Animal Person

On the Keeping of Endangered Fishes

An Animal Person reader wrote me with the following question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

On Betraying Your Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Clarity About Family Farms

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

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

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

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

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

An Affront to the Idea of Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Photo from publicenergy's Flickr photostream.

Please Share "Silencing the Lambs"

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

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

Diabetes and Vetsulin Recap

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

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

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

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

• The insulin types are:

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

U (Ultralente)-very long; and

Lantus (glargine)-the longest.

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

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

On Compassionate Bullets

A comment left yesterday on a two-year old post, by None Please presented a phrase I've never heard before and I'd like to address it.

"In the Washington metro area, we have a BIG deer problem. I have a question for you, would you prefer to get shot by a compassionate bullet to the head,and be eaten by a lifeform that thanks god for you flesh and appreciates it. Or to get struck by an automobile, die slowly, of failing internal organs, and be unfit for human consumption."

There's a lot going on in the above three sentences. Let's deconstruct:

On Wipeout and Lion Burgers

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

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

Cut to a conversation with the contestant . . .

Interviewer: "Are you a vegetarian?"

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

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

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

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

Contestant: "And turkeys."

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

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

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

Contestant (laughing): No.

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

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

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

The last paragraph states:

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

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

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

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

"Creature Quotes" Is Here!

"Creature Quotes: Advancing Toward Freedom For All Species," compiled and edited by SBH Clay, is now available.

From the Introduction:

"Humans are fascinated by animals. . . . For all our devotion, though, we sometimes seem not to recognize the needs and wants of animals. We unwittingly partake of activities that hurt, physically and mentally, the very creatures we admire and seek to protect from harm (5)."

. . . .

"The open-to-change reader who receives the transforming message in the following pages may find himself challenging thoughts, language, habits, deeds--his own, his peers' and those of society at large (6)."

. . . .

"The reader of Creature Quotes has a choice. Not open to change, he can sit back comfortably and wait for peace among all beings to arrive in a future generation. Or, open to change, he can take the message in the ensuing pages to heart, let it shift his mind and stir his soul, and thus begin, right now, his advance toward freedom for all species (7)."

This compilation is particularly important for people who believe in God and whose advocacy has religion or faith or spirituality as a component. Every person who claims that there is some kind of divine mandate that makes us inherently not only superior to nonhuman animals but permitted to do with them as they please, should experience Creature Quotes.

I'm reminded of Amy Gutman's Introduction to J.M. Coetzee's The Lives of Animals (a must-read, as is the related work and Nobel Prize winner, Elizabeth Costello):

Costello's lectures within Coetzee's lectures therefore ask their audience to "open your heart and listen to what your heart says." Do animals have rights? Do human beings have duties toward them regardless of whether they have rights? What kind of souls do animals have? What kind do we have? Costello does not answer these questions in her lectures, because they are too philosophical for the immediate task at hand. They presume that the mind can lead the heart, a presumption that Elizabeth Costello's experience has led her to reject after a long life of trying to convince other people of her perspective on animals (4-5).

Yes, there is a lot of "mind" in Creature Quotes. But there is also a lot of heart. There is story. There is passion. There is pain. And we need all of these entry points. We need all of the help we can get.

On "The Road" and Humanity

Last night I watched 2009's "The Road" (based on the Cormac McCarthy novel, which I haven't read), a post-apocalyptic tale of a man and his son trying to survive. They're trying to get to the coast and then go south, where they think there might be more food and at least the winters won't be so brutal. Gangs of evil-doer survivors are marauding across the land, up to a particular kind of evil.

When the landscape is barren and there are few living creatures of any kind, people begin to lose their humanity. And that's when they start to do the unthinkable: eat other humans. What separates the good guys from the bad guys is that one point. And if you miss that point, the man and his son frequently speak of being the good guys, and when the boy needs to figure out if someone is good he asks: "Do you eat people?"

But the line that delineates good guys from bad guys goes deeper. Bad guys treat humans the way they'd treat animals. They hunt them down in "the wild." They corral them, lock them up, and take them out to kill, cook and eat them as needed. When one of the bad guys is killed the other bad guys will feast on his body. But no matter who dies or how, the good guys won't eat the corpse.

Lessons Learned, The Finale

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

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

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

Lesson #13

Design and multi-media matter.

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

Just Two Lessons Learned for Today

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

Lesson #11

The Appeal of Cliques

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

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

Lessons Learned From 4 Years of Animal Person, Part 2

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

Lesson #7

Obsessing over language can become counterproductive.

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned From 4 Years of Animal Person

I've officially been blogging for four years (1,329 posts and 5,441 comments) today, and as I (re)ponder whether I will continue, I'd like to present some lessons I've learned about blogging, veganism, people, "the movement," language and . . . I'll also take requests.

Today I'll address blogging.

Lesson #1

Know your audience.

If you want to facilitate change in the hearts, minds and actions of others, you should know your audience. Now, you might be intentionally seeking a certain audience and therefore writing in a style specifically designed for it. That audience and style might be very logical. It might be full of rage. Just know that the way you present yourself largely dictates who is going to visit your blog. Your blog is like a mirror for you and it will attract like-minded people, for the most part.

You'll get visitors who are open to changing if you make your blog or site welcoming to them.

And you'll get unwanted visitors, as well . . .

Happy Mother's Day!

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

On Children's Books, Introverts & Films

First, Chris directed me to ePub Bud, which appears to be a timely and fantastic idea given my recent plea for more books for children about veganism. In addition, it looks like a great way to get your book into ePub form (and here's how to read it) no matter what age your audience is.

Next, a fellow introvert e-mailed me describing herself as extremely awkward socially as well as invisible and having social anxiety, and asking where/how she might be useful to the animal rights movement. Though I'm an introvert by nature, I am also someone who has no problem being confrontational (to a fault) in many cases and I will perform like an extrovert if I need to. So I wouldn't say we're similar in disposition.

What do you think? Letters to the editor, blogging/podcasting/vlogging all come to mind as they don't involve interaction with other people (that's the problem in this instance). If there's a local group that is in need of a skill that you have (grantwriting, newsletter writing, website development, photography), I'd imagine that's a possibility. Working or volunteering at an animal sanctuary or shelter or participating (or starting) a Trap-Neuter-Release effort, maybe?

My usual recommendation for general What do I do? questions is two-fold: What are you good at/like to do? and What does the market/world/animals need? Introvert or extrovert, the goal of time well spent is achieved by putting those two together.

Finally, two films. I wrote about "The End of the Line" over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, so I won't rehash. I also saw "What's On Your Plate?" which is a documentary co-produced by two young girls from NYC, one of whom was raised as a vegetarian. It's a very kid-friendly film about produce and where it comes from, as well as what our schools are feeding kids. The girls come to some of the same conclusions/face the same obstacles that Jamie Oliver did in his quest to change the school lunch program in Huntington, WV. There are factual problems with this film, such as the mention that most of the corn grown in the US goes to hug fructose corn syrup and fuel, and there's no mention of all of the corn that is fed to animals whom we create and kill for food. Another bit of misinformation is that when you get diabetes it's forever.

There are appearances by Chef Bryant Terry and Anna Lappe and it's interesting that though the girls focus on produce, at the end of the film, as well as on the website, there is evidence that animal farms were visited as part of the project. It's clear that the intention was to avoid the really controversial material. Also, as Deb first told me when she directed me to Just Food, local isn't the solution to everything and it isn't necessarily better all of the time.

But as a primer for kids and their parents about where we get fruits and vegetables and why our school lunch program is the way it is, it's great. And it also must be said that the parents of the girls (and perhaps also their teachers, I don't know) are to be commended for supporting and nurturing them to become tweens who were able to co-produce a full-length documentary film. Though directed and produced by a grown-up, the film doesn't have the fingerprints of grown-ups all over it. The girls talk through why they did what they did and what they were thinking and the mere fact that they are able to think critically about food makes me hopeful.

SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer, Part Deux

I realize that in writing about "old speciesism" I failed to define this term that Dunayer uses. I think of "old speciesism" as analogous to racism and sexism in that it is exploitation based on species. The advocacy component of old speciesism isn't the campaign to end that exploitation, however. Instead, it is the campaign to modify it. Meanwhile, "new speciesism" is the notion that within a paradigm where rights are included for nonhuman animals, some are more deserving of rights than others for any of a variety of reasons (e.g., intelligence, having a sense of past and future, having social ties, being a mammal or a bird).

Here are some of the my favorite quotes:

• In reality, species don't evolve toward greater humanness but toward greater adaptiveness in their ecological niche (105).
• No living group of nonhuman animals--no existing species of invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or nonhuman mammal--is ancestral to humans. No nonhuman alive today belongs to the same species as some ancestor of humans. Modern fishes radically differ from the fish who was the last common ancestor of fishes and humans. No frog, toad, or salamander ever was our forebear. Although we have reptilian ancestors, we didn't descend from reptiles or any species alive today (105).
• Today's nonhuman apes don't represent earlier stages in human development. Our common-ape like ancestor lived about 15 million years ago. About six million years ago, human and chimpanzee evolution parted. Chimpanzees didn't prepare the way to us any more than we prepared the way to them (106).
• Before African-American emancipation, a number of slaves sued for freedom on the grounds that they were white. Unable to prove whiteness, they had to demonstrate that they were so much like a white that they should be given "the benefit of the doubt" (109). . . . We react with revulsion to the idea of demonstrating whiteness. We should react with equal revulsion to the idea of demonstrating humanness" (110).
• Citing abilities such as nonhuman great apes' ability to learn human languages suggest that animal rights advocates seek nonhuman participation in human society. We don't. We're not asking that any nonhumans have freedom of speech or voting rights. So, what difference does it make if nonhumans can learn human languages or show other human-like capacities and behaviors? We don't want nonhumans to remain within human society (which invariably would keep them subservient). We want them to be free and independent of humans (119).

I understand the logic of that last one, but I also appreciate the intention of many activists to have great apes be a gateway of sorts. I'm not saying it's not speciesist, but that I understand it. After all, many activists don't support the use of the same tactics they'd approve of to liberate human animals to liberate nonhuman animals. I think that's speciesist, too, but I understand why they take that position.

• There's no good reason to lack confidence that animals who possess a brain are sentient (134).
• In contrast to old-speciesist and new-speciesist advocacy, nonspeciesist advocacy advances the goal of emancipating all sentient beings from human abuse. It moves society closer to the view that all forms of speciesist exploitation--from dog breeding to commercial fishing--are morally wrong (151).

To combat speciesism and work toward justice for sentient nonhumans, we must change our minds, our language and our behavior. We must rethink what we were taught in school, on the playground and at home. It's quite a dramatic overhaul--an extreme makeover--but it's a necessary one.

On SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer

I finally read SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer, which was published a couple of years after ANIMAL EQUALITY, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.

This book has so many great quotes that I'm going to have to write a couple of posts about them. Off we go (and all of the below are exact quotes) . . .

• Whenever the media report that someone has killed "an endangered animal" or "an endangered species," they too confuse an individual with a species. Any animal threatened with a gun or arrow is endangered. Hunters kill members of endangered species. Conversely, animals who are personally safe are not endangered, even if they belong to an endangered species (14).
• To be consistent (and nonspeciesist) . . . "environmentalists" would have to value the life of an Atlantic salmon more than the life of a human because, in environmental terms, there are too few Atlantic salmons and far too many humans. But most so-called environmentalists make an exception for humans, even though human overpopulation causes environmental devastation and humans are the chief destroyers if species and ecosystems (14-15).
• To old-speciesists, nonhumans must justify their existence by proving useful to humans; in contrast, some or all humans have inherent value. Old-speciesists have a rights view of at least some humans but a utilitarian view of nonhumans (18).
• Despite human overpopulation and crowding, only nonhumans are said to "infest" an area (19).
• While calling themselves "the rational species," humans generally are quite irrational: bigoted, self-deceiving, self-destructive, passionate about trivia such as sports scores. Would intelligent beings riot over the out come of a soccer game? Smoke, eat, and drink themselves to death? Poison the water, soil, and air on which they rely? Believe that other religions are false but theirs is true? (25)
• In some sense, of course, many (perhaps most) humans don't know right from wrong. Society has told them that it's acceptable to harm other animals, and they've internalized that belief. Still, with regard to human victims, the law doesn't accept the victimizer's enculturation as justification. Defense lawyers don't plead that their clients should be excused for violence against women or people of color on the grounds that those clients have been brought up in a racist, sexist society (29-30).
• U.S. law is even more speciesist than the U.S. public. Most U.S. residents believe that it's wrong to kill animals for their pelts, but the pelt industry is legal. Most believe that it's wrong to hunt animals for sport, but sport hunting is legal. Two-thirds believe that nonhumans have as much "right to live free of suffering" as humans, but vivisection, food-industry enslavement and slaughter, and other practices that cause severe, prolonged suffering are legal (49).

And perhaps my favorite: "[I]f healthy, homeless humans were rounded up and killed, no one would call the killing facilities 'shelters'" (55).

Stay tuned for Part Deux, and more sentiments I could never have crafted better.

Deadline Approaching for Animal Essays

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

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

The postmark deadline is April 2, 2010."

Submission guidelines are here:

PASS IT ON . . .

Operation Nix-the-Petting-Zoo, Part Deux

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I learned and will do:

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

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