Animal Writings

Sierra Club president Larry Fahn is worried that several of the candidates running for Director are a threat to the democracy of the group. So he's sending out letters telling people who to vote for.

Amount spent annually by the National Cancer Institute promoting fruits and vegetables: $1 million

Amount spent annually by MacDonalds promoting its products: $800 million

Many wildlife refuges in the U.S. allow hunting. What kind of refuge is that?

And I'm not talking about deer hunting, to "manage" the herd. I'm talking about hunting birds that manage quite well on their own.

The state of Virgina has permanently enshrined hunting as a right, by adding it as an entitlement in the state constitution. I would like an amendment that protects our right to play golf. Golfing, like hunting, has a proud heritage. Plus there are more golfers than hunters.

More seriously, how about the right to wild areas that don't have hunting? Places where both people and animals don't have to worry about being hit by bullets.

According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, last June Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia were wed in a private ceremony at a small Buddhist temple outside Manila, The Philippines. Justice Scalia emphatically denies that his partnership with Cheney will impact his ability to judge the Vice President fairly in an upcoming Supreme Court case.

During their extended courtship, Cheney and Scalia exchanged various engagement presents in undisclosed locations. Cheney was fond of giving Scalia boxer shorts covered in Haiku verse, while Scalia's most memorable gift to his betrothed was an election victory.

Details of the wedding remain sketchy. It is rumored that the pair went duck-hunting for their honeymoon. "But we didn't share the same duck blind," noted Scalia, with a wink.

"I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil."

-Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic

"Piglets in confinement operations are weaned from their mothers 10 days after birth (compared with 13 weeks in nature) because they gain weight faster on their hormone- and antibiotic-fortified feed. This premature weaning leaves the pigs with a lifelong craving to suck and chew, a desire they gratify in confinement by biting the tail of the animal in front of them. A normal pig would fight off his molester, but a demoralized pig has stopped caring. 'Learned helplessness' is the psychological term, and it’s not uncommon in confinement operations, where tens of thousands of hogs spend their entire lives ignorant of sunshine or earth or straw, crowded together beneath a metal roof upon metal slats suspended over a manure pit."

- From Why Vegan.

It's incredibly easy to help the pigs: quit eating them. From now on buy veggie bacon, the vegan kind without the eggs (in factory farms, egg-laying hens have it as bad or worse than pigs.). You'll like it.

When pigs are slaughtered, sometimes they squeal, they scream. Author Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson reminds us that this is the same sound they make when calling to their mothers for help.

D.E.L.T.A. Rescue (DR), a California-based cat and dog rescue group, is waging a silly and unjustified smear campaign against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). In a mailing that I received this week, DR goes on ad nauseum about presumed shadowy, sinister motives of the HSUS.

I am not the HSUS's biggest fan, but I think they're a good organization. There is nothing wrong with criticizing an animal advocacy organization such as HSUS; I do it all the time. But DR's attacks are mostly petty, and their multi-page rant is filled with specious arguments.

DR starts off with a ridiculous red herring, the HSUS's name. DR seems genuinely put off that the HSUS is not an animal shelter. So what? The National Geographic Society's membership is mostly non-geographers and the American Veterinary Medical Association does not operate a clinic. The HSUS is an advocacy organization, like the Doris Day Animal League or Alley Cat Allies. Animal shelters and rescue groups are invaluable - I volunteer for two of them - but so are groups that promote and lobby for better treatment of animals. Animals' interests are best served when we're not all doing the same thing.

The DR missive engages in some strange and disturbing logic. Instead of condemning persons who thoughtlessly abandon their pets, DR makes them out to be victims who are merely trying to prevent the animals from dying in shelters. Surely DR can't be referring to my neighbor whose ex-husband put the cat in a trash bag and released it in the woods to fend for itself. Or the Army wife I knew who simply left her cat in the abandoned apartment when she moved. Or the thoughtless person who dumped my foster rabbit, most likely purchased as an "Easter bunny,"on the side of a busy road.

DR would have us believe that people who dump their pets do so because they care; they want to avoid euthanasia. While there is a grain of truth to this statement, I would counter that if these people really cared about their animals they would not be dumping them. Those who are forced by circumstance to surrender an animal but who truly have the animal's welfare at heart seek out no-kill shelters and rescue groups. They contact conventional shelters and learn that kittens and puppies overwhelmingly are adopted. They put ads in newspapers, church bulletins, and vet clinics. They do not callously throw their unwanted animals into the street.

Many people avoid bringing animals to a shelter because they're embarrassed; their real reason for getting rid of the animal is that they don't want it. Sometimes the stated reason provided by the surrenderer is suspect; we hear "moving" and "allergies" just a little too frequently. Shelters and rescue groups are far too often used as convenient dumping grounds for people who don't take the time to care for their pet. Shame on DR for trying to pin most of the blame on animal shelters instead of on irresponsible owners and guardians.

DR goes on at length about the wastefulness of free gifts sent out in appeal letters. They may have a point here. I'm tired of getting calendars, address labels, and other unneeded freebies in the mail. Of course, the HSUS is far from the only organization that does this. Furthermore, there is some logic behind this tactic. The main reason that businesses or charities give away pencils and mousepads with the company's logo is name recognition. Each time I use my HSUS "Animals - It's Their World, Too" coffee mug (which appeared in the mail one day), I'm reminded of the group and their mission. Businesses and non-profits send out little gifts because they feel that the investment pays for itself in increased donations. Whether that's true can certainly be debated, but there is some rationale behind this popular practice. DR makes it out to be some sort of sinister plot. They even engage in a little xenophobia, pointing out that some of the materials you receive may be - gasp - made in Hong Kong.

It's not that the HSUS is above criticism. Any large organization is going to have its share of politics and skeletons in the closet. The HSUS is no exception. I'm deeply disturbed that the HSUS formed a cozy relationship with the Iams company, which housed its test animals in barren cages, surgically removed their vocal chords, killed them, lied about it, and spread vicious rumors about the investigator who uncovered the abuses. The HSUS should have sharply and publicly rebuked the company instead of rewarding them with a Pet Fest sponsorship. I'm heartened that the HSUS is now urging Iams to replace invasive lab research with clinical trials in which animals are not bred and held captive specifically to test new pet foods. But I'm disappointed that the HSUS has not unambiguously condemned Iams' cruel abuses and subsequent denials.

Still, why single out the HSUS? A few months ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which has also been in bed with Iams, recently gave very favorable coverage to an organization that strongly supports every imaginable kind of animal experiments, including behavioral experiments that torture and kill cats and dogs. The ASPCA also sends out a seemingly non-ending stream of junk gifts, including wrapping paper and address books. DR never mentions the ASPCA or any other group; just the HSUS.

The one concrete suggestion that DR has for the HSUS is to allocate more money toward subsidizing sterilization programs. There's nothing with this advice per se; everyone knows that spaying and neutering saves lives. But so do other programs in which the HSUS is involved. When I needed photos and advice for an anti-fur ad, the HSUS not only supplied both at no cost but offered to help pay for the ad. Animals caught in steel-jawed leghold traps (used by the fur trade) struggle violently to escape the wrenching pain. The more they pull, the deeper the trap's teeth cut into their flesh. Animals may be stuck in the traps for days, unable to eat, drink, feed their young, or defend themselves. One quarter of the victims amputate their own leg to escape, only to die of gangrene or injuries shortly thereafter. Trappers finish off the "survivors" by standing on their chests and slowly suffocating them. The traps are indiscriminate, killing cats, dogs, birds, and other "non-target" species. Are these animals any less deserving of funding than unsterilized cats and dogs?

This Easter, like every Easter, thousands of pet shops and roadside stands will sell rabbits to impulse buyers who want a cute gift for their kids. I don't have to tell you the fate of these unfortunate animals. When a local rabbit rescue group was looking for brochures about the hazards of live "Easter bunnies" and chicks, to hand out at adoption fairs, the HSUS had some all ready and furnished them for free. I could argue that rabbits, which are often bred in crammed wire cages and crudely killed for their meat or fur, have it far worse than dogs and cats. But I don't want to get into a "which species most deserves the money" debate. They all need our help. The pigs stuck in their narrow metal and concrete crates that don't even provide them with enough room to turn around. The big cats that are bought by thrillseekers, declawed on all four paws, then dumped when the novelty wears off. The tame wildlife who have no means of escape from "canned hunts." The HSUS and countless other animal protection groups are trying in a myriad of ways to stop these cruelties. It's a daunting task, and the cause is not helped by petty bickering.

And why is insufficient low-cost spay/neuter facilities the HSUS's fault? Successful spay/neuter programs require the coordination of shelters, rescue groups, veterinarians, and community officials. "The HSUS doesn't give us enough money" is not a valid excuse.

DR cannot even get their numbers straight. They claim that nearly 16 million cats and dogs are euthanized each year in the U.S. That figure might have been correct 20 years ago. Today, the estimate is between 2 and 4 million. That's still too many, of course, but why am I not surprised that DR was way off?

It gets worse. Totally disregarding the fact that euthanasia rates have been steadily dropping for years, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue insinuates that the HSUS and animal shelters depend on killing cats and dogs and therefore are not motivated to stop the practice. This nasty ad hominem attack is equal parts viciousness and ignorance. No one likes euthanasia (except, perhaps, when done to alleviate terminal suffering). We might as well say that DR depends on people giving up their pets, and so does nothing to promote responsible ownership. Indeed, on their poorly designed web site, there is not one article about preparing for adoption, the importance of spaying and neutering, or how to make your pet a lifetime companion. In contrast, the HSUS web site has about 30 articles on these subjects, including Why You Should Spay or Neuter Your Pet, Where to Have Your Pet Spayed or Neutered, Solving the Pet Overpopulation Problem, What to Consider Before Adopting a Pet, Choosing the Right Cat, Choosing the right Dog, Renting with Pets (an issue that greatly impacts shelter overpopulation), Get the Facts on Puppy Mills, Caring for Pets when You're Ill, Keeping Your Cat Happy Indoors, Finding a Lost Pet, Moving: How to Move Your Pet Safely, and Introducing Your Pet and New Baby. I don't agree with everything in these articles, but they are nonetheless extremely useful. As a shelter volunter, I can tell you that simply passing out printed materials to adoption applicants can improve the quality of pet care and reduce the incidence of give-ups. The DR web site would be doing a service to animals by linking to some of these articles.

The most libelous and mean-spirited part of the DR manifesto is this: "For decades they've [HSUS] 'talked about' helping animals, but they never actually do anything to help them." This is a bald-face lie. A stupid and unsupported accusation. I already told you some ways that the HSUS has directly helped me help animals, and I could cite dozens more HSUS initiatives that contributed to a better life for animals around the world. One that sticks out in my mind is the series of HSUS investigations about four years ago that led to a law banning the importation of products made with cat or dog fur. This is not something that your local humane society can do. Closer to home, the HSUS provides grants, training classes, and printed media to help shelters set up natural disaster programs, make pets more adoptable, prevent staff burnout (a common problem), educate adopters on responsible care, and learn about the link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. Furthermore, the HSUS has a spay/neuter clinic in Dallas that offers subsidized spay/neuter surgeries, vaccinations, and other wellness services; the clinic performed about 8,000 spay/neuter operations in 2001.

The HSUS is not a flawless organization, but to say that they never help animals is ludicrous. Either DR does not understand the role of advocacy groups, or cannot see past their own corner of the animal protection world. Or maybe they're just loudmouths who ought to shut up and get back to work.

DR's over-the-top rant reeks of personal retribution. Is the HSUS trying to abolish some exploitative practice in which a DR board member has a vested interest? Is there some personal battle going on here? I freely admit that this is mere speculation. But DR's attack has the feel of a jilted suitor's tantrum. It's way out of proportion, and the arguments are highly arbitrary, if not contradictory (for instance, DR implies that that HSUS's 50-year old name is misleading because HSUS is not an animal shelter, then calls on the HSUS to engage in an non-sheltering campaign). Every other sentence is underlined, bold, or ALL CAPS, the equivalent of shouting in your face. The postcards that I'm supposed to send to the HSUS are repeatedly called "missles." No thanks, I don't want to be part of someone's childish and thoroughly non-productive little war.

I would not advise sending any money to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue. In attempting to smear the HSUS they have made themselves suspect. There are plenty of other animal sanctuaries worthy of your donations, such as Best Friends Animal Society and Black Beauty Ranch. You may also want to volunteer for a local group in your area.

Change the question to this:

There's a lifeboat with Osama Bin Laden and nine of his henchmen. And a dog. You have to get rid of ten passengers. I say the dog stays.

Note: this is not a comprehensive, scientifically foolproof response. It's a good icebreaker though.

This is from www.episcoveg.com, a wonderful site that interprets God's words in a very pro-animal way. I think this approach is reasonable, faithful, and refreshing. The site has many eye-opening, compassionate articles.

One of the great benefits of being born human is that, unlike chickens, we don't have to worry about becoming victims of genocide whenever there is a flu outbreak.

"You're in a lifeboat that's sinking. In order to stay afloat, you have to throw either a child or a dog overboard. Which do you choose?"

Thus asks the animal rights skeptic, in a confident and self-satisfied tone. Why, he's trapped you with his impeccable logic, and you'll be forced to admit that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to infect monkeys with the HIV virus even though we know they don't get AIDS is a good idea after all.

At least that's the fantasy. The hypothetical but unlikely "child or dog" scenario, frequently used to justify vivisection, is an example of a rigged, "set-up" question. The constraints and allowable choices are carefully narrowed to elicit the desired responses. Then, in an extrapolation that's about the size of the Atlantic Ocean, the answer to the question is offered as proof that the multi-billion dollar vivisection industry is not only legitimate but imperative.

The question, of course, is highly arbitrary. It presumes that vivisection produces net gains. It ignores alternatives and opportunity costs. The "child or dog" argument models real life about as well as force-feeding cocaine to a mouse models human drug addiction.

The "child or dog" exercise is such a pathetic excuse for logic that you can have a little fun with it, knock it around a bit, throw it back in the questioner's face. Politely, of course. It's so utterly unpersuasive, you wonder why seemingly intelligent animal rights opponents even bother with it. In several upcoming posts I'll offer comebacks to the "child or dog" proposition, as well as variations you can ask in return. I'm interested in your contributions, also.

Fire departments across the country are starting to use specially-fitted oxygen masks for dogs, cats, rabbits, and even hampsters, in order to prevent the animals from suffering the effects of smoke inhalation. Previously the best they could do was take a human oxygen mask and squash it down.

In general, firefighters are heroes to our companion animals, saving their lives. One way to express your appreciation is to donate money to your local fire department. The funds are more likely to be used directly for firefighting, rescue, training, education, and prevention efforts if you give directly, rather than through some "firefighters association" that asks for a contribution over the phone.

Remember to check your smoke alarms twice a year and have an evacuation plan worked out ahead of time. To be even better prepared, put together an emergency kit that contains your pets' food, water, medicine, and veterinary records (make copies).

For additional information on fire safety and pets:

http://www.icanimalcenter.org/cgi-bin/lib.pl?page=IncludePetsInFireSafetyPrograms

With a chilling disregard for ethics, accountability, and sound science, a group of Tufts University researchers killed six dogs after breaking their legs, ignoring the protests of students, teachers, donors, and the public. The leg-breaking exercise was supposed to test different types of "fixators" - devices that stabilize injured parts of the body. Clinical research would have provided a more realistic testbed, while actually helping instead of hurting patients. The University refused to pursue this alternative. When asked about why invasive research was necessary or why the dogs had to be killed after the experiment, the University was mum or provided vague press statements. Requests for interviews were repeatedly turned down. The dogs were destroyed during the winter break when much of the student body and faculty was away.

As in nearly every vivisection exercise, the role of money cannot be ruled out. Vivisection is big business. Breeders, cage and instrument suppliers, and the research institutions themselves count on a steady stream of revenue from cutting up dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, rodents, and other species. The animals are bred to have mild temperaments, so that they are more cooperative when their tormenters injure and kill them.

Invariably, vivisection's vested interests exaggerate their achievements to shore up public support. But incidents like the one at Tufts may reveal just what a racket the vivisection industry really is. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which was intended to assure some modicum of humane treatment for lab animals, is rigged almost entirely in favor of the vivisectors. Any act performed on an animal, no matter how gruesome or painful, is allowed as long as it's "necessary for the experiment." And who decides what's necessary for the experiment? The people doing the research.

The AWA dictates that animal experiments may only be carried out only if a search for non-animal alternatives turns up empty. This rule is practically never followed, but citations are rare and punishments almost unheard of.

Pro-vivisection lobbyists claim that only a small percent of lab animals are subject to pain. This is flat-out deception. The vast majority of lab animals - mice, rats, and birds - are not even counted in the totals. Of the remaining species, the definition of "pain" is decided by, you guessed it, the researchers.

These days, undercover agents are just about the only way to find out what really goes on behind the closed doors of animal research labs. The laboratories are turning into fortresses. No one from the outside is allowed in. The research community is doing everything it can to remain a closed society, including promoting legislation that would deem protesters "terrorists." The real terrorism occurs inside the labs, where you can't hear the screams of the victims. And it's being funded by your tax dollars.

Full article: http://www.neavs.org/programs/campaigns/Dogs_Suffer.htm.

"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."
--Abraham Lincoln

"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
--Abraham Lincoln

The word "vegan" is a liability. It sounds harsh and extremely foreign, like it came from another planet. It's a cross between "mean" and "vegetarian." "Vegans" are "the others:" self-righteous, slightly pale eccentrics who eat tofu. The average person cannot imagine being "vegan."

I prefer to call a diet free of animal products an "animal-free" diet. I like this term a lot better than "vegan diet." Two main reasons: "animal" and "free." "

Whereas "vegan" sounds like nothing, "animal" means something, and it reminds us of the suffering that is the basis for giving up meat and dairy. "Free' is a wonderful word. A plant-based diet liberates the animals living a barren existence in factory farms, as well as the humans who no longer kill to eat.

People often complain that a vegan diet is too difficult. "Animal-free" sounds more doable, more approachable, more noble. Words are important. Let's take advantage of ones that are familiar and have positive connotations. I propose that we phase out "vegan" and replace it with the readily-understandable "animal-free."

President George W. Bush, champion of smaller government and individual liberties, wants to take the most draconian measure possible - amending the Constitution - to ensure sure that gays can't marry.

The Constitution is the blueprint for our nation. It is practically sacred, and not to be messed with lightly. It was never intended to be a convenient tool for squelching debate, federalizing religious views, or scoring points with The Right.

A frank discussion about the meaning of marriage, and the intersection of religious institution with civil rights, is certainly warranted. We can have this conversation on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures, on talk shows, on the Internet, and around the water cooler. The topic is complex and requires serious deliberation; "undecided" is a perfectly valid viewpoint. It would be prudent for the President to take his hands off the Constitution at this point.

As an example of my own confusion about the subject, I'm trying to figure out what it means when the State confers the civil benefits of marriage on Britney Spears and her boyfriend-of-the-month, but not on two gays who have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for a decade. Is it because Britney might be fruitful and multiply?

Instead of officially blackballing homosexuals in the same Constitution that declared the Bill of Rights, ended slavery, and gave women the freedom to vote, let's examine the gay marriage issue from all sides first - honestly and openly. The President has an opportunity to be conservative and compassionate. Regrettably, he seems most interested in having his way with the Constitution.

Shouldn't the government subsidize fruits and vegetables instead of cheese?