Change.org's Animal Rights Blog

This one is just begging for commentary: For the 13th year, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is accepting nominations for its annual "ethical hunting award." What, I first wondered when I saw the headline, does that even mean? When I read about last year's winner in a brief AP piece published in the Chicago Tribune, I learned that at least last year, the "ethics" that won someone the award had absolutely nothing to do with how or why or whether the person killed an animal, but rather was about how he treated a fellow human while hunting: "An 18-year-old Rhinelander hunter won last year. He helped a sobbing young female hunter alone in the woods trail, field dress and retrieve a 17-point buck she shot but couldn't find."

I almost don't know what to say. The great almost-tragedy in this scenario was that someone wasn't going to get her trophy antlers, bragging rights, and meat if she didn't find the animal she'd shot. The animal who had been shot, who had fled in fear and pain to die a slow death, was incidental in the story. The celebrated ethical behavior had nothing to do with the ethics of hunting.

But apparently, helping fellow hunters -- not doing anything ethical in relation to the animals they're stalking and killing -- is indeed the point of this award. Wisconsin Ag Connection explains, "The award signifies the qualities of hunters helping others rather than pursuing personal gain and hunters engaged in behavior that positively reflects on the tradition of hunting."

Absent referent, anyone?

Someone has to be a hunter to win this award. The killing of animals is part of the package; it is the point of the whole practice. Yet this award for "ethical hunting" ignores that most obvious and significant ethical issue as if it weren't even there. I expected to read that this award had something to do with killing animals "humanely" or "nobly," and I would have had plenty to say on that topic too, but that the killing of the animals doesn't even play into the "ethical hunting" award is even more bizarre.

When a hunter is honored for helping an animal "rather than pursuing personal gain" by killing him or her, then Wisconsin will have an award I understand.

---

Photo by Flickr user Scott Ableman

There Is No Such Animal as "Seafood"

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-05T14:53:00-08:00

I've probably said this before, but even if so, it bears repeating periodically: there is no such animal as "seafood." There are lots and lots of kinds of fishes and lots and lots of kinds of crustaceans and lots and lots of other aquatic animals. But last I checked, we haven't named a single one of them "seafood."

And even though their world looks different from ours, and they don't function in all the same ways we do, they're far smarter than most people assume. And their deaths -- whether from being gutted alive, from being boiled alive, from ruptured organs through decompression, from panicked suffocation, or via any other means -- are full of suffering, fear, and intense pain.

And causing them that suffering and killing them for so-called seafood dishes is as unnecessary as killing pigs for "pork" or chickens for "chicken" and eggs or cows and calves for "dairy."

Fishes and other water-dwelling animals aren't seafood. They're animals.

---
Photo by Flickr user laszlo-photo

In the Blogs: "Stupid" Animals, "Kind" Veal, Thrill Killing, and More

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-05T07:51:00-08:00

There are around 20 posts here. I know that's a lot, but they're well worth reading.

Animals Are Stupid from Ari Solomon at Huffington Post

Kinder Side of Veal? from Animal Place Sanctuary

Crimes Against Nature from the ALDF Blog

In Defense of Limited Individuality from That Vegan Girl

Our Fear Is Special? from Primate Freedom

Price So Right: Bob Barker Donates $1M To Establish Animal Rights Professorship from SuperVegan

Food Critic Murders Baboon: Needed Fodder for His Column from Nancy at Care2

How the Concept of Instinct Shapes Our Attitudes About Nonhumans from Brockway Hall

Cooperatives Working Together to Kill Cows from Animal Place Sanctuary

Open Mouth, Insert Foot from Born Free USA

Conscientious Carnism? from Vegan Soapbox

Victor and Hugo: Turkeys at Poplar Spring from Invisible Voices

Law Will Forbid the EPA to Track Greenhouse Gases at Factory Farms from Vegan.com

On Going Vegan from Animal Person

Man Who Dragged Pit Bull to Death from Bicycle Found Not Guilty from the ALDF Blog

Jonathan Safran Foer - America's #1 Terrorist? from Mikko Alanne at Huffington Post

Bear in Mind Conference at Rutgers from Doris at About.com

Payola. Kickback. Graft. from Primate Freedom

A Position Statement on Backyard Birds from Eastern Shore Sanctuary, Animal Place, Chicken Run Rescue, Farm Sanctuary, Sunny Skies Bird and Animal Sanctuary, and United Poultry Concerns

Animal Rights Discussed in the Knesset from heeb'n'vegan

Intersectionality 'Round the Interwebs, No. 10: Feminist Dilemmas, Light Switches & Veg/an Vampires from easyVegan.info

Marginalization in the Mainstream, Commiseration in the Community

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-04T16:35:00-08:00

There are occasional days when, as an animal rights advocate, all you feel capable of doing is burying your face in the pillow and screaming out your frustrations. And such days are why it's important for vegan animal rights advocates to seek out and maintain supportive community, whether face-to-face or online or both. When too often, it seems like most of our fellow humans are plugging their ears, rolling their eyes, patting us on the head, or altogether dismissing us (and by extension, the animals for whom we speak), it's good and necessary to have compassionate community to reach out to, to know and feel connected to people who get it, people who can commiserate with us and then encourage us and get us back out there.

We still live in a world where no matter how big the news, no matter how important or meaningful the story, no matter how great the injustice, when the news, story, or injustice has to do with nonhuman animals, even comparatively minor human stories take precedence, and the nonhuman stories are flashed and forgotten, if not simply buried from the start. We still live in a world where if you care too much about someone (or some group) who isn't human, and you believe that someone has rights, you're called sentimental, and your intellect and priorities are questioned, even if that same intellect and judgment were respected before you outed yourself as a vegan and animal rights advocate.

We live in a world where all the evidence shows us how astonishingly like us our fellow animals are, in the most important of ways -- in the ways mothers and children bond, youngsters play, and friendships are formed, tested, strengthened, or strained; in the ways problems are contemplated, solutions are devised, and death and suffering are feared and avoided; in the ways joy and happiness are not only expressed but actively sought; in the ways loved ones are fought for, protected, and deeply, audibly, visibly mourned; in the ways love between two beings can lead to comfort and elation as well as the deepest sorrow.

Yet we live in a world where most people still refuse to go beyond an "oh, isn't that interesting" response to that evidence of our alikeness, if they acknowledge it at all -- because real personal change isn't as easy and hip as self-congratulation for paying a couple extra dollars for organic milk and free-range flesh, and it takes no effort at all to forget that those labels are meaningless. We live in a world where our fellow animals aren't even assumed to have the right to exist, where it is constantly implied that their right just to be must be justified by their sentimental human advocates, where the standard belief is that we have the right to kill them, use them, or "allow" them to live according to our whims of the day. We live in a world where a consistent philosophy of nonviolence, of not killing when we don't have to, is considered "extreme."

We live in a world where there are days when we feel cynical like this -- and feel compelled to write cynical posts -- instead of feeling the hopeful emotions and writing the optimistic essays. And that's OK, I've learned. It's natural to feel this sometimes, to feel the hopefulness and positive energy one day and the anger and frustration the next. It's more or less the nature of being deep inside a movement that is still growing and that, too often, is still mocked, misunderstood, and marginalized even by those we consider our allies. And really, we need both the anger and the hopefulness to keep fueling us in this struggle.

But one of the relatively minor things that made me angry on this particular day is also something that brought me a smile. A New York Times food writer made a foolish remark in a piece reviewing cookbooks yesterday, in which she implied that vegetarians don't have a place in the "real American family kitchen" -- because clearly, you're not a real American family unless there's a hunk of dead animal on the table. And if vegetarians aren't real Americans, vegans must not even be human. Compassion and nonviolence are sooo unpatriotic. So where's the part that brought me mild comfort? Vegansaurus's response:

Hear that, you guys? “Real” Americans don’t want universal healthcare, live in major cities, or have domestic arrangements other than marrying someone of the opposite sex and making babies, and they especially aren’t fucking vegetarians.

This is rich coming from the New York goddamn Times, you know?

The feeling I got from reading this is the same feeling I got when I saw friends retweeting the following remark this morning, regarding yesterday's anti-marriage equality voting: "I would like to invite 53% of the State of Maine to kiss 100% of my ass." The original topics are certainly not funny, but the responses of my comrades gave me a kick. Like I said, it's important to know people who get it. On the really bad days, animal advocates, you just have to head to one of the local vegan joints or open up the Google Reader or enter into the worlds of Facebook and Twitter and vegan forums and surround yourself with the people who get it. Be angry if you need to be angry. Bitch about it. Cuss up a goddamn storm about how fucking tired you are of all the crap and demand to know what the HELL! is wrong with people and let your pals commiserate and join in.

And then, after it's all out of your system, take a deep breath, picture the faces of the ones you're fighting for, remember why we're all doing this, remember where we ourselves came from, and go reread some of the optimistic stories and watch the inspiring videos we all know are out there -- the stories of animals saved, of people changed, of sanctuaries built, of hearts opened. Remember that this was just a bad day. And tomorrow, because there is indeed much to be hopeful about, pull all the hopefulness and patience back out -- and begin again.

Photo uploaded by ralaenin at stock.xchng

The Good, Bad, and Baffling: Cat Declawing in California and Elsewhere

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-04T06:26:00-08:00

I've got good news -- at least if you're a domestic cat in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and some other California cities, that is. But there's no shortage of bad (and baffling) news too, on the very same front. First, the good: last night, San Francisco's proposed ban on declawing cats won 9 out of 11 votes from the city's supervisors; on Monday, the Public Safety Committee of the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ask City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to draft an ordinance banning the practice; and in late October, the Santa Monica City Council passed a ban.

But the United States and Canada overall are still embarrasingly behind other countries in this area, and despite progress in California, a veterinary "welfare" organization in the state just managed to pass a law that will make it illegal for municipalities to pass any further such bans as of January 2010. The people behind the bans? Actual advocates for cats. The people behind the law to stop the bans? The California Veterinary Medical Association, a chip off the good ol' un-animal-friendly American Veterinary Medical Association block.

The bans are sought -- and nationwide bans are in place in roughly two dozen countries -- for good reason. Declawing is not remotely a simple, harmless procedure. A common way of explaining it in human terms is that it's akin to chopping off all of someone's fingers below the top knuckle. The claws are connected to bones -- they are part of the cats' toes. And removing the claws requires serious, painful surgery that removes an entire joint from each toe. But the amputation isn't where the suffering ends. The recovery itself is excruciating, and keep in mind that cats must use their feet after the surgery, to stand, to walk, to jump, and to use the litter box, despite the great pain. Indeed, the removal of the claws and joints and the deforming that results can cause cats lifelong pain, discomfort, and problems. And cats will continue to try to use the nonexistent claws for the rest of their lives. Declawing is not necessary, even for the sake of the furniture. Cats can be taught, they can be provided suitable scratching posts (not all of these are created equal), and they need and deserve to keep their claws.

So the fact that many veterinarians not only condone this amputation but offer and even encourage it as a standard procedure is outrageous. But it's a money-maker for veterinarians. And that's why the California Veterinary Medical Association pushed to stop cities from banning the practice. Like many veterinary and/or welfare organizations, the CVMA and AVMA are tied into the very industries and practices that profit from animal exploitation and killing -- from veterinary organizations with members who like to profit from unnecessary surgeries to welfare groups who make moolah selling "humane" labels to companies that slit the throats of animals. So they very rarely if ever truly speak for the nonhuman animals or stand up for what's best for the animals from the animals' perspective. Instead, they represent humans and the ways humans wish to use animals and profit from them. It's disgusting. And it's something that those who care about animals should consider any time they see an "expert" opinion from such organizations, including veterinary organizations, that seems suspect from the animals' perspective.

So thanks to the self-serving, anti-animal work of the CVMA, it won't be possible to pass local bans in California as of January 1, 2010, but before then, there are still possibilities for bans in a few more cities:

Bevery Hills will vote on Thursday, November 5.

The full Los Angeles City Council will vote this coming Friday morning, November 6.

Malibu will vote on a resolution on Monday, November 9.

Berkeley will vote on Tuesday, November 10.

Santa Monica will have a second reading of the ban voted for in October on Tuesday, November 10.

The Paw Project has details and contact information for these meetings and councilmembers.

For more, including tips on living with cats and their claws, see such sites as Declawing.com (including this important page), The Paw Project, and Cats International's "The Truth About Declawing."

I know that if you've already had your cat companions declawed in past years, before knowing all this, the guilt can be heavy once you do learn the facts. My advice in these cases is twofold (and the second goes for all of us, actually):

Don't beat yourself up forever. Guilty feelings are understandable, but you didn't know. And many veterinarians are failing to tell people just how serious and painful the surgery and results are; too many veterinarians even encourage the surgery and downplay the seriousness. This doesn't mean you don't love your feline friends, and now you'll know next time.

Take what you do know now and tell other people, spread the word, and do what you can to prevent this from happening to other cats, including campaigning local veterinary offices to start promoting humane ways of living with cats and their claws and to stop performing declawing surgeries.

Finally, this post wouldn't be complete without a shout-out to Los Angeles city councilmember Paul Koretz, who received a well-deserved standing ovation at the Animal Rights National Conference earlier this year for his dedicated, unwavering work on behalf of animals in California, city by city. He is, of course, one of the people in Los Angeles who've been fighting this good fight on behalf of cats.

---
Photo of Henry, a declawed cat adopted from a shelter, by Flickr user Muffet

The Agony in Your Pillow and Jacket: Time to Ditch the Down

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-03T06:52:00-08:00

We've talked about leather on this blog (e.g., here and here). We've talked about wool (e.g., here and here). We've talked about fur. But we haven't talked about one of the other animal products few people give much thought to: down, the soft feathers that start out on geese and ducks -- who need them -- but end up in humans' pillows, comforters, and jackets, but only after we force much suffering on the birds, who are ultimately destined for violent slaughter.

Despite the fact that down and its victims do not generally get as much attention as other animal products and animal victims, animal activists have been stepping up and standing up for these birds noticeably recently. First, Ari Solomon wrote an excellent piece titled "Down with the Truth" at Huffington Post in late September, after listening to a Food for Thought podcast on the topic (which I'm afraid I haven't heard), and last week, my friend and animal advocate Marie from Texas shared a video on Facebook I'd never seen before -- showing the live-plucking. The latter is what reminded me that down still needs to be addressed in this space (thanks, Marie).

As Ari pointed out, people may assume that the feathers fall out, and humans merely collect them. But that's not at all how it happens. Explains Ari,

If you're taking feathers off a bird, there are two ways to do it: you can rip them off while the bird is still alive, or you can rip them off after the bird is dead. The feather industry considers feathers from live birds better quality, hence they're more valuable. So geese and ducks get "live-plucked" 3 to 4 times a year. This happens from the time they are 10 weeks until they're 4 years old. Then they're sent to slaughter for their flesh. Ducks and geese in the wild have a lifespan of 12-15 years.

They suffer through a life of repeated trauma, pain, and suffering, right up until brutal slaughter. And the similarities to (1) wool and "mutton" or "lamb" and (2) leather and "beef" (and, really, dairy and "veal" too, as well as eggs) are notable. The exploitation of and injury to animals for their wool, feathers, milk, and eggs and the killing of animals for their skin are tied up in the killing of animals for food. If you don't eat animals, but you still use down, wear leather or fur, or consume dairy and eggs, you're still a part of the processes. You're still creating demand and paying for these young animals' slaughter. The killing of animals for food is profitable not just because people will buy their flesh and milk -- but also because people will buy the other so-called products and byproducts of these industries. And whatever the animals are initially exploited for, they're always slaughtered in the end.

Back to specifically down: Down-alternative pillows and comforters are widely available and just as comfortable as those that depend on the suffering and killing of geese and ducks. Winter jackets with alternative fills, such as those made from recycled plastic bottles or bamboo fibers, will keep you just as warm. Please, for the birds, ditch the down.

---
Photo by Flickr user zenera

Botox Kills Animals Even Better Than It Kills Wrinkles

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-02T15:08:00-08:00

The BUAV has released details of a recent undercover investigation inside a UK animal-testing laboratory. Among the findings was the realization that the lab is poisoning 74,000 mice per year specifically for what grand purpose? Botox testing. During the investigator's time in the lab, these tens of thousands of animals were being used in LD50 toxicity tests -- LD50 refers to the dose of toxic substance required to kill 50% of those animals tested.

After the researchers injected the mice with the botulinum toxin, the tiny animals "became increasingly paralysed, eventually gasping for breath and suffocating to death. The degree of suffering is appalling. No pain relief was provided for the mice."

Researchers killed the mice who survived the experiment's poisoning by subjecting them to carbon dioxide poisoning or by breaking their necks. The investigator reports that for the latter, new staff members were trained to break the necks of mice with a ballpoint pen, but during this training, they "sometimes broke the backs of mice rather than their necks," a terribly painful experience for the mice that even more seasoned researchers apparently inflicted on some of the mice as well.

And all this suffering and killing -- of 74,000 animals -- took place when, as is so often the case, there are alternatives. The BUAV has tips for taking action in this case, particularly if you're based in the UK. See also the American Anti-Vivisection Society, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for other ongoing U.S. campaigns against animal experimentation to which you can add your voice and signature.

---
Photo by Aaron Logan retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

World Vegan Day and Remembering Where We Started

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-02T07:14:00-08:00

Yesterday was World Vegan Day, and a lot of people took the opportunity to tell their vegan stories, to tell readers, friends, and family what led them to become vegan. I'm going to do that someday, maybe even soon, but today, I'm going to tell you about who I was and how I grew up instead.

I grew up in central-southern Illinois, in a small town surrounded by farms. My grandparents and parents ran and/or grew up on farms. My maternal grandfather is a hunter; so are some uncles and cousins on both sides of my family. My grandparents used to take me fishing every once in a while when I was a kid, and I loved those outings; at the time, it seemed something peaceful and sweet between grandparents and granddaughter, not something any of us considered a violent activity. And I didn't start thinking about what actually happens at the back of the building that greets you at the edge of town when you come in from the west until the last five or so years. For years, I've known it vaguely as the place where some people go to buy meat; it took much longer for me to register that live animals were coming in the back before packaged pieces of animals were going out the front.

I was raised on a meat-and-potatoes diet. The idea of a meal that intentionally didn't include meat (and I use the word "meat" instead of, for example, "flesh" in this post because the former is how I thought of it back then) is something that never would have occurred to my family, and the notion of going vegetarian, let alone vegan, would have been laughed right out the door during my childhood as silly and unhealthy. Not eating (or wearing or using) animals was a foreign concept where I lived. I was perhaps even more meat-and-potatoes than my parents in some ways. Raw vegetables, for example, frequently sat in a bowl at mealtimes too -- green peppers, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, radishes, and kohlrabi, many of these from the garden at the right times of year -- but beyond the kohlrabi, I wasn't crazy about many of these unless they came with a heavy dose of dairy-based dip. I didn't do condiments or vegetables even on my meat. My burgers: bun and burger. My sandwiches: turkey, bread, and maybe some cheese. The only meatless sandwiches I ate were grilled cheeses. If you'd suggested to me that I make a sandwich of vegetables -- if you'd suggested I make a meal without meat, cheese, cream, or eggs -- I wouldn't have known where to start. I'd have been one of those people who retorts, "Then what am I supposed to eat?"

College was worse. I lived off hamburgers, sausage links, bologna, chicken sandwiches, hot dogs, fast food, and the like. I had a vegetarian friend; my roommate and best friend had been raised vegetarian by her vegetarian mother. I didn't get it. And as close as we were, she didn't ever really talk about it, perhaps because vegetarianism was more something she'd grown up with than something she'd chosen for herself and had strong beliefs about. And despite being both intelligent and compassionate -- I was the kind of person people would have told you "wouldn't hurt a fly," even though I obviously would hurt and eat animals much larger -- I was oblivious.

There was so much I didn't know or realize, and there were so many assumptions I'd wrongly made without even knowing I'd made those assumptions in the first place (you follow that?). I wasn't consciously choosing to endorse violence and cause unnecessary death and unthinkable suffering, and neither was anyone around me. In 20 years, I'd met only one true vegetarian, let alone vegan (a word whose meaning I wouldn't even learn until after my college graduation), and she didn't talk about animal issues. There had been simply no challenges to or questioning of whom -- what, in my mind -- I was eating and no information about what that entailed. Until I was 21 years old, there had been only reinforcement of how (and whom) I ate, by everyone and everything around me, and even when someone did finally bring up the topic, the message was brief and muddied.

I was a good person, in my own mind and in the ways I interacted with the people around me. I was a thoughtful friend. I'd been a volunteer for various groups or causes over the years. I cared about people. My parents and grandparents too were and are good people, who love their children, grandchildren, and each other fiercely, who try to do the right thing from day to day and year to year, who are full of gentle compassion and love. Eating animals is simply "normal" and ingrained where I come from, where most of us come from, and certainly isn't considered a barrier to being a good person. And as vegans advocating for animals, we have to remember that when deciding on our approach.

I'll tell you my vegan story another time -- the story of how I got here, the process by which my whole worldview changed. But I think it's also important for non-vegans to realize and for vegans to remember where many of us came from. The vast majority of us weren't raised vegan; very few of us were raised even vegetarian. And many of us are proof of two things: (1) Even those who seem unlikeliest to change can change and just may need information, support, compassion, and patience to get to their personal aha moment. And (2) people who eat animals aren't bad people; in most cases, they're people who just don't fully realize (if they realize at all) what they're taking part in or what choices they have -- and who also really don't know who animals are; they don't realize the thoughts, fear, joy, suffering, love, sorrow, and relationships our fellow animals experience. In many cases, they may be among the most kind-hearted people we know, and if we remember that and respect that in our discussions with them, if we keep some of our focus on all the good about them and the good they do in the world, while also trying to help them learn about animals and what more good they could be doing, we'll be a lot more successful than if we demonize them.

When people are rude, mocking, and dismissive about animal rights and veganism, it can be difficult to keep our cool in return, to still be respectful and give them the benefit of the doubt. But finding a way to do the latter gives us a better shot of getting them to at some point really start hearing us and taking seriously what we're trying to say. Being vegan animal rights advocates can't be just about who we are, how we live, and what we know to be true now; it also has to be about remembering who we were and what we believed before, about putting ourselves back in our friends' and and family members' positions and remembering what would have gotten us thinking and feeling and what would have alienated us. It also has to be about remembering that we weren't awful, sadistic people before our view of animals and ways of living changed, and neither are most of those people we're trying to reach. I'll be the first to acknowledge that some people's antagonism and rudeness when it comes to animal rights may be too much to overcome, that there may be some people who aren't interested in respectful conversation, no matter how hard we may try. But I really do believe that they're the minority and that in most of our fellow humans, there is enormous potential for great compassion for our fellow animals just waiting to be tapped.

---

Illinois farmland photo retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Are Vegans Responsible for More Deaths in the Fields? No Way

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-31T09:08:00-07:00

The comment threads around here have been home to a lot of arguments over the last year, and a few discussions have a habit of resurfacing from time to time. One of these typically starts with a defender of animal-eating accusing vegans of being responsible for more animals' deaths than animal-eaters because of the animals who die as a result of raising and harvesting crops. The person making the argument assumes that people who eat plant-based diets must be responsible for more deaths in the fields than those who eat animal-based diets full of flesh, dairy, and eggs, failing to acknowledge, of course, the enormous amounts of plant foods that must be raised and fed to the animals people kill to eat -- more than must be raised for direct consumption by vegans. As has been discussed in those comment threads each time, the logic fails. And recently, Animal Visuals gave animal advocates a great new tool to answer this weak but common argument. Continue after the jump to view the powerful graph settling the debate.

Click on "Total," "Slaughter," and "Harvest" for the following respective graphs (emphasis, pointing out what distinguishes the three graphs, is mine):

Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories

Number of Animals Directly Slaughtered to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories

Number of Animals Killed in Crop Harvesting to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories

Even in crop harvesting, eating grains, fruits, and vegetables doesn't come remotely close to requiring as many deaths as eating animals and their secretions. Go here to see not only a larger version of the graph, but also an overview of the research backing it up -- including methods, formulas, discussion, and sources.
---

---
Photo of organic vegetables at top courtesy of Flickr user WordRidden

Friday Food: More Autumny Vegan Goodness, with Lots of Variety

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-30T17:47:00-07:00

It's one of those weeks when everything in this vegan food roundup sounds good: kale & yam soup, "hollandaze" sauce, maple biscuits and pumpkin biscuits, roasted applesauce, vegan haggis, cheezy asparagus, and so much more. Prepare to drool, folks.

African Kale & Yam Soup from Happy Herbivore (photo at left courtesy Lindsay of Happy Herbivore)

Hollandaze Sauce from Vegan Planet

Easy Cranberry Vinaigrette from Mitten Machen

Fat-Free Pumpkin and Raisin Biscuits from FatFree Vegan Kitchen

Spicy Fava Bean and Eggplant Stew from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Vegan Red Curry Chicken and Vegetables with Coral Red Jasmine Rice from Show Me Vegan

Carrot Cake Smoothie from Raw Epicurean

Thai Chickpea Cakes with Cucumber Relish from Vegan Dad

Benecio Del Toro in Food Form from the Voracious Vegan

Basil Butter Polenta Bites w/ Fresh Chopped Tomatoes from Rhymes with Vegan

Fool-Your-Friends Tacos from Vegan Guinea Pig

Vegan Haggis from Swell Vegan

Roasted Applesauce from Domestic Affair

Sesame Baked Tofu with Cashews and Snow Peas from Domestic Affair

Mushroom "Makhani" from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Quickie Halushki from Urban Vegan

Mole de Sopa from the Innocent Primate Vegan Blog

Squash Stuffed w/ Quinoa Pilaf and Coconut Curried Chickpeas from Rhymes with Vegan

Creamy Red Pepper Polenta with Roasted Mushrooms from Vegan Dad

Maple Cornmeal Biscuits from Happy Herbivore

Double Garlic Broccoli and Cheezy Asparagus from the Cooking for a Vegan Lover Blog

Kale Chips from Madcap Cupcake

Have a Pumpkin (Not a Cow!) Loaf from easyVegan.info

Carob Molasses Cake from Invisible Voices

Baked Samosas with a Chickpea Filling from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

The Tiniest Rescues and the Building of Compassion

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-30T06:15:00-07:00

I have a habit of not only rescuing the insects and arachnids I encounter but also, if there's a camera handy, photographing them obsessively (one of many reasons that getting a good camera and learning how to use it is high on my to-do-when-I-have-money list), and this post and the images in it stem from that.

I've been fascinated by these tiniest of animals for years, and transporting them outside or out of harm's way brings me a form of peace, albeit passing, that I don't quite know how to explain. There's something about those quiet moments of gently gathering the little one up, of peering at him and the wondrous details of his delicate body, of carefully moving him to safety, and of watching him go on his way that oh-so-briefly stops the world around me.

Of course, we can't live without causing any harm. Just being in this world means that we're going to disrupt and cause death to the tiniest animals on a regular basis as we go about our day-to-day lives, even when we don't mean to and try not to. But in those moments when we have a choice, we can choose to let them go, to let them live another day. And the times I get to make that choice soothe my soul a bit and momentarily bring me peace even on the otherwise most difficult days.

And sometimes I think that if we could get people to change the way they look at bugs, this world overall would be a gentler, more compassionate place for all animals. After all, if we were to teach our children to be respectful and appreciative of even the smallest, least-like-them animals -- the animals it would be easiest (and most accepted-by-society) for them to hurt and kill -- wouldn't that lay some groundwork? If we taught them to observe bugs instead of kill them, to learn about them rather than fear them, wouldn't that make it even more likely that they would pause and consider how they view and treat larger, more-like-them animals too? I can't say for certain, but I'd like to think so.

I'm writing about this today after just having retrieved some of my photos from a friend's borrowed camera. A little over a week ago, I took a green pepper from the fridge to use for dinner, a day or two after my mom had pulled it from my parents' garden and sent it home with me. I didn't notice the hole in it before I started cutting off the top over the sink, and when some goop sprayed out at me during the cutting, I had a gross-out moment and quickly started rinsing out the vegetable with the sprayer. Several seconds passed before I looked down and saw a caterpillar in the drain. Luckily, I had to endure only two or three seconds of guilt and half-panic, thinking I'd killed him, before he started wiggling. So Mr. Paper Towel and I helped him out of danger and ferried him outdoors. The wet, gloomy, overcast early evening wasn't the ideal setting for documenting his release, but hey, at least I had a better-than-mine camera on hand this time. And watching him scoot off into a sea of green leaves made my day. I don't expect seeing the photos of this to make your day, but I hope it at least makes you smile. Happy Friday:

Elephant Abuse Charges and Freed Circus Animals in Need of Homes

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-29T14:05:00-07:00

Two pieces of recent good news in the United States and Bolivia, related to animals abused in entertainment venues, deserve some acknowledgment this month -- especially given that despite the good news, animals in both cases are still in danger and in need of help.

First, in the United States, as In Defense of Animals (IDA) reported late last week, the USDA has finally filed charges against Will Davenport. If you're stopping to ask yourself why that names sounds familiar, it's because he's the elephant handler from whom IDA and other advocates have been trying to rescue abused and sick elephants for year (previous related posts viewable here). According to IDA, "the charges state that 'the gravity of the violations alleged…is great' and that Davenport has 'not shown good faith' in his repeated unwillingness to comply with the AWA and its regulations and standards."

IDA reports that Davenport is charged with three counts of abusing and harassing USDA/APHIS officials, seven counts of failing to provide even the minimum of veterinary care, four counts of failing to handle the animals safely and humanely, and five counts of failing to meet the Animal Welfare Act's minimum operating standards (more details about halfway down the page here). However, Queenie the elephant is still in Davenport's substandard care, an injustice that IDA and other animal advocates hope will be rectified soon: "Both the PAWS sanctuary in California and The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee stand ready to accept Queenie free of charge to Davenport or the government and provide her with high quality care and spacious natural conditions for the rest of her life."

The second story comes from further south. As I relayed in mid-July, Bolivia this year took a remarkable stand for animals by passing a law banning the use of animals (the nonhuman variety, of course) in circuses. This was absolutely exciting and positive news, and it still is, but there is also the matter now of what will happen to those animals who were being used in circuses. A recent article in TIME discussed the dilemma:

The new law gives circuses until June 2010 to hand over their animals. Llamas, ponies and dogs, the most common performers here, can be easily reintegrated into comfortable habitats. And the country's performing tigers and bears have already been taken to neighboring countries by the owners of larger circuses to avoid confiscation. But small, family-owned circuses are unlikely to flee the country, which will leave two dozen lions and primates needing new homes.

Obviously, that many animals were just moved to other countries -- that these animals will benefit not at all from the law and will continue suffering -- is terribly frustrating. How much can be done about that now, until those countries pass their own laws like Bolivia's, is limited, but the lions and primates mentioned in the article do still have a chance at life if appropriate homes can be found. The article notes that the advocates who worked so hard to get the ban passed do not consider zoos an option, and I don't blame them a bit for taking that position:

After spending a lifetime in small boxes, constantly moving from hot to frigid climates and living at the whim of humans, these animals "shouldn't have to be entertainment for anyone," says ADI CEO Jan Creamer.

With transport costs being covered by Animal Defenders International, the PAWS sanctuary in California will be taking some lions and helping to find sanctuaries and reserves for others. Here's to hoping these dedicated groups soon have safe havens lined up for all of Bolivia's freed circus animals. And here's to hoping that other nations wise up sooner rather than later and follow in Bolivia's footsteps.

---
Circus tent photo uploaded by stock.xchng user Capgros

The Killing of the Misunderstood 3,500: Denver's Pit Bull Ban

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-29T07:24:00-07:00

Denver's Westword published some really difficult-to-read material (and heartbreaking-to-see images) in the last month related to the city's pit bull ban. The reports were undoubtedly rough for any animal advocates who saw them, but I imagine that those involved in pit bull rescue and those who ourselves know and love a pit bull whom others have thought "unfixable" may have been hit even harder.

As many readers know, I live with a loving but traumatized rescued pit bull (an American Pit Bull Terrier to be exact), and her recovery from the abuse inflicted on her by humans has been slow. Two weeks ago, she hit a milestone in that recovery (more related to that coming in a post this weekend), but if we lived in Denver or any other city with breed-specific legislation, she never would have gotten that chance; Mabel would have been dead -- killed -- a long time ago. And knowing that perhaps intensifies my own personal anger, frustration, and heartbreak in response to these laws.

First, before we get to the heart of the issues, I'd like to give you the links to Westword's recent detailed coverage. Initially, this story appeared in the paper: "For two decades, pit bulls have been public enemy #1 in Denver. But maybe it's time for a recount." And these posts appeared concurrently and in the hours and days, respectively, to come: "Inside Denver's 'Pit Bull Row'" and "3,497 dead dogs and other numbers from Denver's pit bull ban," the former taking us inside the "row" and showing us the sweet, scared faces of the dogs awaiting death there. Then a couple weeks later came this jarring post, revealing to us the piles of dead dogs (before following this link, please note that the images are difficult to see): "Leaked: photos of pit bulls killed due to Denver ban."

Denver's pit bull ban has been in place for 20 years now, and for just as long, animal advocates have been fighting it. Pit bulls aren't the inherently vicious animals some people -- and laws -- make them out to be, and bans on pit bulls and the mass killing of these dogs defy logic. Consider this, from Westword's in-depth story:

Firearms killed over 30,000 people in the United States in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, dogs kill 23 people per year. Of those, six are killed by pit bulls. As a health hazard, pit bulls rate below bees, lightning and mooses in the number of deaths for which they're responsible.

And study after study has shown that although the number of dog bites has decreased dramatically in the time that the ban has been in place, this is not by any means a clear result of the law -- during the same time period, dog bite numbers across the country have declined in the same way, including in major cities that do not have breed-specific legislation. The decrease in dog bites is a national trend, not one that reflects any sort of success with Denver's ban:

Even Doug Kelley, who worked for Lakewood's animal control before becoming the director of Denver's animal control in 2000, attributes Denver's decline in bites not to the pit bull ban, but to metro-wide spay and neutering efforts and better enforcement of the city's non-breed-specific laws, such as calls for dogs at large.

Stats also challenge another frequent argument in support of breed bans: that pit bull bites, even if not the most frequent, are responsible for the most injury and death to the victims. So how does Denver explain the following?

A person bitten by a dog in Denver is much more likely to go to the hospital than a person bitten in Boulder, Jefferson, Broomfield and El Paso counties, none of which ban pit bulls. In fact, Denver has the highest rate of hospitalization for dog bites of any county in the state. Not everyone who gets bitten by a dog will go to the doctor; one study found that only 80 percent of dog bites were severe enough to warrant a hospital visit. But even though Denver residents are reporting the same or fewer dog bites per capita than residents of neighboring cities, they're going to the hospital more often — which suggests that their bites are worse. And that's not because of pit bulls.

So really, what does this mean? It means that in places such as Denver, the bans have resulted in an increase in overall violence and harm -- because violence against nonhuman animals is still violence. Injury to humans has gone down in keeping with national trends, not because of the ban, but violence against nonhuman animals has shot up, with literally thousands of animals being killed arbitrarily because they have physical pit bull characteristics -- not because they have certain personality traits, not because they have shown signs of aggression, not because they've ever harmed anyone, but simply because they have big heads and broad chests.

The most recent coverage by Westword (an organization I can't commend enough for staying so on top of this issue) relates to which animals are determined by Denver's animal control to be pit bulls. The focus of the piece is how flawed that process is -- how many dogs who aren't pit bulls are labeled as such. How it works is this, and note that "characteristics" refers only to physical characteristics, not to behavior:

[One evaluator fills] out the checklist and then make[s] a determination whether the dog has the majority of the characteristics of a pit bull. Two other evaluators will do the same, then submit their reports to the shelter's "pit bull desk." If two out of three evaluations conclude that the dog's not a pit bull, the owner gets the dog back after paying a five-dollar-per-day boarding fee. If the majority of the evaluators think it is a pit bull, in order to get the dog back, the owner must pay a $45-per-day impoundment fee, a $5-per-day-impoundment fee, a $25 microchip fee, the fine for the illegal-breed citation, and provide a legally binding statement that the dog will be relocated outside city limits within a certain time period. If a dog identified as a pit bull is picked up in Denver for a second time, an owner loses all rights.

But experts have recently determined that the city's evaluations have been way off -- that animal control has been slapping the pit bull label on dogs who aren't. But this isn't even remotely the problem. I can understand how individual caregivers of dogs in Denver might find this important -- how someone desperate to get his or her dog companion back would want to fight against the pit bull designation.

But how and which dogs are being given their scarlet letter isn't the injustice -- it's that people have to prove the dogs they love aren't pit bulls in order to save their lives. It shouldn't matter whether the dog is a pit bull or has physical pit bull traits in the first place. The truth that boggles the mind is that the aggressive golden retriever in one house is perfectly safe, whereas the gentle pit bull down the street who cuddles up at the foot of a three-year-old's bed at night, and who has never shown an ounce of aggression toward anyone, is banished out of the city or killed and thrown atop a pile of other dead dogs.

Pit bull bans and other breed-specific legislation are fundamentally, morally wrong.

Denver, it's time to get rid of that law. Let the pit bulls go home.

---

Photo at top, of a dog in an Oklahoma shelter, by Flickr user Meagan

Photo at bottom of Mabel by Stephanie Ernst (i.e., me, obviously)

In the Blogs: Unaccountable Labs, Backyard Chickens, Canada Geese, and More

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-28T14:46:00-07:00

It's a long and interesting roundup, folks. So set aside some heavy-duty reading time.

Taylor the Chicken, Mourning Her Friends from Animal Place Sanctuary (photo at left courtesy Marji and Animal Place)

Interior Proposes Polar Bear Habitat from Animal Blawg

"No Real Accountability" in Labs from Primate Freedom

Celebrating the Lives of Turkeys from Invisible Voices

The New Four Food Groups (A Tutorial) from easyVegan.info

UK Police Spying Began with Animal Rights Activists, Then Expanded to Other Groups from Green Is the New Red

Backyard Chicken Flocks: Is It Really a Good Idea? from Animal Place Sanctuary

The Absurdity of "Triage" and the Need for Social Change from Vegan Ideal

The Absurdity of Criticizing Triage from That Vegan Girl/Vegan Soapbox

Roaring Mad from the Animals & Society Institute Diary

Forget Halloween! Standard U.S. Diet Oozes With Horror from Digging Through the Dirt

Some Thoughts on the Abolitionist Approach from Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

No More Homeless Pets Conference recaps from Vegan Soapbox: Game Changers; Get Social, Save Lives; Three Best Friends

On "EATING ANIMALS" by Jonathan Safran Foer from Animal Person

Rehabilitating Roosters Are Doing Great! from Eastern Shore Sanctuary

Do It Your Way (on leafleting) from Vegan Soapbox

From Awe to Awful and Back: Advocating for Canada Geese from Advocacy for Animals at Britannica

Poverty of Ambition in the Context of Social Change from On Human-Nonhuman Relations

What Would Happen to Your Animals in an Emergency? from the PETA Living Blog

Scientists, Poets, Changemakers and Heroes (Volunteer Opportunities & Action Alerts) from easyVegan.info

Cruelty, Supported by Your Tax Dollars from Liberation BC

What Happens in Vegas Doesn't Stay in Vegas from Nathan Winograd

The Audacity of Love from Crazy Sexy Life

Oregon Fur Farm Raided for A Second Time from Food Fight Grocery

Wayne Pacelle, Get That Elephant Out of Your Living Room, Will You? from My Face Is on Fire

Being the Change We Wish to See from Angel at Care2

Vegan Issues in the News: Meeting Nutrient Needs and Growth of Vegan Kids from The Vegan Dietitian

Better LCDs Trump an Animal's Right to Live and Be Left Alone?

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-28T07:16:00-07:00

Researchers from the University of Queensland, University of Bristol, and University of Maryland have determined that "the Mantis shrimp possesses the most complicated visual system of any known animal." What and how they can see is amazing. One of the professors explains in more detail:

They have more receptors for seeing colour than any animal on the planet - their visual system is really most like a satellite. . . . The animal has to scan space to build up an image sequentially much like a radar. They have this scanning system which contains a lot of information such as polarised light, circular polarised light, colour in 12 channels and ultraviolet in six channels.

One of the arguments that animal rights advocates put forth consistently is that other animals aren't inferior to human animals but different from us. In many cases, they have skills and abilities that we don't have, that we can only dream of, abilities that should (and sometimes do) awe us and earn our respect for who they are. But typically, though we may be impressed by what they can do, respect is something we still refuse to give because we're too busy trying to figure out how we can benefit from what they do -- in other words, how we can benefit from experimenting on them, killing them, and dissecting them.*

The discovery of this shrimp's remarkable eyesight is no exception. We're not content to stop at this point -- to share with the world what we now know, write it up in science journals and National Geographic, develop a healthy respect for the species, and then let the animals be. Instead, we're going to continue capturing and killing these shrimps so that we can study them. And for what higher purpose shall we do this? To create better LCD screens and DVD technology -- you know, very necessary life-saving, life-affirming, life-improving stuff.

The examples of how most human animals view all other animals as nothing more than tools, here only to serve our purposes, available to be experimented on and killed at our whim, for whatever reason, are all around us, always. And this is just yet another instance of that. We don't need better screens and better DVDs (seriously, whose life is going to fare notably better or worse depending on whether we get a great new screen or DVD technlogy -- other than the people who stand to gain financially from developing and selling the technology?). We don't even really need to know how the shrimps' eyes work or why.

We need to leave them the hell alone.

Links:

Brisbane Times: Not Just Another Shrimp on the Barbie

Wired: Mantis Shrimp Eyes Might Inspire New Hi-Def Devices

Wired: Shrimp Eyes May Hold Key to Better Communications

*And yes, crustaceans feel pain.

---
Photo by Jens Petersen of peacock mantis shrimp retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Couldn't Attend Let Live 2009? Catch Up Online

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-27T17:59:00-07:00

Here's something I've been meaning to tell you about: The 2009 conference put on by the Let Live Foundation in Portland, Oregon, can now be experienced online. Head on over to Vimeo, where you'll find a library of 30-plus videos from not only the various and varied 2009 conference sessions, but also the 2008 conference and Let Live's Activism Series. I have a lot of video-watching to do myself.

Just a quick sampling of titles:

Creative Fundraising and Publicity for Your Group

Humane Education: An Essential Element of Animal Activism

Protest Conduct and First Amendment Issues

Exposing Institutionalized Cruelty

Culinary Activism

Sanctuary Stories: The Ups, Downs, and Effectiveness of Sanctuary Life

Caring for Feral and Stray Cats in the Winter

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-27T06:51:00-07:00

Winter is on its way in the Northern Hemisphere -- in some places, it has already descended. And the frigid season creates dangerous circumstances for feral and homeless cats and dogs (and other domesticated animals) just as it creates dangerous circumstances for homeless humans. We'll chat about dogs soon too, but first, let's talk feral cats:

Alley Cat Allies has just put out a press release offering "Winter Safety Tips for Feral And Stray Cats" that's well worth checking out if you have feral cats living near your home or workplace because although "most feral cats are skilled at finding their own food and place to sleep, providing specially-built shelters and dedicated feeding sites guarantee the cats a warm spot to escape the harsh winter weather and deter them from places they aren’t wanted."

Alley Cat Allies offers detailed suggestions and guides about how best to provide this help -- for example, tips on how to build a shelter or modify a dog house, what best to use as insulation (e.g., straw: good, blankets: bad), which kinds of food are best for their bodies in wintertime, and why it's important to maintain regular feeding times.

The group also points out that "cats have a 63-day gestation period and usually mate in winter," so now is the time to get moving on your trap-neuter-return efforts too (TNR).

Read more from Alley Cat Allies at both the press release and at the org's Winter Weather Tips page directly on its Web site. And this would also be a good time to review Mary Martin's series of guest posts on implementing TNR in your community (part 1, part 2, and part 3).

---

Photo by Jacob Rush retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Jay Leno and Chris Rock Think Dog Fighting Is Funny

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-26T10:27:00-07:00

There are actually two other pit bull-related posts coming up on this blog this week, but I feel like this needs to be acknowledged on its own.

Doris of About.com just wrote about Chris Rock losing his chance to play the late Richard Pryor (who was an animal advocate) in an upcoming movie -- and simultaneously losing Pryor's wife's respect -- because of flippant remarks he made on The Jay Leno Show late last month about Vick and the dogs he tortured and killed. I didn't know about the incident until Doris's post today, but BAD RAP covered it on October 3, just days after the show aired. And Jay Leno was just as flippant and dismissive of the animals' suffering. The men were discussing how outrageous it is that so many people think Roman Polanski deserves a free pass on rape (and absolutely ridiculous it is) when Leno brought up Vick, to imply that his crime was minor in comparison and resulted in too much punishment:

Jay Leno: It's amazing to me -- you mistreat a dog, and you lose your career, and you go to jail for two years.

Chris Rock: Yeah, look at Michael Vick! What the hell did Michael Vick do, man? A dog? A pit bull ain't even a real dog.

So Leno thinks that the torture, maiming, traumatizing, and killing -- in often the most horrendous of ways -- of hundreds of innocent beings is mere "mistreatment" and that Vick's so-called punishment was over-the-top. And Rock thinks that what Vick did really wasn't that bad because pit bulls apparently aren't worthy of compassion. I was indifferent to Chris Rock already. I disliked Jay Leno already. Now I have good reason to dislike them both.

That "Hog" Over the Fire Is a Baby Piglet

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-10-26T06:29:00-07:00

Many people assume, without ever really thinking about it, that the animals they're eating were killed as adults. But just like most of our assumptions about nonhuman animals -- from their capacities for thought and emotion and the bonds they build to how they live, suffer, and die on farms, in slaughterhouses, in labs, and elsewhere -- this assumption too is wrong. Not long ago, I shared a video with you, of Glenn Gaetz from Liberation BC pointing out that "We Eat Babies." And he was telling the truth.

But we don't use language that reflects this. And one example that always gets to me is the word "hog." It's the word we often use when we talk about "hog farms" and "hog farmers," and even as I used the word in a post recently, I was uncomfortable with doing it.

When people hear "hog," they seem to think "adult pig." But whether a pig is defined a "hog" has nothing to do with his or her age -- it's about weight. A pig becomes a hog in the industry as soon as he or she has been fattened up enough to be "slaughter/market weight." The truth is that pigs are generally slaughtered when they are between just 4 and 9 months old. In other words, they're toddlers. And when we think of piglets, isn't that whom we're thinking of -- baby pigs? Piglets?

People like to argue that it's "natural" to eat animals. But I fail to see how eating babies is "natural," how it makes any sense that we have taken multiple sets of animals -- pigs, chickens, cows, turkeys, and more -- and have doomed all of them to brutal death when they are babies, toddlers, at best adolescents (even the farmed animals who live and suffer the longest, cows exploited for dairy and hens exploited for eggs, are killed when they're essentially adolescents, teenagers, or just barely reaching adulthood).

And the animals whose bodies and faces people even see being cooked at pig/hog roasts? Pigs killed for those purposes are among the youngest. That "suckling" pig whose carcass a friend or neighbor was excited to buy and roast for his backyard barbecue this summer? Maybe 2 months old, maybe 6 weeks. An "older" roaster pig may be just 3-4 months old.

Baby pigs' flesh -- like human babies' -- is more "tender," and it's not cost-effective to let pigs grow to full-size and adulthood anyway (and this is true for all types of pig farming, not just "factory farming"), so we just kill and eat the babies and call them "pork," "bacon," and "ham."

Entire species whose members are never allowed to live out an even halfway normal life span (unless they are among the rarest of the rare who are rescued and taken to sanctuary) -- a whole industry and diet and world of menus based on killing babies. That's not "natural."

----
Photo uploaded by datarec at stock.xchng