(If so inclined)
Links: Animals
- Virgil Butler: Ex-Slaughterhouse Worker
- Christian Vegetarian Association
- all-creatures.org
- Episcoveg
- United Poultry Concerns
- Eastern Shore Chicken Sanctuary & Education Center
- Compassion Over Killing
- Vegan Outreach
- In Defense of Animals
- No Eggs
- SHARK (Showing Animals Respect and Kindness)
- Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting
- Animals Voice
- Compassionate Cooks
- Viva! USA
- Assoc. of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
- Care for the Wild
- Vegan Poet
- Humane Society of the United States
- Humane Society Legislative Fund
- Vegan Vanguard
- Foie Gras Cruelty
- Monkeying Around with Human Health
- Stop Animal Exploitation Now
- Americans For Medical Advancement
- The Truth About Vivisection * New Link *
- Circuses.com
- Fur-Free Action
- Mercy For Animals: Fur Farms
- Choose Veg
- Anti-Fur Society
- Fur-Bearer Defenders
- Coalition to Abolish the FurTrade
- Best Friends Animal Society
- Alley Cat Allies
- Alley Cat Rescue
- Dogs Deserve Better
- International Aid for Korean Animals
- AnimaNaturalis.com (En Espanol)
- Pet Store Cruelty
- Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare
- RabbitWise
- Friends of Rabbits
- Metro Ferals (DC area)
- Baltimore Animal Rights Coalition
Links: People
- Care Packages to Soldiers in Harm's Way
- Easter Seals
- Birth Defect Research for Children, Inc. (Better than March of Dimes)
- Street Sense (Opportunity for DC's Poor and Homeless)
- Tolerance.org
Links: Humor
Links: Hard to Categorize
Blogs
- Veg Blog
- Vegan Chai
- Neva Vegan
- AnimalBlawg (temporarily in hiatus)
- All's Well That Ends VEGAN
- Vegan Metal Biker Dad Punk Blog
- SuperWeed
- Out of My Vegan Mind
- Super Vegan
- Vegan Momma
- The Joyful Vegan
- Vegan Bits
- Cats and Cows
- Value System: Peak Oil, Gas Prices, Money and The Future
- Invisible Voices
- Peaceful Prairie Animal Sanctuary
- Vegan FAQ
Archives
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
- 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
- 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
- 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
- 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
- 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
- 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
- 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
- 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
- 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
Recent Posts
The Problems With Using Amount of Money Spent As a...Interspecies Friendships: Part 20
The Peaceable Community
The Rabbit: "Poster Child" for Animal Rights
Dinner and Stimulating Conversation with Eric Pres...
Interlude: Animal Rights 2008 National Conference
Dairy May Cause Rather Than Prevent Osteoporosis (...
Another Huge Beef Recall
Administrative Note
Another Form of Brutality, in the Heart(less)land
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
Essays and Musings on Animals and Society
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Cats in Katrina's Wake Could Use a Helping Hand
Hurricane Katrina has devastated the Gulf Coast. We have two friends down there, one in Metarie and one in Pass Christian. The news is awful. People have lost all their possessions, and the death toll estimate is in the thousands.
Unfortunately, some thoughtless miscreants have taken advantage of the disaster by recklessly looting -- stealing rescue equipment to rob drug stores, stealing guns to kill police officers. Adding human-caused tragedy to an already-ravaged area.
A massive disaster recovery program is underway; government, private, and religious relief organizations will aid stricken individuals in a myriad of ways: lending money, providing food and water, constructing temporary living quarters, counseling family members, donating blood and medical supplies. Volunteers are driving down to the Gulf, benefit concerts are being set up, President Bush has pledged action (finally), and web sites to help victims are all over the Internet. This is all good and uplifting; when times are tough, we pull together.
Is anybody helping out the stranded and starving feral cats? And the displaced, frightened stray cats that depend on kind humans for their next meal? Alley Cat Allies is. So are local animal rescue groups. Remember, every stray and feral cat is the result of human ignorance, indifference, or cruelty. In the past, cats helped protect our vital food stores on ships and in silos. They saved millions of our ancestors from the horrors of The Plague. Perhaps we can repay them a little by helping them out, now that they need our help. To donate online: click here.
Addendum: Here is more information on the plight of cats and other animals affected by Hurricane Katrina, and how you can help them.
Addendum: Click here for information on helping to provide temporary shelter for companion rabbits affected by the storm.
Unfortunately, some thoughtless miscreants have taken advantage of the disaster by recklessly looting -- stealing rescue equipment to rob drug stores, stealing guns to kill police officers. Adding human-caused tragedy to an already-ravaged area.
A massive disaster recovery program is underway; government, private, and religious relief organizations will aid stricken individuals in a myriad of ways: lending money, providing food and water, constructing temporary living quarters, counseling family members, donating blood and medical supplies. Volunteers are driving down to the Gulf, benefit concerts are being set up, President Bush has pledged action (finally), and web sites to help victims are all over the Internet. This is all good and uplifting; when times are tough, we pull together.
Is anybody helping out the stranded and starving feral cats? And the displaced, frightened stray cats that depend on kind humans for their next meal? Alley Cat Allies is. So are local animal rescue groups. Remember, every stray and feral cat is the result of human ignorance, indifference, or cruelty. In the past, cats helped protect our vital food stores on ships and in silos. They saved millions of our ancestors from the horrors of The Plague. Perhaps we can repay them a little by helping them out, now that they need our help. To donate online: click here.
Addendum: Here is more information on the plight of cats and other animals affected by Hurricane Katrina, and how you can help them.
Addendum: Click here for information on helping to provide temporary shelter for companion rabbits affected by the storm.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Thought for the Day
"Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar."
-- Bradley Millar
Aldo Leopold: An Important Link in Our Consideration of Animals' Needs
On my first day of college, in my first class, I was given an assignment: read Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. It's a wonderful book and I still have it. Leopold's "land ethic," which obligates us to respect wildness and preserve habitat, was radical in its time. It has since transformed into an environmental ethic that takes into account threats such as global climate change and light pollution. So far, we're at the aggregate level. Animal rights is the next step; it compels us to consider the well-being of the individual animals the sentient, sensory, pain- and joy-capable components of that aggregate. The animated, aware ambassadors of the biosphere. At the individual level, suffering and thriving are direct, immediate, acute, and personal, not abstract.
Leopold, an avid hunter, was progressive for his day. So was Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves. But times change. We appreciate our ancestors' foresight and synthesize it into our lives, but we don't ethically stagnate. We accept, as we ethically evolve, that much of what was permissible 60 or 200 years ago is no longer so. We've grown more enlightened, opened our eyes further, become less blind, realized that social norms can masquerade as defensible moral standards. We acknowledge after the fact that it takes a shamefully long time for us to shed self-centered, destructive habits, due in part to our frightening capability to rationalize ethical transgressions especially if we enjoy them and to be morally lazy in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and self-incrimination. We can detect, through the lens of history and perspective, wrongs that seemed right when we were inside looking out. Today, Jefferson certainly wouldn't own slaves, and I'm pretty sure that Leopold, with his keen sensitivity to other creatures, would have long ago quit hunting wild birds and begun pleading with us to stop torturing their domesticated cousins. As Albert Einstein, a contemporary of Leopold's who also dwelled in the physical and philosophical realms, earnestly appealed to us, we widen our circle of compassion. That is his most profound theory of relativity. By extending our ability to develop empathetic relationships, to see oursleves through the eyes of others not by dominating them is how humanity progresses toward a more peaceful world.
Leopold, an avid hunter, was progressive for his day. So was Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves. But times change. We appreciate our ancestors' foresight and synthesize it into our lives, but we don't ethically stagnate. We accept, as we ethically evolve, that much of what was permissible 60 or 200 years ago is no longer so. We've grown more enlightened, opened our eyes further, become less blind, realized that social norms can masquerade as defensible moral standards. We acknowledge after the fact that it takes a shamefully long time for us to shed self-centered, destructive habits, due in part to our frightening capability to rationalize ethical transgressions especially if we enjoy them and to be morally lazy in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and self-incrimination. We can detect, through the lens of history and perspective, wrongs that seemed right when we were inside looking out. Today, Jefferson certainly wouldn't own slaves, and I'm pretty sure that Leopold, with his keen sensitivity to other creatures, would have long ago quit hunting wild birds and begun pleading with us to stop torturing their domesticated cousins. As Albert Einstein, a contemporary of Leopold's who also dwelled in the physical and philosophical realms, earnestly appealed to us, we widen our circle of compassion. That is his most profound theory of relativity. By extending our ability to develop empathetic relationships, to see oursleves through the eyes of others not by dominating them is how humanity progresses toward a more peaceful world.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Music Can Move Us, Inspire Us, Transform Us...Maybe Threaten Us
Conservative journalist Tony Snow recently wrote an editorial berating author Mikal Gilmore for claiming that the Beatles were a social factor that played a part in "generational transformation." Snow argues that the Beatles and their contemporaries simply wrote good music, and that deriving additional meaning from their creative works or popularity is "nostalgia masquerading as analysis."
I agree with him up to a point. Bob Dylan in his biography recounts how he went from bemused to annoyed to vicariously embarrassed at fans trying to turn him into a prophet. As an environmentalist, I look at the closing scenes of Woodstock, when Jimi Hendrix is playing the "Star Spangled Banner," and think, "the music is great, but what a bunch of slobs."
Snow protests too much, however. His remark that "the wisdom of the 60s was as vacuous as one would expect of kids" is gratuitous arrogance. Some of these "kids" were in their twenties and thirties and had children. Some had been in the service during wartime. There are mayors with less life experience.
Snow attributes the popularity of Beatles music to "clever lyrics, catchy melodies, arresting harmonies, and surprising chord changes." There's more to it than that. Music, and rock music specifically, has an effect on our minds and bodies that's hard to describe, and can't be explained via reductionism. It infuses the spirit. Sometimes it makes people feel like they can change the world. The music of the sixties and early seventies helped empower a generation to question authority -- which is appropriate when authority is lying. (It also happens to be one of the principles upon which our country was founded.) The directness of rock music was an energizing antidote to the Gulf of Tonkin, the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate.
"We Gotta Get Out of This Place" became an anthem for soldiers fighting in the jungles of Vietnam. "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town" conveyed the heartsick frustration of an injured war veteran more honestly and more poignantly than any political rally in which wounded vets are used as pawns. "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" had far greater impact than the duck-and-cover exercises I had to go through. "Soul Power" was a catalyst for African Americans who were fed up with being on the margins. A certain actor who got involved in politics invoked Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA", not realizing it was an eloquent criticism of War.
Snow says that musicians who become outspoken in political issues "look at best like oafs and at worst, meretricious saps," or "sound like imbeciles." I don't think Bono or Bob Geldorf look foolish. Each has parlayed his celebrity status into tangible contributions to world peace which is more than I can say for most of their critics. Should public advocacy of policy or speaking out about the state of the country strictly be the province of politicians and journalists? Can the poet weigh in?
P.S. If you want to watch a music video that hits you right in the gut, watch this: "Free Me", by Goldfinger.
I agree with him up to a point. Bob Dylan in his biography recounts how he went from bemused to annoyed to vicariously embarrassed at fans trying to turn him into a prophet. As an environmentalist, I look at the closing scenes of Woodstock, when Jimi Hendrix is playing the "Star Spangled Banner," and think, "the music is great, but what a bunch of slobs."
Snow protests too much, however. His remark that "the wisdom of the 60s was as vacuous as one would expect of kids" is gratuitous arrogance. Some of these "kids" were in their twenties and thirties and had children. Some had been in the service during wartime. There are mayors with less life experience.
Snow attributes the popularity of Beatles music to "clever lyrics, catchy melodies, arresting harmonies, and surprising chord changes." There's more to it than that. Music, and rock music specifically, has an effect on our minds and bodies that's hard to describe, and can't be explained via reductionism. It infuses the spirit. Sometimes it makes people feel like they can change the world. The music of the sixties and early seventies helped empower a generation to question authority -- which is appropriate when authority is lying. (It also happens to be one of the principles upon which our country was founded.) The directness of rock music was an energizing antidote to the Gulf of Tonkin, the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate.
"We Gotta Get Out of This Place" became an anthem for soldiers fighting in the jungles of Vietnam. "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town" conveyed the heartsick frustration of an injured war veteran more honestly and more poignantly than any political rally in which wounded vets are used as pawns. "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" had far greater impact than the duck-and-cover exercises I had to go through. "Soul Power" was a catalyst for African Americans who were fed up with being on the margins. A certain actor who got involved in politics invoked Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA", not realizing it was an eloquent criticism of War.
Snow says that musicians who become outspoken in political issues "look at best like oafs and at worst, meretricious saps," or "sound like imbeciles." I don't think Bono or Bob Geldorf look foolish. Each has parlayed his celebrity status into tangible contributions to world peace which is more than I can say for most of their critics. Should public advocacy of policy or speaking out about the state of the country strictly be the province of politicians and journalists? Can the poet weigh in?
P.S. If you want to watch a music video that hits you right in the gut, watch this: "Free Me", by Goldfinger.
A Chain of Excuses for EXTREME Cruelty
The authors of Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World explain how those with an interest in animal exploitation portray vegans as a) feminine sissies or b) dangerous terrorists, depending on which one is a more convenient diversionary, "kill the messenger" tactic. As part of that discussion, they skillfully break down and refute the arguments made in favor of foie gras (pages 146-7). I would like to focus on one of those arguments, as stated in a May 2, 2005 Newsweek article:
Note that the article is talking about the engorged livers of sick ducks. The softness is the result of hepatic lipidosis or "fatty liver disease," brought on by forcing massive quantities of food down the ducks' throats three times a day, through a metal or hard plastic tube. The ducks are confined in narrow cages and are unable to fly, swim, walk, or rest on solid ground. Common side effects of the daily brutality include large permanent blisters, breathing difficulties, listlessness, and death. Restaurants that serve foie gras are serving the product of torture and suffering, and customers who eat foie gras are literally eating disease.
Here are some pictures of foie gras ducks:



"...humanity's million-year struggle to the top of the food chain." I would like to hone in on that one ridiculous but often-used excuse for torturing, killing and otherwise dominating animals.
We can insert ourselves anywhere in the food chain. The most appropriate place is where we can be the most environmentally responsible and impose the least amount of harm on our fellow creatures.
We are not involved in any food chain "struggle" just like we are not involved in a "contest" when hunting, fishing, or bullfighting. It is not as though the duck will eat us, or we'll have nothing to eat if we don't imprison the duck, distend its liver to eight times normal size, and cause it unbearable pain. The "struggle" or "contest" is a delusion, constructed as an excuse for domination. With exceptions too rare to have any statistical meaning, the animals we slaughter just want to live their lives, not kill us. They want to eat, raise their young, be secure, and God willing find some time for play and relaxation.
Does "winning" this mythical struggle give us the right to run animal concentration camps?
Struggle or not, what kind of evil compels us to torture animals a fraction of our size, helpless, dependent on our mercy and miserable because of our lack of it? Are we trying to emulate ruthless dictators with an insatiable lust for dominance? Does our presumed struggle justify "Yeah, we know we can torture and kill you, so we will. Mmm, your exploded organs taste so good."? Such behaviors and attitudes are the frightening and disturbing signs of someone drunk with power, absent of empathy, possibly in need of psychological treatment.
While those that feast on the pain and suffering of animals proclaim that we've reached the top of the food chain, I wonder with dismay how we sunk to the bottom of the compassion chain.
Related Resource:
Foie gras result of cruel system of farming
Related Post:
Lame Excuses for Cruelty With Side Order of Snobbism
"Its [foie gras'] texture meltingly soft as a chocolate truffle, its flavor a mouth-filling meatiness sweetness that helps justify humanity's million-year struggle to the top of the food chain."
Note that the article is talking about the engorged livers of sick ducks. The softness is the result of hepatic lipidosis or "fatty liver disease," brought on by forcing massive quantities of food down the ducks' throats three times a day, through a metal or hard plastic tube. The ducks are confined in narrow cages and are unable to fly, swim, walk, or rest on solid ground. Common side effects of the daily brutality include large permanent blisters, breathing difficulties, listlessness, and death. Restaurants that serve foie gras are serving the product of torture and suffering, and customers who eat foie gras are literally eating disease.
Here are some pictures of foie gras ducks:



"...humanity's million-year struggle to the top of the food chain." I would like to hone in on that one ridiculous but often-used excuse for torturing, killing and otherwise dominating animals.
We can insert ourselves anywhere in the food chain. The most appropriate place is where we can be the most environmentally responsible and impose the least amount of harm on our fellow creatures.
We are not involved in any food chain "struggle" just like we are not involved in a "contest" when hunting, fishing, or bullfighting. It is not as though the duck will eat us, or we'll have nothing to eat if we don't imprison the duck, distend its liver to eight times normal size, and cause it unbearable pain. The "struggle" or "contest" is a delusion, constructed as an excuse for domination. With exceptions too rare to have any statistical meaning, the animals we slaughter just want to live their lives, not kill us. They want to eat, raise their young, be secure, and God willing find some time for play and relaxation.
Does "winning" this mythical struggle give us the right to run animal concentration camps?
Struggle or not, what kind of evil compels us to torture animals a fraction of our size, helpless, dependent on our mercy and miserable because of our lack of it? Are we trying to emulate ruthless dictators with an insatiable lust for dominance? Does our presumed struggle justify "Yeah, we know we can torture and kill you, so we will. Mmm, your exploded organs taste so good."? Such behaviors and attitudes are the frightening and disturbing signs of someone drunk with power, absent of empathy, possibly in need of psychological treatment.
While those that feast on the pain and suffering of animals proclaim that we've reached the top of the food chain, I wonder with dismay how we sunk to the bottom of the compassion chain.
Related Resource:
Foie gras result of cruel system of farming
"Chou used the fact that foie gras has been around for a long time to imply that its continued practice is defensible. Following that logic, we could defend the practice of human slavery, which has been around since the dawn of civilization. Anyone who has any natural analytic sense or has taken Philosophy 101 can tell you that we cannot justify a practice using the basis of culture or tradition."
Related Post:
Lame Excuses for Cruelty With Side Order of Snobbism
Saintly Devotion and Non-Random Acts of Kindness
"There is a story told of St Kevin of Glendalough. Standing at prayer in a traditional Celtic monastic position with his arms outstretched in the form of a cross, a blackbird came and built a nest and laid her eggs in it. In order not to disturb the eggs, St Kevin stayed in the position until the eggs were hatched. At one point an angel came to Kevin and ordered him to stop the penance. The saint replied, 'It is no great thing for me to bear this pain of holding my hand under the blackbird for the sake of heaven's king.'"
"There is more than this simple cooperation with creation however. There is also the harmony that the animals themselves bring to the human sphere."
"This may be the reason why pets are so important to humans. It is a sign of the new creation, of the restoration of kinship between two different parts of creation. With one or two (or more!) animals in the household, it is an icon of both Paradise and of the kingdom of God as each of us are called to name our animals as Adam did, and live in communion with them without fear. This is a way in which it can be said that our pets smell in us the fragrance, or, one might say, the perfume, of Adam before the fall.
To paraphrase Isaiah, when the human can lie down with the cat, or the dog, or the guinea pig, or, God help us, the snake, we aid the advancement of the Kingdom just a little, work to recreate Paradise just a little, and so give new meaning to such menial tasks as cleaning out the litter box."
"There is more than this simple cooperation with creation however. There is also the harmony that the animals themselves bring to the human sphere."
"This may be the reason why pets are so important to humans. It is a sign of the new creation, of the restoration of kinship between two different parts of creation. With one or two (or more!) animals in the household, it is an icon of both Paradise and of the kingdom of God as each of us are called to name our animals as Adam did, and live in communion with them without fear. This is a way in which it can be said that our pets smell in us the fragrance, or, one might say, the perfume, of Adam before the fall.
To paraphrase Isaiah, when the human can lie down with the cat, or the dog, or the guinea pig, or, God help us, the snake, we aid the advancement of the Kingdom just a little, work to recreate Paradise just a little, and so give new meaning to such menial tasks as cleaning out the litter box."
From "Humans and Animals in the Kingdom", by Robert Flanagan (a member of the Orthodox Church of the Holy Cross)
Saturday, August 27, 2005
The State Fair
Beneath the smell of cotton candy and "good old-time fun" of state fairs is a macabre spectacle. We parade the animals before their slaughter. It's perverse; we admire the condemned, perhaps remark how cute the babies are. Soon they will be hanging by their hooves, bleeding, squealing in desperation as their lives come to a bitter end.
I wonder if they're fooled at all by the facade of respect they receive at the fair. By the loaded compliments ("she's a real beauty"). By the children who say "look, it's Babe." Maybe for a brief moment they think life will be good, that they can look forward to many afternoons in the sunshine and straw, eating fresh vegetables and receiving only adoration and friendly touches from humans.
I wonder if they're fooled at all by the facade of respect they receive at the fair. By the loaded compliments ("she's a real beauty"). By the children who say "look, it's Babe." Maybe for a brief moment they think life will be good, that they can look forward to many afternoons in the sunshine and straw, eating fresh vegetables and receiving only adoration and friendly touches from humans.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Our Morally Consequential Similarities to Animals
I occasionally hear the viewpoint that infants and fetuses deserve rights because they have a human "essence." Animals share the essential parts of that essence that merit rights: sentience, profound interests and the capacity for pain and suffering. Beings, including humans, who lack those traits, e.g., embryos and the terminally comatose, have abridged rights. Non-sentient entities, e.g., trees, have no claim on rights, although there are other valid reasons to be respectful of trees.
Quite apart from theory, in practice, most humans give scant moral consideration to non-companion animals, particularly those used in meat, dairy, and fur facilities. Though I firmly believe in animal rights, because, among other reasons, it turns moral relativism into moral obligation, at this point I would settle for some moral consideration toward these long-suffering animals, and if anyone can tell me how best to achieve that I would be most...obliged.
Quite apart from theory, in practice, most humans give scant moral consideration to non-companion animals, particularly those used in meat, dairy, and fur facilities. Though I firmly believe in animal rights, because, among other reasons, it turns moral relativism into moral obligation, at this point I would settle for some moral consideration toward these long-suffering animals, and if anyone can tell me how best to achieve that I would be most...obliged.
Pro-Vivisectionists to NASA Lab Animals: "Thanks for Nothing"
Rhesus macaques shot into space were killed on impact if the rocket made it back to earth, drowned if the rocked landed in water, or were burned up during the rocket's fiery re-entry.
John Paul Stapp, the first U.S. space research supervisor, used himself as the subject for experiments. The higher-ups rejected his work, preferring to use African chimpanzees taken from the wild. The chimps received shocks if they pulled the wrong lever during actual flights.
Those that survived the space program punishments were considered "surplus equipment" when they were no longer needed, and transferred to Coulston Labs, where they were used in biomedical research experiments. Coulston Labs was notorious for its long string of Animal Welfare Act violations before it was finally shut down in 2002 (thanks in part to the investigations of the animal rights group In Defense of Animals). That year, the last 61 former NASA chimps were released from bondage and purchased by SaveTheChimps, with funding assistance from the Arcus Foundation, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, Doris Day Animal League, Friends of Washoe, In Defense of Animals, and New England Anti-Vivisection Society. As reported in Animal People, "Some of the chimps had by then endured solitary confinement in concrete cells for over 40 years."
Pro-vivisectionists: is this how we repay the animals we use in experiments? Our closest relatives, in this case? The species is that is supposedly an accurate model of our own? You are the ones who place such a high value on using animals as test subjects. You're the ones who say such exercises are indispensable. Why weren't you leading the fight to give these long-suffering animals a decent home after their years of involuntary servitude? Why was it the animal rights groups who finally gave them sanctuary? Instead of misrepresenting animal rights groups every chance you get maybe you should applaud and help out with these humane efforts.
Related Resource:
SaveTheChimps is a charter member of The Chimpanzee Collaboratory:
John Paul Stapp, the first U.S. space research supervisor, used himself as the subject for experiments. The higher-ups rejected his work, preferring to use African chimpanzees taken from the wild. The chimps received shocks if they pulled the wrong lever during actual flights.
Those that survived the space program punishments were considered "surplus equipment" when they were no longer needed, and transferred to Coulston Labs, where they were used in biomedical research experiments. Coulston Labs was notorious for its long string of Animal Welfare Act violations before it was finally shut down in 2002 (thanks in part to the investigations of the animal rights group In Defense of Animals). That year, the last 61 former NASA chimps were released from bondage and purchased by SaveTheChimps, with funding assistance from the Arcus Foundation, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, Doris Day Animal League, Friends of Washoe, In Defense of Animals, and New England Anti-Vivisection Society. As reported in Animal People, "Some of the chimps had by then endured solitary confinement in concrete cells for over 40 years."
Pro-vivisectionists: is this how we repay the animals we use in experiments? Our closest relatives, in this case? The species is that is supposedly an accurate model of our own? You are the ones who place such a high value on using animals as test subjects. You're the ones who say such exercises are indispensable. Why weren't you leading the fight to give these long-suffering animals a decent home after their years of involuntary servitude? Why was it the animal rights groups who finally gave them sanctuary? Instead of misrepresenting animal rights groups every chance you get maybe you should applaud and help out with these humane efforts.
Related Resource:
SaveTheChimps is a charter member of The Chimpanzee Collaboratory:
"Our Mission
The mission of the Chimpanzee Collaboratory is: To make significant and measurable progress in protecting the lives and establishing the legal rights of chimpanzees.
The State of Chimpanzees Today
Chimpanzees and other great apes are disappearing from their natural habitats in Africa and Asia at an alarming and unprecedented rate. Several factors are responsible for the decline of these species, the most serious being deforestation, the bushmeat trade, and capture for use as research subjects and pets. Around the world thousands of chimpanzees are living in captivity in research laboratories, zoos, entertainment facilities and as pets in peoples' homes. A small number of fortunate animals have been retired to sanctuaries.
Chimpanzees are highly intelligent and sensitive animals, capable of complex thoughts and actions. With emotions similar to those we call joy, anger, grief, sorrow, pleasure, boredom and depression, these remarkable animals are mentally and physiologically similar to humans. Ironically, because of these similarities, chimpanzees are used and abused by humans in the name of science, entertainment and education. Conveniently, however, they are seen by society to be just different enough that they have been deprived of the most basic legal rights."
The mission of the Chimpanzee Collaboratory is: To make significant and measurable progress in protecting the lives and establishing the legal rights of chimpanzees.
The State of Chimpanzees Today
Chimpanzees and other great apes are disappearing from their natural habitats in Africa and Asia at an alarming and unprecedented rate. Several factors are responsible for the decline of these species, the most serious being deforestation, the bushmeat trade, and capture for use as research subjects and pets. Around the world thousands of chimpanzees are living in captivity in research laboratories, zoos, entertainment facilities and as pets in peoples' homes. A small number of fortunate animals have been retired to sanctuaries.
Chimpanzees are highly intelligent and sensitive animals, capable of complex thoughts and actions. With emotions similar to those we call joy, anger, grief, sorrow, pleasure, boredom and depression, these remarkable animals are mentally and physiologically similar to humans. Ironically, because of these similarities, chimpanzees are used and abused by humans in the name of science, entertainment and education. Conveniently, however, they are seen by society to be just different enough that they have been deprived of the most basic legal rights."
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
A Perfectly Well-Rehearsed Lie
Here's another great letter by United Poultry Concerns president Karen Davis, PhD, in which she solidly refutes the outrageous contention by Wegmans' egg farm veterinarian Dr. Benjamin Lucio-Martinez that hens do "perfectly well" in the tiny wire cages that Wegmans provides for them as a life-long home.
Battery caged hens are turned into living and dying statues, unable to take three steps in any direction. They're permanently trapped in tiny wire containers. They're denied the chance to walk around, explore, forage, socialize, or clean themselves, which they would do immediately and every day if given the chance. They have no stimulation, no variety, no opportunity to make decisions. Hens are intelligent, curious, social, adpative, and emotional animals. Sensory deprivation is a slow, erosive torture.
What sort of person could look at these pitiful creatures and claim they're doing "perfectly well?" An unfeeling brute. A delusional sadist. Or a liar. Hens can't even stand up straight in a battery cage. They can't lift one wing. Would you do "perfectly well" sitting in the middle seat of a DC-10 your entire life? I'd love to have Dr. Lucio look directly at a half-feathered, blistered, tired, feces-covered hen who's forced to sleep next to a rotting corpse, hook him up to a lie detector, and ask him if this hen is doing "perfectly well." No matter how he answers, he incriminates himself.
CEO Danny Wegman recently announced, "Last year, we were determined the best company to work for in America. Basically, the chickens are working for us. So, we're going to make sure they're well treated one way or the other. If there's a way to do better, we'll do it."
I'll overlook the fact that the hens never applied for a job at Wegmans, and assume that there's a grain of truth to Mr. Wegman's pledge to treat the hens better. Credit for this public consideration of hen welfare improvements must be given to Compassionate Consumers, which exposed the horrid conditions and suffering inside the Wegmans egg farm. Two suggestions for Wegmans if they're serious:
Related Link:
Wegman's Cruelty: An Unofficial Blog
Related post:
Eggregious Lies from Wegmans
"[Biologist Marian Stamp] Dawkins explains that if hens kept all their lives on wire floors are suddenly given access to a floor of wood-shavings or peat, they have 'an immediate and strong preference for these more natural floors over the wire ones. ... They dustbathe, eat particles of peat and scratch with their feet. It is not just the extra comfort afforded by a soft floor that attracts them, but all the behavior they can do there as well.'
By contrast, when hens are forced to stand and sit on wire mesh, their feet can become sore, cracked and deformed. The hen's claws, which are designed to scratch vigorously, and thus stay short and blunt, become long, thin, twisted and broken. They can curl around the wire floor and entrap the hen, causing her to starve to death inches from her food and water.
The overriding issue is that hens are birds with behavior patterns that have no outlet in a cage. And it isn't just animal advocates who point this out.
Concerning battery cages for hens, Dr. Lesley Rogers writes in her book, The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the Chicken: 'In no way can these living conditions meet the demands of a complex nervous system designed to form a multitude of memories and to make complex decisions.'"
By contrast, when hens are forced to stand and sit on wire mesh, their feet can become sore, cracked and deformed. The hen's claws, which are designed to scratch vigorously, and thus stay short and blunt, become long, thin, twisted and broken. They can curl around the wire floor and entrap the hen, causing her to starve to death inches from her food and water.
The overriding issue is that hens are birds with behavior patterns that have no outlet in a cage. And it isn't just animal advocates who point this out.
Concerning battery cages for hens, Dr. Lesley Rogers writes in her book, The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the Chicken: 'In no way can these living conditions meet the demands of a complex nervous system designed to form a multitude of memories and to make complex decisions.'"
Battery caged hens are turned into living and dying statues, unable to take three steps in any direction. They're permanently trapped in tiny wire containers. They're denied the chance to walk around, explore, forage, socialize, or clean themselves, which they would do immediately and every day if given the chance. They have no stimulation, no variety, no opportunity to make decisions. Hens are intelligent, curious, social, adpative, and emotional animals. Sensory deprivation is a slow, erosive torture.
What sort of person could look at these pitiful creatures and claim they're doing "perfectly well?" An unfeeling brute. A delusional sadist. Or a liar. Hens can't even stand up straight in a battery cage. They can't lift one wing. Would you do "perfectly well" sitting in the middle seat of a DC-10 your entire life? I'd love to have Dr. Lucio look directly at a half-feathered, blistered, tired, feces-covered hen who's forced to sleep next to a rotting corpse, hook him up to a lie detector, and ask him if this hen is doing "perfectly well." No matter how he answers, he incriminates himself.
CEO Danny Wegman recently announced, "Last year, we were determined the best company to work for in America. Basically, the chickens are working for us. So, we're going to make sure they're well treated one way or the other. If there's a way to do better, we'll do it."
I'll overlook the fact that the hens never applied for a job at Wegmans, and assume that there's a grain of truth to Mr. Wegman's pledge to treat the hens better. Credit for this public consideration of hen welfare improvements must be given to Compassionate Consumers, which exposed the horrid conditions and suffering inside the Wegmans egg farm. Two suggestions for Wegmans if they're serious:
- Get rid of those stinking battery cages.
- Hire a more honest and more observant veterinarian.
Related Link:
Wegman's Cruelty: An Unofficial Blog
Related post:
Eggregious Lies from Wegmans
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Is It Anthropomorphizing Only When the Animal Challenges Her Captor's Party Line?
This is an excellent letter, written by Karen Davis, PhD, president of United Poultry Concerns. She refutes absurd, illogical presumptions offered by the purveyors and profiteers of large-scale animal cruelty:
"Animal producers often talk about the animals they raise and slaughter for food as if the animals themselves did not exist. Either that or they claim that their animals are happy and healthy, even when the evidence shows otherwise.
A double standard prevails. If animal advocates say, for example, that a hen confined in a battery cage is miserable, we’re accused of anthropomorphism of attributing human feelings to chickens but if egg producers say the hen is happy, the claim is accepted as 'science.'
In reality, animal producers may be more justly accused of anthropomorphism than animal advocates, if, by this word, it means the attribution of human feelings to other species in order to justify exploiting them.
For example, in a recent article in Feedstuffs (July 18), Trent Loos writes that if today’s 'food' animals could speak, 'I am sure they, too, would tell you of the pride they feel about their role in the cycle of life.' You can’t get more anthropomorphic than that."
A double standard prevails. If animal advocates say, for example, that a hen confined in a battery cage is miserable, we’re accused of anthropomorphism of attributing human feelings to chickens but if egg producers say the hen is happy, the claim is accepted as 'science.'
In reality, animal producers may be more justly accused of anthropomorphism than animal advocates, if, by this word, it means the attribution of human feelings to other species in order to justify exploiting them.
For example, in a recent article in Feedstuffs (July 18), Trent Loos writes that if today’s 'food' animals could speak, 'I am sure they, too, would tell you of the pride they feel about their role in the cycle of life.' You can’t get more anthropomorphic than that."
Real Men
I bench press 900 pounds. I crush rocks with my teeth. I climb into the middle of volcanoes. I swim in Lake Michigan in January. I push 18-wheelers with my bare hands -- uphill. I've been shot out of a cannon and I've strapped myself to the belly of a 747 at 40 thousand feet. I have black belts in Karate, Kung Fu, and Jiu Jitsu. But I don't hurt animals. Ever.
Real Men are kind to animals.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
My Recollections of Fishing
Or -- Maybe the Question Should Be: "Do We Feel Pain?"
The first time I put the hook in the worm I was about eight years old. I remember the worm twitched. I told myself it was like twitching when you got a shot. It was subtle but I had to invent a fiction to get over my discomfort at hurting another creature. After a while, like most boys who fish, I became pretty good at hooking worms. Although I always did it quickly, to get it over with; so I wouldn't have to focus on the worm's reaction.
When I was a teenager, I "moved up" to using shrimp as bait, fishing off a bridge in the Florida Keys. Again I had to go through "the first time." Shrimp are bigger than worms and their reactions to the hook were more pronounced. You felt them writhe as the hook pierced them. "Surely they don't feel pain," I told myself, and I believed it about three-quarters. But what did I know? I just wanted it to be that they didn't feel pain. They probably do. Whatever they feel, I'm sure having a barbed hook cut up your insides can only be bad; the question is how bad a mild numbness or excruciating discomfort and fear?
When I left for college, I quit fishing. No special reason. I just got into other things.
Years later, my father had a miniature coral reef tank in the basement. He had to carefully monitor it and maintain it every day. Reefs require a fairly precise balance. I didn't become a shrimp expert, but I could see that the ones in the tank led busy, varied, and social lives. They seemed to really enjoy good food. Sure, they were much different than me. But they were sentient lives. The shrimp would greet my father by coming out from wherever they were; sometimes they would "clean" his hand. They were the reef's cleaners; that was their job. I could never jab a hook in them. Without even having to think about it, that would be mean. I think it would hurt them and they wouldn't like it. Plus I would be destroying a delicately beautiful creature unnecessarily.
A Beautiful Jewish Law, Usually Broken
The Code of Jewish Law (Sefer Hasidim) states the concept and inherent obligations of Tsa'ar Ba'alei Chayim: "It is forbidden, according to the law of the Torah, to inflict pain upon any living creature. On the contrary, it is our duty to relieve the pain of any creature."*
If you have eaten one bite of flesh from any animal that came from a factory farm or, sadly, most smaller farms, including those that advertise themselves as "humane" you have flagrantly violated this code. Note that it makes no difference if the animal was killed in a kosher facility.
If you have eaten one bite of flesh from any animal that came from a factory farm or, sadly, most smaller farms, including those that advertise themselves as "humane" you have flagrantly violated this code. Note that it makes no difference if the animal was killed in a kosher facility.
*Quoted by Richard Schwartz, author of Judaism and Vegetarianism, in Judaism and Animal Rights: Clasical and Contemporary Responses
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Questions on Moral Worth
What determines moral worth? Brain power? Language ability? Abstract thinking? Knowing right from wrong? Having a soul?
Is there a chance that what we attribute to higher moral worth of humans is actually preference? Do we save the human first because of kinship, not moral worth? Is there any chance we are labeling behavior motivated by self-interest as behavior motivated by "moral worth" because it is more flattering?
Do differences in moral worth justify enslavement? Does the species with higher moral worth have the right to impose a limitless amount of suffering on the species of lower worth if the higher-worth species derives a benefit from doing so? If so, does the higher-valued species have an obligation to do everything within reason to avoid imposing such suffering? If the higher-valued species does not do that, is their moral worth perhaps overrated?
Have we been wrong before in using rights of higher moral worth as an excuse for committing atrocities against those of perceived lower moral worth? Did we eventually realize the wrongfulness and self-deception of doing so?
In our history, do groups estimating their own moral worth tend to overrate or underrate it? Can we objectively determine our own moral worth, or should we assume some bias?
Do differences in moral worth justify the fur trade? Rodeos? Continued tobacco smoke experiments on animals?
Is humility worth something, morally? Does a species (or being) with high moral worth practice compassion and generosity, and sacrifice on behalf of the weak, the suffering, and the least powerful? How well do humans score on those counts?
Therein lies a paradox. The species with greater moral worth, living on a planet with finite resources, would not cut in line but willingly go as far back in the line as it possibly could. It would go to great lengths to ensure that it is not taking more than it needs, at the expense of others. In short, part of moral worth is giving deference to those with lower moral worth. A species of lower moral worth may be too self-centered or be otherwise unable to act with such grace.
Is willing, conscientious destructiveness of the environment upon which every species depends an indicator of low moral worth? How about selfishness an unwillingness to share non-essential resources, even knowing that those whom you deprive may be saddened or physically imperiled by your choice? Which species display this handicap most prominently?
Of what value is the ability to make moral decisions unless those decisions are ..moral? If we as a species say to the animals, "we are morally superior, therefore we're going to harm you and kill you for our benefit," haven't we just undercut our argument; disproved our claim?
If the difference between an alien race's moral worth and our moral worth was equal to the distance between our moral worth and animals' moral worth using whatever criteria we want to determine moral worth would the aliens have the right to use us like we use animals?
Is there a chance that what we attribute to higher moral worth of humans is actually preference? Do we save the human first because of kinship, not moral worth? Is there any chance we are labeling behavior motivated by self-interest as behavior motivated by "moral worth" because it is more flattering?
Do differences in moral worth justify enslavement? Does the species with higher moral worth have the right to impose a limitless amount of suffering on the species of lower worth if the higher-worth species derives a benefit from doing so? If so, does the higher-valued species have an obligation to do everything within reason to avoid imposing such suffering? If the higher-valued species does not do that, is their moral worth perhaps overrated?
Have we been wrong before in using rights of higher moral worth as an excuse for committing atrocities against those of perceived lower moral worth? Did we eventually realize the wrongfulness and self-deception of doing so?
In our history, do groups estimating their own moral worth tend to overrate or underrate it? Can we objectively determine our own moral worth, or should we assume some bias?
Do differences in moral worth justify the fur trade? Rodeos? Continued tobacco smoke experiments on animals?
Is humility worth something, morally? Does a species (or being) with high moral worth practice compassion and generosity, and sacrifice on behalf of the weak, the suffering, and the least powerful? How well do humans score on those counts?
Therein lies a paradox. The species with greater moral worth, living on a planet with finite resources, would not cut in line but willingly go as far back in the line as it possibly could. It would go to great lengths to ensure that it is not taking more than it needs, at the expense of others. In short, part of moral worth is giving deference to those with lower moral worth. A species of lower moral worth may be too self-centered or be otherwise unable to act with such grace.
Is willing, conscientious destructiveness of the environment upon which every species depends an indicator of low moral worth? How about selfishness an unwillingness to share non-essential resources, even knowing that those whom you deprive may be saddened or physically imperiled by your choice? Which species display this handicap most prominently?
Of what value is the ability to make moral decisions unless those decisions are ..moral? If we as a species say to the animals, "we are morally superior, therefore we're going to harm you and kill you for our benefit," haven't we just undercut our argument; disproved our claim?
If the difference between an alien race's moral worth and our moral worth was equal to the distance between our moral worth and animals' moral worth using whatever criteria we want to determine moral worth would the aliens have the right to use us like we use animals?
Thursday, August 18, 2005
"I'm Not Stopping" -- Part 2: Chesterfield County
By Eileen McAfee
[Note: You may want to read part one of this series first; it's the post just below this if you're reading the archives.]
Since "Richmond", I have worked with many localities to help improve conditions in their pounds/shelters. Most often I did this quietly, behind the scenes, with no media publicity nor negative PR for the locality. I have spoken before City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, the Board of Agriculture and the General Assembly about the issue of impounded animals. Nothing, however, prepared me for the response of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors when I, and five other speakers, made a presentation to them on April 13, 2005 about ongoing animal abuse at the Chesterfield Pound. Their response was nothing less than a well-orchestrated, well-rehearsed ambush of private citizens by police and administrative officials. (The Chesterfield Pound is under the Police Department. The Pound Manager is a Police Captain. She is referred to by staff as "The Captain".)
The Chesterfield Animal Pound History and Allegations
Data from the Office of the State Veterinarian documents that the Chesterfield Pound has the highest number of animals "Found Dead in Cage" of any pound/shelter in Virginia: 525 in 2003, 481 in 2004. The Pound takes in over 6,000 animals per year and has a 1.2 million dollar budget. In her defense, the Pound Manager states she is the only manager who honestly reports the number of dead. Since there are currently 136 pounds and shelters in VA, this would mean 135 Managers are dishonest.)
For at least 10 years, employees, volunteers and private citizens have met with Chesterfield Police officials and administrators in an attempt to remedy problems at the pound, to no avail.
Five former employees met at my home with Style Weekly Reporter Brandon Walters and gave eyewitness accounts of animal cruelty at the facility. (The employees had quit their jobs because they could no longer tolerate conditions at the pound; they had not been fired and were, therefore, not "disgruntled" employees seeking retaliation.)
They alleged the "bagging" (in plastic bags) of dying animals who were then placed onto a truck in the hot sun to finish the dying process without benefit of any veterinary care nor humane euthanasia; the high mortality rate of animals who were simply found dead in their cages because of a lack of veterinary care; and many other abusive practices.
They reported that during their "Exit Interviews" with Human Resources, HR staff took "pages and pages of notes" documenting their complaints, but no changes were made at the pound.
In August, 2004 exactly one year ago I met with Major Thierry Dupuis and presented him with a four-page list of alleged violations. Major Dupuis seemed very concerned and sincere. I sent him a "thank you" note the following day for our productive meeting.
Alleged Violations of Virginia's Animal Welfare Laws Presented to Major Dupuis and the Board of Supervisors
- Cats are transported to the gas chamber in an inhumane manner. They are gathered up in a rough manner by the chamber operator and crammed together into one cage (known as "the hearse"). They end up sitting on top of each other; their legs protrude out of the open wire cage. They are terrified and bite, scratch and fight with each other. The "hearse" is then placed in the chamber and the cats are all gassed together fighting until they succumb.
- The chamber is overcrowded with dogs. The dogs fight with each other in the chamber while being gassed.
- Sick, injured, elderly, and pregnant animals who are unable to walk are dragged by a catchpole down the corridor inside the shelter to the outdoors where they continue to be dragged over to the gas chamber and are gassed. Most of these animals have upper respiratory illness and cannot properly assimilate the gas for a humane death.
- Animals are not determined to be dead before they are disposed of at the landfill. The pound has no functioning stethoscope. Other means of determining death are not always used: Thoracic palpation, corneal reflex, toe pinch and visual observation.
- Cages and bowls are filthy.
- Animals are not separated by sex, age, size and temperament. Animals have become pregnant at the pound. Vicious fights between dogs result in serious injury and death.
- Animals are intentionally sprayed with high pressure water hoses during cleaning of cages. Animals become soaking wet from head to toe with water and hazardous chemicals. Feces and urine is sprayed up onto them. Animals' eyes become infected. They suffer burns from the chemicals on their abdomens, feet and testicles. Their mouths are burned when they lick themselves for relief.
- Illness is rampant. Sick and healthy animals are housed together.
- Animals routinely go without veterinary care. The contract Veterinarian, Dr. William Dunnavant, never comes into the pound to treat animals. Few animals requiring veterinary care are ever taken to him.
- The pound manager has no training at all in animal care or pound management.
- The pound manager and the chamber operator falsified State Veterinarian Inspection Reports by affixing their signatures and initials to these official government documents, verifying, when asked by inspectors, that cats were transported and gassed humanely, according to law, when they were not.
- Animals suspected of rabies are decapitated (as required to diagnose rabies), but in full view of cats housed in the room in which the decapitation is performed.
Many incidents of retaliation by the County against me have occurred in an effort to make me "go away". They will be detailed in a future posting. But I didn't go away and I didn't stop. My motto, "I'm not stopping!" has carried me through the process with Chesterfield that ultimately resulted in their (finally, as of August 8, 2005) acknowledging and correcting violations.
Presentation to the Board of Supervisors on April 13, 2005
Several weeks before our presentation, we had to request, in writing, to speak to the Board, and state our topic of discussion. Each speaker's name was listed on the Meeting Agenda. Speakers were allocated five minutes, with a total time of 30 minutes for our entire presentation. No personal attacks were allowed. These were all reasonable requirements.
Six of us registered to speak. We were: An attorney, two teachers, a former social worker and two homemakers. NONE of us belong to any animal rights groups nor terrorist organizations, etc.
The only organizations I personally belong to are: 1.) A culinary guild, and 2.) A Task Force on animal cruelty and human violence. I serve on the Executive Committee of this organization along with two other individuals. Membership of the task force consists of representatives from Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield County Commonwealth Attorneys Offices, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Attorney General's Office, Animal Control Officers and Police Officers from the foregoing localities. I belong to no animal rights organizations. I am not a member of any animal advocacye group, though my husband and I have contributed financially to some of them.
Our total group, including speakers, consisted of 30 individuals who were present in the audience in support of the issue. We were all professional in dress, conduct and presentations.
Noticeable because of their numbers, was the large contingency of police officers and police officials present. There were at least 50 officers. Since this was our first time speaking before the Board, if any of us thought twice about it, I think we assumed (as did I), that there was police business before the Board.
Likewise with the Court Reporter sitting at the dais along with the Board of Supervisors just a County employee recording the minutes. We learned later from a Reporter that the police were geared up for a possible riot situation and the Court Reporter worked for an attorney hired by the Pound Manager.
Each of our speakers, four of whom were eyewitnesses to many of the violations, presented a portion of the whole story. We gave accounts of animal abuse, cruelty and neglect occurring at the pound, for which no one was being held accountable, and the falsification of State Veterinarian Inspection Reports by Pound Management, again with no one held accountable. We did not mention anyone by name.
I made two recommendations:
- That the County call in the State Police to investigate in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by the Chesterfield Police investigating one of their own. Eight months had transpired since I first brought the problems to the Police Dept. and nothing had been done to investigate nor hold anyone accountable. As stated above, within two weeks of my first meeting with police officials, Major Dupuis announced to the media that all allegations were "unfounded". During the intervening eight months, police officials (Chief Baker and Major Dupuis) appeared on television denigrating me and stating my accusations were untrue, groundless and unfounded.
- Hire either the Humane Society of the United States or the ASPCA, two organizations that have pound/shelter outreach programs to evaluate procedures and practices at the pound. I called it a "win-win" remedy. If they found nothing wrong, then so be it, "your critics will be silenced". If they found problems, they would help the County remedy them and "your critics will sing your praises."
I gave the Board a file folder that contained:
- The list of alleged violations with their concomitant VA Criminal Codes and/or the State Veterinarian Guidelines, Rules or Regulations governing each alleged violation.
- Correspondence to me from Captain Daniel Kelly admitting that cats had been gassed inhumanely, but stating their case was "closed".
- Copies of the falsified State Veterinarian Inspection Reports for the years 1998 through 2004 which were signed and initialed by management attesting to State Veterinary Inspectors that cats were not gassed inhumanely.
- Names and contact numbers of witnesses and the incidents they observed.
- Correspondence from me to Captain Kelly offering, on two occasions, to bring witnesses forward to the Police to be interviewed. (I received no response from Captain Kelly).
- The Internal Audit of the Pound by their own auditors that showed other records had been falsified.
Board Members "Dickie" King, Renny Bush-Humphrey and Kelly Miller all stated their support for and friendship with the Manager. (They stated her name.) "Dickie" King asked the audience if they had seen the movie, "The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre", stating that he had never heard of anything more horrific than what I had presented since seeing the movie.
Since I obviously already knew I was being tape recorded, televised and a Court Reporter was transcribing our statements, I thought it was odd to be called back up. An attorney later told me it was nothing less than an attempt to intimidate me and make me back down from my statements a common ploy by some officials.
Board Chairman Ed Barber then asked the Chief of Police, "Are your people ready?" Police Chief Col. Carl Baker, Captain Daniel Kelly, Contract Veterinarian Dr. William Dunnavant and three citizen supporters spoke (Carl Wilkins, Joe Lay and Gail Lay). None of them were listed on the Meeting Agenda and none of them had a time limit. In the end, it would be clear that "personal attacks" were allowed for special people. (Unbeknownst to us at the time, the citizens who spoke in support of the pound and its Manager are volunteers with the Police Department, as is the Pound Manager.)
They described us as animal rights terrorists, "people who destroy laboratories, release the animals and throw blood on people wearing fur coats." They also accused us of doing something in boats I don't remember exactly what, only that it was something very bad. Carl Wilkins quoted statements from unidentified sources about animal rights terrorists. He said he was "in the process of connecting the dots" and though (he) hadn't "quite connected them all yet" as soon as he did, the Board "would be the first to know." This was an insinuation that we were all connected to some subversive organizations.
Joe Lay told the Board it was "time to draw a line in the sand" and say 'No More!' to people like us.
The Police speakers stated I had no evidence to substantiate any of the allegations; all my allegations were "unfounded"; and that none of what I alleged were criminal violations. Captain Kelly stated "When I met with Mrs. McAfee...", though we had never met; I had never even seen him before the meeting. He also stated, "She admitted writing an anonymous letter (to us) in 2002", though I had previously specifically denied writing the letter when it was shown to me by a police official. (The letter outlined serious animal abuse allegations). Inexplicably, Captain Kelly, "in charge" of the "investigation", insisted on calling me "Mrs. Mackelfee" throughout his presentation. Call me picky, but something tells me he knew my real name.)
Board Chairman Ed Barber then turned to Member Kelly Miller and said: "I know you have some things you want to say. Even though we're to break for dinner, go ahead and take all the time you need". (Translation: to beat up Mrs. McAfee for having dared to criticize one of our own!)
As I sat in the front row, without benefit of a microphone and at a much lower level that Miller who was up on the dais with a microphone, Miller proceeded to angrily accuse me, while pointing at me, of "going to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office" with witnesses in order to file a criminal complaint. When I stood up and politely said, "May I tell you what Mr. Davenport said?" (my exact words) he retorted, "You be quiet; I don't want to hear from you!" I sat down.
Miller then told the audience (which included the television audience as well), they had made a big mistake in selecting someone like me to lead them and they had done a disservice to their cause.
He accused me of having sent him and other Board members, "the most malicious, willfully harmful letters I have ever read! And Madame, you have crossed the line!" (Subsequently, exercising my Freedom of Information Act rights, I requested copies of letters written by me that anyone deemed malicious and harmful or in any way unprofessional. The County responded they had none to send me.)
Miller then accused me of "probably being one of those people who support partial-birth abortion!" and carried on about it being the most horrendous abomination that has happened to mankind. He berated me further by stating, "I didn't see YOU down at the General Assembly opposing it!"
Because I asked, "Why are we talking about this?" with a waive of his arm he ordered a Deputy Sheriff to "Remove this woman!" (My sense was he would really have liked to say, "Off with her head!") The Deputy, looking as puzzled as I felt, walked over to me and we walked out together.*
Although I distantly heard a male voice say, "Ma'am, don't leave; I don't want you to leave", in the shock of it all, I couldn't tell where the voice came from. When I watched a tape of the meeting, I learned it was Board Chairman Ed Barber's voice. I subsequently was told by an attorney that only the Chairman has the authority to have a citizen removed from a Board Meeting; Mr. Miller had overstepped his limitations. On the other hand...maybe Mr. Barber didn't want me to leave, because they weren't through beating me up...**
*A reporter told me this was the second time Miller had done this to a woman. He ordered a woman out last winter. It was late at night, cold and raining and he made her leave the building. She had to wait outside, alone, in the dark, until the person providing transportation for her came out of the meeting. The driver did not realize she had to actually leave the building, stayed in the meeting and the woman was left standing outside for a long time.
**Surprisingly, the Minutes of the April 13 meeting make no mention whatsoever of Board Member Kelly Miller's "partial-birth abortion" diatribe and do not document that a Deputy Sheriff was ordered to remove me. Although I have asked that the minutes be corrected, they were not.
How I arrived at the 'I'm Not Stopping" Point in my Life
In 1999, to silence my criticism about deplorable conditions and practices occurring in the City of Richmond pound, City officials maliciously and very publicly accused me of "racism" among many other actions to defame me and destroy my credibility. They sent this false accusation far and wide, all the way up to the Governor.
Unbeknownst to them at the time, I had worked for L.A. County DPSS (welfare department) for many years. My AFDC caseload of 140 families (the equivalent of 700 individuals), was 95 percent minorities. I held degrees in Criminal Justice and Social Work.
I sued the City for defamation. During settlement conferences, the city tried to get me to drop my charges of perjury, Witness tampering and obstruction of justice against the Pound Manager (all of which occurred during the course of litigation and the city's determination to "win at any cost"), by stating the Pound Manager was "a single mother" give her a break.
Unbeknownst to them, I had raised my child completely alone from the time she was 16 months old until age 20, when I remarried. I worked and/or went to school full time to support us. Being a "single mother" does not equate to a privilege to break the law.
When my daughter was ten, I went to college. I received two degrees in three years and graduated Magna cum Laude with plans to immediately enter graduate school to pursue masters degrees in Social Work and Gerontology. (If there were two of me, I would take on the treatment of patients in nursing homes, which is often very similar to the treatment of animals in pounds/shelters across the nation, in that the helpless are taken advantage of and abused by the people who control them.)
My daughter's diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma (bone cancer) at age 13 put these plans on hold. She was hospitalized many times for tests, surgery and the effects of aggressive, multi-modality chemotherapy; her clavicle was resected; she suffered second and third degree radiation burns, a stroke, and almost died on two occasions. She missed all of eighth and ninth grades.
On April 13, 2005, I (and others) was maliciously maligned as an animal rights terrorist by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. I was portrayed as someone who would "firebomb" animal labs, release the animals, throw blood on people wearing fur coats, and do something in "boats" (I'm not sure what only that it was something very bad.) The pound vet, Dr. William Dunnavant, opened his remarks to the Board with the statement he "feared for his safety and that of his staff", though no Board member ever asked "Why?"
Unbeknownst to my current accusers, my husband, Dr. Donald McAfee, is a neuroscientist, a professor of pharmacology and a "pharmaceutical executive". For the last fourteen years, among many other projects, he has worked laboriously on taking a single molecule from "the bench to market". This drug, which targets Parkinson's Disease, is now in its final stages and will be available to the public in about two years. It has been tested in thousands of patients across the U.S. and Europe. So effective is it in releasing patients from their "frozen" bodies, the FDA has allowed these "test" patients to continue to receive it, a rare occurrence when a clinical trial ends.
Unbeknownst to my current accusers, I worked as a social worker in oncology in a major cancer research hospital. "My" hospital's animal facilities were broken into by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The animals were taken and some of the labs destroyed. Years of research suffered.
We were all outraged by the ALF's unconscionable actions, seeing them as ultimately harming patients who otherwise would have benefitted from the fruits of this now-destroyed research. We spoke out to the media and decried the ALF's vicious acts. We felt personally insulted and personally attacked by ALF's allegations of wrongdoing by "our" hospital. We dug in our heels, adopting the attitude that we were right and our accusers wrong.
Unbeknownst to me at the time, this would be my awakening to how animals are treated in some research laboratories and, eventually, my knowledge about the mistreatment of animals in many pounds and shelters.
Ultimately, the Federal Government stepped in and investigated practices in our hospital's labs. Federal grant money was suspended. New guidelines for animal care were instituted and the physical environment for the animals upgraded. Gradually, very gradually, our attitudes changed about who was right and who was wrong, though I don't like to use the terms "right and wrong" in a situation like this. It was more of a need to open our minds and allow ourselves to be educated about the problems in order to fix them.
I am known for my phrase "I'm not stopping!" This commitment came about as a result of watching Jill, my precious child, my only child, dying. This once physically beautiful adolescent (to say nothing of her inner beauty and grace), lay face down on the floor one night in the bedroom we shared. She was too sick to sleep in her own room, alone. Her skeletal body, partially paralyzed on one side from an adverse effect of Vincristine, and her bald head, once covered with waist-length blonde hair, made her almost unrecognizable to me. She couldn't speak. She slowly raised one hand off the rug and tapped the floor with it. She gently shook her head back and forth I knew what she was trying to tell me: "No, no...no more; I can't go through any more", and I knew it was time to let her go. She had suffered enough; the treatment had become worse than the disease.
If my heart could break any more than it already had throughout our long journey which brought us to the point we were that night laying on the rug together, alone then I guess it did. I held her frail body in my arms; both of us quietly sobbing; we had no strength left.
Unbeknownst to me, an inner, spiritual strength I didn't even know I possessed, started welling up in me. My feelings of resignation and acceptance of the inevitable were replaced with a powerful sense of determination and commitment. I wasn't going to stop; I wasn't going to give up. I sat up and with a voice of confidence and hope, told my daughter, "I'm not stopping! I may lose you to cancer, but I'm not going to lose you because we didn't do everything we could to save you!"
I may not be successful in helping to remedy the problems at the Chesterfield County Pound, but it won't be for lack of trying.
My daughter survived; she is married, has three little children, lives in and works for several European government agencies as a bioterrorism consultant and will receive her Doctorate in Political Science this year. We are very lucky...and blessed.
As for my husband, despite Board members Renny Bush-Humphrey, "Dickie" King and Kelly Miller's vicious attacks on me at the Board Meeting, were they stricken with Parkinson's Disease, he would be there to offer them information about the disease and about "his" drug. He would only ask one thing in return: Keep an open mind to what you are hearing from your critics. Can they all be wrong?
My Husband's Letter to the Editor of the Chesterfield Observer Published May 19, 2005
Animal Shelter
The hallmark of a wise leader or a good government is one that listens carefully to those governed. It follows that bad government doesn't listen, but how would you describe a government so arrogant that not only will it not listen to the message, it shoots the messenger. [On April 13th] the Chesterfield supervisors took aim and fired both barrels at animal welfare advocate, Eileen McAfee. She had worked behind the scenes for several months with county police and bureaucrats, in an effort to get them to reform and train staff at the county animal shelter in order to stop practices that were sometimes inhumane and even illegal.
Frustrated by a negative response, she prepared detailed documentation and led a group of eyewitnesses to publicly make her case for the shelter animals, pointing out these problems have been going on for at least a decade. If the supervisors did not want to rely on her or eyewitnesses, she suggested that the county bring in the Humane Society of America, a professional organization that provides a nationwide service to evaluate and recommend shelter policy and training.
The supervisors responded with a shocking, angry, loud diatribe, supported by a number of unscheduled speakers. They falsely accused her of vicious correspondence, acts of extremism and dishonesty, and in a final bizarre scene, a supervisor berated her for her lack of activism on partial birth abortion. When my bewildered wife asked why they were talking about that, she was shown the "American Way" and escorted out of the hall.
What kind of a government do you have when it uses its power and authority to revile and destroy the reputation of a citizen while denying and then refusing independent review. If I was a resident of Chesterfield County, I would be ashamed of my leadership, and I would be wanting some new faces in power to replace the good old boys who have grown arrogant and repressive. But I am not a resident, I am simply the husband of a sensitive and committed woman with a passion for speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Donald A. McAfee, PhD
Henrico County
Next Post: Retaliation and Cover-Up by Chesterfield Officials
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
"I'm Not Stopping" -- Part 1: Richmond
Eileen McAfee is one of my heroes because of her valiant work on behalf of animals, and her unwavering allegiance to decency and justice. She has a heart of gold and a spirit that can move mountains. I'm proud to present her story, in her own words.
Some of her accounts are disturbing and graphic (though never gratuitously so). One episode is a hideous Soviet-style show trial by a supposedly democratic government. I urge you to read the entire saga, to see the extent to which perpetrators of state-sponsored cruelty inflict suffering on animals, brazenly lie about it, and use their political power to persecute and malign citizens who threaten to expose it.
One side note: Eileen may be the only contributor to Animal Writings who has been on the receiving end of an ALF raid. I think you'll find her observations on that incident to be thought-provoking.
[Next: Chesterfield County]
Some of her accounts are disturbing and graphic (though never gratuitously so). One episode is a hideous Soviet-style show trial by a supposedly democratic government. I urge you to read the entire saga, to see the extent to which perpetrators of state-sponsored cruelty inflict suffering on animals, brazenly lie about it, and use their political power to persecute and malign citizens who threaten to expose it.
One side note: Eileen may be the only contributor to Animal Writings who has been on the receiving end of an ALF raid. I think you'll find her observations on that incident to be thought-provoking.
My name is Eileen McAfee and I live in Virginia. I became interested in improving Virginia's animal pounds and shelters in 1996, after seeing and reading shocking media stories of animal abuse by staff at the City of Richmond Animal Pound (not to be confused with the Richmond SPCA which is professionally and humanely administered.)
Among many other cruel and illegal practices, untrained and uncertified staff at the Richmond pound performed euthanasia on fully conscious (no sedation) dogs by hoisting them up on their hind legs with a catch pole, attempting to stick them in the heart with a syringe and inject euthanasia solution into their heart. Cats were "heart stuck" by being held down on the floor by a staff member's foot. The impossibility of actually hitting the heart of an animal frantically struggling as s/he dangled at the end of a catchpole or under someone's boot, resulted in the syringe most often striking the lung and the animal literally drowning in his/her own blood. That was euthanasia at our tax-supported pound: strangling, stabbing and drowning helpless animals.
Were it not for the courage of two very brave Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who took their story to the media (after having informed City management to no avail), we would have never known about this cruel practice. Needless to say, both ACOs were fired.
It took three very long years for me, dedicated and caring pound employees, and several other citizens to remedy the problems at the City of Richmond pound. Efforts included the filing of two lawsuits by my husband and me against the City, the Pound Manager Selina Deale, and her cohort: Richmond Deputy Administrator Anthony Romanello.
It should be completely unnecessary for private citizens to have to "fix" these public facilities. There is often great personal risk involved as well as enormous financial expense when citizens, out of necessity and a sense of commitment, undertake this task. (Details of the Richmond pound and our lawsuits will be posted in the future.)
In 1999, I reviewed State Veterinarian Inspection Reports for all (110) pounds and shelters in Virginia which were on file with the Office of Veterinary Services. Using the Inspectors' own words, documents and findings, I discovered that only 10% of our facilities were in compliance with State Laws, Regulations, Rules and Guidelines. I produced a Report entitled, "The State of Virginia's Pound & Shelters."
In 2002, I updated this report for the Governor's Commission on Efficiency and Effectiveness in Government. My focus was the Office of Veterinary Services and the waste of taxpayer dollars in the administration of Virginia's pounds and shelters. By 2002, there were 136 pounds and shelters in Virginia; a mere 4% were in compliance.
Among many other cruel and illegal practices, untrained and uncertified staff at the Richmond pound performed euthanasia on fully conscious (no sedation) dogs by hoisting them up on their hind legs with a catch pole, attempting to stick them in the heart with a syringe and inject euthanasia solution into their heart. Cats were "heart stuck" by being held down on the floor by a staff member's foot. The impossibility of actually hitting the heart of an animal frantically struggling as s/he dangled at the end of a catchpole or under someone's boot, resulted in the syringe most often striking the lung and the animal literally drowning in his/her own blood. That was euthanasia at our tax-supported pound: strangling, stabbing and drowning helpless animals.
Were it not for the courage of two very brave Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who took their story to the media (after having informed City management to no avail), we would have never known about this cruel practice. Needless to say, both ACOs were fired.
It took three very long years for me, dedicated and caring pound employees, and several other citizens to remedy the problems at the City of Richmond pound. Efforts included the filing of two lawsuits by my husband and me against the City, the Pound Manager Selina Deale, and her cohort: Richmond Deputy Administrator Anthony Romanello.
It should be completely unnecessary for private citizens to have to "fix" these public facilities. There is often great personal risk involved as well as enormous financial expense when citizens, out of necessity and a sense of commitment, undertake this task. (Details of the Richmond pound and our lawsuits will be posted in the future.)
In 1999, I reviewed State Veterinarian Inspection Reports for all (110) pounds and shelters in Virginia which were on file with the Office of Veterinary Services. Using the Inspectors' own words, documents and findings, I discovered that only 10% of our facilities were in compliance with State Laws, Regulations, Rules and Guidelines. I produced a Report entitled, "The State of Virginia's Pound & Shelters."
In 2002, I updated this report for the Governor's Commission on Efficiency and Effectiveness in Government. My focus was the Office of Veterinary Services and the waste of taxpayer dollars in the administration of Virginia's pounds and shelters. By 2002, there were 136 pounds and shelters in Virginia; a mere 4% were in compliance.
[Next: Chesterfield County]
Labels: Eileen McAfee, McAfee, Richmond
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Tyson Subsidiary Denies Widely Witnessed Animal Cruelty and Safety Violations
More excerpts from the Washington Post article about the videotape taken by an IPB meatpacker that shows cows literally being torn apart while fully alive and conscious:
Their own workers, slaughter expert Temple Grandin (who reviewed the videotape), and an embarrassment of supporting videos and eyewitness accounts at plants throughout the U.S. dispute IBP's vague contention. What a slanderous and disgustingly self-serving lie. IBP, now known as "Tyson Fresh Meats," is a subsidiary of Tyson Foods.
"The live cows cause a lot of injuries," said Martin Fuentes, an IBP worker whose arm was kicked and shattered by a dying cow. "The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive."
The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some "stunned" cattle wake up. "If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!'" said Moreno, the former second-legger, who began working in the stockyard last year. "They move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to walk."
"I've seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process alive," IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an affidavit. "The cows can get seven minutes down the line and still be alive. I've been in the side-puller where they're still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there."
One worker said IBP pressured him to sign a statement denying that he had seen live cattle on the line. "I knew that what I wrote wasn't true," said the worker, who did not want to be identified for fear of losing his job. "Cows still go alive every day. When cows go alive, it's because they don't give me time to kill them."
IBP, the nation's top beef processor...suggested the events may have been staged...
The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some "stunned" cattle wake up. "If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!'" said Moreno, the former second-legger, who began working in the stockyard last year. "They move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to walk."
"I've seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process alive," IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an affidavit. "The cows can get seven minutes down the line and still be alive. I've been in the side-puller where they're still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there."
One worker said IBP pressured him to sign a statement denying that he had seen live cattle on the line. "I knew that what I wrote wasn't true," said the worker, who did not want to be identified for fear of losing his job. "Cows still go alive every day. When cows go alive, it's because they don't give me time to kill them."
IBP, the nation's top beef processor...suggested the events may have been staged...
Their own workers, slaughter expert Temple Grandin (who reviewed the videotape), and an embarrassment of supporting videos and eyewitness accounts at plants throughout the U.S. dispute IBP's vague contention. What a slanderous and disgustingly self-serving lie. IBP, now known as "Tyson Fresh Meats," is a subsidiary of Tyson Foods.
"In the Blink of an Eye"
From the The Washington Post:

"In the Blink of an Eye: A secret video made by a worker at a meatpacking plant in Pasco, Wash., showed that this steer, which supposedly had been stunned, had blinking reflexes, indicating it was still conscious."
Due to higher line speeds, industry-created obstacles to inspection, and intense pressure to keep production going no matter what, this is a common occurrence; millions of cows have died this way. If we must kill them and eat them, don't we owe them a more dignified death?
Just look at this animal. He's alive but has no life. He's hanging in Hell. Hell is a place with no mercy. You're looking into the eyes of suffering. This is the price of beef.

"In the Blink of an Eye: A secret video made by a worker at a meatpacking plant in Pasco, Wash., showed that this steer, which supposedly had been stunned, had blinking reflexes, indicating it was still conscious."
Due to higher line speeds, industry-created obstacles to inspection, and intense pressure to keep production going no matter what, this is a common occurrence; millions of cows have died this way. If we must kill them and eat them, don't we owe them a more dignified death?
Just look at this animal. He's alive but has no life. He's hanging in Hell. Hell is a place with no mercy. You're looking into the eyes of suffering. This is the price of beef.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Wishful Thinking Doesn't Excuse Contributing to Real Cruelty
I appreciate what Marilyn vos Savant said in this week's "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade Magazine. A reader from Waukegan, Illinois opined that one could eat meat yet avoid harming animals. Marilyn answered that "one cannot say that one is completely against all cruelty to animals and then voluntarily harm them seriously in any way." Including killing them just to eat them, I would imagine; that's pretty harmful.
I would like to add to her reply:
Theoretically, you could treat animals well until the time you ate them. You would give them ample space, an accommodating habitat, protection from the elements, natural social structures, tasty nutritious food, and regular veterinary care. You would wait until they died of natural causes or by euthanasia administered to avoid terminal suffering. No animal rights group would have a problem with that. (Contrary to popular belief and disinformation, animal rights does not strictly prohibit eating meat.)
In reality, however, almost all meat and dairy animals in this country are housed in factory farms, where we treat them about as badly as we possibly can. If you're opposed to cruelty to animals, then you should know that every time you eat a hamburger or piece of cheese, you flagrantly violate that principle.
I would like to add to her reply:
Theoretically, you could treat animals well until the time you ate them. You would give them ample space, an accommodating habitat, protection from the elements, natural social structures, tasty nutritious food, and regular veterinary care. You would wait until they died of natural causes or by euthanasia administered to avoid terminal suffering. No animal rights group would have a problem with that. (Contrary to popular belief and disinformation, animal rights does not strictly prohibit eating meat.)
In reality, however, almost all meat and dairy animals in this country are housed in factory farms, where we treat them about as badly as we possibly can. If you're opposed to cruelty to animals, then you should know that every time you eat a hamburger or piece of cheese, you flagrantly violate that principle.
"Godlings"
My friend Rhonda Cunningham has a wonderful word that she uses to describe non-humans. She calls them "Godlings." She points out that "animal" is so often used as a term of contempt, which is unfitting for brethren with whom we share the same Source. She describes Godlings as "God's wondrous art forms....little pieces of God...this elevates their status to where it truly belongs!" I think the term is beautiful and charming and I couldn't agree more.
Astronomers tell us that the universe is permeated by a certain frequency of microwave radiation that is a relic of the Big Bang. In the same way, animals' innocent faces reflect a perfect, Edenic time in which all creatures lived in harmony. The unfallen, sinless animals are a physical manifestation of a world that was long ago destroyed by evil impulses and abandonment of our spiritual selves. The animals are also a reminder of what can be, of a redemptive "peaceful kingdom" in which not only the lion and ox, but the Jew, Christian, and Muslim live together in peace. The face of God past, present, and future is in the Godlings.
The prophet Isaiah's glorious vision is realized one good deed at a time. We have that power. But we're not all-powerful or omniscient. We cannot create a better world if we remain disconnected to the rest of Creation. Let the Godlings in our midst, God's humble messengers, be the bridge to the pigs caged in factory farms, the once-swift foxes languishing in a wire box, and the soft matronly hen living a shattered half-life in a small dark crate. Let the Godlings we know show us the potential of all the other species that make up the song of the earth, so that our hearts can resonate as one.
When that day arrives...
Animals all animals will feel only warmth and never dread at the sight of a human. Even the tiny mosquito will be whisked humanely away, and the fearsome rattlesnake will be treated mercifully and gently, and with respect. Giant confinement farms and mechanized animal killing fields will be a distant, sorrowful memory. But the resplendent "today" will be one of boundless communion with Creation. At long last, we will experience the divine beauty of an intelligently evolved world, for we will have found that our true destiny is service, fellowship, and compassionate stewardship, not self-centered dominance. Our islands of estrangement will meld into a universe of friendship. Our vision will not be blocked by unplacatable greed, so we will see clearly the goodness inherent in the Earth and all its creatures. Our relationship with animals will no longer be hampered by the ever-present awareness that we are unwanted and feared as a tormenter. Instead it will be open and honest. We will be able to look animals in the eye, feel their hearts beating, and hear the contented purrs, snorts, barks, and trills of uncountable furred, feathered, finned, and other wondrous Godlings. Our original friends.
"Ask the birds, ask the beasts and they will teach you."
Astronomers tell us that the universe is permeated by a certain frequency of microwave radiation that is a relic of the Big Bang. In the same way, animals' innocent faces reflect a perfect, Edenic time in which all creatures lived in harmony. The unfallen, sinless animals are a physical manifestation of a world that was long ago destroyed by evil impulses and abandonment of our spiritual selves. The animals are also a reminder of what can be, of a redemptive "peaceful kingdom" in which not only the lion and ox, but the Jew, Christian, and Muslim live together in peace. The face of God past, present, and future is in the Godlings.
The prophet Isaiah's glorious vision is realized one good deed at a time. We have that power. But we're not all-powerful or omniscient. We cannot create a better world if we remain disconnected to the rest of Creation. Let the Godlings in our midst, God's humble messengers, be the bridge to the pigs caged in factory farms, the once-swift foxes languishing in a wire box, and the soft matronly hen living a shattered half-life in a small dark crate. Let the Godlings we know show us the potential of all the other species that make up the song of the earth, so that our hearts can resonate as one.
When that day arrives...
Animals all animals will feel only warmth and never dread at the sight of a human. Even the tiny mosquito will be whisked humanely away, and the fearsome rattlesnake will be treated mercifully and gently, and with respect. Giant confinement farms and mechanized animal killing fields will be a distant, sorrowful memory. But the resplendent "today" will be one of boundless communion with Creation. At long last, we will experience the divine beauty of an intelligently evolved world, for we will have found that our true destiny is service, fellowship, and compassionate stewardship, not self-centered dominance. Our islands of estrangement will meld into a universe of friendship. Our vision will not be blocked by unplacatable greed, so we will see clearly the goodness inherent in the Earth and all its creatures. Our relationship with animals will no longer be hampered by the ever-present awareness that we are unwanted and feared as a tormenter. Instead it will be open and honest. We will be able to look animals in the eye, feel their hearts beating, and hear the contented purrs, snorts, barks, and trills of uncountable furred, feathered, finned, and other wondrous Godlings. Our original friends.
"Ask the birds, ask the beasts and they will teach you."
Job 12:7-10
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Profit Over Lives
From the blog of Virgil Butler, who once killed animals but now saves them, while discussing worker safety--or lack of it--at the Tyson chicken slaughtering plant:
One of the menu options on the Tyson web site is "Tyson Cares." Yeah, about profits.
The full post is here. Virgil's accounts of chickens that died while hanging upside down on stopped slaughter lines or while stuck in cages in parked trucks during hail storms, and of drivers who lost their lives because they were forced to drive on icy roads, is maddening: Tyson willingly and recklessly endangers the well-being of every individualhuman or birdinvolved in the production of their product. They're not just obsessed with money but possessed by it.
"There was a guy that got his hand in a skinner in debone one time. It rips the skin off of chicken thighs and drumsticks to be deboned. It mangled his hand bad enough that he couldn't use it anymore. Don't know where the skin went. It just disappeared into the chicken that went in to become nuggets. I guess someone ate it long ago."
"I got my smock tangled up in the drive chain of our hanging belt one time. Luckily for me, I carried a pretty sharp pocketknife. I whipped it out and cut my smock loose before it pulled me into the gears. I still got into trouble for missing shackles and they charged me $15 for the smock I cut up."
"I got my smock tangled up in the drive chain of our hanging belt one time. Luckily for me, I carried a pretty sharp pocketknife. I whipped it out and cut my smock loose before it pulled me into the gears. I still got into trouble for missing shackles and they charged me $15 for the smock I cut up."
One of the menu options on the Tyson web site is "Tyson Cares." Yeah, about profits.
The full post is here. Virgil's accounts of chickens that died while hanging upside down on stopped slaughter lines or while stuck in cages in parked trucks during hail storms, and of drivers who lost their lives because they were forced to drive on icy roads, is maddening: Tyson willingly and recklessly endangers the well-being of every individualhuman or birdinvolved in the production of their product. They're not just obsessed with money but possessed by it.
Rodeo Thugs
Rodeo is not so much about bulls and cowboys as it is about bullies and cowards. Rodeo cowboys shock, kick, hit, poke, tie up, yank on, sit on, break the necks of, and kill animals -- none of whom want to be there, and many of whom are just out of babyhood and should be with their mothers. Rodeo participants heap this abuse on animals that are trapped and can't get away.
SHARK -- Showing Animals Respect and Kindness -- investigates rodeos and exposes its brutality to the public. They show what the rodeo promoters deny and try to hide.
In this and future posts, I'll provide glimpses of what SHARK investigators run into when they document the truth about rodeo. The rodeo participants and promoters are all tough and macho when they dish out abuse to helpless animals, but are defenseless against video cameras that reveal their cruelty and lies.
From SHARK's June 2005 newsletter:
Also in the newsletter is an article about the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association's (PRCA's) "60 humane rules." SHARK has been requesting a copy of this obviously top-secret document for over a decade. Finally the PRCA relented. Two of the rules are word-for-word duplicates. About a third are for the protection of people, not animals. My favorite: a veterinarian is required to be onsite at every rodeo event. The fine for not having a veterinarian present is $200. The cost of a veterinarian for a typical rodeo is $500 or more. Thus it's far cheaper to pay the fine rather than hire the vet. And it's doubtful that the violation would even be reported.
From the April 14 2005 Colorado Springs Independent:
SHARK -- Showing Animals Respect and Kindness -- investigates rodeos and exposes its brutality to the public. They show what the rodeo promoters deny and try to hide.
In this and future posts, I'll provide glimpses of what SHARK investigators run into when they document the truth about rodeo. The rodeo participants and promoters are all tough and macho when they dish out abuse to helpless animals, but are defenseless against video cameras that reveal their cruelty and lies.
From SHARK's June 2005 newsletter:
2004 Rodeos: A SHARK Investigation's Reflections
...I also caught on film another significant remark the following weekend in Oregon. Announcer Chad Nicholson, an especially obnoxious rodeo defender, was droning on about "animal rights idiots" spreading falsehoods about rodeo and how they thought they knew more about the rodeo business than the rodeo folks. He said they should be there at the rodeo and get the "real deal." As he was saying this, I was filming a cowboy behind the bucking chute delivering several thousand volts of electricity to a horse.
...I also caught on film another significant remark the following weekend in Oregon. Announcer Chad Nicholson, an especially obnoxious rodeo defender, was droning on about "animal rights idiots" spreading falsehoods about rodeo and how they thought they knew more about the rodeo business than the rodeo folks. He said they should be there at the rodeo and get the "real deal." As he was saying this, I was filming a cowboy behind the bucking chute delivering several thousand volts of electricity to a horse.
Also in the newsletter is an article about the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association's (PRCA's) "60 humane rules." SHARK has been requesting a copy of this obviously top-secret document for over a decade. Finally the PRCA relented. Two of the rules are word-for-word duplicates. About a third are for the protection of people, not animals. My favorite: a veterinarian is required to be onsite at every rodeo event. The fine for not having a veterinarian present is $200. The cost of a veterinarian for a typical rodeo is $500 or more. Thus it's far cheaper to pay the fine rather than hire the vet. And it's doubtful that the violation would even be reported.
From the April 14 2005 Colorado Springs Independent:
Cruel or Usual?
The steer leaps from the chute, kicking up a trail of dust. A horse jolts behind, carrying a rope-slinging cowboy.
As the cowboy snares the beast's head and horns, the rope slacks at the steer's feet. But in the momentum of the moving horse, the rope tightens, yanking the steer's legs skyward while its head slams into the dirt. The cowboy rushes to tie its legs.
The rodeo crowd mellows as the steer - a castrated bull weighing some 600 pounds - lies still. Its eyes blink as several rodeo hands roll its motionless body onto a flat wooden palette that is dragged away by horses. Once penned, the creature doesn't get up. It probably can't stand, says Steve Hindi, president of the Illinois-based nonprofit Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK). Hindi's camera operators covertly caught captured the incident described above during the Professional Rodeo Cowboy's Association's national finals for steer roping in Amarillo, Texas. The steer, Hindi says, appears paralyzed and should have been put out of its misery.
...In its statement, the rodeo association calls describes Hindi's group as extremist.
The steer leaps from the chute, kicking up a trail of dust. A horse jolts behind, carrying a rope-slinging cowboy.
As the cowboy snares the beast's head and horns, the rope slacks at the steer's feet. But in the momentum of the moving horse, the rope tightens, yanking the steer's legs skyward while its head slams into the dirt. The cowboy rushes to tie its legs.
The rodeo crowd mellows as the steer - a castrated bull weighing some 600 pounds - lies still. Its eyes blink as several rodeo hands roll its motionless body onto a flat wooden palette that is dragged away by horses. Once penned, the creature doesn't get up. It probably can't stand, says Steve Hindi, president of the Illinois-based nonprofit Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK). Hindi's camera operators covertly caught captured the incident described above during the Professional Rodeo Cowboy's Association's national finals for steer roping in Amarillo, Texas. The steer, Hindi says, appears paralyzed and should have been put out of its misery.
...In its statement, the rodeo association calls describes Hindi's group as extremist.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Animals Suffer More than Embryos
I could be wrong but I have a feeling I'm in a small minority within vegans. I don't think all the opposition to stem cell research is crazy. Fears of a utilitarian exploitation of human life, in my opinion, are well grounded. It was only in the 1970s that the infamous syphillis experiments on prisoners were stopped, and that was only because the researchers got caught. I don't have the blind faith in science that I once had. Not since I've become aware of the outpouring of brazen lies from the animal experimentation lobby, a consistent pattern of fighting animal welfare laws, and far too many episodes of avoiding acountability for how lab animals are treated.
Nonetheless, on balance, I think stem cell research, with sufficient safeguards and transparency, is worth it. I've tried to remain semi-literate on the subject, and it seems to hold great promise for treating a range of challenging, debilitating diseases.
I have a feeling I'm in a large majority of vegans in that I'm dumfounded and dismayed by the inconsistency in respect for life by people who are ethically opposed to stem cell research. To the presumably tiny percent of stem cell opponents who abstain from animal products: I applaud your consistent pro-life principles. To the other 98 or so percent... If it's wrong to mistreat a non-sentient human embryo that is incapable of pain or suffering, why is it permissible to inflict a lifetime of misery and agony on fully sentient animals and not even in pursuit of some cure for a disease, but for fleeting, momentary indulgences. Or fashion. Or entertainment (circuses). Does God not care that you gratuitously impose suffering and death on his Creation? He loves humans but not to the exclusion of other species. Please show mercy and respect for all life.
"To stand for Christ is to stand against evil of cruelty inflicted on those who are weak, vulnerable, unprotected, undefended, morally innocent, and in that class we must unambiguously include animals."
Nonetheless, on balance, I think stem cell research, with sufficient safeguards and transparency, is worth it. I've tried to remain semi-literate on the subject, and it seems to hold great promise for treating a range of challenging, debilitating diseases.
I have a feeling I'm in a large majority of vegans in that I'm dumfounded and dismayed by the inconsistency in respect for life by people who are ethically opposed to stem cell research. To the presumably tiny percent of stem cell opponents who abstain from animal products: I applaud your consistent pro-life principles. To the other 98 or so percent... If it's wrong to mistreat a non-sentient human embryo that is incapable of pain or suffering, why is it permissible to inflict a lifetime of misery and agony on fully sentient animals and not even in pursuit of some cure for a disease, but for fleeting, momentary indulgences. Or fashion. Or entertainment (circuses). Does God not care that you gratuitously impose suffering and death on his Creation? He loves humans but not to the exclusion of other species. Please show mercy and respect for all life.
"To stand for Christ is to stand against evil of cruelty inflicted on those who are weak, vulnerable, unprotected, undefended, morally innocent, and in that class we must unambiguously include animals."
The Rev. Andrew Linzey
Thursday, August 11, 2005
The Easter Bunny Screams on Your Plate
Dear Editor,
According to the article "Meat demand grows faster than rabbits" [Aug 8]:
"The Easter Bunny syndrome -- a reluctance to eat animals that are cute and fuzzy -- hasn't helped, either, said Pat Lamar, president of the Professional Rabbit Meat Association...But it seems the bad reputation is fading, and fuzzy is becoming fabulous."
Whew. Good to know that with some practice, we can rid ourselves of compassionate thoughts that get in the way of a good meal. Rabbits are the third-most popular pet in the country. Maybe "fabulous" cat and dog meat is next?
FYI, rabbits aren't protected by the Humane Slaughter Act. According to eyewitness accounts of USDA inspectors, rabbits may have their necks sliced while they're fully alive and struggling. They "cry almost like an infant with loud shrieking noises."
According to the article "Meat demand grows faster than rabbits" [Aug 8]:
"The Easter Bunny syndrome -- a reluctance to eat animals that are cute and fuzzy -- hasn't helped, either, said Pat Lamar, president of the Professional Rabbit Meat Association...But it seems the bad reputation is fading, and fuzzy is becoming fabulous."
Whew. Good to know that with some practice, we can rid ourselves of compassionate thoughts that get in the way of a good meal. Rabbits are the third-most popular pet in the country. Maybe "fabulous" cat and dog meat is next?
FYI, rabbits aren't protected by the Humane Slaughter Act. According to eyewitness accounts of USDA inspectors, rabbits may have their necks sliced while they're fully alive and struggling. They "cry almost like an infant with loud shrieking noises."
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Got Acne?
Attention Teens:
Researchers at Harvard University found an association between dairy consumption and acne. Not just mild acne but physician-diagnosed severe acne. Milk, skim milk, instant breakfasts, cottage cheese, cream cheese -- all had a link to acne.
Also -- did you know that the government allows a certain amount of pus in milk?
Soy milk is cool.
Researchers at Harvard University found an association between dairy consumption and acne. Not just mild acne but physician-diagnosed severe acne. Milk, skim milk, instant breakfasts, cottage cheese, cream cheese -- all had a link to acne.
Also -- did you know that the government allows a certain amount of pus in milk?
Soy milk is cool.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Productive Lies
Corporate animal exploiters, lying through their teeth, often pick some rigged and arbitrary benchmark as proof that the animals are "productive" and thus content and well cared for.
The Fur Commission claims that the thick coat on fur farm animals is the best indicator of their good health. Animals in fur farms go mad from being encaged in a tiny wire-frame prison cell from which they can't escape. Spend a few hours in a closet, or a day in small room, disconnected from your regular world. Now imagine several months of that. You'd go mad, too. The animals suffer from a variety of diseases and disorders including "screw-neck," deafness, sterility, excessive bleeding, and behavioral abnormalities. Most are killed when under a year old, before chronic conditions set in. Tortured animals can produce one season of thick fur with enough genetic and environmental manipulation. It has absolutely no bearing on their mental or physical health; no more than does a child abuse victim's thick head of hair.
Egg producers claim that the high volume of eggs coming out of each battery-caged hen is evidence of the hens' happiness and healthiness. The hens are specially bred to lay high numbers of eggs. The near-constant light in the sheds in which they're housed forces their pituitary glands into overdrive, which makes them lay more eggs. The hens are "spent" after a year or two, and they look pitiful, like death warmed over. After a life in which every tiny joy and deep desire is completely denied, they're slaughtered.
Industrial milk operations not only make false health claims about their product (which makes you gain weight and seems to be inconsequential to bone health), but about the animals they "milk" for maximum profit. They tout the ultra-high milk output of factory farm dairy cows as "high productivity." Cows on modern large-scale dairy farms spend most of their day on dirt or hooked up to milk machines. They're injected with bovine growth hormone, which makes their udders swell and artificially increases milk production. Half are lame by the time they're five years old. Then they're slaughtered.
Lactating women: imagine that through inbreeding and forced hormone injections your milk secretions increased to four times normal volume, and took a debilitating toll on your health. Is this how you would want to be considered "productive?"
These types of lies are disgusting because they whitewash the animals' suffering. They are insulting to the animals and anyone with compassion and common sense. The liars count on and encourage consumers being willfully ignorant, gullible, and afraid of the truth. The lies persist because if consumers are fooled, it's good for business.
These lies are the modern equivalent of the plantation owner claiming that he must treat his slaves well, otherwise they wouldn't pick so much cotton.
Two silver linings:
1) We're past the point where the corporate killers are claiming that the animals are incapable of feeling pain or have no quality of life interests. (We still hear that with fish, but watch that fade over the next few years as the evidence of fish having complex brains and emotions becomes overwhelming.)
2) Fur-farm lies in particular are becoming more bizarre and approaching the point where nobody except the most die-hard deniers will believe them, as the fur industry dodges the truth and thinks up new stories to cover up the obvious: the animals made into fur suffer like Hell.
Related Article:
Milk Machines - Dangers in the Dairy Industry. Discusses the effects of Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) on cows and humans who drink milk. Includes disturbing account of FDA reviewer who apparently was fired because he raised legitimate concerns about the safety and animal welfare impact of BGH. One case of many in which the hegemony of Monsanto and Government gets rid of complainers.



Lactating women: imagine that through inbreeding and forced hormone injections your milk secretions increased to four times normal volume, and took a debilitating toll on your health. Is this how you would want to be considered "productive?"
These types of lies are disgusting because they whitewash the animals' suffering. They are insulting to the animals and anyone with compassion and common sense. The liars count on and encourage consumers being willfully ignorant, gullible, and afraid of the truth. The lies persist because if consumers are fooled, it's good for business.
These lies are the modern equivalent of the plantation owner claiming that he must treat his slaves well, otherwise they wouldn't pick so much cotton.
Two silver linings:
1) We're past the point where the corporate killers are claiming that the animals are incapable of feeling pain or have no quality of life interests. (We still hear that with fish, but watch that fade over the next few years as the evidence of fish having complex brains and emotions becomes overwhelming.)
2) Fur-farm lies in particular are becoming more bizarre and approaching the point where nobody except the most die-hard deniers will believe them, as the fur industry dodges the truth and thinks up new stories to cover up the obvious: the animals made into fur suffer like Hell.
Battery hen photo: Wegman's Cruelty
Related Article:
Milk Machines - Dangers in the Dairy Industry. Discusses the effects of Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) on cows and humans who drink milk. Includes disturbing account of FDA reviewer who apparently was fired because he raised legitimate concerns about the safety and animal welfare impact of BGH. One case of many in which the hegemony of Monsanto and Government gets rid of complainers.

