Animal Person

On Tradition, Cockfighting and Education

"A Ban on Cockfighting, but the Tradition Lives On," by Adam B. Ellick in today's New York Times, raises several important questions for me.

Let's deconstruct:

• I was left wondering whether when cockfighting is made illegal, there's any kind of humane education component to the law. Unless there is an education component, where the current and future generations of chicken torturers have the opportunity to examine what they're doing and why, and learn about who chickens are and what they're capable of (i.e., sentience), you're only treating the symptom. You can chase people who have already bred and are already using the chickens all day long, but until they realize that tradition isn't a valid justification for their form of "entertainment" and profit, eradicating cockfighting will never happen. It'll keep getting passed from generation to generation, as if it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
• If you tell people they're not allowed to continue a brutal practice they think they're entitled to practice due to "tradition" or "culture" (translation: there's no good reason to do it other than they want to), of course you should plan on them going underground with it. Laws should come with budgets that make their enforcement possible.
• Not surprisingly, the article has references to "animal rights advocates," as if we're the only ones who object to cockfighting. But I'm pretty sure the average veal-eating, purebreed-owning person on my street has a problem with it, too.
• Finally, you know how when there's pressure to close a Greyhound track, racing supporters cry: But what about all of the jobs that will be lost? Here's a great response by an animal control investigator after the courts in New Mexico dismissed a lawsuit by the New Mexico Gamefowl Association claiming economic devastation after the ban: “You need to go find a job at Wal-Mart." There's easy money in every community, and often it is made at someone else's expense. Children need to be having that discussion with their parents and at school so they don't grow up believing they can harm whomever they want, even to support their families.
  

Ed Lowry, a director of the New Mexico Gamefowl Association said, “A gamecock shows me what an American should be like. You defend to the death.” No, Mr. Lowry, the gamecock defends to the death, and you walk away, making money from his suffering, his blood and his mutilation. Is that what an American should be like?

On Torture Not Fit for Animal or Plant

First let me say that everyone is fine. No one was better prepared than I for seizing dogs and vomiting cats. The thunderous display meant to mimic the experience of being on a battlefield was over by 11pm and we went to the baseball field to run like the wind at 6:30 this morning. Two hounds and a kitty are napping on their respective beds in my office and all is right with the world.

All is at least much better for Ingrid Betancourt, as you probably know. We may never know exactly how she was rescued or whether money was paid or any part of the rescue was staged, but one thing we do know is that during her six-year captivity she was in "inhumane conditions" and subject to "casual sadism," according to "Betancourt Describes Sadistic Treatment at Hands of Captors."

She was treated "abominably" and said: "I wouldn't have given the treatment I had to an animal, perhaps not even to a plant."

That's good news . . . I think.

I find the plant part to be strange, as there is a rather significant difference between plants and animals, and it's the difference that matters most if you're going to compare how they'd react to being tortured: sentience. Meanwhile, the fact that she even said she wouldn't do such things (whatever they were, and we know they weren't good) to an animal makes me say: Why would you even say that? What would you do to an animal, then?

When people use the I-wouldn't-even-do-that-to-an-animal line, it scares me. It tells me that they draw some kind of line in the sand between torture that's okay and torture that's so terrible that even animals don't deserve it. But what is it about sentient nonhumans that makes them somehow inherently deserving of at least some level of mistreatment?

Nothing.

But it's difficult to come down hard on Betancourt or anyone else who has been programmed since birth (I'm assuming she has) to view animals as resources and commodities and lunch and shoes. Yes, some of us one day came to the realization that what we do to sentient nonhumans is unwarranted and unjust. But most people are simply being who they were brought up to be, and taking their cues from the media and the rest of their culture. They're simply following the path of least resistance.

And it's up to us to introduce them to a different path.

On Seizures and the Third of July

Remember how I wrote that at least two of the sentient nonhumans who share my home would be dead in short order without me? Well, approximately quarterly, the most uncanny occurrence repeats itself in my house. For some reason, I'll be compelled to check on Violet--or she'll come over to me and have the strangest look in her eye--and within moments she's having a seizure (she's diabetic and the seizure is caused by very low blood sugar. Coma and death follow if nothing is done.).

On the Fourth of July, we almost always have "a situation," as my husband calls it. Violet's blood sugar can be fine all day (we check it), but when she gets upset--you know, like from what sounds like the house getting shelled intermittently for three hours--her blood sugar can plunge very quickly. Charles and Emily are equally unhappy about fireworks, and do a lot of pacing and vomiting. You can see how today isn't my favorite day.

And with Dave being in DC for the weekend, I'll have my hands full.

I use Rescue Remedy and/or Green Hope Farm's "Arbor Garden" to alleviate the anxiety of the creatures, I close up the house, and I blast Gregorian chants, Krishna Das, and every om nama shivaya and om mani padme hum I can find (here's a funky Om Namah Shivaya by Krishna Das) in every room of the house. You don't have to believe in god to appreciate the healing (or at least mellowing) power of chanting.

Oh, but wait, that's for the Fourth of July--NOT the third.

It was 8pm. There I was, watching Into Great Silence, which is 162 minutes of monks in the French Alps quietly going about their lives--and I mean quietly (there's no dialogue)--and random, earsplitting fireworks sounding like missiles, started to go off. We've been having dangerous thunderstorms each day, and today was supposed to be the worst day, so I'm thinking people were taking advantage of a lull in the weather to shoot off some of their M80s and other such ridiculous devices.

I was compelled for some reason to check on Violet, and there she was, splayed out on the bedroom floor, having a seizure. Her eyes were popping out, she was panting and heaving, and she couldn't hold her head up. Charles came running and paced in front of her, distressed. Emily emerged from under the bed and craned and bobbed, as if she were smelling something.

I grabbed a tube of glucose gel and smeared some on Violet's gums. It took two very long minutes for her blood sugar to increase to a whopping 30 (It was probably under 20), and for the next three hours it went up and down, but never too far down. I gave her five drops of Arbor Garden, and by 11pm she was sleepy, her blood sugar was fine and the fireworks were over.

The weather has taken a turn and it probably won't be as bad as it was forecasted to be, therefore the Fourth of July show at the stadium a mile away and the local one on my village green, won't be canceled.

Wish me luck.

On Lucky Girls and Unlucky Goats

Today's "The Luckiest Girl," by The New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof, underscored the profound shift that will be required in the consciousness of humans before sentient nonhumans will stand a chance of liberation.

Let's deconstruct:

• Beatrice Biira, a college graduate born to a poor peasant family in western Uganda, credits her success to, as Kristof says, "something utterly improbably: a goat." Some . . . thing.
• Children from a church in Connecticut wanted to donate money to a good cause, so they bought goats through Heifer International, the nonprofit with a mission that I find utterly horrifying. It's a slave trade organization, and I'm forever surprised that more people don't see it that way. (Here's one of several Animal Person commentaries that mention it, with links to others by Eric and Colleen in the comments.)
• "One of the goats bought . . . went to Beatrice's parents and soon produced twins." By herself? I didn't know that could happen. I shudder to think what was done to impregnate her, and by whom.
• The profits from the sale of the milk taken from the goat, who was ironically named Luck, was used to send Beatrice to school. A book about the gift of a slave goat to a little girl became a children's best seller.
• A group of donors to Heifer International helped finance Beatrice's years in college.

Here's a question: What amounted to petty cash from the milk taken from Luck sent Beatrice to school. Doesn't it seem rather odd to breed a sentient slave, ship her miles, during which time she could die or be seriously injured ("In short, millions of things could go wrong" writes Kristof), to further degrade and disrespect her (and that's when things are going right), only to kill her (do you think she'll live out her life in peace and freedom once she's spent?), when the children at the Connecticut church could have saved Beatrice and her family lots of time--(to say nothing of unlucky Luck, as it's clear the children weren't thinking about her)--by paying for Beatrice's education in the first place? Heifer International wouldn't have benefited, but everyone else would have.

• Finally, Kristof writes: "But Beatrice’s giddy happiness these days is still a reminder that each of us does have the power to make a difference — to transform a girl’s life with something as simple and cheap as a little goat." Each of us does have the power to make a difference. Each of us can choose to not exploit sentient nonhumans and not participate in the nonhuman slave trade. Each of us can choose to admit that goats aren't simple and cheap little things to be used, profited from and discarded.

Provide the readers of the NYT and Kristof an alternate way of looking at this situation: from the point of view of Luck, maybe. Send your thoughts to letters@nytimes.com or add them to Kristof's blog, which currently has 32 comments, none of which are at all against the purchase of sentient nonhumans as slaves.

We have a long way to go when children thought this was a good idea, the commenters "shed tears" (#16) because the story was allegedly so heartwarming, and there is no hint of dismay about Luck's lot in life, or the system and a consciousness that has a place for an organization like Heifer International.

On My Ambivalence About Keeping Animals

Charles' collar and the small gate on the courtyard symbolize the same concept for me: He is trapped.

Sure, his life was worse at the home of the people who returned him to the adoption group. They left him kenneled for 12-14 hours during the day and ran with him for 30 minutes each night. He was put back in his kennel for the night.

And that was (arguably) better than being at the track, where he was kenneled for 22 hours a day, probably with a muzzle, and "turned out" a couple of times to relieve himself, usually while running.

But at my home, beautiful as it may be, and where he doesn't even have a kennel and has four beds of his own throughout the house (as does Violet), he still isn't in control of his life. He pees when I decide to walk him or let him out back. He eats when I decide to feed him, and when he goes for a walk or run, he must wear a collar and a leash. I must admit to the reality that I dominate him.

Imagine having a collar around your neck. Imagine someone walking you. Yanking--if you go in a direction undesirable for the person "in charge" of you. Pulling--if you sniff or nibble on some grass for more time than they want you to. Imagine someone is walking you and you see one of your kind across a village green. All you want to do is go to that person and say hi and acknowledge your shared situation, but you're tugged away as you look back and cry out to your brother.

Imagine wearing a collar all day and night.

On Harm in Veganism

Ah, a love affair has ended . . .

If you haven't dropped by Invisible Voices to read Earth Balance, palm oil, rainforests and RAN and its 27 comments (so far), I highly recommend it.

Many vegans, particularly the ones with a Buddhism, Hinduism or Jainism bent, talk about the principle of Ahimsa, which is a practice of non-injury, nonviolence and/or harmlessness of living beings. What I appreciate most about Deb's post about Earth Balance (and also Roger's comment on yesterday's post that brings up a similar issue), is that the reality for vegans is that non-injury is impossible for all of us reading this right now and living in the developed world.

The questions are: What are your priorities? And where do you draw lines?

I had written Deb that given all of the problems with Earth Balance, the small farmer around the corner who has a cow or two and makes his own butter probably causes less harm than the manufacturers of Earth Balance. And though I certainly won't be buying butter made from cow's milk, it's pretty clear to me that Earth Balance isn't the answer, as convenient it is, and as perfect it is as a butter substitute.

Because I'm not a chef or baker, I can get around this issue. I can bake with vegetable or coconut oil, sautee with olive oil, and ditch desserts with frosting. Since when is dessert a dietary requirement, anyway?

This topic reminds us that there is a cost for the production of our delectable vegan products, and that cost often takes the form of the death, displacement and abuse of people and/or animals, as well as a level of injury of the earth that will take generations to heal.

And once we become aware of the costs of a product, regardless of the physical ingredients therein, can we really call it vegan (if it involves harm to sentient nonhumans)?

What are YOUR Thoughts on Rights for Great Apes?

As you probably know, "Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans."

Yes, the basis is their genetic similarity to us, and it should be enough that they are subjects of their own lives and are sentient.

But I want a ban on Greyhound racing. Sure, I ultimately want Greyhounds and all other sentient nonhumans to have the right to not be the used by humans. And I work toward that in my daily vegan outreach. Abolishing Greyhound racing, however, does eliminate a use of a sentient nonhuman and should also dramatically decrease the breeding of Greyhounds, as they currently have two uses: showing and racing. Eliminate one use, and the incentive to breed for that use is eliminated as well.

Now back to great apes. Under the Spanish law, "Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code." I think that's great. What I find fascinating is that people against rights for great apes call this a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, I'm sure many people who consider themselves abolitionists would also call this a dangerous precedent because the reason for the granting of the rights would be speciesist.

Back to Greyhound racing. If the ban is broadened to the tracks in Massachusetts (and it might be in November), that ban would largely be achieved because of the cruelty argument. Though there are definitely people dealing with this issue who think we have no right to race the dogs, there is a considerable suffering contingent. But as I have said: I don't care why the industry fails and the dogs are no longer raced--I just want to see an end to Greyhound racing.

Is that wrong of me?

If we are to see an end to the use of great apes in Spain, even though it's not for the reason we'd like to see, if indeed great apes will no longer be used, shouldn't we be pleased about that part of the outcome? After all, we don't know for certain whether it will be easier or more difficult to get rights for anyone else thereafter.

Will banning Greyhound racing make it more difficult or easier to ban horse racing? Will it have any impact on our efforts to ban other uses of sentient nonhumans? And if it might, do we not support a ban because we think it might make another ban in the future more difficult to achieve? Do we sacrifice the animals who are close to being free of us because we think others down the road might never be free of us?

What do you think?

On Paul Watson and Property Damage

In fact, it is only through diversity that any movement can survive, and this diversity demands tolerance of all participating groups within the spectrum of action for each other. It makes little sense for a mainstream group to waste resources and time attacking the ALF or the ELF. There is nothing that a mainstream group can do to prevent actions by covert activist groups or individuals. Agreement to disagree is the only solution. When challenged to justify an action by a covert group, a mainstream group should reply by saying that it is unfortunate that the problem or the threat is so extreme that some people have been moved to take extreme measures to address it.

                --Paul Watson, "ALF and ELF--Terrorism Is as Terrorism Does" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

The mainstream world got a small dose of Paul Watson in Newsweek's "The Whale Man," by Jimmy Langman.

You have argued that your tactics are legal. How so?

We are upholding the U.N. Charter of Nature and operating within the principles of this charter, which allows for non-governmental organizations to intervene to uphold international conservation law. For instance, in 1986 we sunk half of Iceland's whaling fleet, and that might sound like it's illegal, but I did go to Reykjavik to demand that they charge me and they refused to do so. Because they knew that to put me on trial would be to put themselves on trial.

So here's my question: If you believe that property damage (you know, like sinking half a whaling fleet) is violence and you don't believe violence has a place in the movement, what about property damage in the service of upholding the law? Is that okay? Does the law have anything to do with how you feel about property damage?

On Blaming Animal Rights Activists for Alligator Attacks

Bea, who also lives in Florida, suggested I write about Kasey Edwards, the young man who lost his arm to an alligator earlier this week.

First let me say that he's 18-years old. That's my biggest problem with quoting him as if he knows what he's talking about. There's something vaguely unfair about deconstructing what he says. Remember what came out of your mouth when you were 18-years old?

What I do feel comfortable doing is saying that drinking alcohol and "hanging out" along canals that are known to be the homes or travelways of alligators is not a good idea. Even without the alcohol it isn't a good idea. And no one should be shocked to discover that when they go to the home or travelway of alligators, there might be alligators there. Each week there is an alligator story on the news, complete with anchor people laughing and joking after the clip of the alligator getting tied up, having her mouth duct taped, and then fighting for her life as she's dragged onto some truck and it's announced, much to everyone's relief I'm sure, that the alligator was "destroyed" (for, you  know, being an alligator). The alligators are vilified, all because we have pushed them and pushed them out of their homes, and then some of us are ignorant enough to actually try to feed them, thereby giving them mixed signals (sound familiar? Can you say bears?), and then when they approach people or try to catch a meal in the form of a dog (they're predators, remember), they are killed.

Alligators can't win.

[Edwards] blamed what he feels are the misguided efforts of animal-rights activists for allowing the Florida alligator population to mushroom in the past 10 years. With so many gators competing for limited resources, they’ve become much more aggressive, he said.

So the never-ending development of Florida has nothing to do with the problem? Animal rights activists are the problem? Going to one of the few places where alligators can be alligators without people disturbing them isn't part of the problem? I think Edwards is right to blame people. But I think he's pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.

[Edwards also] said that the real issue is the overpopulation of alligators. Florida wildlife authorities issue 3,000 permits a year for alligator hunters, he said, but animal-rights activists buy as many as two-thirds of the permits to prevent the alligators from being killed.

Edwards has his facts wrong about the animal rights activists, the number of permits, and the number of alligators killed, and it would be nice if the Today Show did a follow up to that effect. According to Florida Fish and Wildlife,

on average, 70 percent of all hunting tags purchased are turned in as required with proof of a gator kill. 82 percent of the tags were used last year . . . .

The state points out Lake Okeechobee, where Edwards was bitten, is experiencing record drought. Large gators are concentrated in canals. Casey Edwards dove in at two in the morning when gators are most active, most dangerous.

Write the Today Show and tell them that Edwards (whose name was indeed spelled with at K by one source, and a C by the other), is incorrect. He put himself in a very dangerous position, was injured, and someone else was killed because of what he did.

What is an Animal Sanctuary?

Who ever thought Florida would be ahead of the curve when it comes to animal protection?

When I first heard that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) proposed a definition of "sanctuary" that includes a prohibition on breeding, selling or buying captive wildlife, as well as contact between the public and the wildlife, I was pleased.

Don't think for a moment I missed the part about "wildlife" and the reality that farmed animal sanctuaries and companion animal sanctuaries were excluded, but I think that this is a small, positive step. As the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (yes, I know they do some welfare work, and no, I don't agree with all of their campaigns) writes:

The new definition would help to identify genuine sanctuaries in Florida who provide care for abused or abandoned animals, where the welfare of each individual animal is the primary consideration.

The FWC is accepting public input on the proposed changes. Please contact the commission and express your strong support of the proposed new rule– "68A-6.0025 Sanctuaries"– and in particular it's prohibition of breeding captive wildlife.

Contact:
E-mail comments to: rulechanges@MyFWC.com
(type "captive wildlife" in the subject line)

Mail written comments to:
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Attn: Capt. Linda Harrison
620 Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1600

The deadline for submitting public comments is July 4.

I think about the Busch Wildlife Sanctuary, which has educational programs that involve taking the wildlife out of their permanent home at the sanctuary for television appearances or "outreach" programs, and touts "interaction with live animals" (at, for example, the Wildlife Encounters Summer Camp). As you may know, Busch is also connected to Jack Hanna.

I am willing to bet my net worth that if indeed the new definition is adopted, somehow Busch will be grandfathered in or by some other means deemed a legitimate sanctuary despite the fact that it doesn't meet the definition's requirements. (Busch apparently does do great rehabilitation work with wildlife, but I don't think it's a sanctuary, and I don't think it provides--or can provide--adequate space for some of its residents. The one or two panthers come to mind, in what is basically a cage smaller than my living room.)

I know that sounds negative and cynical, but I've been in Florida long enough, where by the way a recently-proposed statute that would prohibit sexual contact between people and animals was NOT passed (because it was not heard in the House), and I have yet to see an instance where sentient nonhumans were protected when there was a reason sentient humans might be able to benefit from their use.

Does anyone have a sanctuary definition in their state's law that I might be able to use for comparison? I wonder if this type of action has a significant positive effect on wildlife. There are few things I like less than putting my time, energy and money behind something--only to have it pass--and then find out later that I made a mistake. (Can you say ban on gestation crates?)

Undercover "Free-Range" Egg Video

Now let me get this straight: They're not in cages, therefore  . . .

Thanks to Roger for directing me to an expose on "cage-free" and "free-range" eggs with the RSPCA's Freedom Food label. In March of 2007, I wrote a post for supervegan.com ("Freedom Food Outed in the UK") about the neglect of pigs, turkeys and ducks who were supposedly "raised to higher welfare standards," according to chef Jamie Oliver (and the Freedom Food site), but this video demonstrates that laying hens aren't any better off than the animals in last year's undercover video.

Not only is the British public misled about the welfare of the animals they are paying someone to slaughter, but they're also paying a premium to be misled. Oh, and one of their favorite celebrity chefs, who gassed day-old chicks on his show in order to reveal the truth about what happens to the males in the egg industry (and who at no point objects to that practice), is one of their top spokespeople.

Check out the article and slideshow that accompany the video, and the next time someone tells you they care about chickens and pay extra to prove how much they care, sent them to this expose, Cage Free Eggs: Behind the Myth, or "Can you tell the difference?"

I'm sure that most consumers (and most vegetarians), are unaware that male chicks are killed and that eliminating cages doesn't result in a great life for hens. And I'm not sure whether vegetarians, who still eat eggs and dairy because they think no one got hurt or died for them, are thinking things through. I was one of them, and I'm not mocking them; I'm simply making an observation. What did I think was going to happen to the hens? Did I think they'd live their lives out, with veterinary care if needed, even after they were no longer able to produce eggs? What was I thinking?

Well, considering how much cogitating my obsessive mind does, and the fact that I nevertheless failed to think the egg situation through to its logical end, I can easily see how the average person--and even the average vegetarian--neglects several significant issues. It's up to us, then, to inform them as well as help them see what's in front of them that they're not seeing (e.g., all of the animals will be killed). I'm not sure what the ethos of today's vegetarian is, but if it has anything to do with harm without necessity or killing without necessity, I think it's safe to say that eggs should be off their list.

PPS Calls for Change in Direction of Vegan Advocacy

Peaceful Prairie is calling for a "Change in the Direction of Vegan Advocacy," which I think many of us have intuitively begun for our own reasons. The change has two components: language and strategy.

Twenty years ago, vegan advocates could use the term "factory farming" because, at the time, there was no mass marketed "humane" animal farming alternative that could be readily found at fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc.

Now, sometimes you really are talking about what is known as "factory farming" for whatever reason. But if you're not, and if you believe there's no such thing as humane farming, you do your own message a disservice by using "factory farming" as your descriptor because that creates an opening for the acceptance of an alternative.

Furthermore, the focus on "meat" is a mistake, as it leads people directly to lacto-ovo vegetarianism, where we've all seen people spend years, if not decades. I've often spoken about how I like to begin with eggs and products made from milk in my advocacy because I think that's more efficient and effective. If you educate someone about what is involved in milk production and they object to it, they have nowhere to go. They likely already know that animals we use for food are treated horribly and unjustly, so if you begin by discussing the animals most people don't know are treated horribly and unjustly, you've just given the person you're speaking with the final bit of information they need that will position them to eliminate all food products made from sentient nonhumans. (Not that they'll do that overnight).

The PPS statement expresses a similar sentiment, but also gets into the more basic notion that:

The strategy of prioritizing our anti-meat message over anti-dairy and eggs has failed the animals miserably.

We all know that this really is a matter of education. My guess is that most vegetarians simply have no idea what it takes to produce their beloved cheese, and would in fact never think of cheese as a sibling of the product called "veal" that they vilify.

I do understand that there is a difference in the way we (aesthetically, emotionally and mentally) experience flesh on a plate and cheese on a pizza. But I think that the difference is largely learned as it's associated with the source of the food and what occurred at the point of origin (i.e., they myth that someone died for steak, but not for cheese), and I think it can be unlearned. But not by itself.

And that's where we come in. Send your "conscientious omnivores" to The "Humane" Farming Myth, send your consumers of cage-free eggs to "Can You Tell the Difference?" and don't forget the "Happy Cows: Behind the Myth" slideshow at HumaneMyth.org for your pizza and ice cream lovers.

On ANIMALS AS PERSONS

Gary Francione's Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation is a collection of previously-published individual essays (some with postscripts) and a new chapter, the "Introduction: The Abolition of Animal Use Versus the Regulation of Animal Treatment."

Animals as Persons is, in my opinion, more readable than Francione's Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? and Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. This latest book also covers much of the same ground, in addition to much of what Francione writes about on his blog. In that sense, it's the one resource for all things abolitionist (as he defines it). As this is a scholarly book, I would have a hard time recommending it to the average person. However, for animal rights activists, who are constantly bombarded with questions and scenarios from people often intending to try to stump them more than to try to understand them (unfortunately), this book puts all of the classic Francione stories and responses in one place. And though I was initially startled by the absence of an Index, the Reference Guide to Selected Topics, which is in narrative form with page references, is very useful.

Ex: "Ethical theory concerning nonhuman animals seeks to clarify how we should resolve conflicts between humans and nonhumans. These conflicts are, for the most part, ones we create because we regard animals as property and bring them into existence so that we can treat them as our resources. See pp. 13-14, 63-66, 152, 164 (232)."

Stein and LaVeck Launch New Website

Jenny Stein and James LaVeck, of Tribe of Heart have launched a one-stop shop for advocacy for animals at HumaneMyth.org and I encourage everyone to spend some time there. In my opinion, it's the most focused, user-friendly treatment (on the Internet) of what we do to animals we've decided to use as food. It's accessible in language and design, and it deals with the topics that at least this vegan talks about many times a week: "humane" farming, the reality that there's more suffering than most people could ever imagine in the "production" of a glass of milk, and the reality, despite what some advocacy groups tell the public, that cage-free eggs aren't cruelty-free.

I particularly like the section "Farmed Animal Experts Speak Out." There's no advocate more powerful than a convert, so I've always been partial to Howard Lyman's story. He makes me feel hopeful for people of my parents' generation and I just might see if I can pay him to go to New York and school my father. (I think I just found a new business idea for the former cattle rancher!)

"Deconstructing the Humane Myth in the Media" is of course my favorite section, and it's loaded with excerpts from mainstream and not-so-mainstream articles, juxtaposed with a brief "Humane Myth Analysis" to aid in the development of critical thinking.

For your daily activism, there are downloadable resources, including entire slideshows as well as leaflets (you can also purchase ready-made trifold handouts in "Gear Up").

For me, this site is realistic. It deals with the topics I get asked about every day. No one has ever asked me about property rights, and though they are certainly a root cause of our use and horrendous treatment of animals, I spend most of my time talking about--in one way or another--why the phrase "humane farming" is an oxymoron, and why if you don't want to hurt animals you shouldn't be eating them.

Of course, I'm constantly sending people to Peaceful Prairie (and check out what Michele Alley-Grubb has to say in "Farmed Animal Experts Speak Out"), and now I have another place to send well-meaning people who are trying very hard to find a way to make their consumption of sentient nonhumans acceptable (in their own minds).

The conclusion you must reach--meaning there's no way around it, not I'm telling you what to conclude--is that there's simply no way to create sentient nonhumans and entirely take over their lives only to kill them, and then describe that process with the adjective "humane." And for those who say:

What about the small farmer a couple of miles away who has chickens running around and there are some cows and everyone's outside and looks happy? What's wrong with buying my meat, eggs and milk from him? He loves his animals!

I give you Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis of Maple Farm Sanctuary:

So yes, you can raise them and have them graze in green fields of grass and brush them every day, but when you ultimately put them in someone's truck or on a livestock trailer, and they go to be slaughtered, I don't care if you say a prayer before they're slaughtered or if you simply send them into the slaughterhouse. Their throats are still slit. They feel pain. They gasp for air. I can't imagine what goes through their minds. If you look into their eyes you can see the fear, and the abandonment. You've loved this animal, and then you've sent them off to this horrible death. So I can't imagine "humane" and farming going together for raising any sentient being. The words just don't go together for me.

They don't go together for me, either.

Finally, as Patty Mark, founder of the Open Rescue Movement said:

It's not about how we 'care for' or treat the billions of animals we mass produce to keep in line, it's about erasing the line altogether.

Visit HumaneMyth.org, examine your own thinking, and help erase the line.

On Columbia University Press, Zoographies and Francione

Senior executive editor for Religion, Philosophy, and Animal Studies at Columbia University Press (CUP), Wendy Lochner, recently wrote:

What is required is no less than a radical rethinking of the nature of humanity itself as inextricably cojoined with our nonhuman kin and in common cause with them.

It is this point of view that I (and many others) call animal studies, and it is my intention as an editor to foster interdisciplinary work from all fields that considers these and many other interrelated questions.

This, of course, is very exciting, and I encourage you to check out the titles, which are on sale until August 1 and include Gary Francione's new book, which I am half way through. There was an interview with Francione on the press' blog yesterday, where part of his final thought is: "The most important thing anyone can do is to become vegan and to educate others about why taking animals seriously means being vegan." For all of you who read yesterday's post, that sentence says either that being vegan and educating others are two separate things, or that they're one because he introduces them as the most important thing (singular).

I'm kidding! Let it be over! Smile! We agree to disagree!

As for Zoographies, by Matthew Calarco, here's the blurb on the CUP site:

Zoographies challenges the anthropocentrism of the Continental philosophical tradition and advances the position that, while some distinctions are valid, humans and animals are best viewed as part of an ontological whole. Matthew Calarco draws on ethological and evolutionary evidence and the work of Heidegger, who called for a radicalized responsibility toward all forms of life. He also turns to Levinas, who raised questions about the nature and scope of ethics; Agamben, who held the "anthropological machine" responsible for the horrors of the twentieth century; and Derrida, who initiated a nonanthropocentric ethics. Calarco concludes with a call for the abolition of classical versions of the human-animal distinction and asks that we devise new ways of thinking about and living with animals.

Now, before you try to reread that, let me say this. Like the blurb, the book starts off rocky, but it's worth it to stick with it to the end.

I studied philosophy, but only as it related to linguistics and critical theory (which is a lot), and I was familiar with some of the texts referred to by Calarco but by no means all. In addition, Derrida was my personal favorite (there's a no-brainer), and I had no idea about the extent to which he was interested in the question of the animal, so I started out with a handicap. Calarco lets me off the hook for not being familiar with certain Derrida texts, though.

While Derrida's readers can perhaps be forgiven for being caught off guard with respect to the importance of the question of the animal in his work, it is not difficult to demonstrate that this question is in fact important and decisive throughout his vast oeuvre (104).

My initial interest in this book was its treatment of Derrida, and because I'm writing my own book (about the animal question, rather than the question of the animal, as my reference point was the woman question), which is vastly different, however part of my job is to read all books relating to animals (definitely trade ones--academic ones are less urgent).

You don't have to know much about Heidegger, Levinas, Agamben or Derrida to understand the thrust of the book, which is a building or evolution toward current thought (which is to say, I'd venture: Where you are right now) regarding the human-animal distinction. You also don't need a dictionary of terms used in philosophy, although I'd recommend brushing up as parts of the book are loaded with jargon. But you have to remember that it's an academic book, so that's appropriate. Besides, there's always something in the discussion that you'll find accessible, such as a reference to someone more widely read, like Dawkins, Darwin, Singer or Regan. Furthermore, even if you remove all words or references you're unfamiliar with, you're still left with the story of how philosophers from Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries considered animals and our possible responsibilities toward them.

The payoff, for me, is the chapter on Derrida, which includes:

Despite his sympathy for the animal rights and animal liberation movements, he remains deeply skeptical of the notion that fundamental changes in our thinking and relation with animals can be effected through existing ethical and political discourses and institutions. . . . [H]e departs from dominant forms of animal rights discourse and practice inasmuch as he believes that a fundamental transformation of human-animal relations requires a deconstruction of the very notion of moral and legal rights and its underlying metaphysical and philosophical support (115).

Based as they are on a metaphysics of subjectivity and presence, it is clear that modern legal institutions will simply never regard animals as full legal subjects anymore than anthropocentric moral discourse will ever regard animals as full ethical subjects. And this should come as no surprise, given that traditional legal and moral discourse emerges out of an anthropocentric and metaphysical horizon that is grounded on chauvinism and exceptionalism. The dominant strategy of trying to reform this tradition rather than calling it radically into question is understandable but should be seen ultimately as a failure of imagination on the part of animal rights theorists.

Derrida would have us recast the question of the animal along entirely different lines and try to imagine other ways of conceiving of animal life and ethical relations between human beings and animals. The first thing to which Derrida would have us attend is the manner in which the concept of subjectivity has been constituted historically (131).

There's also a section linking deconstruction and vegetarianism (132-135), which I appreciated, but this is already getting a bit long.

What all of this leads to is an idea I think we can all benefit from:

Might not the challenge for philosophical thought today be to proceed altogether without the guardrails of the human-animal distinction and to invent new concepts and new practices along different paths (149)?

Stay tuned for a post on Francione's new book, as well as another book on CUP's list: This is Not Sufficient, by Leonard Lawlor.

On Why Vegan Education Isn't Considered Direct Action

I had no idea that anyone thought vegan education was direct action until yesterday (thanks, Elaine!).

What is Direct Action?

Direct action is activity that fights for a cause dynamically and directly for immediate change. You can view direct action as a strong form of civil disobedience with a capacity for acting illegally. Activists employing direct action aim to create a situation whereby their opponents have to yield significant concessions to the activists' cause. Direct action campaigners often tend to disown the methods of the less dramatic and slower mainstream who advance social change through education and legislative procedures.

Last year's Animal Rights Conference had a session called: Paths to Animal Liberation (welfare vs. abolition, legislation & education vs. direct action). I wasn't there, but that doesn't matter. While many terms are indeed up for interpretation (nonviolence, anyone?), I didn't think that was the case with direct action.

I think pattrice jones' quote from "Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the ALF" (in TOFF) is worth repeating:

"Direct action includes only activist tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes. In contrast, indirect action aims for future change through more circuitous routes, such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations of opinion. . . . Ideally, direct action will illustrate or illuminate the problem at the same time as it interferes with its causes or effects. The very best direct action contributes to a long-term strategy for future change even as it offers tangible results in the here and now. . . . People who have integrated segregated lunch counters, put their bodies int he paths of troop transport trains, distributed illegal clean needles or birth control devices, boycotted chocolate or Coca-Cola, staged rent strikes, or built 'tent cities' for the homeless have all taken direct action against one or another form of oppression. Direct action for animals is similarly diverse" (137-8).

Last night I watched Morgan' Spurlock's 30 Days. George, a hunter from North Carolina, lives with Melissa Karpel's family (she works for PeTA), who are vegans, for 30 days. He participates in some demonstrations, rescues a calf, goes to a dairy farm, and works at a farmed animal sanctuary. As you might imagine, he is belligerent at first and has a difficult time, but with time he opens up and softens.

At the end, he says he's not going to stop hunting, but he also calls himself an animal rights activist. My poor husband thought I'd find this all very encouraging but I didn't. George is still going to hunt (we won't even get into how he's an animal rights activist, but I can tell you that it has to do with the mixed message that animal rights is about suffering).

My husband came down hard on me and said that though he doesn't agree with PeTA, how can you expect someone to spend 30 days learning about something so completely alien to him, and become a different person on the spot. After all, it took SEVERAL YEARS of me educating my husband for him to finally change his behavior. And he was much farther along than George!

"You have no idea what George is going to do when he gets back to Carolina," said my husband. "Maybe because of the interaction with the calf, he won't eat beef anymore. Maybe he won't be able to hunt, despite what he says. We don't know. But we do know that he's thinking differently than he did before, and if he has some support (and it appears that he doesn't), maybe he'll jump on the fast track. They planted the seed."

That's education--indirect action. It's not immediate.

On Clarity Regarding Nonviolent Direct Action

Well it looks like I've found my niche in the world of animal bloggers: annoying people by writing about things they don't want to think about.

Who knew that a piecemeal discussion of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? would cause so much ire? I feel the need to clarify a handful of issues that are sounding like they've gone through the telephone game I played as a child (where you tell a story to someone and they tell it to someone else, and four people later the story is very different from when it started).

• At no point have I advocated the use of violence against anyone. I don't even believe in the death penalty, as I think it's barbaric (and sends a ridiculously hypocritical message).
• There are groups working against animal exploitation that do NOT claim to be nonviolent. The ALF is not one of them. The ALF is a nonviolent group.
• My hope is that readers of Animal Person think about their own definition of nonviolence. Does it include property damage? Does it include sabotage? Does it include arson? And if it includes arson, what about the very real possibility that a sentient nonhuman or a human (like maybe a firefighter) is injured?
• The idea that if you really supported something you'd do it yourself doesn't make sense to me. I support lots of things I'm not going to do because I don't have the time, the skill or the inclination. I have supported candidates running for political office, which is something I have no interest in doing myself, but if someone represents my beliefs and is going to do a good job fighting the good fight, I'll give them money and maybe support them in other ways, as well. But I'm fairly certain there's no way I'm ever running for office.
• No one has ever said that nonviolent direct action is a substitute for vegan education. It's not one or the other. Vegan education is a given and the foundation, however many people feel it is not enough and they want to do more.
• No one has ever said that property damage is always necessary. Those who believe in nonviolent direct action see a range of tactics that put varying degrees or types of force on exploiters. They believe every situation is different and warrants its own strategic plan.
• If you think that property damage is unacceptable, as is breaking the law, what about open rescue? I have yet to hear from someone who disagrees with open rescue. What's going on there?
• Those against nonviolent direct action, such as breaking into a lab and rescuing some animals, often say that those animals are a drop in the bucket, and rescuing them doesn't help our cause. I understand that thinking. However, it's usually coming from people who are NOT utilitarians, and that seems like a very utilitarian notion to me. Aren't abolitionists doing what they do because of the utmost respect they have for individual sentient beings? Why is it that that respect doesn't come into play when breaking into a lab to rescue a couple of animals? Why is the individual suddenly not so important?

Finally, there's an awful lot of Truth being flung around. Just as an example (i.e., not to pick on anyone), the most recent comment, by Scott, includes:

Alex,

The only thing that will bring us closer to abolition is education. . . . Every incident of property damage and sabotage takes us further from the goal of abolition.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing because I don't know that's true. How does anyone know that's true? (And by the way, Scott does include language such as "I believe" and "I think" in his comment.)

I'm not the go-to-theorist person. I'm not the bearer of The Truth. I don't claim to have all the answers. It's more like have all the questions. As I've written before, I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I just want them to think.
 

Vegan Relationship Survey

I received this e-mail yesterday.

Vegan Relationship Survey

This survey is being conducted by M. Butterflies Katz, who has published several popular articles on vegan subjects, including ‘vegan companies’, ‘vegan-organic gardening’ and ‘feeding your pets vegan’.

The results of the survey will be used to research an article that will be published on-line and in magazines.

You can answer anonymously if you choose. Please circulate this questionnaire to other vegans. Reply to veganpoet@hotmail.com.

I am willing to be quoted in the article: Yes/No
I wish to remain anonymous: Yes/No

Name (optional) ______________________

Are you vegan?

When did you become vegan?

How do you describe the extent to which you take your veganism?

What is your age group?
under 18 _____
19-30   ______
31-55   ______
56 -75  ______
Over 75 _____

Are there any other vegans in your immediate or extended family?

How do your parents/family feel about your veganism? Has this changed over time? If so, how?

Where do you live? Are there many vegans in your area?

How do you meet other vegans?

Do you live alone? Yes/No

a) Do you live with other vegans? How many? What is their relationship to you?

b) Do you live with any non-vegans? How many? What is their relationship to you? How is that working out?

Is your veganism directly related to the influence of a relationship? Details?

Are there any vegan activists or celebrities that have inspired you?

Have you influenced others to become vegan? How?

Do you date only vegans?

What is your sexual orientation?

Would you object to being romantically involved with someone who is not vegan? Please explain your reasons.

Do you know of any children/people that are vegan from birth? Please give any details that you can.

Are the vegans you know healthy? Please give details.

How do the people you know/meet react towards your veganism? Have you noticed any change in people's reactions over the years?

Do you know more vegan women or men?

From your experience, do you think that men or women are more open to the vegan concept, generally speaking?

How are your friendships with vegans different to your friendships with non-vegans?

Does being vegan influence how you relate to others? If so, how?

Do you have pets? Are they vegan?

Has being vegan changed your relationship to animals?


Thank you so much for participating.

Butterflies

On Speciesm, the ALF and the Media

I approached the essays in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? with an open mind and discovered that I couldn't disagree with the notion that being against nonviolent direct action (that includes property damage and sabotage) is speciesist. As Kevin Jonas writes in "Bricks and Bullhorns":

"Activists debate the 'appropriateness' of certain tactics, and many fear losing the moral high ground in seeking to intimidate the opposition.

Such criticism of direct action and controversial ventures like SHAC is a speciesist insult to those animals who depend on humans to advocate on their behalf. If those opposed to direct action are really honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they do not believe the goal of animal liberation justifies the tactics they claim to oppose but would support  in other contexts. Most people do support property destruction, violence, and murder for certain causes. If people in Liberia were being rendered for food, it would be a safe bet that most would support a war to end such an atrocity. If critics of the ALF and SHAC honestly faced the internalized prejudices that they harbor, and imagined that it was white, middle-class kindergartners from Kansas being pumped full of bleach or anally electrocuted, most would be ready to take up arms themselves. . . .

Those who may ethically support the ALF and the use of controversial means, but see it as a strategic mistake because of the negative impact on public opinion, have only themselves to blame. It is the failure of movement organizations and speakers to reframe the debate away from the tactic to the more substantive issues of animal exploitation. It is a tragic mistake and a setback for the animal rights movement to let the media determine our tactical agenda because of a fear of negative coverage" (270).

When one claims to be against speciesism, but would use certain tactics in the service of humans but not nonhumans, I have no choice but to say that's a profound contradiction (a.k.a., hypocrisy). I would, however welcome any explanation that says otherwise.

As for allowing a fear of negative coverage to determine tactical agenda, I see both sides of that, and agree with Karen Dawn (and I don't agree with her a lot of the time) in "From the Front Line to the Front Page"  (also in TOFF) that if the ALF had "a real battle plan" (228) with regard to the media, the messages that reach the public might be of a different, sympathetic sort. I think if you're going to do something that could very well come off looking negative, part of your plan (by necessity) should be components that address that. I think the negative coverage aspect can be neutralized and transformed. I also think the coverage could be framed as pro-animal and pro-justice rather than anti-human. Now, if you don't agree with anything the ALF does it doesn't matter, but to make your decision based on coverage that can be changed, that's a different story.

Then again, those involved with the ALF would have to do all the work. If we don't know what they're doing or when, our hands are tied. And if they don't communicate that their attitude toward the media has changed and that there will be a quasi public relations component built into their activities, those who don't support them because of negative coverage will continue to not support them.

On the Horse Slaughter Predicament

I had a tough time with the horse slaughter ban, as it's not as if it's going to stop anyone from using horses, and it could make their plight even worse because they would simply be transported to Canada and Mexico and killed there. In fact, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, horse slaughter businesses in Canada have grown by 75% since laws were passed in 2006 making it illegal to kill horses for food.

A central point in this particular discussion is regarding the difficulty of "humanely slaughtering" horses. I've seen some of the footage from plants in Canada, and it's horrifying. Of course, Temple Grandin is on the scene with recommendations.

This issue is a popular one down here in polo country, and "horse people" are emotional about it and all of the ones I know are vehemently anti-slaughter. They don't want them transported anywhere to be killed. However, they transport them all the time (in a much, much better fashion), and buy and sell them all the time as their needs and wants dictate, and it all seems a bit hypocritical to me. They don't want them killed: fine. But they also don't want to care for them for the rest of their lives. So what exactly do they want to happen to them?

Last week, a horse rescue group down here bought horses who were going to slaughter and brought them to a huge, gorgeous farm. This particular group is, from what I know, well-funded and able to care for the horses if they cannot adopt them all out (although there were well-over 100 of them, so I'm a bit skeptical). And the week prior, 160 horses were rescued from a sanctuary, whose owner abandoned them because she could no longer afford to care for them. They had to be rescued from their rescuer!

So what's the answer to the horse situation? I suppose:

• More sanctuaries.
• Educating people who use horses about the bigger picture, as in, you are taking responsibility for this life--are you in a position to do that?
• Campaign to ban the various uses of horses.
• Educate the public, who sporadically use horses for entertainment or sport, that they are complicit. If they don't like what ultimately happens to horses, they shouldn't participate in horse-using industries. It sounds obvious to you, but humans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize.

Speciesism is a significant part of the horse issue, as few people are campaigning for an end to the slaughter of cows and chickens. Being against horse slaughter is akin to being against the use of primates in labs. We should help people understand that the difference between horses and cows is in our minds. We have decided that one is more worthy of respect or life than the other.

This is not to say I'm for horse slaughter, as I'm not for the slaughter of anyone. The one thing we can do to help horses is the one thing we can do to help all animals. Convince people not to use them, so fewer and fewer of them are bred and fewer and fewer of them are killed or abandoned or forced to live their lives in the service of humans.