Animal Writings

Horses can be ridden, they are harnessed, raced and driven
And dogs are our friends, or so we say.
But gentle cows and sheep are only good for meat
And chickens kept alive for eggs they lay.

Cats in our collection give solace and affection,
Their social graces mystify and charm.
On the farm you will find creatures of a different kind,
Their living deaths endured in darkened barn.

If piglets had their druthers they would not leave their mothers,
Nor goats forsake their kids and walk away.
Ostriches and emus would rather not be on the menu
And buffalo would roam the plains today.

It is rather a conundrum why these facts are seen as humdrum While
animals are raised in pain and fear.
They're not recognized as pets so we'll have no regrets
As they forfeit precious lives that none revere.

Cows may be labeled cattle as though they're goods and chattel And
hogs are really piggies in disguise.
Change their names, forget their faces, wipe away the traces But
remember the betrayal in their eyes.

Ann Wilson

Ann Wilson is a member of Activists Against Factory Farming

Rather than use God as the ultimate permission-giver for all sorts of selfishness and cruelty, believers need to see God as the ultimate conscience, imploring us to live a life of mercy and humility. People of faith must channel God's love through themselves and extend God's merciful dominion through charity, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Faith in an all-loving Creator entails an enormous obligation to show love to that which He created.

From time to time I hear the complaint that veganism is dogmatic. It's not. The "dogmas" upon which veganism is based are the Golden Rule and the principle of least harm. Both of these guidelines give the follower wide latitude in interpretation.

Every vegan knows that every other vegan can never be a perfect vegan, and that it would be an exercise in futility to strive for that impossible ideal. Every time we walk outside, we're liable to step on insects. We live in a society in which the use of products with animal-derived ingredients is rampant and unavoidable.

Veganism is more a frame of mind; an honest effort to avoid harming other living beings. Generally speaking, we have the highest obligation as ethical vegans to refrain from causing suffering that is obvious or extensive, and easily preventable.

Veganism is a derived, not root principle. It is outgrowth of compassion, of a connection to the world, of a sympathetic desire to help not hurt other creatures.

The Official Vegan Handbook (which doesn't exist — further proof of non-dogma) does not specify precise rules by which one must abide. It does not say you must drive under the posted speed limit on your way to work each morning, to be more ready to swerve if a squirrel runs across the road. It does not spell out what to do if there is a wasp in your child's room. But if you have sympathy and respect for all living creatures and a genuine desire to be a friend and protector, your conscience will guide you toward peaceful, mindful resolutions. You'll be vegan by default.

Basically, veganism says that in terms of minimizing harm and maximizing charity toward all creatures, "do the best you can."

We all know that there are a number of things we can do instantly, at no cost, with little effort, to reduce unimaginably hard suffering of animals. They suffer because of our habits — selfish habits — that we can break in a heartbeat. No dogma is required to adjust our life so that it spares thousands of animals from horrid lifelong misery in factory farms.

---

Related Resource:

Vegan FAQ, by Vegan Outreach. This essay provides thoughtful, non-boastful answers (including "I don't know") about many aspects of veganism. The authors specifically warn against activists becoming dogmatic, which I think is sound advice. This next thing I'm going to say may be stupid and ill-advised, and please don't get the wrong impression because I have a great deal of respect for PETA... If you consider yourself a non-vegan, and are not categorically opposed to the idea of veganism, and would like to know more, but cannot stand PETA or are turned off by them, then Vegan Outreach is the site to which I want to send you. There are no nude models in cages or billboards with arguably offensive messages. Just honest information about the billions of animals that suffer in factory farms and how you can help them. Thoughtful, considerate, and humble, yet powerful.

If you wouldn't do it to your dog or cat, don't do it (or pay someone else to do it) to cows, pigs, and sheep. The cows, pigs. and sheep suffer just like your dog or cat.

If you wouldn't do it to your bird, don't do it to chickens and turkeys. The chickens and turkeys suffer just like your bird.

If you wouldn't do it to your fish, don't do it to other fish. Fish impaled on hooks or caught in nets suffer just like your fish.

The www.ParentalFreedom.com web site is from www.vegsource.com, so take it with a grain of salt, as I do, if you want. But even if you take it with a whole shaker of salt (not recommended), I think you'll agree it exposes some of the corruption and underhanded tactics of the pro-meat and dairy, anti-animal rights lobby. In particular, the site is a parody of the frighteningly immoral (and grossly misnamed) Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). Browse through the various articles, especially Response of VegSource to [CCF President] Rick Berman's letter, Are Today's Teens More Toxic?, and Junk Pushers Use Junk Science.


CCF represents the interests of companies like Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride, which make a living from killing animals and denying them comforts. Lately, the group has been spending a disproportionate amount of resources attacking People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Why? They are afraid of PETA, because PETA can show, through videos, first-hand encounters, expert testimony, and even industry publications, that the animals forced to exist in CCF's clients' operations suffer horribly their whole lives. When consumers learn about the living conditions, genetically-altered bodies, lack of care, and deliberately tortuous slaughter of animals at these places, they tend to react with pity and disgust, and often change their behavior as a result. Which cuts into the profits of CCF's major clients. If PETA's depictions of factory farms were inaccurate or deceptive, CCF (and Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride) would have sued and won years ago. But they can't do that. They know that every scene in every video, every account of violent abuse and utter meanness that goes on in their clients' businesses and that is exposed by PETA and a hundred other animal rights groups, is true. So they're reduced to making ad hominum attacks on PETA's credibility, and distorting their record.

(It's the same technique CCF uses against any group perceived to be a threat. Currently CCF director Rick Berman is about the only person in America claiming that obesity is not a major health problem. Good God, just look around you. Then look at the ads on TV. His clients don't want us to think too much about our weight when buying their products. The bigger our bottoms, the bigger their bottom lines. Just this week a study came out showing that spending on obesity-related illness shot up a thousand percent from 1987, and that's after adjusting for inflation. In 1987, 2 percent of health care costs were for obesity; in 2002, the latest year for which data are available, the figure is 11 percent. How can anyone willingly push poor health, which can lead to financial ruin, on their fellow citizens? One possible answer appears at the end of this post.)

Although it's made me sick to my stomach, I've managed to read just about every CCF article on their website. Here's my critique: they're clever, and without an ounce of integrity. They'll use every nasty trick in the book. Two of their favorites — which are really quite telling when you think about it: attribute the sins of their clients to their enemies, and pretend to have the virtues of the whistleblowers. So, for example, PETA invests hundreds of thousands of dollars and 25 years helping companion animals by distributing doghouses, subsidizing shelter construction and veterinary training, promoting adoption, educating the public about puppy mill and pet store horrors, applying pressure to replace ghastly incinerators with humane injection, and personally rescuing every species imaginable from the most horrid and deadly environments. But CCF, with a one-time contribution to a shelter that PETA exposed for its extreme cruelty, touts itself as the real animal lover. Conversely — and ironically — the harshest criticism CCF can level at PETA is that they kill animals. Never mind that, like animal shelters across the country, under duress, PETA puts some of the several million companion animals that have no homes to sleep, using humane euthanasia. Never mind that PETA has spared untold numbers of animals from suffering and early death through their sterilization clinics. Never mind that CCF's clients kill thousands of animals every hour, after giving them a lifetime of misery and confinement. Never mind that unlike PETA staffers, who weep openly and hug the animals as they give them a painless death, CCF's clients kill animals with an efficient ruthlessness, and often with over-the-top brutality, and for profit.

My goal is not to uphold PETA as a perfect organization or the paragon of righteousness. They've made their share of mistakes and errors in judgment. In a room of several hundred people, I've criticized some of PETA's tactics — and my remarks were made directly to PETA's president, who was also in the room. But you better believe I will defend them from blatantly unfair charges, or ones that make them out to be something they're not, or that mischaracterize the motives of the group. These folks dedicate their lives to making a better world for animals. I don't have to love PETA to hate slander and duplicitousness directed at them, especially when done with the intent of perpetuating cruelty to animals.

---

Related posts:

Where's Your Apology, Center for Consumer Freedom?

Myopic Thought of the Day

Big Fat Lies

Related Resource:

Here is a glimpse of Rick Berman's clients at work. Keep in mind as you watch this senseless brutality that the victims are live birds, at the end of a hideous and short life, scared witless, and suffering every second of the film. There is no reason for this — and you can stop it. Pilgrim's Pride denies that anything in the video is worth getting upset about. Please, I don't care if you hate PETA's guts, do not support this type of violence. Please look into tasty, healthful vegetarian alternatives to chicken. It's as easy as going to your local grocery store. And please do not eat one more meal at KFC.

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (Timothy 6:10)

Northern Virginia and DC Metro residents: Help us protest Petland, which buys their animals from puppy mills.

Almost every weekend, people who love animals and hate the way they're treated in the cruel puppy mill system gather outside the Petland store on Little River Turnpike in Fairfax, Virginia (directions below), to alert shoppers and passers-by about the suffering of mass-produced "pets" and how pet stores cause shelter animals to be killed.

If you've never protested, or never even thought about protesting, this might be a perfect opportunity. The demonstrations outside Petland are entirely peaceful and lawful. They have been going on for quite some time, and the police probably know some of the regulars by name now. There have been no incidents and the officers come by as part of regular patrol duty. The core group of demonstrators has plenty of signs and handouts and knows all the tips for effectively conveying your message.

You may not be vegetarian, you may even be a hunter. But these are dogs and cats we're talking about. Rabbits and ferrets and birds and fish. Our friends. How many times have our lives been enriched beyond words by our furred, feathered, and finned animal companions? More than we can count, I know. And how do we treat them in return? Well, I know that you personally give them lots of love. You play with them, feed them good food, and keep them healthy. But in puppy mills (and kitty mills, rabbit mills, etc.) the animals are ignored and treated like so much product. They're confined to small cages, and they get virtually no exercise, companionship, or stimulation. Even their food is a monotonous grub. They're trucked across the country and placed in pet store windows, where people buy them out of ignorance, pity, or impulse.

The puppy mill—pet store industry cares about profit, not about the welfare or happiness of the animals. In most pet stores, the animals are kept in substandard conditions and sold to people who may not have the slightest idea how to take care of them, and who may tire of the idea in a few months. This happens all the time, it is not theory.

There is a mountain of evidence that unsold animals get killed, and that animals routinely die from poor care while held hostage in the system.

The laws that protect the animals are woefully inadequate and weakly enforced. Anything tragic or disturbing or disgusting that you can think of — it happens on a regular and recurring basis. But as important as it is to strengthen animal welfare regulations and enforcement, the most effective way — at this time — to help the animals is through educating the public about the horrors of puppy mills and advocating adoption over buying. That's where you come in. By holding up a sign or handing out brochures, you inform people that Petland animals are inhumanely treated and that the problem of pet overpopulation — which is deadly to shelter animals — is exacerbated by pet stores, especially national chains like Petland.

I've met some of the Petland protestors. They're very friendly and supportive. You get a great feeling knowing that you are helping loving and innocent creatures that are badly abused, and to whom we owe so much. Even if you're standing in the hot sun or the freezing cold, you know that you are doing the right thing and you can feel the support of all your fellow protestors. Yes, you will get a nasty comment here and there. People do not like to be told what to do, even if all you are doing is holding a picture of a caged dog, as a reminder of the source of Petland's puppies. But I can tell you from experience, you will get many more thumbs up, "right on's," and nods of appreciation. That is an encouraging pick-me-up and a nice reminder that you are really doing something helpful and compassionate.

I can't say enough about the Petland protestors, their organizers, and the positive impact they've had. (I'll show up for more protests, I promise!!) But their work is far from done. It really won't be over until there are no more "mills" pumping out animals as though they were things on a shelf, instead of complex, intelligent, and social animals with profound needs.

Please visit their web site, PetStoreCruelty.org, and give them a hand. This is grassroots activism at it best. It is not associated with any formal organization, It is just caring, concerned people. Please consider coming down some weekend for an hour or 90 minutes to add your presence. It's a very easy requirement for a great cause. Please tell me your experiences — or I might just see you there.

Thank you, but even more, thank you on behalf of the animals.

---

To give you an idea of the everyday issues with pet stores and puppy mills, here are excerpts from a recent mailing from the group:

The Loudoun County, Virginia Board of Supervisors voted to cancel an anti-bullying program in schools because they felt it was "pro-gay."

I'll let that one sink in for a moment.

I haven't seen the curricula, but just for argument's sake let's say it focused 100 percent on not picking on gays or the children of gay parents. That still wouldn't be pro-gay. It would, however, be pro-nice and pro-civil.

It's a shame that so many gays, especially during the difficult period of adolescence, are forced to suffer in silence because they have to bottle up their expressions of love, because they're treated as outcasts, abnormal, deviants, and threats. Anti-gay groups often point to increased rates of emotional problems in gays as proof that homosexuality is a dangerous "lifestyle." But they fail to realize that they cause those emotional problems through their meanness and ostracizing.

Most likely the anti-bullying program teaches students that it's not nice to gang up on anyone, especially those who are weaker or don't fit in. Victims of bullying may be deeply hurt by the experience and carry emotional scars for years. A substantial portion of their childhood may be ruined. If, at an early age, we can learn to respect others, control our anger, and be helpful rather than hurtful, we will have a more peaceful world. Animals will benefit, too. Bullies always pick weaker victims, and animals are, in almost every case, the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

A reasonable initiative to promote friendship and respect, which has had proven results in other jurisdictions, was canceled by homophobia.

Gloria and Hal are two beautiful chestnut-brown mules who used to live on a farm where the farmer would "punish" them by tying their heads to their hooves.

And for what terrible crime were they being punished? They wanted to eat. They were underfed and tried to break out of their small pen that didn't have suffient foraging.

Gloria and Hal now live at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, where they graze in spacious pastures and enjoy each other's company. They're both friendly but a little shy. Give either of them a carrot and you've got a new buddy.

At a speech in New York City, GOP campaign strategist Karl Rove claimed that after the September 11th attacks, conservatives planned for war while liberals planned for therapy for the terrorists. What a mean-spirited lie. In the wake of September 11th, liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between were in shock and came together as Americans. The liberals I know were beside themselves with anger and grief.

As sports show host and Washington Post columnist Tony Kornheiser reminded us, the September 11th pain "was shared by everybody." My mom's oldest childhood friend was on the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center.

Shame on Mr. Rove for turning a tragedy into cheap political opportunism and a forum to besmirch millions of Americans.

I know a lot of liberals and none expressed an interest in offering therapy for the terrorists. But I do recall people inquiring as to the root causes of terrorism, and that is something we need to know the truth on if we're ever going to stop it. And no, it's not enough just to say that terrorists, or Al Queda, or Muslims are evil, as good as that may feel superficially. There were also many liberals, and more than a few conservatives, who remember the Bush administration's cuts in anti-terrorism funding prior to September 11th and called him to the carpet on that. Likewise, about half of America, not just liberals, became sick and tired of being lied to about the war in Iraq, even as they recognized the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and acknowledged, if not agreed with, the arguments for toppling him. So maybe the liberals' anti-terrorism stance was more nuanced, and was mixed with criticism of Bush's policies, but to characterize it as coddling is slanderous and insulting.

Mr. Rove, under pressure, later said that he didn't mean all liberals, just a few. Well, he never made that qualification in his speech. "I didn't mean all [fill in the blank]..." is the classic, lame, backpeddling way to squirm your way out of trashing a huge constituency. In his non-apology, Mr, Rove said he was talking about people like Michael Moore. Well, I saw Fahrenheit 911, and there was nothing in there that remotely showed sympathy for the terrorists.

Mr. Rove should show some character and respect, and apologize to decent people like my parents — liberals and patriots.

I have a feeling most readers will like some parts of the linked article and not others. I could be wrong. It's yet another version of "Your Child or Your Dog," by animal rights activist and author Steven Best. A little long-winded and erudite in parts, but I think he makes some worthwhile and thought-provoking points. He also does a credible job, in my opinion, of showing the limitations of using this scenario as the basis for any real-world policy.

Here's the article: My Dog or Your Child? Ethical Dilemmas and the Hierarchy of Moral Value.

I've explored the "child or dog" dilemma in a few previous blog posts (which you can find by entering "child or the dog" in quotes in the blog's search box), but wanted to add a few comments that came to mind as I read Mr. Best's dissertation...

• There are horrible, routine, accepted, ignored, preventable atrocities committed against animals every day, that are not within ten million miles of any hypothetical, hair-splitting "child or dog" scenarios. We can argue all we want about your child and my dog, or my child and your dog, or a family of puppies and Saddam Hussein, or what if I had the power to save a hundred beings, and so forth — while reducing the current real harm to real beings that deserve much better. We can bring real peace to wonderful, currently suffering, ultimately appreciative animals right now — and no humans will be harmed in the process.


• There's always a loser in the child/dog scenario. You're not allowed to save both, which of course, would always be my goal. The runner-up, be it a dog, a human, an ant, some stranger, or being (or beings) of unknown species, should not get the shaft — meaning no rights, treated as property, punished and tortured for no good reason. "Placing" in this scenario means you lost by a hair. You're still entitled to all the respect and consideration and compassion due you, by virtue of your self-awareness, deep interests, capacity for joy and suffering, and — for believers — your God-given inviolate intrinsic worth. It's not "winner take all."


• No matter how much you may have perfected your position on the child or dog eventuality, when the fire actually occurs you don't know what you're going to do. Your heart and mind and emotions will be racing. You may rise to the occasion and find inner strength. Or freak out and become catatonic. It's easy to say, "if the house were burning I'd do such and such...", but when, without warning you're thrust into a situation, and it's not quite like what it was on paper, and you can find your dog but not your child, or you can't save either because the smoke is too thick, or you manage against all odds to free them both, or your aging mother says "leave me here," or you have to choose between two children, or a thousand other things occur that aren't in the script...you'll do whatever you'll do and you won't be thinking about theories or the pros and cons of animal rights.


• Every day, 99.9 percent of anti-animal rights activists with pets spend money on their pets that, by the end of the year, would have saved a dozen children from starving. I guess I could launch into name-calling over that: "me first;" "make up the rules as they suit me;" "hypocrite;" ad nauseum. Of course that would be unfair and specious. I won't do it. I wish for the other side not to do it. And then, undistracted by unproductive inflammatory rhetoric, we can instead work together more positively toward reducing the cruelty on our plates and in our closets.


• It's not fair to hold the current animal victims — suffering in factory farms and fur farm cages, beaten by rodeo thugs and circus trainers, and tortured in worthless faux-scientific experiments — hostage until we resolve the infinite variations of "child or dog" hypothetical questions. In other words, why are we killing the dog when the child is safe? In other words, instead of being all set to pounce and say "ah ha, you answered the question that way, which means everything you're saying is wrong and everything I'm doing (e.g., giving out vivisector's phone numbers, eating foie gras) is justified"...instead of doing that, keep the almost-never-happens "what-if's" in proper perspective, buy cosmetics from cruelty-free companies, really make an effort to replace meat and dairy-laden dishes with veggie-laden ones, tell your friends to adopt and never buy from a puppy mill-supplied pet store. Now we're talkin', and walkin' our talk, and making a positive difference.

"How smart does a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?"

Until now, blood tests for diabetes patients have relied on antibodies that are induced in animals and cause them considerable suffering in the process. In this conventional method, cells are injected into the abdomens of live mice, who consequently become painfully swollen with antibody-filled fluid. Technicians extract the fluid with a needle.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has changed all that. They've advanced the state of the art by developing a cruelty-free method of producing antibodies. Working with two private laboratories, a team of researchers under the direction of PCRM president Neal Barnard M.D. was able not only to successfully grow antibody-producing cells in a test tube, but to do it without the aid of calf serum, which is typically used as a cell growth promoter. In addition to its being a gruesome byproduct of the slaughterhouse industry, calf serum may be contaminated with prions or other disease agents.

The final product from the PCRM effort is a kit to determine insulin levels. Lab results so far show that the PCRM-developed test is as accurate or more accurate than the old way. PCRM is working on two scientific papers that describe the project.

Had PCRM not taken action to replace this cruel scientific process, who knows how long it would have persisted? Often, defenders of animal tests claim that there are no alternatives. But that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if no one has the desire or initiative to develop alternatives. Where there is a will, there is a way, but in most of the biomedical establishment there is no will to do away with using animals. It took PCRM less than a year to go from concept to finished product. How many other processes that cause pain and suffering in animals could be eliminated if some effort was put into replacing them? We would almost certainly have more reliable science, increased safety, and improved human health as byproducts if that were done.

Note that animal tests currently in use are not the result of rigorous, "best practice" competition. They are the result of convention and in many cases chance. They have never been validated like their replacements.

---

Related resources:

Humane Charity Seal of Approval lists health charities that do not conduct or fund animal experiments or animal tests.

The Doris Day Animal League lobbies for increased funding for non-animal alternatives and for replacing animal tests with currently available non-animal alternatives.

Note: in future posts, I'll write about existing non-animal methodologies that are superior to the animal tests they replace but — for reasons of inertia, not science — are not being used in the U.S.

The lions come out looking far better than the humans in this story, about a group of lions that protected a girl who was kidnapped and beaten by members of her own species.

How do we thank these mighty and lion-hearted beasts? Here are some of the ways:

• We declaw them, isolate them, and keep them as exotic pets in cramped yards or basements.


• We use brutal training methods that include whipping and punching to make them perform unnatural Vaudeville-like tricks in the circus, and stuff them into cages and boxcars between shows.


• We hunt them in game ranches where they're fenced in and can't escape, so people can have the thrill of killing a lion.


• We shrink their natural habitat and decimate their population year by year.

Our "All About Rabbits" presentation at the public library had gone well. We brought two rabbits, Fiona and Cuddles. Fiona because she was my rabbit, and Cuddles because he liked being petted more than any other rabbit in the rescue league. We did our best to make sure that both rabbits would be relaxed. We brought their regular litter boxes, hay, and toys. Each had a willow tepee for hiding.

We had a larger-than-expected turnout, probably because of the big promotion the library had done. Twenty-five kids and almost that many parents. We learned about what rabbits eat, and what colors they are, and that no one is really sure why they're called bunnies, and that none live on Pluto, although we're not certain. We learned how to flop like a rabbit and hop like a rabbit.

Then it was time to let the children feed the rabbits and pet the rabbits. (We brought the rabbits' favorite foods to make this part go more smoothly.) We had to very diligently make sure that the rabbits did not get overstressed, and that every child got a turn. Everything went fine, although the rabbits were getting a little wiggly toward the end and seemed glad when it was over; they each hung out in their tepees for a while.

We answered questions from kids and parents, and then we cleaned up. we were very careful to pick up every last piece of hay and hair (that's hair, not hare), so that the room would be spotless when we left. After all, we wanted to be invited back.

As I was getting ready to take down Fiona's pen and put her in her carrier, a volunteer told me that someone wanted to hold one of the rabbits. She pointed to an older boy, maybe twelve or in his early teens, who came in later, sat off to the side, and hadn't said anything. Instantly I recognized. I had spotted him from the corner of my eye several times while I was cleaning and — I am very embarrassed to say — should have known. My own nephew was autistic, and had a special bond with cats.

Although Fiona was a bit worn out, and wanted to go home, I picked her up and told her that a very nice boy wanted to hold her. I brought Fiona over to him. He nestled her like she was his child. He gently put his chin on Fiona's soft fur. Fiona, I think, sensed that this person was very compassionate and needed a hug from a bunny. She nestled her head into his neck. I could tell she was very relaxed. The boy — or young man, I should say — smiled and closed his eyes but never uttered a word. I let them embrace for some time. After a while, he handed Fiona back to me and I put her in her carrier to go home.

Children and animals often have a very special bond. Innocence meets innocence. A child that lives in a world of silence may have even a stronger connection with animals, since they communicate so much through non-verbal signals. Seeing the two of them enjoy each others' company, two innocent beings who recognized the goodness in the other, was literally and figuratively a touching moment and it was without a doubt the high point of the program.

After work, a husband and wife are walking along a trail in Reston, Virginia. Ahead of them are a group of youths. Out of nowhere, a cat appears. A small cat, maybe six pounds. One of the guys in front of the couple tries to kick the cat. Not a small shove-aside, but a powerful kick with intent to hurt. The cat just barely escapes and darts off. Had the person made contact, the cat would have suffered broken ribs. The couple would have driven the cat to the vet. But if the couple was not there, the cat would likely have died slowly from the injuries.

25 miles away, two men spot an animal the same size as the cat. They shoot it. It may have been a clean shot, maybe not; the animal could flinch at the last second. In this case the killing or maiming is called a proud tradition. Afterward, the men may recount the experience with their friends and there will be not a trace of empathy for the animal.

In both instances, the animal's will to live or the joy that it got from life was not considered. In both instances, the animal may have had close companions that gave his life meaning, but no thought was given to this by the people who just wanted to kill the animal because they could.

They grow a lot of corn along the Potomac in Maryland, which attracts the deer. Which attracts the hunters, who enjoy killing them. Up the road, the Izaak Walton League releases "wild" turkeys out of their cages and shoots them. Some get killed by cars. One made it safely to the nearby animal sanctuary, where he now lives.

Some hunters didn't like it when the animal sanctuary came into existence. Fewer deer and other animals to pursue and kill. They let the sanctuary owners know they were angry. They knocked down the sanctuary's mailbox. The sanctuary replaced it with a stronger mailbox. The frustrated hunters knocked that down, too. The sanctuary built a third mailbox encased in concrete. So far that one's still standing.

---

They were, as far as they could tell, the only family on the block that opposed hunting. That made them a little nervous; they could tell they were "outsiders." During hunting season, at dusk, hunters would come onto their property, despite signs, and shine bright spotlights in an effort to kill more deer. The lights came right into the house. The family complained, but the hunters were indignant. The family got no help from local officials.

---

Boot camp at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The firing range. You obeyed the drill sergeant. That was understood. A bunch of 18-year olds with M60's (the type of weapon Rambo used). When the sergeant gave a command, you did what he said. Period.

All morning, recruits shot at targets as instructed. The sergeant commanded them to cease fire. Silence. A deer, who had been crouched on the ground possibly for hours, and was probably scared to death, cautiously got up. From out of nowhere, dozens of shots. Against orders, the men couldn't contain themselves. "Hold your fire," the angry drill sergeant yelled. The fallen deer, full of bullet holes, was loaded into the back of a pickup truck and driven away.

To live in Minnesota and write about fishing in less then reverent tones is to act on the courage of one's convictions. But as this excerpt from an article in the Twin Cities Green Guide shows, fishing is no innocent pastime; it takes a terrible toll on fish and other wildlife.

Please note the paragraph on the fate of caught fish thrown back in the water.

---

---

Researchers have produced abundant evidence that fish feel physical pain, and most likely emotional pain. But even without the science, just put yourself in their place; imagine what it's like to be impaled on a hook, struggling with all your might as you're repeatedly pulled out of the water. The trauma and fear would be unbearable. And if you've ever had your skin caught on a hook, you know what that's like. We may portray fishing as good clean fun, but it's really a dirty trick played on innocent creatures. From the fish's side, fishing is violent and terrifying, and often results in a slow, torturous death.

I used to fish. 75 percent of the fun was getting there, hanging out by the water — or on it — and spending some delightfully lazy time with family and friends. It hardly mattered if I caught anything. Recreational anglers: it may seem radical to give up your hobby, but when you think about it, it's remarkably easy. You can still get out into the fresh morning air bright and early, enjoy the stillness of a boat in the middle of a lake, and talk about sports or anything in the world with your buddies, or your sons. Bring a camera to take pictures of fish, turtles, birds, and wildlife. Admire all these animals, knowing that each one has a distinct personality, emotions, and a rich and complex life. Leave them be so you can enjoy their company — perhaps their spirit — again and again. Want some exercise? Try snorkeling. Or taking a hike around the lake. Or cleaning up the litter along the shore; that's a great way to combine a fun family activity and a good deed. You don't have to be cruel to have some of the best times of your life.

---

The Twin Cities Green Guide is a comprehensive set of articles that help you live harmoniously with nature and your fellow humans. It includes everything from home energy saving hints to sources of environmentally-friendly gifts to recommendations on enjoying Minnesota parks. The Green Pages section of the Green Guide lists Green businesses and organizations throughout Minnesota.

I heard each of these anti-veganism defenses this week:

• Don't plants feel pain?


• Fish don't feel pain.

I would like to get these two factions together in a room to work it out.

Or, "Rescue the Rabbit Trapped in the Drainpipe Before Attending to My Headache"

Not that I go through this formula in my head all the time; like anyone, I'm often moved by the moment or go with my gut. But if I had to lay out very general guidelines for which creatures (including humans) I choose to help...

• What is the severity of their suffering?


• How much are they being helped?


• Of what help can I be? (How much effort, time, or money is required, and to what effect? Do I have some talent or character trait that would be particularly useful? Or would I get in the way or be an impediment?)


• Are they family or friends?

Of course, sometimes this means the beneficiaries (I hope) of my efforts to help are humans. They might be members of my own family or an unknown quantity of strangers halfway across the world.

But being human doesn't automatically put you at the top of the list. I'll take my companion animals to the vet. I'll acknowledge my neighbor's dismay at having his grass soiled by the stray cat, but my greater sympathies will lie with the lost pet who may have been abandoned by her human family, is probably frightened and hungry, and is possibly plagued by painful infections. I'll refuse to take a child to see an animal circus, no matter how badly he wants to go. He and I can have a great time at an animal sanctuary or the park; the elephants are kidnapped, beaten, and chained. When the child is older, he will learn the extent to which elephants in the circus are mistreated, and be horrified, and be thankful I never took him there.

If I did find myself in the proverbial scenario where I was forced to hit the pedestrian or the dog with my car, I imagine I would swerve to save the pedestrian. Although this may only indicate that we are naturally predisposed to help our own. Fortunately, up until now, I've been able to spare both the dog and the pedestrian, and help them and many other species, and most likely this will continue for the rest of my days. Especially considering that one of the most effective ways to help animals is simply to adopt a vegetarian diet, and thus avoid foods that, according to hundreds of studies, cause heart disease and cancer. That works out great: For no money or extra time, I can do a world of good for animals, and be healthier in the process — which lets me be more of a contributer to society in general.

What I like is that each of us helps who we can in our own way. We each have unique skills and access to various groups in need. The volunteers at the animal shelter and the soup kitchen are both alleviating suffering and increasing peace on earth. My veterinarian and physician are both healers, and all of the humans and animals in my household appreciate and feel the benefit of their efforts. The undercover investigators who videotape ugly human cruelties toward animals in slaughterhouses and research labs help us all; they inform us of victims we might not otherwise know about, and they expose parts of us that we sorely need to exorcise. Even seemingly tiny acts can be transformative: letting the spider live, or putting out a little house for the toads, cultivates a decency in us that we can compound and share without limit. So let's not spend too much time devising how to divide up our kindnesses, let's see how we can multiply them so that the entire world thrives.

---

The dairy industry's highly visible "Drink Milk...Lose Weight" campaign, with its glossy, full-page magazine ads...

• ...is based on one study of eleven people,


• ...which was funded by the dairy industry,


• ...and which was led by Michael Zemel of the University of Tennessee, who owns a patent on the claim that dairy foods aid weight loss.

Eleven people! That's pathetic. On this one tiny study, paid for and conducted by groups with a vested interest in the outcome, the dairy industry is spending millions to tell us that drinking milk makes you lose weight. Talk about chutzpah. They should be sued and punished for fraud — again.

Meanwhile, a study by Harvard University of twelve thousand participants shows that boys who drink milk, even skim milk, gain weight, and that the more milk they drink, the heavier they get.

Of nine studies in the Journal of Nutrition in 2003, none found that consuming dairy led to weight loss. Published studies since then report the same thing.

This should be no surprise. As Dr. Michael Greger points out, "milk is designed by mother nature to start an 80-pound calf on her way to 1,400 pounds by her second birthday."

Meta-analyses show no correlation between dairy consumption and bone health. A number of published studies implicate dairy in diabetes, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer. Dairy is a leading allergen, and often removing it from one's diet clears up a range of health problems. Modern dairy production involves severe cruelties. Half of all dairy cows are lame by the time they're five years old. Cows too sick to walk are left to suffer and die. Veal — which most meat-eaters avoid due to ethical objections — is a by-product of dairy. There's no nutritional requirement for dairy. I'll give it this: it tastes good. Then again, so did the apple.

(References to all studies mentioned specifically or in aggregate provided upon request)

---

Related resources:

Silk Soy Milk

"Milk"—not just from cows, from the Somerset Medical Center (affiliated with the New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School)

You don't really know a species until you enter into a relationship with one of its members. Until then, it's all abstract. (Studying animals, compiling statistics about them and so forth, is not the same thing; that's knowing about them, not knowing them.)

In this story from National Public Radio's All Things Considered, commentator Julie Zickefoose inches her way into an accidental but fruitful relationship with Paul, a resourceful sparrow trapped in the minimum security confines of a grocery store.

Michael Ginor, co-owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, claims that force-feeding ducks to make foie gras is not cruel and that his factory should be allowed to operate so that jobs will not be lost.

The force-feeding of ducks in foie gras facilities is so violently cruel, and the ducks are in such obvious physical and psychological misery from the isolation and invasive regime, that the activity should be ended immediately. It's animal abuse to an extreme. Foie gras ducks are forced to ingest far more food than they could ever take in naturally, which causes their livers to be engorged to several times normal size. The ducks, already without freedom of movement and water to swim in, suffer horribly. They have painful "fatty liver" disease. Their normally pristine feathers become encrusted with dirt and their own vomit. They develop infections and sores. Their spirit dies; they hang their heads and basically just exist, waiting to die, in their tiny prisons. They become so weak that they cannot fend off rodents, even as they're being eaten alive.

And Mr. Ginor claims this is not cruel.

As for the jobs that may be lost... When we banned the importing of cat and dog fur into the U.S., it may have cost some jobs. That's not a sufficient reason to perpetuate torture. The fact that someone is willing to pay for an activity doesn't make it moral, or worthy of preservation. The "we can't stop doing this or jobs will be lost" argument could be used to perpetuate any cruelties, of any magnitude, forever, as long as there's money in it. I'm willing to help displaced employees in other ways, even if it raises my taxes. I realize that some low-level workers might have these awful jobs just because they need a job, not because they get any enjoyment from inflicting suffering on helpless creatures.

In the aggregate, no jobs will be lost. People will still eat. For every bit of foie gras they give up, they'll have a different appetizer. The producers of the alternatives will pick up the slack. They'll be hiring. The employees, owners, and suppliers for foie gras factories have had years of advance warning that they'll have to find new jobs. That's far more time than anyone I know was given when their company went bankrupt, lost a major contract, or had jobs eliminated by a merger or military base closing. When Atkins declared, incorrectly, that carbs were the weight-gain villain, it had a far bigger impact on jobs than will ending the production of foie gras.

Mr. Ginor dismisses those opposed to foie gras as hampered by tender mercies, too delicate to eat a diseased liver distended almost to the point of exploding. To him, animal cruelty is a concern of unsophisticated sentimentalists. Forget that the ducks' lives are reduced to standing in place on a concrete slab or metal grating, the unbearable monotony only interrupted when the tube is plunged down their throat. None of this matters to Mr. Ginor. He apparently considers foie gras to be so indispensable, so crucial to modern society, that it justifies operating torture factories. I'm sure Ginor figures that a little torture shouldn't ruin a nice meal. "Unless, of course," Ginor says, snottily, "madame would prefer the vegetable reduction on her asparagus instead?"

Madame would like a gourmet meal without atrocities. If Mr. Ginor doesn't know how to do that, he should consult with Millenium in San Francisco or Candle 79 in New York. Even mainstream high-end restaurants like Vidalia in Washington, D.C. will serve up a sumptuous, first-class vegan meal on request. Madame would like the reduction of suffering.

Mr. Ginor also claims (or whines) that people are opposed to foie gras because it's eaten by the rich. Two words: Get Real. Supporters of cockfighting complain that opposition to their cruel non-sport is based on prejudice of rural southern culture. Some Jewish organizations tried to characterize opposition to the suffering — so extreme your jaw drops — at the AgriProcessors kosher slaughter plant as anti-Semitic. Are the profiteers and participants in animal cruelty in total denial? Or are they just trying to evade accountability? "Never mind the cows with their guts spilling on the floor, thrashing wildly in pain; or the drugged rooster outfitted with blades, in his own horror movie, surrounded by agitators who want to see blood and death; or the ducks, half-dead from the utter deprivation and painful regime we put them through each day. No, the real problem is that the animal rights people are jealous of our customers or biased against us." It's a lame, but tried-and-true method when you have no defense for your actions but don't have the guts — the character; the moral fiber — to own up to them. Instead you try to divert attention by attributing ridiculous motivations to those who expose your shameful activities. Please note, Mr. Ginor. Some of my best friends are rich. I've had foie gras myself. Many years ago, to my great shame. What I hate is vicious, deliberate, brutal animal cruelty, and disgusting lies to cover it up.

(Thanks to www.VeganFreaks.org for the inspiration for this post.)

Jesus would be called an extremist today, his ideas too threatening to the status quo. His criticisms of seeking wealth, and his interference with commerce (ritual slaughter) at the Temple would be characterized as anti-choice and anti-consumer. Vested interests who could be hurt if people followed his simple life and compassionate views would find or invent inconsistencies in His message and never fail to mention the company he kept (prostitutes and beggars). His tender observations of sparrows and hens would get him labeled a "sentimentalist."

According to the scriptures, God didn't send down a CEO as His emissary, His essence. He sent a man who eschewed pride, gluttony, and riches — the things upon which our modern economy is based. He advocated unpopular, upsetting views. He was on the fringe. But His words had power, and the vested interests had to respond. As today, they responded not by convincingly defending their transgressions but by killing the messenger.

Jesus was persecuted and crucified for forcing people to think about the compassion they bypassed for greed and selfishness.

The defining characteristic of Jesus' life on earth was his unwavering dedication to sacrifice on behalf of the weak and powerless. Real, meaningful sacrifice, with beneficiaries other than the sacrificer; not "I'm giving up candy for Lent" sacrifice. This demonstration on how to live was totally lost on the population, and we continue to vigorously resist any curbs on how we destroy the earth in pursuit of more material goods and hedonistic pleasures.

Throughout history, people calling themselves Christians have exploited blacks, women, children, and foreigners for economic gain. Each of those victimized groups has had some degree of liberation. Animals are now the most exploited group in the modern world. They suffer mightily because we like how their killed flesh tastes and their dead skin feels. The products from their suffering are mass-marketed and advertised everywhere, all the time. Business models, growth forecasts, government policies, and vast sectors of the economy are based on making the least powerful suffer so the most powerful can get richer.

In Jesus' life and death, it's as though God said, "Get it? You sacrifice so those below you won't suffer from want or neglect or heartache or loneliness." Instead, we seem to have interpreted Jesus' sacrifice in the most selfish way possible. We're all too eager to accept the rewards but not the responsibility; believing that Jesus died for us, but not lifting a finger to carry on the legacy and keep the chain of compassion going. By limiting compassion to our own species, we confound God's will, but by showing compassion to all species we extend God's will.

As God ministers to us, we, created in His image, are to minister to Creation. But we humans, enamored as we are with someone sacrificing on our behalf, refuse to emulate the model; we will not give up the most superficial pleasures — a hamburger or fur trim — to save animals from suffering.

In effect, we treat Jesus as another resource: "What can He do for us?" The question Christians must ask is "What can we do for Him?" (And the devout are obliged to ask of their God, "What can we can we do for You?" And the secular must ask, "What can I do for the world?") What you can do is be merciful to the entirety of Creation. For example, to the hen that Jesus praised for her character. He never mentioned how the hen tastes or speculated on how to get more eggs out of her. He admired her God-like love for her chicks. Let her express that love, and let her chicks feel that love. Look upon God's beauty in the form of a hen and her brood, and know that to those small animals you can be like Jesus — a benevolent and humbled servant. Add value to Creation rather than merely consuming it. Continue the chain of compassion.

(Thanks to Rhonda Cunningham for some of the concepts for this post.)

"I have witnessed and tended to calves in rodeos who became paralyzed and whose tracheas were totally or partially severed. Slamming them to the ground has caused rupture of several internal organs leading to a slow and agonizing death."

To be truly pro-life, not just pro-human life, go vegetarian -- or vegan. In addition to preventing the brutal slaughter of 2000 animals in your lifetime, you'll be reducing suffering, which may be even more important, and a more compelling obligation for us, as responsible, loving stewards of Creation. Conditions for the vast majority of farm animals in the industrialized world are so rotten that they never know one moment of peace or happiness.

Simply to satisfy our taste buds, we kill millions of newborn chicks each year. On their first day of life, we suffocate them, grind them up, or let them die by exposure, starvation, and dehydration. They are hatched in incubators and never meet their mother. Jesus compared the love of a hen for her chicks to God's love for us. Hens and roosters have been known to sacrifice their own comfort on behalf of another. We make their lives miserable, stuffing them in tiny squalid surroundings, cutting off their beaks, preventing them from accomplishing any of their basic needs. We even take motherhood away from them. Instead of carefully building a nest, turning over her eggs, and talking to her developing chicks, battery hens' eggs fall through the slatted floor and roll away on a conveyer belt. Surely we can give these bright and gentle birds a better fate than this. It's in your power to do so. Be really pro-life—go vegan!

---

Resources:

The Christian Vegetarian Association

All-Creatures

Thanks to Rhonda Cunningham for the concept for this post. In her spare time, Rhonda looks after about 100 stray dogs and cats.

---

We are being viciously cruel to these animals. When we treat them decently, they show their gratitude in every way of which they're capable. They lick our faces. They purposefully walk over to us to be near us because they like our company. But we should not be motivated to treat animals with respect and kindness solely by what kind of thanks we may receive. When we offer a thirsty animal a drink of water, we have done the right thing and we know it. There's no doubt. We've made the world more peaceful. Helping others in need is its own reward.

And what of the farmer that laughed about how the injured cow was treated. Infuriates you, doesn't it? But hold up a minute. Is that nervous laughter? Is it nervous, hiding something? You might think that it's not, that the guy is just heartless to the core. Heartless, yes. To the core, no. People become conditioned to inflicting suffering. They become hardened to it. But deep down inside, there is still that child that petted a rabbit, that boy who cried when the family pet died. It is impossible to look an animal in the eye and not have something deep down register a connection. After years of suppressing emotions, we become very good at pretending that it doesn't affect us. But it does. Many farm and slaughterhouse workers take out their frustration — that they might not realize they have — on the animals. They may even be angry at the animals for bringing on guilt. This is all at the subconscious level — usually. Superficially, it's easier to build an emotional chasm between one's self and the animals one torments and kills. That way you don't get too close to them. You don't let any feelings develop for them. But this is an impossible strategy. At some deep level, you don't lose that connection. The cow hurts and needs help. You might distance yourself from the cow, tell yourself it's just business, in order to avoid identifying with her pain, in order to prevent feeling sorry for her. Because once you feel sorry for her, you can no longer continue the cruelty.

Please do everything you can to avoid buying products of cruelty, for that is the most effective way to stop it. This site, this site, and a hundred other sites on the Net can help you transition to a more humane diet.

---

Related Resource:

The Pig Farmer -- One of my favorite stories. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

From VeganFreaks:

---

VeganFreaks.org chronicles the trials, tribulations, successes, and joys of two vegan pioneers living in a not-yet vegan world. Topics run the gamut from frivolous to deadly serious. The writing is from the heart, immediate and engaging. (Warning: contains profanity)

You said on your web site that Virgil Butler, who has provided details about how horribly Tyson treats its animals and workers, lied about his military record. Turns out that was just a lie by Tyson. Mr. Butler obtained copies of his records from the U.S. Army and displayed them on the Internet.

Maybe you should stop believing Tyson and start believing Mr. Butler. And you owe him an apology.

Two more things.

1. Even if he totally falsified his military history, all his claims about Tyson are easily verifiable.


2. You know you're smearing an honest man's good name. You know the animals that your member companies grow and slaughter suffer — by the billions. How do you sleep at night?

Interested in saving more wilderness? Go vegan.

Author John Robbins, who's researched the issue quite a bit, says that the average vegan requires 1/6 of an acre to satisfy his or her food requirements for a year, and the average meat-eater requires 20 times that much land. I've read other estimates that are in that ballpark. Even if you took the low-end estimate and cut it in half, the reduction in land required for farming drops dramatically as you remove meat and dairy products from your diet.

And reclaiming all this land costs you — NOTHING! In fact, if you work it right, it could cost you less than nothing!

And what can we do with all that land that we no longer need to feed us? One of the most attractive and least expensive options is to do nothing. Let it revert to its wild state. Let nature manage it. (Note that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, long thought to be extinct, was recently rediscovered in a remote Arkansas swamp that was left alone and pristine.)

---

Related resource:

What is Vegan, from the Twin Cities Green Guide

Are we superior to animals? What's the criteria? Humans have created great art but we are destroying the planet. The Black Plague was spread by fleas, but our garbage attracted them. If we were to perish, life for most animals on earth would improve, but if spiders or termites perished, we'd perish with them.

I'm routinely humbled by animals' capacity to trust us and be very loving even after suffering the most horrid and violent abuses.

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, animals are superior to us in the sense that they're unfallen; they're without sin.

There is one very important aspect in which we are the superior species. I'll let Reverend Andrew Linzey take over from here. He's speaking primarily to Christians, and quotes from scripture, but the concepts are non-denominational...