Change.org's Animal Rights Blog

Friday Food: Pot Pies, Stuffing, Cakes, Scones, and Tarts

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-20T06:00:00-08:00

The first section of this week's Friday Food fest includes several autumny, holiday-ish vegan recipes if you're still looking for ideas for compassionate contributions to gatherings with family and friends next week. There will be more related to the upcoming holiday(s) later, of course, but for now, the weekly roundup:

Celebration Pot Pie with Pumpkin Biscuit Crust from FatFree Vegan Kitchen (photo at left courtesy of Susan at FFVK)

Apple Cake With Caramel-Pecan Glaze from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Grandpa Earl's Stuffing from Rhymes With Vegan

5 Step Pumpkin Platter: Thanksgiving Vegan Protein from Healthy. Happy. Life.

Apple Ginger Scones from BitterSweet

Thanksgiving Tart from VegNews

Pumpkin-Raisin Oatmeal Cookies from Happy Herbivore

Cider-Marinated Tofu Turkeys from BitterSweet

The Definitive Vegan Stuffing Post: Recipe Trio from Healthy. Happy. Life.

Persimmon-Apple Sauce from Swell Vegan

Rosemary and White Bean Soup w/ Cauliflower Cream from Rhymes With Vegan

Shiitake Sushi from Raw Epicurean

The Ploughman's Sandwich from The Voracious Vegan (at end of post)

Strawberry-Goji Smoothie from Dreena's Vegan Recipes

Thai Fried Rice from Vegan Dad

Brown Rice Dosas from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Triple Spiced Creamy Potatoes Au Gratin from Healthy. Happy. Life.

Compassionate Giving Does Not Involve Cruelty to Goats

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-19T14:09:00-08:00

Prepare yourselves for the frustrating, fellow animal advocates. The spoof music video here is being circulated as a promo for an effort called "I Want a Goat." (The only words more frequent in the music video than "I want a goat" are "motherfucker" and "motherfucking.") The video features two groups who deserve our consideration: villagers from eastern India who are living in poverty and sweet-faced young goats, who the lyrics shout will bring in "all those profits when [villagers] sell [their] kin." Indeed, there's a graphic depicting the goats reproducing more and more babies, all to be sold.

The person behind the project, which encourages people to donate money to buy these goats for the village, explains, "Families who breed goats can earn a good profit selling the kids in the local market." In other words, the goats are merely baby-producing machines in this misguided plan. The mothers give birth, the babies whom they love -- love -- are taken away to be cruelly slaughtered for meat, and the milk meant for the babies is consumed or sold by humans, and the cycle repeats, until the mother wears out and is slaughtered too. The whole premise of this project and those like it -- which mirror the larger dairy-industry system that impregnates goats and cows, kills and sells their babies as "lamb" and "veal," and steals the milk -- is to benefit human families by outright tormenting nonhuman families.

Our fellow humans absolutely deserve our consideration and help, but these practices aren't humane whether they're happening on U.S. farms or being set up in other nations, and whether they are even sustainable and good for humans is highly questionable (see next paragraph). The intentions may be good, but the reality is cruel. We can help our fellow humans without using our fellow animals like tools, without depending on a cycle of torment and killing for mothers and their babies.

For more, on the issues and alternatives, see "Don't Gift a Goat" from Animal Place and the following related post here from last year: "Really Want to Help People? Trash the Send-an-Animal Catalogs." See also why the World Land Trust opposes goat-giving schemes.

VegFam and Hippo (described here) are some additional humane non-animal programs to which you can consider donating. I want to say there is another significant, well-established program in this category, but if so, its name is eluding me, and digging around online hasn't helped so far. So readers, if you have other suggestions, please leave them in the comments.

And if you want to help world hunger in general, please remember that our insistence on eating animals and animal products is contributing significantly to the hunger crisis:

Want to Stop World Hunger? Stop Eating Animals

Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 1

Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 2--Scarcity and Distribution

---

Photo of Jeremy and Lenny by Deb Durant of Invisible Voices, originally featured in "Jeremy and Lenny: Rescued from Death at a Small Local Dairy"

Inflatable, Creative Pro-Turkey Activism

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-19T06:34:00-08:00

Trying to come up with creative new ways to advocate for animals can be exhausting, especially when the prevailing view of animals -- as lesser beings or even objects here for us to do with what we want -- is so ingrained in our society and traditions that we are faced with it everywhere, particularly around the holidays.

So this morning, I want to point out the awesomeness of -- and hope maybe you'll take inspiration from? -- my Chicago area-based pal Marla, aka the Vegan Feminist Agitator. I've been inspired and amused ever since I saw Marla mention her family's three-year-running Thanksgiving tradition last week: If you were to drive by Marla's house today, you would see a giant inflatable turkey hanging out in the front yard, next to a sign pleading with passersby, "Please don't eat me!" And accompanying the giant turkey is, of course, a supply of vegetarian (titled vegetarian, but actually vegan, I'm sure, as is often the case with starter kits) starter kits for anyone who wants to pick one up.

I love, love, love this. I have to endure giant inflatable pumpkins, snowmen, Santa Clauses, snow globes, and more in my St. Louis neighborhood every fall and winter, and if I could get my hands on a cheap giant plastic turkey (or maybe a pig as Christmas approaches? and an egg as Easter approaches?), I'd consider copying my friend's creative idea.

You can see a picture of Marla's setup here.

---
Photo above by Flickr user RadioFish

Why Is the Nature Conservancy Killing Animals?

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-18T19:51:00-08:00

The nonprofit Friends of Animals has just started a petition here at Change.org that I recommend interested animal advocates customize (i.e., personalize with their own language, perspectives, and concerns) and sign their names to. "Once again," the group explains, "the Nature Conservancy is using lethal wildlife management in one of its 'sanctuaries.' This time it's in the Devil's Den Preserve in Weston, CT."

And you know how I feel about the preposterous nature of encouraging killing in what is supposed to be a "refuge" or "sanctuary."

Connecticut certainly isn't the only place where deer are being "managed" through killing -- these killings are happening across the country -- but it's doubly frustrating to see these hunts endorsed not only by state agencies and local governments, but also by an organization that uses as its tag line "Protecting Nature, Preserving Life." Join other animal advocates in calling on the Nature Conservancy to interact with deer populations in humane, non-lethal ways, as opposed to killing the animals off.

Of related interest is FoA's suit against the U.S. National Park Service to stop deer killing in Valley Forge National Historical Park, continued opposition of Ithaca, NY, advocates to deer-killing plans there (see previous post), and too many similar situations in other communities to keep track of (feel free to point out related struggles in your own communities in the comments).

---
H/t to my pal Italia for alerting me to this campaign

Photo of fawn by David Baron retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Beheading Chickens Is OK, but Beheading Cats Is "Over the Top"

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-18T06:31:00-08:00

One dog, one cat, three chickens -- all were found beheaded in Philadelphia late last week. The AP's brief account of the discovery mentioned only the dog and cat in its intro, the chickens coming up only a few sentences later as having been found "along with" the more important victims. But it's not just the media establishing who the important victims were. The director of investigations for the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals noted that animal sacrifices often increase around this time of year because of religious holidays, but he didn't stop there.

Most sacrifices involve goats or chickens, he noted, and here's the kicker, courtesy of the Philadelphia Daily News:

"This is a little over the top with the dogs and cats," Bengal said. "The use of domestic animals is a bit bizarre."

Oh, so much to say, so much to say. For the record, dogs and cats and chickens and goats are all domesticated animals, and what's bizarre is implying that dogs and cats are not, implying that it matters in the least what category any of these animals fit into anyway (would we be less upset over the beheading of a free-living animal plucked from the woods?), and pronouncing that beheading animals is "over the top" only when dogs and cats are involved.

He went on to point out that charges could be filed against whoever beheaded the dog and cat, but of course, the chickens weren't mentioned here -- because beheading (or otherwise killing) a chicken isn't just a shrug-your-shoulders occurrence for welfare organizations whose mission is supposed to be protecting and advocating for animals (but that in reality advocate for only some animals and even then to unimpressive degrees); it's also perfectly legal and shrugged at by society in general.

There's no meaningful difference between a dog and a goat, a cat and a chicken (this may be a good time revisit the dog-versus-dinner post). Their desire to live and experience joy, their capacity for suffering and fear, their status as beings with individual experiences, thoughts, and personalities, and the absolutely unnecessary nature of our killing them -- they are the same in all these ways. And we should be as concerned about these three chickens -- and the other 9 billion chickens brutally killed each year in the United States alone -- as we are about the dog and cat. Not one of them wanted or deserved to die, not for anyone's religion and not for anyone's dinner either.

---
Photo by Flickr user Eran Finkle

Activists Jailed for Refusing to Testify Before Grand Jury

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-17T16:24:00-08:00

Two Twin Cities activists have been jailed on contempt charges in Davenport, Iowa, for refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigation into, it is believed, an action taken at a University of Iowa laboratory in 2004. The two were offered limited immunity but still refused to testify about (again, presumably) a break-in that involved vandalism and the rescue of numerous rats and mice. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Star-Tribune and the Quad-City Times have picked up the story.

A "Support Carrie and Scott" blog has been set up where you can read more, including statements from the recently jailed activists themselves. I'll post more on what fellow activists can do to offer support as the situation unfolds.

Seems like a good time to direct activists again to the Center for Constitutional Rights' If An Agent Knocks booklet.

---
Photo by Flickr user bloomsberries

Undercover at the Pig Farm: This Is Where "Bacon" Comes From

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-17T07:34:00-08:00

Yesterday, Mercy for Animals gave Fox News the exclusive on its latest undercover investigation -- at a standard pig farm. And Fox News put it right in its Web site's top story spot, hopefully catching the attention of many people. The video is certainly disturbing, heartbreaking, horrifying; Fox wouldn't even air portions of it. Indeed, knowing what I was going to see (and hear), I couldn't make myself watch it until today, which I felt I had to do before asking readers to watch.

If you haven't seen footage from previous investigations (or, for that matter, even if you have), and you're still eating animals, you owe it to the animals and yourself to watch the video, included at the end of this post. There's no excuse for not educating yourself on what exactly it is you're involved in and paying for.

I won't repeat all that you can read about the investigation at MFA's site for it, but I will comment on one objection to how animal advocates often present these investigations and touch on something the Discerning Brute has just discussed as well in this context: people's (or at the very least, Americans') bizarre obsession with bacon in recent years.

First, the bacon. It's been everywhere the last few years (see the Discerning Brute post for some visuals). Many vegans (and vegetarians) are accustomed to the experience of gritting their teeth while friends, family, and acquaintances tease about bacon, sing the praises of bacon, and insist they "couldn't live" without bacon, as a defensive counter to vegans' way of living and eating or in an attempt to rile them up. And when you know what happens to pigs, to those sensitive, smart, feeling animals, for people to get bacon, let's be honest -- it can be hard to resist the in-the-moment urge to flip people off and tell them what monumental jerks they are.

Because the video and the details of the undercover investigation? That is bacon. Bacon is full of physical suffering and mental anguish. Of abuse and pain. Of screams that will haunt you. Of beatings and, obviously, of death.

And if you think you'll really miss BLTs, you have animal-friendly options; from Smart Bacon to tempeh bacon, the vegan world has you covered.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, I will make note of one objection to how the investigation is being presented in some places. Too frequently, animal advocates use the term "factory farm" while failing to clearly acknowledge that many of these very same practices can and do take place in small operations as well. Beyond the gestation and farrowing crates, nothing this video shows is wholly absent from the overwhelming majority of small or so-called humane farms. The "tagging," the castration, the brutal killing of piglets who don't make the cut -- it's all standard, across the board. Animals are commodities on small farms just like they are on large ones. And obviously, you can't escape the killing -- the killing of babies and adolescents at that -- no matter where you go.

Much of what happens on "factory" farms happens on small farms, and what happens to animals raised for their flesh happens to animals raised primarily for their milk, eggs, and wool as well. Please remember as you watch the below that you have a choice not only in whether you eat pigs and financially endorse and support their suffering, but also in whether you endorse and pay for the suffering of the other animals whose bodies are used to provide so-called foods too.

---
Photo and video courtesy Mercy for Animals' Pig Farm Investigation Web site

Is Golf More Important to San Francisco Than Endangered Animals?

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-16T13:57:00-08:00

Um, no. I'm guessing most residents of the San Francisco area would say no.

But the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department apparently didn't get the memo. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the department is supposed to be figuring out how to restore habitat for the San Francisco garter snake and red-legged frog in Pacifica's Sharp Park, but instead, the department is pushing for the option that least considers the animals: an 18-hole golf course, which will push habitat restoration to "the margins of existing wetlands."

Baffling, right? The SF Board of Supervisors will vote on what to do with the park soon. So animal advocates and environmentalists need to weigh in. The Center is providing the opportunity to send a letter here, to numerous San Francisco officials. It is also asking area residents to call Rep. Jackie Speier, "who is inexplicably trying to kill the restoration option and give a federal bailout to the golf course," and to attend a Recreation and Parks Commission hearing this Thursday. See the alert for details on all this.

And whoever is manning (or writing the headlines for) the Twitter account for the Center for Biological Diversity? You win my kudos for today's tweet on this issue: "Stand Up for the Underfrog: Tell S.F. to Restore Sharp Park." Underfrog. How cute.

---
Photo retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Willful Slow Food Ignorance and the Pain Animals Feel

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-16T06:59:00-08:00

You know what bothers me? When a person or movement purports to be presenting an argument based in honesty and logic, to be coming from an objective place, concerned with fact and evidence -- but then conveniently pretends that any evidence that doesn't support or reinforce what he selfishly feels and wants even exists.

My respect for the Slow Food organization hit a low this weekend when I read Friday's editorial in the Huffington Post by its president Josh Viertel, in response to Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals. There is much in the essay I find bizarre and self-serving -- including, for example, Viertel's seeming pride in holding back lambs from their mothers and participating in the slaughter and his ludicrous insistence that "everyone's values are different, but the truth is anyone's values will do," as long as people live their values; it seems someone needs to explain to Mr. Viertel what we would be obligated to tolerate and support if this were true. Perhaps he's familiar, for example, with the values of violent racists, sexists, and homophobes and the ways they consistently "apply" their values in their lives? But the following extract was why I felt compelled to respond:

I don't get into arguments about whether animals feel pain the same way we do -- not because I don't care -- but because I cannot imagine it is knowable. I like to think they don't, but I might be wrong. (As the journalist Heywood Broun once said: "They told me that the fish were cold-blooded and felt no pain. But they were not fish who told me.") I'm agnostic on the nature of animal pain. I feel there is a possibility that they feel pain like we do, and my own values still leave room for me to catch them, to kill them, and to eat them.

Mr. Viertel, you avoid arguments on this topic not because the answer isn't "knowable," but because you simply have no argument -- and because, yes, it seems you don't much care. A five-year-old could tell you that our fellow animals feel pain as we do. And unless you have the observation skills of someone in a coma, Mr. Viertel, you should be able to determine that as well.

When a pig screams upon being struck, it's because he feels pain. When the calf thrashes and cries out as his "humane" caretaker brands him with a hot iron and castrates him with a knife, and a cow's eyes go wide and her body flails after her throat's been slit open, it's because they feel intense pain. When a dog cowers before her abuser, it's because she remembers and is terrified of pain. When any animal, human or nonhuman, screams, cries, yelps, bellows, or squawks and runs, cowers, kicks, flinches, and thrashes to avoid the person hurting her or trying to kill her, it's because she feels, fears, and wants to avoid pain -- and wants to live. We are the same in this way.

It is true that we can't transport ourselves into another being's body and experience what he's experiencing, but that goes for our fellow humans as well, and we can easily observe that the pain is there and that our fellow animals (nonhuman and human alike) react to it in the same ways we do. Whether the pain is experienced in precisely the same way is morally irrelevant. And when we see other humans exhibiting all the signs of suffering and pain, but we don't speak the same language, do we question the validity of that pain simply because they can't tell us about it in words we would understand?

To say "I like to think" that animals don't really ("like we do") feel pain is to admit willful ignorance. It's shameful. It's an example of the worst of humans' self-serving disregard for those they want to exploit. It makes Josh Viertel an embarrassment to a movement that, from true animal advocates' perspective, is already often hard-pressed to show that concern for animals is any more than a blip on its self-justifying radar.

And adding to my irritations with Jonathan Safran Foer himself is that he apparently thinks the essay is just great and worth promoting rather than challenging; he notes that Viertel "respectfully chooses" to continue killing and eating animals. There's nothing "respectful" about the pride he takes in killing animals and trying to discount their experiences and capacities. Who gives a damn if he respects Foer? Respect for nonhuman animals is the issue here, and he doesn't have it.

Finally, there is this: "my own values still leave room for me to catch them, to kill them, and to eat them." It isn't the presence of values that leaves this room for Viertel's exploitation and killing of animals; it is the absence of certain values -- or consistency in those values -- that leaves a space wide open for arrogance and violence, a space that could just as easily be filled with compassion.

---
Photo of a rescued turkey, now at a sanctuary, courtesy of Flick user jeniphur99

On Oreo, Mabel, and Killing Abused Animals

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-14T09:22:00-08:00

I somehow didn't know the story of Oreo, the 1-year-old pit bull or pit bull mix who was repeatedly abused before being thrown off the roof of a 6-story building this summer, until today -- when I read about what happened to her yesterday: though she survived the traumatic fall that broke her two front legs and more and was physically recovering, she was killed yesterday by the ASPCA, which insisted that she was too aggressive to be adopted. The ASPCA told reporters that as she began healing from her injuries, she simultaneously began showing aggression -- "growling, lunging and trying to bite people who came too close." To her reactions, I say, big surprise. And to how long the ASPCA gave her to recover, I say, meet Mabel.

Mabel the pit bull's story is too long to put into this post; that will have to be another post of its own. Indeed, it may be a couple posts because I have a happy story about her progress (and the potential for abused dogs' recovery in general) that I've been meaning to tell you, and yet another news story this past week about abused members of her breed requires some comment too. But I'll say this: Mabel was horribly abused by humans too. When I found her in May 2008, her first 1 1/2 years had clearly been a nightmare, and her injuries were many, her trauma severe. For 17 months, Mabel trusted no one but me and my ex, the people who had found her and earned her trust on a night when she was too sick, weak, and in need to resist us. For 17 months, I didn't know what it was like to have someone in this house without Mabel blocked in the back of the house, barking and jumping and panicking herself to the point of exhaustion, and only two people knew the sweetest, gentlest, most loving and trusting side of Mabel. Mabel's behaviorist, who has much experience with severely traumatized dogs and still couldn't get near her, classified her as one of the most fearful dogs she'd ever met. The last year and a half has been exhausting.

But Mabel had a breakthrough last month and proved beyond a doubt that she wants to trust, and she wants to love people; she just needed time, patience, and understanding. And she still needs it. She has had a beautiful breakthrough, but it is still a process.

You can't take a dog like Mabel or Oreo and expect her to initially feel anything but fear of or enmity toward humans, when humans are the ones who have terrorized her, who in Mabel's case are the ones who blinded her eye, broke her jaw, scarred her face, and more, who in Oreo's case are the ones who beat her severely and threw her off a roof. You can't tell a dog in words that not all humans are alike. You can't explain to a dog how sorry you are and that you'll never hurt her, even though that's all she's known since she was a puppy. Hell, you can't explain this even to a human abuse victim who does have the capacity to speak our language.

Would a toddler whose only experience with adults has been severe abuse and neglect --and attempted murder -- be expected to recover within a few months? When she may even still be in pain from her physical injuries, and it's been only a few months since her brutal beatings and brush with death and rescue, would we expect her to have made significant, rapid progress in her mental and emotional struggles, even if she could be talked to and comforted with words regarding her harrowing experiences? Or would we accept and understand that she needs time -- love and patience and understanding and time -- and that this will be a process, sometimes a slow one, maybe a lifelong one?

Oreo was only 1 year old. She was given only a few months to recover from unspeakable abuse and trauma. She deserved longer. She deserved a chance at life. They all do.

The organization that killed Oreo decided that she was hopeless and claim that they had to kill her because otherwise, she would have had to live her life out in a facility, in isolation. But there is, quite frankly, no way they could have known that. She wasn't given enough time or a fair chance. She was in no position yet to be evaluated (and such evaluations are a whole other topic). I've no doubt that those involved felt heartache over this decision. But they were misguided, and they were absolutely wrong to give up on her so soon, especially when another animal group was pleading to take her and give her a chance. They don't get to say she was hopeless after only a few months, after what she went through. They don't get to say they did everything possible to save her if another group was asking to take responsibility for her, and they killed her anyway.

She was 1 year old. She was thrown off a roof. And her rescuers just killed her.

---
ASPCA photo

Friday Food: Apple Entrees and Desserts, Burgundy Stew, and More

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-13T16:35:00-08:00

Sorry for publishing this week's edition late, folks. My day was derailed by a lost neighborhood dog (but no worries -- he's safely at home with his family again). And Friday Food is ready to go!

(Raw) Apple Medallions with Fennel and Sage Stuffing from -- and photo at left courtesy of -- What the Hell Does a Vegan Eat Anyway?

Burgundy Stew from Vegan Dad

Cabbage Amaranth Soup from Rants & Recipes

Apple Tart from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Gingerbread French Toast from Happy Herbivore

Raw Thai Veggie Wraps with Green Curry Coconut Lime Sauce from The Voracious Vegan

Guilt-Free Pumpkin Pie with Oat Crust from Disease Proof

Oat Bran Applesauce 'n Raisin Muffins from Dreena's Vegan Recipes

Apple Cider Granola from The Innocent Primate Vegan Blog

Raw Coconut and Persimmon Parfait from Swell Vegan

Pumpkin Pie Bites from FatFree Vegan Kitchen

Pumpkin Waffle Cookie Treats from BitterSweet

Vegan Caesar Salad w/ Toasted Baguette Croutons from Rhymes with Vegan

Mac 'n' Greens from What the Hell Does a Vegan Eat Anyway?

Chickpea Pot Pie from Mitten Machen/Maine Food & Lifestyle

Apple Cobbler from VegNews

Farro, Braised Chard, and Roasted Brussels Sprouts and Pears from What the Hell Does a Vegan Eat Anyway?

Kimchi Fried Brown Rice from Cooking for a Vegan Lover's Blog

Grilled Naan from Holy Cow! Vegan Recipes

Pulled Mushroom Sandwich with Quick Napa Slaw from Cooking for a Vegan Lover's Blog

Cole Slaw with Beer Dressing from Eat'n Veg'n Vegan Food and Recipes

Roasted Root Vegetables from VegNews

Judge Rejects Plea Deal for Animal Activist, Uses "Terror" Rhetoric

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-13T06:12:00-08:00

Utah is full of unpleasant animal news these days, from the upcoming protest issues mentioned yesterday to the University of Utah undercover laboratory investigation (which we've yet to discuss here) to this: yesterday a U.S. district judge rejected a plea bargain made between the prosecution and a defendant animal rights activist who released several hundred minks last year -- because he believed the plea deal didn't punish the defendant enough for "terrorizing" the man who makes his money terrorizing (no quotation marks) animals.

So what did defendant William Viehl do? Did he try to kill someone? Burn down the owner's house? Hold him hostage at gunpoint? Poison his water supply? Because you'd think he would have had to do something like that for the judge to insist the fur farmer had been "terrorized." Of course, Viehl did no such things. He and his codefendant released animals and spray-painted a barn. He cost the so-called victim money.

Viehl has no criminal record, and Judge Benson even acknowledged that he's usually lenient in such cases, but he rejected the plea deal because Viehl is an animal rights activist, and it's now business as usual to casually label animal and eco activists as "terrorists," even for nonviolent acts, when they cost animal exploiters money. The U.S. Attorney had agreed to six months for Viehl's release of the minks, but the judge wants him behind bars for a minimum of two years, and possibly up to the maximum of five years. Sentencing will take place on December 11.

Regardless of where anyone stands on various tactics, everyone should be bothered by news such as this, by the constantly growing application of "terror" rhetoric, and in some cases "terror" charges and sentences, to nonviolent actions and activists. Other activists are facing much steeper sentences for nonviolent actions.

On the broader, related topic of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, please visit the Coalition to Abolish the AETA for more information on what you can do to help that effort, including 10 Things You Can Do to Abolish the AETA, and as always, keep checking in with Green Is the New Red to stay on top of Green Scare news in general.

Talk to your U.S. senators and representatives about the issue (see numbers 3 and 4 on the 10 Things list). You can also sign and spread FARM's petition hosted here, if you haven't already, targeting "key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, Constitution Subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee, Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, and the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee."

---
Photo by Flickr user bloomsberries

No More Elephants in India's Circuses and Zoos

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-12T19:51:00-08:00

In Defense of Animals has just sent out word of good news for elephants in India. Recognizing that zoos and circuses can't possibly, even in the best of circumstances, meet these animals' needs, the Central Zoo Authority has ordered the release of 140 captive elephants in the country. They will be moved to "semi-free ranging conditions" near national parks and on protected wildlife reserves.

Veterinarian, wildlife biologist, and IDA's executive director Dr. Anand Ramanathan makes excellent points in IDA's press release, asking how the United States can still fail to step up when India can recognize the problems inherent to captive breeding of elephants and the failure of captive programs to aid in real-world protection of species in their natural habitat.

If a country such as India, which has thousands of years' experience managing elephants in captivity, can make such a forward-thinking decision, then certainly the United States can take a stand against circuses that exploit elephants and sub-optimal zoo exhibits that cause elephants to suffer and die prematurely.

To be clear, this ban does not affect any other animals held captive in circuses and zoos. But it certainly is good news and progress for elephants. What's the holdup, America?

Helping Donald the Crippled Rooster and Harvest Home Sanctuary

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-12T15:02:00-08:00

It seems that once every couple months, I learn about another growing or small animal sanctuary that I previously didn't know existed. And this is always a lovely surprise. This time, it's the Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary in California, which I learned about via Marji of Animal Place Sanctuary (and of the Animal Place blog).

One of Harvest Home's residents (you can meet the others here) needs surgery. His name is Donald. He hatched into a first grade classroom as a project -- and he emerged from his egg with deformed legs. When Harvest Home first met him, "one of his legs was splayed at a 90 degree angle, while the other leg was supported with curled toes." He was only four months old, yet "his daily routine was a struggle. A struggle to reach food and water. A struggle to stay clean. A struggle to move without thrashing around." So Donald needs surgery, expensive surgery.

Sanctuaries, especially new, small, or not-well-known sanctuaries, are not awash in money. But that doesn't change how much the animals for whom they care need and deserve help and the best medical care possible. If you'd like to help this growing sanctuary -- if you'd like to help raise the funds that will allow Donald to get his surgery -- you can donate here. I know that there are far more individual animals in dire need of help than I could document here -- than scores of us could document here -- even if every hour of the day were devoted to that task. But it's good to acknowledge them, and help them, as individuals whenever we can. Best of luck, Donald.

---
Photo courtesy of Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary

Protesting for Minks in Utah

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-12T06:44:00-08:00

Thanks go to my friends at Food Fight! Grocery in Portland for the reminder on this one.

Morgan, Utah, is home to 15 active mink fur farms -- which makes it more entrenched in the abhorrent practice than any other U.S. community. And on Saturday, November 28, animal rights activists hope to make it the site of a major protest too: "For the first time, the animal rights movement will bring all the tears and rage for the millions killed every year for fur to the belly of the beast: Morgan, Utah. This convergence will climax in a one-mile march through the heart of this fur farm capital, past two of Morgan’s mink farms."

But Morgan County wants to put a damper on any protests; in the last couple months, it made some bold moves. First, it passed an ordinance prohibiting protesters from demonstrating within 1,000 feet of fur farms and the residences on them. Salt Lake animal advocate Colleen Hatfield had this to say in response:

"Just try to go to Morgan County and not be 1,000 feet from a fur farm ... Our route was too close to several fur farms so they redrew the route, and now we're basically standing in front of the police department."

The county is also trying to require the protest organizers to pay for law enforcement/security during the event -- to pay to have themselves policed -- at, reportedly, a cost of $40 per hour per officer.

The Salt Lake Animal Advocacy Movement has filed suit in response, on the basis of unconstitutionality and infringement on the right to free speech. Meanwhile, the November 28 march and protest are still scheduled to go on. So if you live in the area or feel like making a road trip, check in and keep updated at FurFreeUtah.com.

---

Photo courtesy Empty Cages Gallery and The Animals Voice

Could "Service Dog" Programs Be Good for Both Dogs and Veterans?

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-11T08:34:00-08:00

This morning, I learned for the first time of the Service Dogs for Veterans Act, a bill cosponsored by Senator Al Franken and described by OpenCongress.org as "a bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, and for other purposes." A related provision was recently passed as part of the Defense Authorization Bill.

The details aren't terribly clear -- I've seen variations from place to place -- but a Minnesota Public Radio report summarized it thus: "The Veterans Administration would develop partnerships with organizations that provide disabled veterans with service dogs." Other sources have indicated that the "effectiveness" of the program will be studied, with possible expansion to come. One dog blog post, published a couple months before the legislation passed, indicated that "half the service dogs will be for veterans with mental health disabilities and the other half will help those with physical disabilities," but I haven't been able to determine yet whether those specifics and others made it into the final legislation.

The issue of nonhuman animals, dogs in most cases, as "service" animals for humans is not a black-and-white one in the animal rights community. On one hand, it can be argued that using animals in this way is just that -- using them and further building on our view of them as tools. On the other hand is the common argument that the dogs can benefit from the relationship as well and can be well loved and cared for, just as they would be in a home in which they're not also service-providers.

I'll not go too deep into the philosophical implications of all this, but I will say that if animals are going to be used to provide help and service to humans -- whether disabled veterans, such as in these programs, or anyone else -- there should be firm policies in place not only protecting the animals once they've become service animals, but also helping animals in the process.

What do I mean by "helping animals in the process"? What I'm certainly not OK with, even remotely, is the practice of breeding dogs specifically for the purpose of turning them into service animals. Churning animals out like plastic purchasable products from a factory is a despicable thought to me. So whether a program breeds dogs itself or purchases dogs from breeders, that practice is unacceptable. But tell me that a service dog program is going to adopt all the dogs in its program from shelters -- tell me that the program is going to save dogs' lives, rather than breed them like commodities while millions die in shelters -- and I'll unclench my jaw. Freedom Service Dogs in Colorado, for example, points out that "FSD rescues and trains only unwanted and abandoned dogs, helping solve the pet overpopulation problem. There is no puppy-raising program or breeding." And those dogs who "do not fulfill all the comprehensive training requirements are found adoptive homes."

The other guarantee that should absolutely be required for these programs relates to what happens to the dogs as they age, grow ill, and/or are injured. When a person doesn't need or want the dog anymore, or the dog's usefulness (god, I hate that word) to the person declines, and the dog starts needing care, is he or she still guaranteed a home? What protections are in place to make sure the dog isn't abandoned, neglected, or traumatically bounced around from home to home?

The issue is one about which I have mixed feelings. Millions of dogs are being killed in shelters each year. Countless dogs are languishing on the streets. So if these programs would commit to rescuing and training those dogs, rather than purpose-breeding dogs, and they and the people being helped by the dogs would commit to providing lifelong, loving care and protection to the dogs, shouldn't animal rights advocates get behind them? And in a society that is still killing these millions of dogs each year, while breeders are continuing to treat other dogs like puppy machines and products, when we need people to adopt dogs, shouldn't we also consider the possibility that many disabled veterans would still want to rescue and adopt a dog even if they weren't injured -- and that in this case, a program that rescues dogs from shelters (not breeds them) and provides them with training could indeed be helping both people and dogs at the same time? What if some injured veterans who want to rescue a dog can share a home with a dog and provide care for (as well as receive care from) that dog only if the dog has received specialized training?

There's a lot to think about here. My gut feelings do include discomfort. My instinct is to hate the way it's too easy for some of these programs to look at the dogs as tools. And as much as all traumatized veterans deserve help and care, I also must admit to feeling some anxiousness about the potential for cases in which the traumatized veterans' mental and emotional struggles could put the dogs in danger. I'd want to know what guidelines are in place for where dogs go and how much careful, consistent, and close supervision and checking on the dogs there is after they've been placed in a home if the person's struggles could impact the dog. I'm sure that most in the armed forces would be and are perfectly suitable, capable, loving guardians. But we also know that this isn't always the case, and we're also talking about a system that forced many of these same veterans to cruelly maim and kill animals as part of their training. So it's important to consider the issue from all angles.

My fellow animal advocates -- what do you think?

---

A note for the record: This is a completely different issue, for me, from the practice of breeding, training, using, and endangering dogs in the military, which you're not going to catch me being wishy-washy about. Somewhat related post: "Animals in War: You Don't Have to Be Human to Die by the Millions."

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army

Highway Construction That Considers Animals

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-10T17:03:00-08:00

The practice of keeping nonhuman animals and their needs in mind during development and construction of human projects has come up around here a few times lately. In early August, we looked at some interesting posts from Emily at the Stop Global Warming blog, on constructing bat habitats, and Glenn of Liberation BC, on proposed high-rises for urban animals. And later that same month, Glenn posted again on the topic, this time regarding underpasses and overpasses designed specifically for animals.

Some current happenings in Colorado fall right into this latter category. A wildlife advocate in that state is trying to make sure humans do their part to protect and accommodate their fellow animals along a highway where animals are routinely hit and killed by vehicles. Beyond seeking a nighttime speed limit, Frosty Merriott is also calling for overpasses and underpasses where animals' natural migration routes intersect with the highway -- the idea being that larger animals can travel over the highway while smaller ones can cross safely below.

Merriott is meeting with his state representative on Friday to push for these measures and has asked folks from the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Colorado State Patrol, and the Division of Wildlife to join them as well. How encouraging would it be if advocates succeeded in making these accommodations and protections a reality, if this sort of consideration for our fellow animals became a trend?

And though what will come of the overpass/underpass suggestions is yet to be seen, Merriott is already making some progress: a representative from the state's transportation department told journalists that tunnels already running underneath the highway had been slated to be closed off, but they are now being left open for the benefit of small animals, at Merriott's urging.

---
Photo of wildlife overpass in Canada retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

The Underestimated Compassion and Understanding of Children

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-10T07:35:00-08:00

A smart, sweet three-year-old and her dad made my morning today and inspired this post. Before or after you read this one, you must do yourself the favor of reading Ryan's post from last night over at The Veg Blog. Because his three-year-old daughter? She's going to do beautiful, compassionate things in this world. Hell, she's already doing them. I won't give away Ryan's whole post. I'll just say that his little one is a lovely example of what we're capable of as people, what this world's children are capable of in particular, when we can get past everything that's been ingrained in us -- or so much better, when it's never ingrained in us in the first place.

Back in May, when I wrote about Ruby Roth's gorgeous new children's book That's Why We Don't Eat Animals, I included the following paragraph:

Toddlers and young children are so open to the world and its inhabitants, so full of affection and wonder, and so free of judgment except for what judgments the adults in their lives teach them. Children aren't born racist or homophobic or even dismissive of animals. They have the capacity for great love for all around them, from other children to all kinds of animals to a grove of tall trees. . . . [But] so terribly often, we actually lie to kids, and we teach them to abandon compassion as childish, to embrace prejudices and judgment, and to conform themselves to what adults believe--and who adults think children should be--without giving them the opportunity to make their own choices, even when they want to.

Children such as Ryan's daughter are proof of those first few lines and proof that even without kids' books or videos (though they can certainly be helpful), for example, kids can get it -- because it is really the simplest concept to grasp: "We don't need to eat animals, sweetie, so we don't. We love animals, so we don't kill them." People who've been raised on eating animals and animal products and seeing many animals as entertainment or tools (i.e., most of us) initially tend to look at animal rights and veganism as something out there, something complicated, when in reality, as I've said before, it's the simplest, most basic, and most consistent of concepts: it's a belief in nonviolence lived, a commitment to compassion expressed.

Kids like Ryan's daughter don't get confusing messages from their parents. They aren't lied to. There's never a "who" on their plate disguised as a what. They're never taught false distinctions between pigs and dogs, cats and chickens, cows and dolphins. They're never encouraged to falsely see farmed animals (or circus-enslaved animals or lab-confined animals or any other animals) as mindless, unfeeling things, and they're never presented the myth of happy farms where animals magically, willingly, painlessly become food. They don't get the whole childhood and more of subtle and not-subtle messages about animals that so many of us do get and have to break through and unlearn.

And they aren't "indoctrinated" with animal rights philosophy, as detractors may be inclined to absurdly argue (as if the vast majority of kids aren't indoctrinated with the view of animals as things, as objects for our use). They're just not lied to. As Ryan pointed out, it's not like you have to "break out Earthlings at your kid’s fourth birthday party" to be honest with a child about animals and why his or her family doesn't eat them or what comes from them. The most basic explanation -- that explanation of caring about animals and not wanting to hurt them -- is perfectly kid-friendly and sufficient. Indeed, that simplest logic and explanation, which Ryan's daughter understands so well, should be sufficient for all of us. If we believe in nonviolence and compassion -- if we believe in not causing harm and suffering and death when we don't have to -- then we shouldn't cause that harm. The idea of veganism is wonderfully uncomplicated. It's merely a matter of choosing compassion over violence. It is so simple that a three-year-old grasps it beautifully. Here's to you this morning, Rasine. The world is, and will continue to be, a lovelier place with you in it.

---

Photo (not of Ryan's daughter), taken at Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary, by Flickr user katstan

Jonathan Safran Foer and Eating and Killing Animals

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-09T08:16:00-08:00

I haven't read Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals yet. I don't know when I will, given lack of time, but I have seen a head-spinning number of reviews of and reactions to it lately. I get the impression, from these reviews and reactions, that there will be aspects of the book that will frustrate me, but I can also appreciate that he is telling mainstream America far more than most of them have read or heard before about who rather than what is on their plates and that he has done it in a way that is getting a lot of people thinking and talking. And though I've not read it myself, I've found other animal advocates' reactions to the book and Foer's approach interesting and worth considering, and I've read and watched some of his interviews.

For example, in a recent Facebook note, Josh Hooten of Herbivore posted a thoughtful response to the attention Foer's book is getting and the discussing it's sparking, in the mainstream and within the the vegan animal rights movement. And a SuperVegan post that is thoughtful and worth reading itself republished Josh's post in full.

Also, as mentioned in that post, Katie Drummond of True/Slant last week published not only her personal reactions to the book but also an interview with the author -- in which she came right out and asked him why on earth he hasn't gone totally vegan yet, knowing what he now knows.

And honestly, I found some of his answers there unsatisfactory, just as I sometimes found myself wanting more from him when he appeared on Ellen DeGeneres's show recently.* At moments in this particular interview and audience Q&A, he seemed to be perpetuating the humane myth, this idea that unnecessary slaughter of animals can be "humane" and that cruelties, suffering, and unnecessary death are only factory farming problems. Indeed, it was Ellen (a vegan**) who briefly piped up when he was talking about battery cages to clarify that "cage-free eggs" are cruel too (side note: Ellen mistakenly implied that an egg-laying hen lives only 30 days -- it seems she was thinking of the chickens raised for their flesh, who are indeed killed at 6 to 7 weeks old; egg-laying hens live in their personal hell for a couple years).

Foer was asked by an audience member why vegans don't eat dairy and eggs in the second segment, and his answer relied, again, only on the confinement of the hens and cows in industrial operations, which implies to people that when the animals aren't confined, everything's hunky-dory. I fail to understand why what, to me, seems like the simplest of answers isn't given in these instances. I can see how the anti-exploitation, anti-use argument would be too much to get into in the short time allowed and in these particular circumstance (and I understand that Foer doesn't seem to believe in the anti-exploitation stance in the first place).

But what about that simplest of arguments, the reason many vegetarians stop eating meat in the first place -- the killing? Many vegetarians just don't know how much inherent killing is involved in consuming dairy and eggs. And it seems one of the easiest, quickest answers here would be that all animals whom we use for food, we kill. For all eggs, tiny male chicks are suffocated or ground up alive, and hens are sent to brutal slaughter after their egg production declines. For all dairy, calves are separated from their mothers, and baby calves and ultimately mother cows are horribly slaughtered for meat.

"Ultimately, eggs and dairy kill all the animals used for them too. Baby male chicks, worn-out egg-laying hens, newborn calves, six-year-old cows -- they're all slaughtered after we're done with them, and virtually all of them go through unspeakable suffering even before that": Why can't we say that? Foer responded to Drummond's question about the absence of references to veganism in his book thus: "The book is called Eating Animals, not Eating Animal Products. I took on a lot, and I wanted to keep the scope as narrow as I could to keep some thread running through it." Not killing animals when we don't need to seems like a clear thread and narrow topic to me, so his answer doesn't really satisfy me.

But as noted by others before me, including Josh Hooten, Foer isn't an animal rights advocate (Josh: "I think sizing him up through an AR lens is a mistake"). I've seen his position characterized as being anti-killing in general in a couple places (e.g., here), but my impression is that currently, he's focused primarily on how animals are treated and killed, not on whether we should be using and killing them in the first place, so though some of his answers and statements may be disappointing to animal advocates, they shouldn't really be surprising, I suppose.

In any event, as I said, others who've read the book and who've been following the media blitz surrounding it have interesting things to say, from varying perspectives, about the potential impact of all this. Check a few of them out:

"Does It Matter That Jonathan Safran Foer Isn't Vegan?" -- the SuperVegan/Josh Hooten post mentioned throughout (Hooten's full post is pasted at the bottom of the SuperVegan post, so be sure to read all the way through)

"On 'Eating Animals' by Jonathan Safran Foer" from Animal Person

"On Not Eating Animals: Q&A with Jonathan Safran Foer" from Katie Drummond

----

* It's not my intention to just complain about the interview in general. There's much to be pleased about when animals -- and veganism, courtesy of Ellen -- get mainstream attention on such a popular program, and there were some "hell yeah!" moments too. More on this to come in a later post.

** I'll head this one off: yes, I know -- and am as dismayed as anyone -- that Ellen DeGeneres is currently serving as a spokesperson for Cover Girl, which tests on animals. Again, stay tuned for another post in the next couple days in which this will come up.

Obama Administration Still Neglecting Endangered Species

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-08T10:47:00-08:00

President Obama's record on animal issues in his first year in office has been less than inspiring, including his decisions to give responsibility for protecting animals in his administration to decidedly un-animal-friendly people (Sam Hamilton to head the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, for example) and, on a more personal level, his unfortunate failure to set an example that could have benefited shelter dogs.

And the Center for Biological Diversity has just weighed in on an administration report regarding candidates for endangered species protections. Obama's administration, the Center reports, has identified "a total of 249 species in need of protection." So what's the problem?

The review also describes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s progress in listing these species, showing that the administration has, to date, only listed one species – a Hawaiian plant reduced to a handful of individuals.

“This review shows that the Obama administration has not substantially improved the dismal record of the Bush administration in providing protection to the nation’s critically endangered wildlife,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Protection of only one species in 10 months reflects a failure to enact substantial reforms in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

Please read more here.

---
Photo of juvenile yellow-billed loon retrieved from Wikimedia Commons