we have any right to breed them and race them. It's like Groundhog Day whenever I see him. He doesn't hear a word I say, and it's not as if I'd ever make an impact anyway, so my attempts are admittedly half-hearted.

I was particularly annoyed with this man as I walked past his house on Saturday, complete with a huge Kentucky Derby flag (another thing we're not permitted to have). I said that perhaps if he knew everything involved in horse racing, he might not find it worthy of a party, and he promptly demonstrated that he knew nothing and was in fact gravely misinformed. I told him I didn't believe we had the right to create and use horses, at which point he looked at me with a blank face. I had no desire to talk to him and was late for an event already, and said: Look, I don't want to hurt anybody if I don't have to. I don't want to kill anybody if I don't have to, I don't want to eat anybody if I don't have to, and I don't want to bring anybody into this world just so I can try to make a buck off of them. Enjoy your party.

I walked about twenty yard then turned toward my house, and out of the corner of my eye I could see he was still standing, motionless, staring at me. Within two hours, Eight Belles was dead.

When I walked by the grill-master's house yesterday with the dogs, he very sheepishly said hello, and said nothing about Greyhound racing or horse racing.

On Reactions to Eight Belles

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, who suffered a massive stroke and was left with a condition called Locked-In syndrome, where he was fully conscious and aware of everything around him, but was almost completely paralyzed and couldn't speak. He realizes in the first scene of the film that he thinks he is talking, but no one can hear him. It's like one of those dreams where you're screaming as loud as you can yet no one reacts at all.

This is how I've been feeling about Eight Belles, and about animal rights in general. There are these people from an organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who have become the voice of animal rights on Planet Earth, yet they don't represent animal rights as I understand it and live it. And the world is listening to them and judging me according to what they say.

Furthermore, people who have chosen livelihoods that center on the exploitation of nonhuman animals for profit, like Eight Belles' owner, Rick Porter, are not stopped in their tracks when they say things like:

“I support horse racing 1,000 percent. There are some ugly parts of it, obviously. There are also some spectacular parts of it. There are ugly parts of every sport. There are people who get paralyzed in football. This is a tragedy that happens in horse racing. It’s hard to put the blame any particular way. It’s part of horse racing.”

First, "1,000 percent" is a pet peeve of mine, but I'll concentrate on something more important, like the absurdity of comparing people who choose to play football and end up paralyzed, with horses who in no way give their consent to race, and then are raced to their death. In addition, to say "it's hard to put the blame any particular way," is inaccurate. It's easy. Mr. Porter bought (or bred) Eight Belles with the hope of winning money from her body and her running. He put her in the race, and she was killed. He owned her, dominated her, controlled her and exploited her, and her blood is on his hands. If she had won the race, I bet Mr. Porter wouldn't find it so difficult placing credit or glory somewhere--like in his own hands.

Now, without a society where nonhuman animals are commodities and most people blithely go through their days giving no thought to the realities of the enslavement and slaughter of sentient nonhumans for no good reason, Eight Belles wouldn't exist to be killed. But we do live in that kind of society, and it's up to each individual, each day, at each meal and with each purchase or donation, to change the way our society views nonhuman animals.

It's also necessary that we're honest about what we want. PeTA states:

Eight Belles' death is yet another reminder that these horses are raced when they are so young that their bones have not properly formed, and they are often raced on surfaces that are too hard for their bones—like the hard track at Churchill Downs. Eight Belles' jockey whipped her mercilessly as she came down the final stretch. This is no great surprise, since trainers, owners, and jockeys are all driven by the desire to make money, leaving the horses to suffer terribly. 

Though I don't disagree with any of that, that is not an animal-rights argument. And the litmus test is: What are they proposing? What do they want to see?

PETA is calling on the racing industry to suspend the jockey and trainer, to bar the owner from racing at the track, and, at the very least, to stop using young horses who are so susceptible to these types of horrific injuries. We're also demanding that the industry stop racing horses on hard tracks and switch to softer, synthetic surfaces, which would spare horses' bones and joints, in addition to calling for a permanent ban on the use of whips. Help PETA call for an end to cruelty masquerading as sport by using the form below to take action today.

Although Eight Belles' death, like Barbaro's before hers, made headlines, countless lesser-known horses suffer similar fates—their broken legs and battered bodies are simply hidden from public view. Most racehorses end up broken down or cast off or are sent to Europe for slaughter.

Please use the form below to join PETA in demanding that the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority institute sweeping reforms that would stop needless, preventable suffering and cruelty in the racing industry.

Please use this form to . . . institute sweeping reforms that would stop needless, preventable suffering and cruelty in the racing industry. This is a classic welfarist strategy: use the horses differently so only the suffering and cruelty that are necessary remain--like breeding, training, drugging and racing them against their will. Oh, and their ultimate slaughter.

I'm feeling like Jean-Dominique Bauby, yelling "No, no, that's not what I want! That's not animal rights! The Humane Society of the United States would probably ask for the same thing, and they don't even pretend to care about animal rights! I want to see an end to the breeding of horses for use by humans. Period. That's the only way to prevent all suffering and cruelty at our hands."

If I want to maintain my integrity, I must propose what I want. Even if no one can hear me.

On Desperate Times and Intelligent Measures

In "Clipping, Scrimping, Saving," by Jane Black in today's Washington Post, we meet Marti Tracy, who is feeling the effects of the global food crisis.

Let's deconstruct:

• How is the impact of the crisis manifesting itself in the life of this woman, you ask?
  
  • She has given up organic meat and is buying organic milk only for her 2-year old son rather than for the whole family. If she only knew her son doesn't need milk, she'd be able to cut her spending even more!
  • She has also stopped buying single-size packs of food or juice and stopped going to multiple stores. I think that's great, as the packaging of those convenience items is dumped in landfills, and being more efficient in your shopping is smart and saves energy and is better for the planet. Every little bit counts.
  • "I find the whole thing a huge hassle, but I've reached a tipping point," said Tracy, a government human resources specialist who is pregnant with her second child. If she were pregnant with her third, I'd have something to say about population growth, but alas, I can say nothing. I can say something about "hassles," though, and that is that Americans are finally realizing what the rest of the world has long known: That decisions that are the best for the planet usually involve some "hassle," and we're so spoiled and feel entitled to live the most comfortable, easy, convenient lifestyles, that we complain about having to change a habit, even if it wasn't a particularly positive habit. Some people are smartening up, which is great. But they're doing it while kicking and screaming and acting resentful.
• The prices of eggs, milk, white bread and ground chuck are up 35, 23, 16, and 8% respectively.
  • "And while the total rise is far less drastic than elsewhere around the world, the sharp hike for staples means everyone is feeling the pinch." I beg to differ. For those of us who don't eat eggs, milk, white bread and ground chuck, there is no such pinch. To say "everyone" is inaccurate. Perhaps an alteration in both eating and shopping habits would ease the "pinch."
  • "We are in shocking new territory," said Todd Hale, senior vice president of consumer shopping and insights at Nielsen Consumer Panel Services. "With the exception of the very affluent, everyone is looking to save by altering where they shop, how they shop and the brands they buy." And with the exception of vegans, I'd imagine. My grocery bill and shopping habits haven't changed at all. (But I could be the exception--how about you?)
    
• But wait, there actually is an acknowledgment that changing what you eat is possible.
  • "The crunch for American shoppers pales compared with the challenges faced by those in the developing world. Americans spend just 9.9 percent of household income on food, according to the Agriculture Department. Compare that with poor countries such as Ethiopia and Bangladesh, where it's not uncommon for families to spend 70 percent. Diets also are more varied here: If the price of milk or flour jumps, shoppers can opt for other items." Yes, and this might be a great time to opt for bulk quinoa, millet, barley, lentils and beans, and lots of fresh fruits and veggies!

There's a lot more in the article about people changing the way they do things and the reality that food is relatively inexpensive for us (because of subsidies, although that goes unsaid), although I don't think most Americans understand that their food, even with the increases, is still inexpensive. One final quote, by a senior citizen, was stunning:

"We're that older generation that feels we need to have food to feed half the block if they happen to get hungry. I am not stuffing the freezer anymore. I just buy what I need when I need it, or I try to use up what I already have. That's a form of cutting back I haven't done in the past."

I guess for older people that might in fact be a form of cutting back. But it is very odd--and telling--that buying what you need and using what you have would be considered cutting back.

On Industry-Funded Studies

Here's the link to the Wall Street Journal article. And here's the Pew report.

What Can YOU Do About The Food Crisis or Climate Change?

In response to those who have written saying, "I'm a vegan--the food crisis and climate change aren't my fault! What else can I possibly do?" (or something like that), I pass that question back to you. Let's come up with some ideas.

I tomorrow's NYT Magazine, "The Green Issue," there are some good ideas and some that won't apply to you because they're animal based and the NYT hasn't gotten around to taking the connection between animals for food and climate change seriously. They do have an entire section called "Eat," wherein the penultimate tip, "The High Price of Beef," states:

Trimming the amount of meat Americans eat would not only help the planet — a mere 20 percent reduction is the equivalent of switching from a Camry to a Prius — but would also be likely to reduce obesity, cancer and heart disease. Until recently, it was only animal rights groups like PETA that were willing to ask Americans to forgo the pleasures of the flesh. That changed in January, when Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and a vegetarian), uttered four little words: “Please eat less meat.” He continued: “This is something that the I.P.C.C. was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it.”

Other than that, unless I missed something, the "production" of food that comes from animals doesn't appear to be a serious problem.

With regard to the food crisis, every article I've read has at least one sentence regarding the connection between eating animals and global hunger. But sometimes only one sentence.

So what can someone who's already being part of the solution contribute? Here are some thoughts:

• I find many vegans to be single-issue focused. I'd like to see more discussions that connect other issues relating to nonviolence and social justice (and the environment) because I think they make going vegan an even stronger idea as it's part of the solution to so many issues. (Part, as in: aligning actions with beliefs.) I also think that when you present veganism as necessary if you're serious about climate change, nonviolence, etc..., it's tough for someone to accuse you of loving animals and not people (which is ridiculous, but we all know people who do that) because your issue isn't with the treatment of animals--it's with promoting justice.
  
• Educating others about why veganism is an integral part of a plan that would ease the food crisis and climate change (not to mention create a healthier, thinner population in the ever-fattening West).
• Stop buying products made with corn. You may have already done that. I'd also add rice to the list of products not to buy. Even wheat. And here's why: demand for corn, rice and wheat (and of course meat) are in large part what's causing the crisis (though it really is more of a distribution crisis). And often when people learn of a supply and demand crisis, they rush out to buy as much of the product as possible, thereby exacerbating the problem. To flip that situation (and this is also true when investing--you don't buy when prices are high and the stock is in demand--that's when you get out!), whatever product is experiencing market stress is one to avoid as to not add to the stress. Besides, there are people who need that rice and wheat a lot more than you do. Eat more quinoa. It's better for you, anyway.

What do you think?

On The Global Food Crisis, Part Deux

For at least 10 days, my mailbox has been inundated with links to articles about the global food crisis. I'm currently working with a group directly affected by the crisis, and it has begun to see food riots. I tell you this because I'm the only person involved in the initiative who is a vegan or--and this is far more important--understands the connection between how we eat here in the US and why there doesn't appear to be enough food for developing nations. If you're going to work directly with people who are starving, it would seem to me that engaging in a lifestyle that contributes to that starvation is not the optimal way to behave.

Though most mainstream publications in the US connect not just biofuels to the food crisis, but meat consumption also, they don't concentrate on the latter (as I discussed in The Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity). Other publications are dealing with it a bit more substantially, but not without major problems.

For instance, in "The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?" in The Independent, Jeremy Laurance reports that the quantity of grain grown in the world (2.1 billion tons) isn't the problem. The problem is where the grain is going (biofuels and farmed animals).

According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.

Meanwhile, Laurance thinks it's completely unrealistic for Britain to go vegan.

Vegans number 0.4 per cent of the population, vegetarians 3 per cent, and most people will not take readily to a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruit and nuts. This is about the direction we should be moving in, not the ultimate destination. We should be aiming to reduce our meat and dairy consumption, and increase consumption of fruit and vegetables.

We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050. More of the extra is chicken, and we eat less red meat than in the past (and a lot less than the Americans). But in terms of overall meat consumption, we are not even going in the right direction.

I don't disagree that it's unrealistic for Britain to immediately go vegan, but I wouldn't call it completely unrealistic. Also, calling veganism "a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruits and nuts" hardly sounds appealing, and would make no one even investigate going vegan, which I think is unfair.

Laurance also thinks "it seems too difficult" to give up meat, and writes: "We should get used to thinking of meat as a treat – it could help to save the world's poor from starvation." That's an odd juxtaposition to me. It's a treat to kill someone when you don't need to, and it's also a treat to help starving people? I don't get it. But what confounds me even more are his conclusions. Given the realities that Laurance explains regarding health, the environment and the inefficiency of meat production, he writes:

Should we be trying to cut out meat to help save the world's poor from starvation?
Yes...

* Producing meat is less efficient than growing grain – it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef

* Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans

* There is a shortage of grain for human consumption, and global food prices have leapt by 57 per cent in a year

No...

* It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a vegan diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts

* China and India should not be denied the same diet that we have enjoyed as they grow wealthier

* An alternative way of tackling the food crisis would be to reverse the policy of diverting grain to make biofuels

First of all, the food crisis existed prior to biofuels. Some people starve while others eat animals. That's not news. Would ceasing the production of biofuels ease the situation? Probably. But what's being done here that's inexcusable, is that biofuels are being painted as the enemy, while meat production, which has been diverting food from the mouths of the hungry for decades, gets a free pass.

George Monbiot does something similar in his "The Pleasures of the Flesh: If you care about hunger, eat less meat" (and you can comment on it here--I did). He begins with the statistics about food and where it is going, mentioning biofuel and calling it, like others have, a "crime against humanity" to use food as fuel. Like Laurance, he quotes Simon Fairlie's findings, concluding that "A vegan Britain could make a massive contribution to global food stocks." But then he loses me and my jaw drops with:

But I cannot advocate a diet I am incapable of following. I tried it for about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

Like Laurance, he doesn't make one want to even investigate a healthy vegan diet. (And by the by, my visits to London and Oxford have informed me that is the British who look wan.) Monbiot goes the sustainable-meat route, ruling out beef "for both environmental and humanitarian reasons," and encouraging the consumption of tilapia.

What I don't read in either Laurance or Monbiot is a moral imperative. I don't get the feeling of urgency. Instead, the message I received was: biofuels, bad, and in fact a crime against humanity; meat consumption, bad, but it's a yummy pleasure and a treat and we enjoy it and shouldn't be asked to stop.

Finally, the most unsettling part of both articles is the blatant speciesism. The effect on other species isn't even considered. Monbiot thinks he considers it with: "Pigs and chickens feed more efficiently, but unless they are free range you encounter another ethical issue: the monstrous conditions in which they are kept." He is considering the welfare of the animals yet he doesn't find an "ethical issue" in bringing them into existence for the sole purpose of dominating, exploiting and slaughtering them unnecessarily.

I'm still waiting for someone to have the integrity to write that we have a moral imperative toward each other, other sentient beings and the Earth. And the simplest, most environmentally friendly answer to our biggest problems is to eschew products that contribute them and to go vegan.

On the Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity

First, for all you PCRM members, there's a telephone conference call tomorrow at 8pm with Peter Singer, who will be discussing the ethical implications of animal research. It should be very, very interesting.

Next, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a global food crisis which has already caused food riots in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Haiti and other developing nations. Thirty-seven countries currently face food crises, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Trade imbalances will be worsened, and major economies are being affected.

In the Washington Post's "World Band Chief Calls for Immediate Action on Deepening Food Crisis," Harry Dunphy writes:

Mexican Finance Secretary Agustin Carstens, who heads the bank's policy-setting Development Committee, said officials "need to redouble our efforts" to help the poorest people. He said there had been "a very welcome increase in money" from governments, but all donors need to "reach into their pockets."

I don't deny that money is needed, but something else is needed in order to create sustainability . . .

You may also be aware that the demand for biofuel is being blamed for driving up food prices. In the New York Times' "Finance Ministers Emphasize Food Crisis Over Credit Crisis," Steven R.Weisman writes:

Mr. Strauss-Kahn [the managing director of the International Monetary Fund] said he had heard from many financial officials this weekend that the West’s focus on fuel, at the expense of food, was a “crime against humanity.”

I won't say that the focus on biofuel isn't a problem, but it's not the root of the problem: it has merely exacerbated an already existing problem. Part of the root of the crisis (this is hardly a one-issue situation), as many people do indeed note (but then move on) is, as the New York Times editorial, "The World Food Crisis," suggests:

The United States and other developed countries need to step up to the plate. The rise in food prices is partly because of uncontrollable forces — including rising energy costs and the growth of the middle class in China and India. This has increased demand for animal protein, which requires large amounts of grain.

I go back to Strauss-Kahn's comment that the West's focus on fuel at the expense of food was a "crime against humanity." What about the other crime against humanity (to say nothing of billions of nonhuman animals)? In Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYT a bit over a week ago called "Grains Gone Wild," he gets to the root of the crime, but then passes the blame onto the Chinese (after saying "things aren't anyone's fault--" a comment he will soon revise):

First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.

Why isn't humanity's obsession with eating animals viewed as a crime against humanity? This problem didn't start with the Chinese. Enormous quantities of grains have been diverted from the mouths of the starving for decades. It is the desire to satisfy the palate of part of the human race (the haves) that is largely responsible for the starvation of the other part (the have-nots). If people in the developed world saw it as their moral obligation to help remedy this situation, they'd do more than "reach into their pockets;" they'd change the way they eat.

Say it with me: Supply and demand.

On Stockyards and Compassionate Carnivores

I don't know about you, but I was hit particularly hard by Dan Barry's "Silence Replaced Bids and Moos at Stockyards in Suburbs" in this morning's New York Times. And the accompanying slide show was even more devastating because of the photos and the sounds of the animals.

It was the language that struck me, of course, as Barry tried very hard to present a romantic tale of the end of an era. If he just gave me the facts, I wouldn't have been nearly as disturbed. When I read it, I wonder if I'm the only person on the planet who feels a pang, both in her stomach and her heart.

Here's what hurt me most, as Barry describes the last day the stockyards of South St. Paul, Minnesota were open for business:

• "where the auctioneer’s sweet serenade only hardens those bovine expressions of uh-oh." The sweet serenade leading to slaughter? And mocking the animals with uh-oh? Would he have felt the same way if the animals were dogs? And dare I say the same scenario occurred with humans not that long ago. Does he not see the similarity?
  
• "Punctuation to this reality came in January, when yet another animal escaped from the stockyards. A bull weighing nearly a ton apparently did not like what it had been sold for and wound up for a while on Interstate 494 during the morning rush hour. A police officer’s shotgun blast soon freed the animal from worrying about the evening commute." Mocking the bull is not journalism. He wanted to be free, Mr. Barry. He doesn't know--or care--how much he was sold for. And calling him "it," well, at this point, despite the fact that we know he's a he, we also know enough about Barry to know he doesn't care.
• "Here is John Barber, big and strong and 69, the yard’s main auctioneer for nearly four decades. What a voice he has, so deep and soothing that you want to bid on something, anything: Would there be room for a heifer in the apartment?" Something. Anything. And the heifer comment is just rude.
• "The Kruegers have donated a 900-pound heifer to be the last cow auctioned at the stockyards, with the sale proceeds going to an agricultural scholarship fund. Its father was a Simmental named Red Rock, and its mother was a Black Angus named, simply, N501 Commercial. As for its own name, chosen well before its historical role was determined: Timeless." IT is a cow. IT is a heifer. IT is female. IT is not an inanimate object. SHE is an individual. SHE WAS an individual.
• "a black-white-brown sea surrendering puffs of steam from wet hides, and the occasional yardman shout of Hey! Hey! Hey!" At this point, since he's so fond of telling us what the animals think, I'd be interested to hear what he thinks is going through their minds. Perhaps it rhymes with: Free me.
• "After a while Mr. Barber reclaims his seat, signaling that the final cattle auction is about to begin. All that livestock from Minnesota and Wisconsin, unloaded from trucks and herded into pens, now to be rushed into the arena for some momentary preening, bought, rushed out, loaded up and carted away.
  
  At the same time there comes the smell of cooking beef — free hamburgers! — to settle over the arena and pens, and to underscore the fate of at least some of those gathered here." An honest moment of commentary.
• "He sings to the cattle trotting into the arena 10 and 20 at a time, many of them relieving themselves to convey what they think of the honor." Perhaps that's why they were relieving themselves. And who could blame them.

Listening to the slide show was difficult for me, but it was also educational. Just when I was relieved that the stockyards were closing, I learn that the "service" will now be online. As John Barber said: "Change is hard but we'll make it through. Nobody's died from change."

That's not true. When people change their minds and decide to eat animals that do not come from factory farms, somebody dies for that change. For each meal made with animals, somebody dies.

On the Joy of Meat and the Folly of Science in the US

Remember the post I wrote about the Canadian radio show that featured a butcher who used to be a vegetarian and the author of Carnivore Chic? Well, they're back, and though you undoubtedly will find their sentiments and their sensibilities offensive, what's important is the message.

In "Rediscovering the Joy of Meat" by Allison Hanes in yesterday's Canadian National Post, we (re)visit The Healthy Butcher.

Here are the highlights, for me, that make me more certain than ever that talk of animal welfare rather than liberation has been a complete failure:

• It is just one example of a recent revival of the joys of carnivorous eating.
• Butcher shops are the new shopping grounds of a hip, elite and socially conscious clientele. Full-fledged meatfests are back in vogue as community events.
• Perhaps more significant, even some vegetarians are abandoning the moral high ground to emerge from their meatless exile.

"I do think something fundamental has shifted in our culture," said Susan Bourette, the Toronto-based author of Carnivore Chic: From Pasture to Plate, the Search for the Perfect Meat, who said that a lot of the shift began, ironically, with the vegeterian movement.

It is not that eating meat ever fell out of favour, she said, but it definitely went out of fashion for a spell with all the fuss about what the industrial food complex was doing to the environment, waistlines and health.

Now meat is in again, she said – and people are consuming it, albeit more discriminatingly, guilt free and with a renewed gusto.

• The author of The Shameless Carnivore, Scott Gold, said: "Vegetarianism I suppose became equated with being more emotionally or morally evolved, but now the tide is really turning. If you try grass-fed, locally, humanely raised meat, it's not only significantly better for your health, it's better for the animal. It's not just good for the environment, but also, ultimately, once again, it all comes down to taste."

I recently posted on Rethos: "Is Compassion Carnivore and Oxymoron?" If you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that it is.

Finally, if you haven't seen the Washington Post article by Gilbert M. Gaul entitled, "In US, Few Alternatives to Testing on Animals," you might want to read it, particularly for the comparison between the US and Europe which makes us look like idiots.

On the Business of Humane Societies

On yesterday's post, "Judy Stone Comments About "Euthanasia," Randall Patmore commented:

This seems a trifle harsh as though you are saying that humane societies are only about business and not about the wellbeing of animals at all. I'd be interested to know what proof you have.

I was going to respond, but I'd like some other voices as well, and particularly people whose direct experience relates to humane societies. Violet and Charles were adopted from rescue groups, and Emme was adopted from a local person who found a mommy cat (Emme) and her kittens (and we adopted one: Lars Axl Fokker, who died of feline infectious peritonitis shortly thereafter).

I entered my local humane society several times and left, as many people do, in a puddle of my own tears. It takes a special kind of courage to deal with unwanted "pets" on a regular basis. I don't have that kind of courage. However, I do happen to know enough about the politics and economics of shelters to know that the millions of healthy cats and dogs killed under the guise of "euthanasia" are not having their well being seriously considered. At least not my definition of well-being.

As I see it, Randall's comment has the following components begging to be addressed:

• "a trifle harsh"
• "only about business"
• "not about the well-being of animals at all"
• "proof"

It would appear that the millions of animals killed each year would qualify as proof, as those actions--the killings--speak louder than any mission statement expressing care about the well being of the animals.

But that's me.

What do you think?

On Oprah: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I'm not delusional. I knew that Oprah's show on puppy mills wouldn't mention the idea that perhaps dogs aren't ours to breed at all. I knew that the dogs would all be referred to as "it." The show wasn't that bad in content, though, and if it stops people from buying dogs from pet stores and increases the spay/neuter rate, I think that's great.

There were some moments that made me cringe and want to get online and write Oprah in protest. Let's look at moments that were good, bad and downright ugly.

Let's deconstruct:

• The show's content was on message, because it was about cruelty. Oprah says, "Today's show is for anybody who . . . just cares about the basic right to humane treatment." That says it all. You have no reason to think there's going to be any mention of rights or not using animals as pets or not breeding animals for our entertainment. As far as what the show was supposed to do? Good. As far as what I wanted it to do in a perfect world? Bad. The talk about certain dogs as commodities (I'll get to it in a moment)? Downright ugly.
• A billboard was purchased by a friend of Main Line Animal Rescue (started by Bill Smith, who was on the show. It seems like an amazing organization that achieves spectacular outcomes--they place about 99% of the animals they take in.). The price of the billboard was $10,000 and it read: "Oprah-Please do a show on puppy mills; the dogs need you. MLAR.org." Driving to work one day she sees the billboard, hence the show. Lisa Ling and Bill Smith drove around and documented puppy mills. Oprah says, "When you actually see this America, with your own eyes, it is my belief that you all are not gonna stand for  it." I hope that's true. Good.
• How many pet store owners (and people on the Internet) are using puppy mills, Oprah asks? Bill says 99%. Wayne Pacelle of HSUS says there's no question about it and the real victims are the mothers. Good stuff.
  
• They're a cash crop--a commodity--says Wayne and Oprah. Great! Fabulous! But the greatness of this message is diminished upon endorsement of "responsible breeders" that is about to occur. After all, dogs are commodities to them, too. But that is never mentioned. Bad.
• Lisa Ling, regarding dog auctions (females): "These aren't pets, they're commodities. Valued only for their ability to make dozens of puppies." Yet they'll endorse "responsible breeders."
• Lisa points out that the largest concentration of puppy mills in America is in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which has a large Amish community. "It's important to note that in the Amish culture, they don't regard dogs in the same way that others may in that they believe that man is to dominate animals . . . ." Wait a minute! The Amish aren't the only ones who believe it's man's job to dominate animals. That's absurd.---Ugly.
• Oprah says, "This isn't against the law, because the law says they're like livestock. You can treat cows this way, dogs this way, any animals this way." Why the fixation on cruelty to the dogs, then? What about the cows? --Good, for clearing up the law. Bad, for neglecting the follow-up question screaming to be asked.
• Oprah was contacted by the American Kennel Club about the show. Their statement, by Daisy Okas, Assistant Vice President, was:
  • "AKC's member clubs are comprised of people who dedicate their lives-both emotionally and financially-to improving their breeds and to producing healthy, happy dogs. We encourage your viewers to find a responsible breeder." Improving their breeds? So now they own the entire breed? Producing dogs? How is the attitude toward the dogs--as a commodity--different than for the puppy mill people? Scale? Yes. Is there a difference in treatment? Probably. But what the dog actually is to the people--property and a "product"--is the same.

• There were moments that addressed overpopulation and "euthanasia" statistics (with Oprah saying 1 million animals are killed each year in the US, and Wayne saying the 4 million number we're  all familiar with).  Good (except for the contradiction).
• "I haven't practiced what I'm preaching here because I've always gotten my pets through other means, but I would never, ever adopt another pet now without going to a shelter to do it. I am a changed woman." Applause. Good.
• Bill Smith says a third-50% of the animals in a shelter, depending on the location, are pure bred dogs. I thought the statistic was 25%. Either way, good to mention that.
  
• He also mentions rescue groups for specific breeds. Good.
• This is the exchange that was most disconcerting:
  • Bill: "And the other thing is, as far as breeding, if you find a responsible breeder, it's okay because shelter people don't really care about the responsible breeders because we don't get their dogs. One of the things that makes them a responsible breeder is that they take their dogs back even if it's 6 or 7 years later."

             Oprah: They take pride in their work.

Their work, as in, the commodities they produce and sell. Ugly.

• I was surprised by this, but a short segment shows the decisions to kill ("euthanize") dogs and then shows the ending of their lives at Fort Worth Animal Control, where only 4 of 50 animals are adopted each day. (The others are killed.) Oprah says, "Dogs marked with an E will have one last chance to be adopted this afternoon. Those still here in the morning will be put down." They are killed sometimes simply because they look skittish or because there is no room for them. We see the dogs being taken from their kennels and into the "euthanasia lab." We see them being weighed, muzzled. We don't see the fatal injection being administered, but we hear about it and we see dogs die and placed in body bags and put in a walk-in freezer. We see them dumped into the trash, where they will be picked up and sent to a landfill. I thought that was powerful, and it wasn't gory. Good.
  
• Oprah says, "The reason why so many dogs have to be put down is because America isn't spaying and neutering their pets." (At which point I was screaming "And because we keep breeding them!") Good, but also bad.
• What can we do? Adopt from a shelter, rescue group or "responsible breeder." Oy vey.
• About the attitude of some breeders regarding the dogs, Bill says:" They're considered agricultural products; they're like an ear of corn, unfortunately." That was odd. They're not like an ear of corn. They're like a cow or a chicken. But that would have begged a very difficult question about why we treat cows like cows.

If people, like the woman I saw about to enter a dog store yesterday morning and I asked her if she could possibly wait to enter until she saw Oprah's show, actually change their behavior and stop buying from pet stores and adopt instead, I'd consider the show a success. If we see pet stores closing left and right, I'd consider the show a success. If the spay and neuter rates rise, I'd consider the show a success.

But if pet stores stay in business and put up signs that say: "We buy only from responsible breeders," whether or not they do, that's a problem. They should all go out of business. That's the desired outcome.

As far as the commodity discussion went--it didn't go far at all and was incomplete and hypocritical. You can't introduce the idea of animals as commodities, point the finger at puppy mills, be duly disgusted, and move on. That's not the whole story. The puppies from "responsible breeders" are commodities, too. So were the cows slaughtered to make the couches Oprah and her guests sit on.

I'm glad Oprah is a changed woman. I only hope all of the people who go on the diets she endorses or read the books she recommends, will also never buy another dog again.

On Raising Money for Individuals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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