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.

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 Greyhounds and the Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Greyhound Extinction and Rodeos

The pro-Greyhound racing people are very much like pro-mushers, with their "they love to run" mantra. A mean-spirited, semi-rational person ranting about Porphyry's comment about breeding being the problem, asked me how I would feel when there were no more of my beloved Greyhounds.

For the record, I am neutral about the existence of Greyhounds, cows, fish and all other sentient nonhumans. I don't think of them as existing for me in any way. They exist for themselves. And if they don't, I don't consider myself as worse off in any way because they're not here for me.

Would I be sad if they didn't exist? Well, considering Greyhounds exist because we create them so we can use them, either for show or for sport, if we stopped breeding them I wouldn't have to spend the time, energy and money I do rescuing them and fighting for them. I don't think of adopting retired racers as gaining pets. I think of adopting them as a community service, as saving lives, and as a way to mitigate some of the enormous damage the industry has caused. I'd love to be able to say I don't feel like I have to do something to decrease some of the horror of this hideous industry that's in my backyard. Financially speaking, no more Greyhounds would spell much more money for me, as for instance Violet's expenses in the first year I had her were $15,000 because of what her owner and trainers did to her. Because she was created to make them money.

That doesn't mean Greyhounds aren't magnificent, regal creatures. It simply means they don't care how magnificent or regal they are; they just want to live in peace. I would question my commenter if he would be so disturbed by the extinction of Greyhounds if they were slow and unattractive.

Enough said about that.

As for rodeos, the charreada is to rodeos what the ALF is to animal rights. In "Rough Events at Mexican Rodeos in U.S. Criticized," by Patricia Leigh Brown in today's New York Times, the author describes the events at the charreada, which is a Mexican tradition (tradition: an excuse to get away with whatever we want by attaching it to our culture and thereby making it off limits or impervious to criticism). There's horse tripping, which self-explanatory, steer tailing, "in which a charro grabs a steer’s tail, wraps it beneath his stirrup and flips the animal to the ground," and old standbys like bronc riding, bull riding and team roping.

(When you watch the audio slideshow, you'll hear about the importance of roping the wild mare by both front legs, because you don't want to hurt the mare when you slam "the animal" to the ground. "It's an art, it's an art," says Marcos Franco.)

What I don't understand is why the charreada is any worse than the rodeos we're accustomed to. They share a premise: use and abuse animals for fun. They share what occurs: animals are tortured and people cheer. They share an illegitimate excuse for their continuation: tradition. What's the difference?

What's worse is that by painting the charreada as so cruel, it makes the American rodeo look moderate. The ALF makes PeTA look moderate (to most people), and the charreada makes our particular brand of bull, calf and bronc cruelty look less cruel by comparison, hence more palatable.

We have a lot of work to do. Somehow, we've got to break through the insanity of clinging to using sentient beings for fun. We've got to break through the mentality that says it's okay to do whatever we want to whomever we want, as long as our victim is not human. That's not a tradition worth continuing, and it's certainly not a tradition to be proud of.

Stay tuned for a deconstruction of Mark Bittman's latest plea to not stop eating animals, but eat fewer of them (actually, he says "eat less meat" not "eat fewer animals).

Greyhound Racing as a Barometer

Charles Hobson Booger III and Violet Rays aren't names you'd ever see in a sentence with the word "snuggly," just as Mary Martin isn't a name you'd see in a sentence with the words "good photographer." Nevertheless, I did manage to capture the first-ever moment of them intentionally touching each other.

I think of Greyhound racing as a barometer of the public's willingness to act in the best interest of sentient nonhumans. My reasoning is based on speciesism--that there is a certain kind of animal who is valued more than any other by humans. We call them our "best friend" and they have attained (more like we have anointed them with) special status. They're probably the nonhumans treated as close to humans as any nonhuman. They live with us, go to restaurants with us, and some of us even insist on dressing them like us.

For some reason, small dogs enjoy a close-to-human status that doesn't apply to large dogs, with the possible exception of the Afghan Hound. No one here in Palm Beach County dresses her Labrador Retriever in designer duds, meanwhile every breed of small dog has at least one dressy outfit for special occasions.

What I don't understand--from a welfare perspective or a rights perspective--is how there are still 34 dog tracks in 13 states. . . . why there are still 34 dog tracks in 13 states.

A few weeks ago, GREY2KUSA President Christine Dorchak and Executive Director Carey M. Theil met with lawmakers in Massachusetts to ask if they would make a citizens initiative to end dog racing into a law. In Massachusetts, legislators can do that; they can bypass the ballot process, take up the voter question, and decide to make it law. But the bill was rejected. Now, it will still appear before voters in November, and if it passes there will be no more racing in Massachusetts. However, my point is that if lawmakers, when handed the opportunity and provided evidence of hundreds of injuries including: paralysis, "degloving" (the skin of the tail is ripped off the body), broken necks, crushed skulls, and of course, broken legs, most of which end in the killing of the dogs (of course they call it "euthanasia," and many of the dogs could easily be treated but it doesn't make financial sense so they are killed instead), the lawmakers side with the track owners.

Imagine having your dog killed because she broke her leg? Then again, imagine having her live in a cage for 22 hours a day, often muzzled, resting on only a loose pile of shredded newspaper. (Greyhounds don't have a layer of fat other dogs have and they require thick, soft, cushions to be comfortable.)

Imagine having your dog killed because she isn't fast enough.

Is there any situation, it makes me wonder, where doing the right thing will ever trump the possibility to profit? (Yes, I'm aware I'm the person who doesn't think capitalism is the problem. But this is a question of human judgment.) If these were cows or chickens--or even horses (and yes, they are in a similar situation), I would more easily understand, as they have always been resources for us. But dogs are supposed to be different to us. We claim they are different.

I look at what our actions tell Greyhounds about our dedication to our "best friends" and I ask myself: What hope do the cows and chickens have of every being free when we can't even do the right thing for dogs?

For more information or to help end dog racing, contact GREY2KUSA (for which your contributions are not tax deductible), the GREY2KUSA Education Fund (for which they are), and the site for The Greyhound Protection Act (which, despite the name will end Greyhound racing in Massachusetts).

Ronnie Lee on the ALF

Because the ALF discussion has a tad of momentum, I thought this was a good time to hear from Ronnie Lee, one of the founders of the ALF. His interview with Claudette Vaughan at Abolitionist-Online might be helpful when you're thinking about where you stand. Mr. Lee presents a brief history and I believe he answers many questions that come up over and over again in relation to the ALF, direct action in general, and violence. You might be surprised by what he says. (My commentary, as always, is italicized.)

Here are some of the passages that struck me:

• I think a wide range of different activities need to come together to actually defeat animal abuse and a hell of a lot of it will come through the use of education, because if you look at the greatest area of animal abuse it’s the rearing and slaughter of animals for food. The best way to combat that is to educate people to become vegan and that doesn’t involve direct action at all. I’m not going to criticize anyone who wants to put a brick through a butchers shop window. I’ve done that many times myself, but a more fundamental way is to educate people. An educational effort won’t change everybody, but it can make a difference with many, many people.
• I don’t think anything useful will come out of the major political parties, so the Greens are probably the best bet in terms of making things better for animals and obtaining social justice for people too. We now have a political party in England called “The Party for Animals” but they are only single-issue, so, in my opinion, it's better to support the Greens. I'm no longer an anarchist, like I was in my younger days. I've come to the conclusion that, as with all other animals, there's a very strong pull within most humans to follow leaders. Rather than try to fight this reality, we need to take account of it in our battle for animal liberation. Sadly, those who advocate anarchism allow the bad guy to lead, because they say that not even the good guys should be leaders. Advocates of animal liberation need to seize political power, if we really want to have things our way.
• To achieve animal liberation we need to change the way people behave and there are two ways of doing that - education and coercion. Educate those we can educate into behaving properly towards animals and force the others to do so, through legislation etc. Most people will never lift a finger to oppose animal persecution. We have to accept that. They are too busy watching soap operas or Big Brother. However, this public apathy could be advantageous once we seize power, as it would mean that most people would not resist legislation passed by a pro animal liberation government. We need to get active in the political process, in my view through the Green party, with a view to one day forming a government that will pass stringent animal protection legislation. If you succeed in educating people but, at the end of the day, there’s no-one for those people to vote for, half the potential benefit of educating those people is lost. (I was surprised by this one!)
• If I see a picture of a person torturing an animal I don’t think, “Oh my God, that poor animal”. I think “That bloody bastard. I want to stop them”. That’s probably the difference between what makes a campaigner and what makes a rescuer. We just want the animals to be left alone.
  
  It’s about changing people's attitudes and it’s about changing the way that people behave. People only ever change their behaviour for 2 reasons. One reason is because they want to and the other reason is because they are too frightened not to. We have to educate people, so that they want to change, but we also have to make it so they have got to, or else. I know that sounds very stark, but that is the actual reality of what we are up against. We live in the middle of a holocaust for animals. If you begin to think in terms of 1% of what happens to animals, your mind would just explode. You know it’s happening but you can’t go into it because you’d just be destroyed by it but what I think we have to do is concentrate on how to stop it, develop good strategies for stopping it and try to think in terms of what works and not waste time on things that don’t really work. Each area of animal abuse has its weakest link, where we need to exert pressure in order to bring it to an end.
• [L]ast year a local branch of greyhound protection group Greyhound Action were running a campaign to close the dog track at Glastonbury Stadium. This consisted of demos, leafleting, street stalls etc. Then bang, bang, bang, the ALF carried out three damage attacks on the stadium and the guy in charge there decided to close the track. To their credit, Greyhound Action didn't condemn the ALF, like other similar "peaceful" organisations have done in the past, but accepted that there was "no doubt that the ALF actions contributed significantly" to the closure of the dog track and even went so far as to say that they were "quite sure such activists would be regarded as heroes" by greyhounds persecuted by the dog racing industry. (Violet Rays and Charles Hobson Booger, III are delighted by the track closure, as am I.)
• Obviously I’m happy with how effective the ALF has been, but, if I were back again now at the beginning, I would do things differently. In terms of my input into the ALF there are three things I would do differently today. (Teaser--you have to go to the article to find out what they are, and you might be astonished to find out what they are.)
• The discussion about PeTA at the end of the interview is particularly useful for anyone new to PeTA, as if you don't like the organization now, you probably would have when it started. For me, it is nearly unrecognizable now.
• [W]hat many of the large organisations tend to do is constantly start new campaigns while ending those that have been running for a certain amount of time, even if those original campaigns haven’t achieved their objectives. This is because the main aim isn’t to win campaigns, but to get money. It’s a huge problem, which involves many of the larger national organisations, even some of the better, more radical ones.
• Finally, though, I would like to state quite firmly that this is a war we are definitely winning. I don't know about that one. Maybe you'll agree with his rationale, which is UK-specific. I certainly don't feel like we're winning here in the US.

What do you agree with/disagree with? Does the interview bolster your beliefs or does it make you think differently about anything?

On Retractable Leashes and Tiny Victories

People who adopt Greyhounds are given quite a few speeches about what to do and not to do and they're all for the safety of the pooch and everyone around her, though they can seem a bit over-the-top for the average never-had-a-dog person (that was me until 5 years ago).

One of the speeches is about the dangers of retractable leashes and how you should never, ever use one with a Greyhound. The speech includes horrible stories, and last summer there was one such story involving a terrified dog, a retractable leash, and a pole. The dog died.

I've seen blog posts, forum posts and articles about the evils of the retractable leash, with the opposite side saying if it's in the hands of an experienced person and a well-trained dog, there should be no problems.

What I didn't think of until yesterday, was that little dogs on retractable leashes (not one person in my neighborhood has anything other than a retractable leash for their dog, and none are of the ribbon variety) can wreak havoc on a large dog, particularly when the small dog isn't at all trained and a 7-year old is holding the leash.

I live on a village green and the kids from the area always come running to Violet and Charles and hug and kiss them. The kids range in age from 4-14 and come in groups of 5-8, see the dogs from a block away, and run at them.

I've been walking the dogs separately because Charles tore his groin and isn't allowed to exercise much. So there I was, with Violet, and the kids come running. One is holding a leash and on the other end is a tiny yorky-ish dog who proceeds to jump all over Violet, which is fine. What ordinarily happens with a small dog is I ask if he's friendly, and if I get an affirmative (I always do, as the grown-ups usually walk the unfriendly dogs), he jumps at her face, kisses her, all is swell, I chat with the youngins for a bit and move on.

But after "kisses," the little dog goes running in and out of Violet's legs so quickly that within seconds her legs are tied together. All of the kids panic and scream, the little girl pulls and pulls and my 62-pound dog, begins to shriek and is slammed to the ground like one of those poor calves in a rodeo--by a 7-year old girl. Violet is completely terrified and someone's gonna get hurt.

I shout at the kids, in a very controlled way, to stand back and calm down (that last part was more like a wish, evidently), and I tell the girl to give me the leash. The little dog is still pulling and Violet is growling and trying to get up. Violet miraculously gets up on her own but her legs are tied together and she's upset. She snaps at me once as I reach for her legs, but then stands motionless as I untangle her, give the girl the leash and say something I probably shouldn't have said about what can happen with that kind of leash if everyone isn't really careful.

Violet has rope burns on her legs from the leash (Greyhounds have unbelievably thin skin and I'm lucky it only got burned) and I feel like the worst doggy mommy in the galaxy.

But it could have been worse and I have officially learned an important lesson. It doesn't matter what kind of dog or leash you have if the other person is 7-years old, not paying attention, and has an untrained, yippy dog on a retractable leash.

Finally, I know most of you are going to laugh when I call this a victory, but I've been writing Oprah Winfrey for years about her obsession with pure breed dogs. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why would I write her? Because millions of people care about what she does and says and will change their lives because of her. Lucky for animal people, Oprah has taped a show to air this Friday that features a Lisa Ling puppy Mill investigation and Oprah has had a change of mind regarding her own behavior.

"I would never, ever adopt another pet now without going to a shelter to do it. I am a changed woman after seeing this show," she says.

I think that's great, although I'm reserving final judgment until after I watch the show as I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be all kinds of disclaimers about allegedly conscientious breeders. I find it hard to believe she'll come down against breeding in general, but stranger things have happened.

Stay tuned . . .

Horrifying News for Greyhounds

It is with utter devastation that I must report that Greyhounds in Miami-Dade are doomed. Due to the passage of Question #3, thanks to a $5 million campaign by the bloodsport industry, slot machines will be added to the tracks, thereby propping up a dying industry.

The losers, of course, are the dogs.

With this development (and one in Broward from 2005), it will be very, very difficult to work toward the abolition of Greyhound racing in South Florida. Check out "Second Time's the Charm for Miami Dade Slot Machines," by Mike Clary, who at no point mentions the effect on Greyhounds.

Vote NO on Question 3 to Help Greyhounds

If you live in Miami-Dade or know anyone who does, remember today's mantra:

Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.

Question 3 isn't actually about Greyhound racing; it's about adding slot machines to the tracks. Slot machines bring in money, thereby helping the tracks (which are dying) stay alive. And maybe even expand.

Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.
Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.
Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.
Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.
Vote No on Question 3 if you want to end Greyhound racing.

Thank you.

Miami-Dade Residents: Help Dogs and Horses

Miami-Dade (Florida) residents can help the Greyhound racing industry continue to die by Voting No on The Special Election Ballot: County Question No. 3

(here's an approximation of what you'll see):

OFFICIAL SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA    JANUARY 29, 2008

County Question No. 1
Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter Amendment Relating to the Qualifying Dates for Certain County Elected Offices

Shall the Charter be amended to move the candidate qualifying period for certain Miami-Dade County elected offices three weeks earlier, in accordance with State law?

YES                40         
NO                41         

County Question No. 2
Home Rule Charter Amendment Changing Property Appraiser from an Appointed to an Elected Office

Shall the Charter be amended to provide for the transfer of the duties of the County Property Appraiser from a person appointed and supervised by the Mayor to a person elected and subject to recall by the voters?

YES                43         
NO                44    

County Question No. 3
Slot Machines Limited to Existing Horse and Dog Tracks and Jai Alai Frontons

YES                    46
NO                      47

Vote NO . . . . . 47

If gambling doesn't expand, the dog and horse racing industries will continue to die. The track owners know this to be true, so they're pushing hard to add slots wherever they can. The owner of the Flagler Dog Track has told the Miami Herald, ''Our goal is to keep this place operating until we get slots." It's crucial to not allow slots and allow the market to speak for itself. The reality is that the people have already spoken, and they don't want to continue to see dogs used, injured, maimed and slaughtered for the profit of the track and dog owners.

Florida has a hideous record of flagrant abuse of dogs, not including the 20 hours or more spent in a cage lying on newspaper clippings and often muzzled (though I must say it doesn't hold a candle to Tucson's outrageous behavior, which includes dogs disappearing into the ether).

For those new to this issue, here's the story, as stated by www.greyhoundracingsucks.com:

One of the biggest obstacles to ending greyhound racing is that the greyhound racing industry is aggressively lobbying to bring slot machines and/or video gambling into many tracks throughout the country. Although interest in dog racing has been in steady decline over the last 10 years, the addition of these machines will enable track owners to fill the tracks with presumably a different group people who are simply interested in casino style gambling. With this scenario, the greyhounds become a side show that people really don't care about but must exist in order for the tracks to stay open and house the extremely lucrative video gambling & slot machines.

You may wonder, why not just get rid of the dog racing and just let them have the slot machines? The most logical reasons for continuing to operate the live dog racing part of the business are (a) because the tracks are only licensed as pari-mutuel facilities and must have live dog racing, and (b) the presence of live dog racing makes the idea of video gambling and slot machines much more palatable for politicians and the state legislature which may be reluctant to support an outright casino, but think dog racing is harmless and fun. Basically these poor dogs are being bred and killed in droves for the sole reason of enabling track owners to further enrich themselves by entering into the lucrative business of slot machine and video gambling.

The most frightening thing is that if the tracks are allowed to introduce casino style gambling, and the state starts getting its cut of the profit, it will be nearly impossible to end dog racing in that state. It is much easier to encourage lawmakers to get rid of dog racing because it is cruel and inhumane AND it is failing economically. If this additional type of gambling is introduced, it will be very difficult to convince a state government desperately in need of revenue, to get rid of a lucrative, tax paying, gambling business.

Go to Grey2kUSA.org for more.

Race cars, not dogs.

On a Plan for Incremental Abolition?

That's Charles on the beach on Christmas morning, shortly after sunrise. I managed to get wiped out by a wave as I was coaxing him into the water (unsuccessfully). Now that would've been a great photo. Violet had no interest in the water, choosing instead to search for dead fish and munch on their carcasses. Nice.

And now back to our regularly scheduled deconstructing and kvetching.

When I read "Tiger Escapes S.F. Zoo Cage and Kills 1" by Louise Chu this morning, my first thought was: Why do zoo people insist on keeping animals who continue to maul people? Frankly, this tells me that the zoo people don't have the best interests of people in mind when planning whom to buy or breed next for their menageries.

This seems like a no-brainer in terms of abolition: Remove big cats from zoos. Not because it's utterly wrong to keep them, but because they're killing people! Why? Because they're wild cats whose needs cannot possibly be adequately met in a zoo! I don't ever expect a zoo person to sincerely consider the needs of the animals, but I do expect him to consider the needs of people. The zoos are for people, anyway, so why would you continue to have exhibits that maim or kill your customers? Isn't that irresponsible?

In February of this year, I wrote about other maulings by big cats and raised the topic of incremental abolition. Isn't there enough evidence of the kind that zoo people might find compelling that zoos don't make good homes for wild cats? Zoos as an industry aren't going anywhere any time soon. The whole concept isn't going to get banned, but why not work on the most egregious cases and dismantle zoos one animal at a time? Marine mammals, for instance, who are accustomed to traveling thousands of miles, cannot possible have a satisfactory life in a tank. I don't care how big it is. If it were a mile long, that still would be woefully inadequate. And big cats, who continue to express their discontent by making their ingenious escapes and maiming people, clearly need to be somewhere else.

Here's my Gray Matter: Is this like when Americans were convinced that "red meat" was bad for them and now nine billion chickens are tortured and slaughtered a year because we eat less red meat? We vegans don't tell non-vegans to give up one animal at a time, as that just causes them to eat more of the remains of whomever remains. Instead, we say: Go one day a week without eating animals, and increase to two days, etc..., right? So why would we campaign for getting big cats out of zoos? Isn't their suffering going to be replaced with the suffering, perhaps qualitatively different, of other animals?

Working to ban Greyhound racing is different, as it's not going to be replaced with any other animal racing. But is it a good idea to work for the banning of certain animals from zoos? I'd rather (and I do) spend time educating at the consumer level to get people to boycott zoos, as that hits the entire industry and sends a message I'm comfortable with (i.e., no matter what, zoos are not okay).

This does seem like a great time to suggest that big cats be removed from zoo collections and sent to sanctuaries (where they can continue to maul people. Anyone getting the message? Three hundred pound predators aren't that easily controlled. Maybe we should throw in the towel and stop trying.). I'm just worried about after-effects on other animals, whose numbers--and misery--will likely increase in the absence of the cats.

Anyone have any thoughts? Is it worth it to campaign for the removal of certain animals (elephants, whales, big cats) from zoos?

On Internet Puppies as Christmas Gifts

In a stunning discovery that will rock the foundation of the animal-exploitation industry, it has been revealed that Internet-Ordered Pups Are Frequently Imported, Diseased (click "Read" to go to the original article). I know, I know, you're thinking, "How could that be?"

There are over a dozen comments on the ABC News site regarding this article, and here are a couple of concerns I have:

• How can we begin to educate the kind of person who would go onto the Internet to buy a puppy, when within a dozen miles of their house, there's probably a shelter, and when Petfinder.com is so easy to use? Who are these people? Where are these people? It's a given that they have Internet access, which means they can be reached via the Internet, but that's the easy part. Anyone have any ideas? If tens of thousands of puppies are coming into the country in crates, it's because there's a demand for them. How can we reach the "consumers" of these animals and get them to think for a moment about what they're doing? Trying to educate the suppliers, for me, is futile as they exhibit a dearth of conscience and ethics that I cannot even begin to deal with. I'd never try to convince a Greyhound farmer to grow a conscience and get out of the business, but I can easily convince people who go to the track without really thinking about what they're doing to stop going to the track. Consumers, in my experience and observation, are easily manipulated if they're not doing something on principle. People who would get a puppy on the Internet are being manipulated by somebody, how do we get them away from those somebodies and press them to think about all of the issues involved in what they think is a quick and cheap decision and transaction? Anyone . . . anyone . . .

• One of the comments on the ABC site, by aprillbonner, was telling:

Rescue places are VERY hard to work with. We tried for about 6 weeks to find an adoptable Dalmatian . . . They would not even consider us if we were out of state, didn't have an installed fence, wouldn't agree to being randomly inspected and agreeing to having the dog taken back if they did not like our care! It's no wonder that people turn to puppy mills. I even talked to some breeders who wanted to insure we would feed the puppies certain food (BARF diet). I completely understand asking for some references, including a vet reference--but the other stuff is out of control!  . . . Breeders and Rescue places are pushing people to these puppy mills; it's a lot easier.

Part of me is enraged that aprillbonner is so upset about all of the requirements. Rescuers know better than anyone the kinds of people who will breed or have pets and what the animals must endure, and they work very hard to make sure they don't then give their charges to other abusers!

When you adopt a Greyhound, you most--often must do so locally and indeed agree to random checks. And you must have a fenced in area. And they come to your house and interview you and inspect the dog's potential new home. And ask for a vet reference. And see what you know about dog food and suggest some food. And they can take the dog back if you aren't treating the dog well, and though that is a bit dicey, it sends a message: Rescuers are serious about finding good homes for the dogs. They'd rather foster more dogs or have more at their kennel and home, where they know they won't be mistreated, than blithely hand dogs off to people at the asking. I think that's how it should be. Does the Department of Children and Families give away children or ship them to you over the Internet without lots of questions and bureaucracy?  No. And though children and dogs aren't the same, they're similar enough in this situation, and those who are caring for them temporarily take finding them homes very seriously.

When I was looking for Violet (whom I found on Petfinder), I originally wanted a "broken leg hound" (there are plenty of them, most people don't want them, and they will probably need special care). I inquired but was rejected because I'm over 100 miles from where the dogs are and the people who run the place want to make sure they can always check on the dogs. And I think that's admirable.

The part of me that isn't enraged by aprillbonner goes back to my first point. She (I'm assuming) is probably right that people go to puppy mills because rescuers (and some breeders, apparently) make things difficult. How do we reach the "dog-consuming public" and help them ponder the many factors and issues that they are making decisions about completely unconciously? It should be difficult to adopt a dog. Would you give your dog to just anyone if you were suddenly thrust into a situation where you could no longer keep her?

I'm one of those people who thinks we should have to have a license to have a child, so all of this is in line with what I have observed: too many people approach (having children and) buying animals as a fun kind of acquisition that they believe should be cute and entertaining and not change one's life too much or inconvenience anyone. It's no wonder in a society with so many throw-away children as we have, that we wouldn't treat our "best friends" any better.

Until we approach the act of caring for someone who might die on their own without us far more seriously than we do now, we will continue to treat dogs like trendy Christmas gifts, to be enjoyed for a few weeks then neglected and/or discarded. I don't know how to do this, but somehow we've got to change our nation's perception regarding the having of pets. The idea is to give someone a safe, loving home, not to give someone a new toy.

On Vegan Dogs and Vegan Sea Turtles

Yesterday, while I was busy complaining about a reference to the green sea turtle as a "vegan" rather than an "herbivore," the commenter known as the bunny was busy compiling quotes from Animal Person where I refer to my Greyhounds as vegans.

Busted, indeed!

I go to my trusty Oxford English Dictionary where I learn/relearn that in 1944, Donald Watson's November 2 issue of Vegan News states:

Vegetarian and Fruitaraian are already associated with societies that allow the ˜fruits of cows and fowls, therefore..we must make a new and appropriate word... I have used the title The Vegan News. Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet, and we should aspire to the rank of vegans.

Perhaps more important is the definition: A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

I know, I know, veganism doesn't equal strict vegetarianism these days, as the latter involves only food. What I'm most concerned with is "A person who on principle abstains." According to those words, a vegan must be a person. But let's try a more liberal interpretation and say the person doesn't have to be a human person. Now we're left with "who on principle abstains."

The green sea turtle is an odd creature as far as sea turtles go, eating worms, jelly fish and aquatic insects as well as plant matter as a hatchling and juvenile, and transitioning to a diet of plant matter only as an adult. The green's teeth, digestive enzymes, and length of intestines are all what tell us they're herbivores. Just like the teeth, enzymes, and length of intestines (and jaw, etc...) tell us that dogs are in the carnivore family.

Now, what they can eat and maintain health and even thrive on, may in fact be something other than what they are.

The principle of choosing to abstain from animal products cannot be applied to dogs or cats whom we have decided will eat a plant-based diet. The dog isn't a vegan, as that would imply her choice to abstain.

So what about all of the vegan children who eat plant-based diets because that's what their parents choose to feed them? Are they really vegans? The physiology of the human does certainly scream "herbivore," but can you call a child a vegan when she has not made that choice for herself?

Richard Dawkins has often been said to believe that raising a child in a religion is a form of child abuse. Here's one of his responses:

What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

I agree. It follows, then, that people who feed their dogs or children plant-based diets, should not be referring to their vegan children or vegan dogs. The most important concept in vegan other than animal-free, is the conscious choice. And though language certainly is like a living organism, always evolving, it would be disappointing for vegan to evolve to exclude the moral deliberation necessary to make the choice.

On Abolishing Greyhound Racing in MA

When it comes to low-hanging fruit and abolition, getting Greyhound racing banned in Massachusetts, where there are only two tracks, would seem to be a good choice (as opposed to Florida, where there are over a dozen tracks). But pro-racing and pro-gambling interests have far more money to spend on their campaign to continue to create and profit from dogs and discard them when/if they're not profitable than pro-Greyhound people have to spend trying to shut them down and save the hounds, making the outcome by no means clear.

A group of volunteers including, of course, the folks at Grey2K USA, has collected the over 100,000 signatures needed to put a referendum on the ballot that will phase out racing in Massachusetts by 2010 (phasing out is clearly not optimal for the dogs, but it is better for the people, and the reality is that if people don't get concessions, dogs are unlikely to get anything).

Naturally, the debate about racing is most often about suffering and cruelty, and as in all other cases where that is the focus, it is largely a he said/she said situation, with pro-Greyhound people providing statistics that pro-racing (anti-Greyhound?) people refute, either before or after they say that the dogs love to run. As if that's the point. Go to www.protectdogs.org if you want to see what it's like for racing hounds in Massachusetts, although pro-racing interests will always find a way to make it sound like the dogs are as comfortable and as happy as they are at my house.

As Marissa Dirks of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at Harvard Law School recently wrote in "Work to End Greyhound Racing in Massachusetts:"

If you are a Massachusetts resident and have not added your voice to the chorus, please call 617-666-3526. A few years ago, Massachusetts residents succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot, but it was very narrowly defeated. The racing industry spent unlimited funds airing insincere ads which depicted priests and small kids enjoying a "day at the dog park." One employee even claimed that watching the races helps children with their math and reading skills! Taunton dog park owner George Carney and Revere dog park owner Charles Sarkin have been making campaign contributions for over 40 years to the state legislature to protect their business interests in the dog tracks. Please join SALDF and help defeat this special interest.

The Greyhound Racing Association of America contends:

• Greyhounds love to race and chase by instinct. Absolutely true. Also absolutely irrelevant.
• The prevention of injuries is a top priority of the industry, and it funds research into veterinary issues. I don't think any owner or trainer wants a dog to get injured, as that would nix the probability of profit. So let's say that this one is true, although the phrase "a top priority" seems a bit of a stretch.
• Greyhounds are kept in kennels and are allowed out for light exercise several times a day. Like to pee and poop. Face it. they spend their lives in a cage.
• Ninety percent of retired greyhounds are adopted. Let's assume that's true. Some of the other 10% are killed, and the "best" females must spend the rest of their lives being repeatedly raped and pumping out pups-with-promise. And when they're spent? Do they live a life of luxury? No. They too are discarded. If owners loved the dogs the way they often claim to, why would they instantly discard them when they're no longer profitable, and not even pay for their spaying or neutering? If they really cared about the dogs, they'd take them back to their farm and give them a wonderful life there, and permit them to run whenever they wanted to and never cage them again. The percentage of dogs adopted, whatever it is, is due mostly to the hard work of volunteers who rescue and care for the dogs--and pay for their medical care.

Would anyone advocate for treating pet dogs the way racers are treated? Of course not. The fact that they love to run is not some kind of permission to treat that running--and the dog attached to it--as a commodity and "produce" dogs purely for profit.

I hope the legislation passes. However, I don't happen to have too much faith in the legislative process when it comes to animals. One thing I do have faith in is the power of the dollar. Educate those around you, according to whatever their hot button is, about Greyhound racing so they don't go to the track to do anything. There are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that having a drink at the track or playing poker there doesn't support dog racing. Their faulty (non-existent?) logic needs to be revealed, and if they claim to care about dogs, they should cease their track-going.

The good news for dogs is that people have indeed been voting with their dollars and not going to the track, hence attempts to prop up the industry with slot machines and other forms of gambling. The industry is dying, but it keeps getting revived enough to continue the misery for the dogs.

As for the argument that it provides people with jobs, if there were a sweatshop filled with children in your town, would you campaign to keep it because it gives people jobs and helps the economy? No, because it's wrong to use children to make a profit. Well, children and dogs might not have that much in common, but they do share one trait--the one that matters. They are sentient. And breeding them for the sole reason of profiting from their innate abilities and drives, is unethical.

On PVC, Perverted "Artists" and Pamphlets

First, check out this kitschy cartoon about vinyl from the folks at the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. It's silly, but you can forward it to clueless friends and it might be helpful to them. It also makes you think twice about those vinyl shoes. I tend not to like the feel of vinyl shoes and prefer neoprene sock-like boots and shoes, which as far as I know are just a synthetic rubber.

Next, though I'm not all that certain that petitions are effective, they do take a nanosecond to sign, and Tricia informed me that there's an "artist" in Costa Rica who, as part of his art installation, starved an already ill and hungry street dog TO DEATH as one "piece" in the show, and used dog food to create another "piece" in the same show. The petition is in Spanish, and here's the translation. You simply add your name, city/state, and USA. There are nearly 300,000 signatures on the petition. The entire story can be read, in English, at Greyhound International, (a UK-based organization). Check them out. The sickest thing of all is that in the photo (there are several), the people standing around the gallery don't look at all upset or affected by the dying dog on-a-rope in the corner of the room.

Ah, and finally: I finished that bleepin' pamphlet I've been yakking about for two months, thanks to some last-minute help from Deb Durant and several people who didn't even know I was writing a pamphlet, and who are now shocked to know what I think about on a daily basis. I'm going to Kinko's, as I've only printed them from home, to see what the process is like, what paper works best (for me, as I'm sending one to everyone I know as a holiday greeting of sorts), and if there are any unexpected problems that will leave me reeling and starting over.

I suspect I'll post it tomorrow, with an intro on The Animal Person Minute, if all goes well today.

 

On Anti-Greyhound Racing Crusaders and Extreme Horse Races

I was happily reading "One Woman's Crusade to Ban Greyhound Racing," by Cynthia Anderson at The Christian Science Monitor, when something not-so-thrilling caught my eye.

But first, applause to Christine Dorchak, who spends her days (and has for well over a decade) doing everything she can that is legal and nonviolent, to abolish greyhound racing in the United States. It wasn't always that way, though, but after nearly dying and being in a coma for several weeks, she decided to attend law school at night and dedicate herself to passing legislative bans on dog racing.

Is she a vegan? I have no idea. Nor do I care. She (and Carey Theil, the executive director of Grey2k USA) works tirelessly to end the use and abuse of greyhounds for entertainment, sport and gambling. And for that, she's a hero of mine.

Of course, as a day doesn't go by when I don't read a horrible story about an animal, right next to the story about Christine Dorchak was "Extreme Horse Racing: Where Man and Beast Both Run," by Tom A. Peter, about a "ride and tie" event where teams composed of two people and one horse race for anywhere from four to 100 miles. Oh, wait, the horse races for four-100 miles and the people take turns running and riding "it" (the horse). Let's deconstruct:

"The race starts with one person running and the other riding. At least six times during the competition, the rider – who has gone well ahead of the runner – must get off the horse; tie it to a tree, bush, or whatever he or she can find; and begin a leg of running. The first runner catches up to the horse, mounts it, rides past his running teammate, ties the horse, and starts running again."

Must be really fun for the horse.

"It's based on a historic means of transportation," says Bud Johns, the sport's creator. "When two people had a long distance to go and only one horse between them, how did [they] maximize the fact that [they had] a horse? The horse can't carry both people very far, and if one person is riding, then the other person's not benefiting."

Yeah, and it's 2007. Haven't horses done enough for us yet? More accurately, haven't we taken enough from them yet? Meanwhile, the horses aren't even mentioned until bottom of the final page of the article.

"If someone becomes overly competitive, vet checks safeguard horses from being overridden. In races 20 miles or longer, horses pass through at least one vet check during the race and afterwards they must be declared fit to continue or the team gets disqualified."

Somehow none of that makes me feel better.

The camaraderie is fitting for a sport where contestants tow horses in trailers for hours, or days, to events, and pay $100 race fees – all for the glory of winning a horse blanket or water bottle. The only cash prizes are for the world championship, where the top prize is $1,000.

So a horse may be towed for days . . . for what? The ego of his owner?

"People will say you're crazy," says Lieberman [a 67-year old "competitor"]. "But they use it, I think, in a positive way.... Not that you're just off, but that you're doing something very special that most people are unable to do."

I beg to differ. Lots of people can ride a horse, stop, and then ride him some more. But can Leiberman do what the horse does? That would be "very special."

The Animal Person Minute: On Online Forums

Our photo today is, once again, of Violet Rays, and the difference is that today, the photo's a good one. After about 300 tries I think I finally have a photo I can include in my brochure entitled, "Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: What you need to know, what you need to question."

Today's topic: two new (or new to me) forums.
1. www.veganadam.com
2. www.animalsuffering.com/forum and also www.animalrightscommunity.com/abolitionists/

The Animal Person Minute: On Greyhound Racing and Horse Slaughtering

While in Princeton over the weekend I was accused of favoring Charles in my blog. I have a gazillion photos of Violet to choose from, but not with my new camera, though, so they don't count. Once again, here's Charles. I was trying to get him with his ears up, and I wanted to show his musculature, and they best I could do was one ear and a couple of muscles. And that was after about thirty tries. I gave up. And this is all you're gonna get.

I've got two topics today, one is a genuine abolitionist victory: two more greyhound tracks will be closing for live racing. One is in Wichita, Kansas, which is especially thrilling for me as Kansas actually changed its legislation to exclude greyhounds from the designation of dog (because they're not bred as pets), thereby making them unable to reap any benefits of pet protection laws. When it comes to abolishing greyhound racing, which is already dying, what Grey2k USA does is fights attempts to add slot machines and other types of gambling to the tracks. The gambling props up the industry, thereby preventing the dogs from being freed of being forced to race. The industry's still dying, but with subsidies, slot machines and poker rooms, it's kept alive.

Last week, Kansas voters rejected a proposal to approve slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park, and without that boost in income, the track would not be able to survive and its owner, Phil Ruffin, who has been losing $200,000 a month, has said he'll close it. Talk about a bad investment!

The other track to end live racing, due to "dismal attendance figures," is Tampa Greyhound track, that "will cease live racing indefinitely after the conclusion of August 18th's evening performance." Evening performance? The poker room will remain open and simulcasting of races from other tracks will continue, as well. The track will supposedly care for the greyhounds housed at the facility until adoptive homes are found. So if you or anyone you know lives in or near Tampa (tater, I'm talking to you), think about adding a greyhound to your home. You won't regret it.

There are 36 operational tracks remaining in 13 states, with Florida, of course, being the biggest loser of a state with the most tracks, by far. If you live in a state where there's a track, I'm sure you're telling everyone not to go, as greyhounds aren't here for us to make money off of. But what you also need to do is tell your gambling friends to stay away from tracks that have poker rooms and slot machines, as every time they go to the track, even to play poker, they're hurting the dogs because they're helping keep the track alive.

The other topic for today comes from Ted Pappas, the Executive Director of Encyclopedia Brittanica, which as a blog that had a post about horse slaughter in America yesterday written by Gregory McNamee. Now, I don't know if anyone at Encyclopedia Brittanica knows anything about abolition, but I think this is a fine time to enter a mainstream national discussion in a civil, informative, non-hostile way. Though I don't think anyone in their right mind is for the slaughter of horses, I understand the place culture plays in this discussion, similar to the dogfighting discussion, and I see the fetish aspect, I'm somewhat appalled that so many people are in an uproar over the slaughter of maybe a couple hundred thousand horses, while ten billion animals in the unfortunate position of being less culturally esteemed, get slaughtered in ways just as brutal or worse, and most people don't bat an eyelash.

There's a fabulous opportunity to address animals as property in the post, with the following: "[I]ndustry lobbyists set to work mounting a vigorous opposition on the Senate side, one that centered on the argument that animals constitute private property and so banning the slaughter was an unconstitutional restraint of trade." This is one of those times when the property component is front and center, and not just from an abolitionist's point of view. I'll be commenting as soon as I can. When you comment, remember that most Americans don't understand that animal welfare doesn't equal animal rights, and when people say animal rights they're not necessarily talking about the same thing. Be clear and concise with whatever you decide to write, and be kind.