On the NYC Humane Education Resolution and “Radical Moves”
First, Rich (of Smoke fame) reminded me that there will be a vote and conference about the Humane Education resolution by the NYC Council on Dec. 16th. There is a law that "requires instruction on the humane care and treatment of animals, [but it] is unknown to most educators." Resolution 497 would help schools comply and hopefully bring funding. From the League of Humane Voters o New York City:
1) Call your Council Member and tell him or her that our kids deserve humane education. Urge a vote for Resolution 497. To find out who your Council Member is, click here or email us with your address: email@example.com.
2) Attend our press conference with HEART and Council Member Avella on the steps of City Hall on December 16th at noon. Afterwards, join us for the vote!
Voice your support! The passing of the resolution is just the first step, though. As Rich wrote to me: "The next step is getting the information and the money to the principals of every school and then figuring how to make the individual schools accountable."
That makes passing the resolution sound really easy in comparison. This is clearly an issue that NYC-folk need to stay on top of, and the rest of us need to explore in our own communities.
Next, and entirely unrelated, and let me just say I'm aware that I pick on the New York Times, but . . .
I've been hearing a lot about how bluefin tuna are about to leave the planet for good. And not because they want to, but because we're about to kill every last one of them. "Eat less sushi" I keep hearing, as if there's anybody in my sushi.
The new annual quota of 22,000 tons of bluefin far exceeds what scientists have advised, and as stated by the editorial board of the NYT (and all those e-mails I keep getting):
The Times then makes a connection that apparently has gone unnoticed or unacknowledged by the fishermen:" this new quota will ensure their own extinction too."
The editorial ends with:
Here's my question, as if you don't already know. Scientists asked for a limit of 8,000-15,000 tons. The international commission set it at 22,000, clearly respecting the guidance of the scientists.
Then the Times suggests a sharply reduced quota or a moratorium, and that's a radical move? Wasn't the radical move the 22,000, demonstrating utter disregard for the fish and the scientists? Futhermore, why is it radical to suggest a moratorium on killing in order to prevent species extinction? The moratorium as a tactic simply bolsters the population so we can resume the killing spree at a later date.
And that is one fact that does not go unacknowledged. Remember, the editorial ends with: "It is a radical move, but only a radical move will save the bluefin and the industry" (emphasis mine).