Animal Awakening

Trevor Moves On

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:33:00 +0000

Two days ago I said goodbye to Trevor as I'd known him for 14 years. Though I miss him beyond reason, I take comfort in knowing that the sweetest soul I've ever known is now free to run, jump, even fly throughout the universe to his heart's content until the moment his journey takes another turn and he's back here on this earth again. The only thing more profound than my pain right now is the profound impact this eternal gift of love and light has had on my life.

Going forward, Trevor, with my every endeavor, you will always be a mighty wind beneath my hope-filled wings. You've moved on, and I promise you, beyond these tears, that I will too.

RELATED POSTS:

Finally Breathing With Ease: Treating My Dog Trevor for Chronic Bronchitis

One-Legged Birds, Three-Legged Dogs and Two-Legged Me

The Heart of Healing: Creating a Reality of Health for My Dog Trevor

Finally Breathing With Ease: Treating My Dog Trevor for Chronic Bronchitis

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:10:00 +0000

After days of straining to breathe, my 14-year-old lab-white shepherd, Trevor, is finally breathing easy, and at peace.

For months, Trevor's breathing has been an issue, but never to the degree it was this summer. We live in Arizona where walking outside in June, July and August (now extending into September) is like walking into an oven -- not just mid-day but often by nine or ten o'clock in the morning. Though we try to limit Trevor's outside jaunts to the cooler times of the day, inevitably he needs to go out at least twice when the heat is at its height.

As a three-legged dog, Trevor exerts much more energy than most, whether he's making his rounds in the backyard or simply walking (i.e., hopping) to his water bowl. This combined with the heat was too much for Trevor this summer. About a week ago, the heavy panting we'd been used to after he'd been up and about turned into the kind of wheezing that makes you wonder with every breath if that one is going to be his last.

Into the vet Trevor went for an x-ray. The culprit -- his bronchial tubes. The diagnosis -- chronic bronchitis. (She also referred to it as COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.) The treatment -- theophylline, a bronchial dilator to open up his airways.

Trevor weighs 60 pounds and was prescribed 200 mg of theophylline twice a day. The vet told me one of the side effects would be similar to caffeine, but nothing could have prepared me for the extent of his restlessness. In fact, his anxiety was so bad the first couple of days that it actually made his breathing worse. I'd never seen or heard his lungs work so hard, and I'd never been so sure his days were numbered.

I called the vet and explained what was happening with Trevor. She said not to give him that night's dose and to cut his doses in half the next day. We did just that, and his anxiety seemed to subside, but his breathing did not change. Convinced the theophylline wasn't working, I considered the second option my vet had mentioned -- prednisone. Though the chances of it working were good, steroids come with some frightening side effects that we've witnessed firsthand in our other dog, Sadey. When treating her for an immune disorder, her appetite was insatiable and she nearly doubled her body weight! That combined with the potential for organ damage makes it a choice you only want to make as a last resort.

Good news is that last resort may be further away than we thought. Yesterday, Trevor's breathing was noticeably better. He still wheezed some after his trips outside, but he was able to recover quite quickly. Today though, Trevor has not wheezed at all, simply panting heavily when he comes in, plopping down and immediately catching his breath!

Today we are thanking our lucky stars and praying that it's a constellation that's here to stay.

RELATED POSTS

One-Legged Birds, Three-Legged Dogs & Two-Legged Me

The Heart of Healing: Creating a Reality of Health for My Dog Trevor

My Dog Sadey Beats Immune Disorder After Two-Year Fight

U.S. Army Shoots and Burns Live Pigs, Monkeys & Goats: The Truth Behind Trauma Training

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:50:00 +0000

Thanks to trauma training procedures mandated by the U.S. Department of Defense, I can never look at members of the U.S. Army the same way again.

During trauma training for the battlefield, the U.S. Army shoots and burns live pigs, monkeys and goats. Service men and women are then tasked with repairing these wounds, presumably because it's the next best thing to practicing on a human being. Problem is, most medical schools long ago stopped using animals for trauma training, not only because it's the compassionate thing to do, but because there now exist non-animal simulators even better-suited to the task.

It's my dad who tipped me off to this story, specifically about the pigs. Though he's been known to eat his fair share of pork (as I did most of my life before going vegan), my dad shares my objection -- if alternative techniques for trauma training in the U.S. Army exist, why not use them?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provided further detail of this story in a recent newsletter, including the use of monkeys and goats in this barbaric practice. PETA asked that I write to the Defense Department in their Ask a Question contact form. They suggest copying and pasting the sample letter below:

"I was shocked to learn that the Department of Defense is shooting live pigs and goats and burning monkeys in trauma training exercises. There is no justification for this cruelty. The majority of medical schools in North America no longer use animals for medical trauma training, and more effective humane alternatives are readily available. I respectfully request that you adopt PETA's recommendations and take immediate action to end the needless suffering of animals in these outdated training exercises."

Since it's always a good idea to use your own words with these sorts of things when so inspired, I wrote something like this:

"Why is the United States Army -- responsible for protecting a country known worldwide for its compassion for animals -- shooting and burning live pigs, monkeys and goats in trauma training? Long ago, most medical schools stopped using animals in this regard, as better non-animal alternatives now exist. I am disgusted that my tax dollars are going to support this torturous practice of animals by service men and women whose activities should make me proud, not ashamed."

After submitting my question, I was assured they "read them all." Obviously that is not the case, as I received the same canned response as is posted on their website. It's lengthy, but below are some excerpts of note:

"Alternative training methods are used extensively ... however, these alternatives do not always provide medical personnel with the adequate appreciation of critical skills.... For example, there are no good hemorrhage control simulation models -- and loss of blood is the main cause of death on the battlefield."
The animals are "deeply anesthetized during all produces and euthanized without regaining consciousness when the training has ended."
"Animals used in chemical casualty training recover completely and display no behavioral or physical ill effects in the days and weeks after the exercise."

Though all of these are excellent points that, if true, certainly do lift some of the heaviness from my heart, I am a vegan for a reason. I do not believe animals are ours to "use" in any capacity. Who are we to sentence them to a life in a laboratory, cramped in cages, never to know the quality of life that nature intended for them to have?

I'm not saying I would prefer our soldiers bleeding to death on the battlefield. But if the purpose of this trauma training is to as closely simulate what they would encounter on the field, theoretically they should be shooting and burning one another. But they'll never do that. Why? Because it's morally reprehensible. How does it make any sense to hurt and kill someone now just to help save someone else later?

If put in a position where I had to choose between saving a human and saving an animal, I would most certainly choose the human. But it is beyond me how anyone in the medical profession -- tasked with saving lives -- should be forced to be a party to intentional injury and murder.

Click the following links to learn more about non-animal alternatives for trauma training and to contact the Defense Department yourself to protest the shooting and burning of animals in trauma training.

Wild Horses Couldn't Drag Me Away From This Story: Help Save Wild Horses from Euthanization

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Something like 33,000 wild horses live in 10 Western states. Nevada is home to about half of them. But ranchers don't like that. Apparently, the horses are "competition" for forage on the range -- food that cattle ranchers need for their cows. So the federal government is helping these ranchers out, rounding up wild horses, with the goal being to leave a "management" target range of just 27,000 to roam free.

Though the government has made these horses available for adoption, there's simply too many for that to be a feasible solution for them all. So the government has been using taxpayer dollars to keep these horses confined and "cared for."

As though imprisoning wild horses with our tax money isn't bad enough, now there's talk of getting rid of the horses all together. It's just "too costly" caring for them all. Yet rather than simply releasing them back into their natural home, the government wants to euthanize wild horses instead. Not to save these poor cows who don't have enough to eat, but to fatten them up for slaughter.

If you want to help, please sign this petition to save America's wild horses from euthanization.

One-Legged Birds, Three-Legged Dogs & Two-Legged Me

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:01:00 +0000

This is a starling that has been frequenting my yard this summer. He only has the use of one of his legs. He balances on his left claw and holds the right one up close to his body -- actually not too close. I'm not sure he can even bend it. On landings or when hopping around on the ground, he sometimes loses his balance and extends his right wing to the ground to balance himself out.

Starlings are pretty agressive when it comes to their food, so he has a hard time competing with his buddies, and they generally travel in big flocks (one year dozens of them devoured just about every fig on my tree -- and there were hundreds of them -- in just a matter of days).

When my dog, Trevor, was a couple of years old, he was in a car accident that shattered his front left leg. I was advised by some close to me to just put him down, as he could have no decent quality of life. Thankfully, my family disagreed and they helped me pay for the amputation. He's 14 now and has led a rich, full life. In his younger years before arthritis kicked in, he ran ... he swam ... and he played rambunctiously with our other dog. In fact, just the other day he surprised us all with a romp-around with our 9-year-old terrier, Sadey.

Some may feel sorry for birds, dogs, animals or even people who don't have use of one or more of their limbs. But when I look at that Starling or my dog Trevor, what I feel for them is appreciation.

I live in a world where animals do not feel sorry for themselves.

I live in a world where anything is possible.

I live in a world where one-legged birds and three-legged dogs are teaching two-legged humans like me about life.

Defenders of Wildlife Part II: Challenging the Loophole in Polar Bear's Threatened Status

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:28:00 +0000

On the surface, the Bush administration's decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a victory. I literally jumped with joy out of my chair when I read the news. On closer examination by green groups who would know, it's a facade. Here's an excerpt from a Defenders of Wildlife press release dated May 20, 2008:

"Listing polar bears as threatened under the ESA should help protect polar bear habitat from threats such as oil and gas development, which the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska, and has even proposed in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which provides the primary land denning habitat for the polar bear.

"Instead, the administration has made it clear with its 4(d) rule that the ESA will not provide any additional protections from these activities than those that already exist under the MMPA, and will provide no protection whatsoever against emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing the rise in global temperatures that directly threaten the polar bear."

In an Associated Press article dated May 15, Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Rappaport -- who is also a former director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the same agency that decided on the polar bear's listing) -- said "They're trying to make this a threatened listing in name only with no change in today's impacts and that's not going to fly."

Defenders was one of the green groups that filed a lawsuit forcing the Interior Department to make a long-overdue decision on the polar bear's status. Now it seems they're on their way back to court to challenge “interim final” rule (i.e., loophole) under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act.

On May 16, Defenders filed a 60-day notice letter with the Interior Secretary letting him know they plan to formally challenge the legality of the loophole in court.

At a recent Defenders of Wildlife meeting here in Phoenix, I learned firsthand from one of their represenatives just how desperate the polar bear's livelihood has become.

Their main source of food are ringed seals that they hunt from the ice. When that ice melts in the summertime, they're forced to fast until it freezes again. The only way this is possible is if the polar bears are able to accumulate enough fat to last them from the melting of the ice to its refreezing. Problem is, the ice is melting several days sooner now than it did in the past. Not only are some starving to death, but they're actually resorting to cannibalism, something that has never been seen among the polar bear population.

Ensuring that the polar bear receives the same rights as other threatened species protected by the Endangered Species Act is just one of many goals of Defenders of Wildlife, including:

1) Closely monitoring polar bear hunting programs and limit the number of licenses issued and reduce or eliminate annual quotas as necessary.

2) Increasing national and international legal protections for polar bears.

3) Enforcing all existing laws regulating the take, transport or sale of polar bears and polar bear parts.

4) Implement local and regional bear-awareness campaigns to help minimize conflicts between people and polar bears.

5) Urge Congress to pass legislation to implement the "Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population."

If you want to help, click this link to get involved and support the work of Defenders of Wildlife. You can even symbolically adopt a polar bear family, cub or group.

Related posts ...

Polar Bear Finally Listed as Threatened Species, Climate Change to Blame
Defenders of Wildlife Part I: Protecting Animals Threatened By Fence on U.S.-Mexico Border

My Dog Sadey Beats Immune Disorder After Two-Year Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:57:00 +0000

Two years ago, our dog Sadey wasn't herself. Normally a rambunctious, playful wire terrier mix, she was legarthic and we thought she just had some sort of cold, as dogs can get. Then she lost her appetite for her regular food, and all she would eat is roast beef. Soon though, she lost her appetite for everything. One day I patted her on the head, and she cried. We knew then something was seriously wrong.

We called in our house-call vet and he took some blood. (In hindsight, we never should have waited so long). Turns out her white blood cells were through the roof and her platelets dangerously low. She had to be rushed to our local emergency vet where she had to have a blood transfusion and stay overnight. Leaving her there was one of the hardest things we have ever done. She had practically no energy by then, but she managed to stand up in her kennel and watch us leave her behind.

She ended up being there another night or two (I can't believe I can't remember). That was torture, especially when we got a call in the middle of the night from her ER doctor saying they needed to do another blood transfusion.

Turns out she had "immune-mediated thrombocytopenia." For whatever reason, her immune system wasn't recognizing her platelets as her own. It was killing them, her blood wasn't clotting and her stool was filled with thick, black blood.

When Sadey came home, she was still weak and at risk. The doctors prescribed her prednisone, a steroid that suppresses the immune system. I believe it was 10 mg twice a day. Though the prednisone eventually increased her appetite dramatically, not at first. I had to force-feed her this super-vitamin-rich wet food the ER doctors gave me. I'd put a little bit on one of those wooden tongue depressers, set it against the roof her mouth, close her mouth and pull it out. The food was so gooey that she no choice but to swallow it down.

Sadey's healthy weight had always been around 17 pounds. At the lowest point of her illness, I believe she was around 13. But the prednisone kicked in, and she started gaining it all back, plus some, which prednisone tends to do.

Every month, we had to monitor her white blood cell and platelet count. The prednisone was working and her numbers were getting back up to normal. But prednisone is too dangerous to keep a dog (or person) on for the rest of their life. The goal was always to taper her off.

Over the course of the first year, it was back and forth a lot. We'd taper down, then have to go back up because her numbers slipped. Finally, our vet said Sadey needed to see an internist. She's the one who put her on azathioprine, another drug that suppresses the immune system.

By this time, Sadey's weight was through the roof -- 31 pounds. The good news is, the azathioprine seemed to do what the prednisone could not. At first it was given in combo with the prednisone, each drug every other day. Then we took her off the pred and just the azathioprine. She held steady for months until we finally took her completely off all drugs around a month and a half ago.

I took her in for her most recent test (CBC, or complete blood count) last Thursday. We got the results today. All numbers are normal. My Sadey is healthy once again. She's also losing weight. Since being off the prednisone, she's gotten down to 27 pounds. I can't imagine that she'll ever return to her previous 17, but three or four more pounds lost would be ideal.

One thing I haven't mentioned that is actually one of the most important of all is the cost associated with saving Sadey's life. Her initial stay the hospital, blood transfusions included, was something like $2500. Over the course of the next two years, we spent $40 a month on the CBC and hundreds more on follow-up doctor visits. As much sacrificing and borrowing as we've had to do to make this happen, it was worth it. The last thing I ever want to have happen is for something like money to stand between life and death.

Sadey celebrated her 9th birthday this month. The picture pasted at the beginning of this blog is from her party. What a birthday present indeed.

Polar Bear Finally Listed as Threatened Species, Climate Change To Blame

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:07:00 +0000

Fifteen minutes ago, a friend of mine exclaimed, "If I get one more email asking me to help save the polar bears, I think I'm gonna freak out. I've already saved them like a million times!"

Of course she's talking about the push for the Bush administration to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, as the ice is literally melting right out from under their feet. For months we've been getting emails from all sorts of environmental organizations asking us to sign this petition, or write this official, to express our support for official polar bear protection.

Well, I just checked the news on NPR, and guess what. The polar bear will be protected under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species!

As you may know, the campaign really heated up in recent weeks, as the Bush Administration was court-ordered to make a decision on the polar bear's status by tomorrow, May 15 (four months later than they were supposed to).

What "threatened" status means is that the polar bear is "vulnerable to extinction in the near future." When making the announcment, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne noted that the polar bear population could be reduced by as much as two-thirds by 2050!

As long as the polar bear is threatened with extinction, the US government must protect its habitat and try to find solutions to help with its recovery.

The polar bear is the first animal to be protected by the Endangered Species Act as a direct result of global warming -- an important precedent for all the other animals that will no doubt need similar protections, as climate change is the number one threat to wildlife preservation.

Click this link to learn more about the polar bear being added to the endangered species list.

Take Action In Honor of Natividad: Three Ways to Help In Response to Starving Dog Used for Art

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:09:00 +0000

Though the story has been circulating for some time now, it was just a couple of weeks ago when I heard about Natividad, the starving dog used by Costa Rican artist Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas in a 2007 award-winning art exhibit at the Codice Gallery in Nicaragua.

The photos of Natividad haunted me for days -- a starving dog tied to a lead that was attached to a piece of rope that ran from one gallery wall to another. The only way Natividad could move was back and forth along the length of the rope. He had no access to food or water in the display. However, written in dog biscuits above him were the words "You are what you read."

I went to bed having read just one account of this story. My understanding was that:

The artist had picked this starving dog off the street for use in his exhibit
He named the dog "Natividad"
The dog was exhibited for days on end, not fed or watered
Natividad died of starvation

When I signed the petition urging the Visual Arts Biennial to retract its invitation to Vargas for him to repeat the exhibit at their show in Central America, I wrote something like, "Shame on the spectators who did nothing to rescue this starving dog."

Now after doing more research online, that's exactly the point that Vargas says he was was trying to make.

"In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica," Vargas has stated, "tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought. Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a bit of hypocrisy in all of us."

In fact, both Vargas and the Codice Gallery say no spectators intervened or called the authorities to try to save Natividad. And now, both say Natividad was only on display for three hours, fed and watered the rest of the time. Vargas has declined to answer questions as to whether Natividad died, though the Gallery has stated the dog escaped after just one day.

We will never know the truth about what happened to Natividad -- during the exhibit, or afterward. All we do know is that countless more starving dogs just like him are in Nicaragua where there are no animal welfare laws protecting them.

Thankfully, there is an organization trying to change all that -- the World Society for the Protection of Animals, which is leading an initiative called the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) "to gain recognition and protection for animals worldwide."

Again I must quote Guillermo Vargas, "Tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the (Costa Rica) streets and no one pays them a second thought." Well, thanks to the work of the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the President of Costa Rica became the millionth person to sign the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare!

I felt paralyzed for days after learning Natividad's fate. As much as I knew I needed to, I didn't even want to blog about it. Yet, only in doing so have I discovered how to turn my paralysis into action.

Three Ways You Can Help

Click this link to sign the petition to boycott the presence of Guillermo Vargas "Habacuc" at the Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008.

Click this link to sign the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare. (As of this writing, there are 1,409,148 signatures.)

Click this link to support the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

Defenders of Wildlife Part I: Protecting Animals Threatened By Fence On U.S.-Mexico Border

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:01:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a Defenders of Wildlife meet-up here in the Phoenix area where I live. The idea was to give activists like me more information about the issues and the tools to make a difference.

Though I'd heard of Defenders of Wildlife, I had no idea just how instrumental this non-profit has been in the environmental movement. Founded back in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife helped pass the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

The gentleman who spoke to us has been involved in wildlife preservation for more than three decades, and he remembers the groundswell of support for all of the environmentally-friendly legislation that passed between 1962 and 1975, the Endangered Species Act among them. Yet instead of building upon this wave of support, complacency set in. Now, we're simply fighting to keep the environmental protections we once worked so hard to build.

For instance, that fence we're building on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants from crossing over is going to have the same impact on wildlife. A perfect example is the jaguar. The only jaguars in the U.S. are those that cross our border with Mexico. With a fence, they won't be able to do so, directly impacting their habitat and threatening their way of life. The jaguar is an endangered species and we have laws protecting it. But the federal government is so determined to build this fence that they decided any law can be waived to make it happen.

In response, Defenders of Wildlife is supporting legislation introduced by Arizona Congressman Raul M. Grijalva -- the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act. Passing this legislation wouldn't stop the fence. It would simply "[Require] compliance with federal, state, and local laws meant to protect the air, water, wildlife, culture, and health and safety of people in Borderland communities," among other things.

Click this link to learn more about the impact of the U.S.-Mexico border on wildlife and the necessary legislation to protect it.

Famous Quotes Inspire Vegetarian Lifestyle

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:01:00 +0000

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~Albert Einstein

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them." ~Samuel Butler

"A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses." ~George Bernard Shaw

"I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately succeed than succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail." ~Woodrow Wilson

Killing One Species To Protect Another: Salmon, Sea Lions & Human Beings

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:17:00 +0000

There's no debating that the salmon at the Columbia River's Bonneville Dam are a threatened species. The only point on which many disagree is the question of why?

Oregon and Washington state officials say sea lions are to blame. Every spring, they show up at the Dam to catch and eat the salmon heading upriver to spawn. There's just one problem with that accusation -- human beings catch three times as many of these salmon than the sea lions eat.

Yet somehow Oregon and Washington state officials have convinced the federal government that it's the sea lions who should pay the price. Though sea lions are protected under the 1972 Marine Mammals Protection Act, the feds have granted Oregon and Washington the right to kill up to 85 sea lions that show up at the Dam this spring.

If a sea lion eludes capture, it's to be shot. If the sea lion allows its capture, it's to be put up for an adoption of sorts by an aquarium, zoo or marine park. Any that fail to find a home will be euthanized. Chances seem slim that most (or any) of these animals will find a home. And even those who do will be forced to live in captivity -- the worst kind of fate for an animal that has spent its entire life being free.

Thankfully, the Humane Society has filed a lawsuit to stop the sea lion killings.

This story is disturbing to me on two levels.

First of all, human beings are making scapegoats of the sea lions. We don't need that salmon to survive, but the sea lions do. Why not just stop fishing there, or simply cut it in half? In fact, just the opposite has happened. Both Oregon and Washington have reportedly proposed higher fishing quotas.

Secondly, are we ever justified in killing one species to protect another? Just because they're animals doesn't make the individual sea lion's life experience any less valid than mine. It's just a good thing there's not a more powerful, organized, inconsiderate species than us authorizing the killing of those most responsible for the salmon's threatened status -- the human beings who catch and eat them.

Petition For Media Coverage of Cat Killings In Beijing

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:02:00 +0000

Last week my brother asked, "Have you heard about the cat concentration camps over in China?"

Though I'm the animal welfare activist of the family, I hadn't heard. I get my daily news from NPR and hadn't seen any mention of it there, or any alerts from my environmental or animal welfare sources. The best article I found on the issue when doing a search online was this one in the UK's Daily Mail.

As part of their "clean-up" efforts leading up to the Olympics, the Chinese government is rounding up stray cats, stuffing them into cages so small they cannot turn around, then stacking them in warehouses where they're simply left to die. The same government is telling cat owners they can catch diseases from them. Fearing for their families lives, these cat owners are abandoning them in the streets where they meet the same fate as the strays I just described. For more details, see my blog: Killing Cats In Beijing: The Lies, The Fear, The Olympics.

"Where is the mainstream media coverage," I wondered of the atrocities I learned about.

Turns out I wasn't alone.

In a comment on my last blog post, Elissa Fineman asked that readers sign her petition urging the mainstream media to shed light on the mass rounding up, torture and murder of cats going on in the host city of the Olympic Games.

As of this writing, she has 315 signatures. Her goal is 1,000. If you'd like to help, please click here to sign the petition now and urge everyone you know to do the same.

Killing Cats In Beijing: The Lies, The Fear, The Olympics

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:58:00 +0000

This morning I watched a video montage documenting the life of Dasher, a fluffy white kitten whose adventures into cat-hood were captured on camera by her devoted owner. Dasher died before she turned one year old, the victim of stray dogs who surrounded her in Dasher's first journey over the backyard wall. "We have taken such baby steps to allow our young cats time to see and learn their environment, monitoring them way more then the average person might do," writes Dasher's family. "I am so devastated. I feel so empty now, there is no way to take the day back and start all over."

"I've Just Seen A Face" •Dasher•

What a remarkable contrast there is between this heart-warming story of a family and their cat, and the heart-breaking tragedy among thousands playing out in China as we speak.

Chinese government officials are telling the public that cats carry diseases harmful to humans, even going so far as to suggest they may have contributed to the SARS outbreak in 2003. Scared for their lives, cat owners are abandoning them in the streets where government workers stuff the cats into cages. They're so crammed together that they cannot even turn their bodies around.

These cages of cats are carried into what have come to be called "death camps" where they're stacked on top of one another and left to die. No lethal injections to kill them quickly, but starvation and dehydration that kills them slowly. Disease spreads quickly among them. Wails of agony can be heard by passers-by through the walls.

Stray cats are, of course, victims too -- another one of Beijing's plots to "clean up" the city for the summer Olympics.

You may recall a similar story coming out of China last year. That's when stray dogs were systematically rounded up and beaten to death with sticks. Speaking of sticks, here's more evidence of just how good of a job the Chinese government has done in convincing the public of the health threat from cats:

Six stray cats were hanging around a school. Afraid the children would pet them and catch something, kindergarten teachers trapped them and beat the cats to death with sticks. Two of the cats were pregnant.

Thankfully, not all of the Chinese people have been duped. Eighty-year-old Hu Yaun is one example, a woman who is sheltering 250 cats in her small home.

"The government is not telling people the truth," she says. "Look at me. I live with them 24 hours a day, seven days a week and I am very healthy."

Funny thing is, there's been a surge in cat meat served in Beijing's restaurants lately. If they're so worried about disease, why are they eating them?

"It is well documented that the Chinese are disgustingly cruel to many types of animals," reads one comment on this article in The Daily Mail. "Animal lovers should avoid the Olympic Games."

As I wrote in my own comment, I love watching gymnastics during the summer games. It's my favorite Olympic sport and I don't think I've missed it in 30 years. Well, there's a first time for everything, and this is it.

For the cats being tortured and left to die in the death camps of Beijing, I'm boycotting the 2008 Olympic Games and asking everyone I know to do the same.

And in tribute to all the cats killed in China, please join me in celebrating Dasher -- a cat whose life was lovingly valued and whose death is widely mourned.

Cruel By Design: Canada To Kill 275,000 Harp Seals This Year

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:55:00 +0000

Instead of ending its harp seal hunt that has horrified our eyes, ears and hearts for years, the Canadian government has gone in the opposite direction. Because the herd is "healthy and abundant," Canadian hunters can kill 275,000 harp seals this year -- 5,000 more than last year.

Apparently responding to the worldwide outcry over the prevalance of these seals being skinned alive, hunters now have a new protocol they're being instructed to follow.

Historically, hunters have clubbed seals on their heads then skinned them without checking to make sure that they're dead. All too often, they're still alive suffering the excruciating pain of hunters removing their pelts. Under the new guidelines, hunters are supposed to club the seals once and check their eyes to be sure that they're dead. If they're not dead, instead of clubbing them again, which cannot guarantee death, they're to cut the seals' main arteries.

Canadian officials dub these new guidelines as "humane." What's humane about killing a defenseless baby animal just so we can pay thousands of dollars to wear its skin on ours? Yes, it would comfort me some to know that these baby seals are no longer being skinned alive. But Canadians have been hunting these seals for 4,000 years. Unless every hunter is assigned a government official to follow him around on the hunt, I find it hard to believe much is going to change at all.

Of course, consumers are equally responsible. We're the ones buying seal fur. Granted, its use is banned in the United States, but it's widely bought and worn in other countries. But the fashion designers incorporating seal fur into their collections aren't foreign names to us at all. Three are quite familiar -- Prada, Gucci and Versace, all of whom include seal fur in their collections shown and sold overseas.

The Humane Society of the United States suggests we write these design houses asking them to discontinue the use of fur in their collections. Please mention that you'll be boycotting their products until they do so.

Here's what I wrote in my emails to these seal-fur using design houses:

"I am shocked to learn that a respected design house such as yours is using seal fur in your collections. The harp seals killed for the fur your buy are typically between 12 days and 4 months old. They're defenseless on the ice when they're clubbed by hunters, then all too often skinned while they're still alive. They suffer greatly, and for what? A fashion statement that says 'I'm cruel to animals.' I respectfully request that you take seal fur out of your collection. Unfortunately, I can no longer purchase your products until you do so, and I'll urge my family and friends to do the same. Thank you."

You can also sign the Humane Society's Fur Free Pledge.

Click this link to read about the history of seal hunting.

Conscience of Convenience: Culling Elephants In South Africa

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:11:00 +0000

South Africa has announced plans to "cull" (i.e., murder) some of its elephant population. The powers that be say the 20,000 of them are consuming too much of the vegetation and interfering with the livelihood of other species.

That sounds awfully familiar.

It's a good thing the more than 6 billion humans on this earth don't have a dominant species to contend with -- one that would "cull" us for our overall disrespect for the planet. We've used up far more than our fair share of resources, as made evident by the life and death of extinct, endangered and threatened species all over the world.

But there's a glaring difference between each scenario. Adult elephants need to consume several hundred pounds of grass, leaves and twigs each day to stay alive. Humans, on the other hand, consume far more than we need; not just food, but all sorts of products -- from furniture to electronics to clothes -- the gross over-production of which is the very thing that leads to deforestation and pollution.

This isn't the first time South Africa has culled its elephants, but that practice was banned in 1995. Since then, the population has reportedly doubled.

South Africa's Environment Minister says the killings will be "quick and humane," using a minimum caliber .375 rifle. According to the regulations, as quoted in the Associated Press article on National Geographic's website, "an elephant may not be culled if it is part of a family, unless the matriarch and juvenile bulls are culled as well." This suggests to me that these South African authorities at least have some respect for the sensitivies of these animals.

Family is as important to elephants as it is to us, especially the females who stick close together all their lives -- the mothers, the daughters, the sisters, the aunts; only when the group gets too big do females branch off to start new familes on their own, but they never forget who their relatives are. Young males are also a part of female unit; only when they're older do they adopt a more solitary lifestyle, roaming alone for days at time, though often forming bonds with other males.

Elephants experience grief, compassion and self-awareness. Of course, their memories are legendary, perhaps explaining why herds of elephants have raided villages and killed residents in what is believed to be revenge for cullings of the past.

Animal Rights Africa says there are not too many elephants in South Africa, and says the cullings will only lead to a larger population. Apparently when elephants are killed, herds breed even more than before to replace their loss.

It's one thing to limit the growth of a species. Humans are already pushing the limits on population growth. Imagine how much greater it would be if we didn't use birth control, an option that some animal rights groups suggest as an alternative for the elephants.

But where is the morality in killing those individuals that are already alive simply to make things more convenient?

What if a more dominant species than humans decided to start culling us at, say, 5 billion? I'm single with no children. Like elephants who aren't part of a family, would I be among the first to go?

Click this link to learn more about elephants.

Click this link to sign Animal Rights Africa's petition to put an end to elephant culling in South Africa.

Selective Integrity at Rooster Cogburn Ostrich Ranch

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:04:00 +0000

On the way to Tucson last week, my family and I saw ostriches on a ranch along the side of the freeway. So on our way home back to Phoenix, we decided to check it out -- Rooster Cogburn's Ostrich Ranch.

Signs invite you to come in and meet the ostriches, as well as the deer, emu and rainbow lorikeets (a gorgeous colorful parrot).

Proudly displayed right out front are feather dusters made from, you guessed it, ostrich feathers. My dad, wanting to believe the best of this small family farm, suggested they were feathers collected when they fell from the ostriches bodies. I knew better. And though there were no signs advertising the slaughter of these animals, it was at the forefront of my mind.

If it were free, I might have gone in just for a firsthand look. Though we'd been able to see them from the freeway, the fence kept us from seeing any of the ostriches up close. Instead, I went home and saw all I needed to see online.

According to its website, the Rooster Cogburn Ostrich Ranch has more than 1,000 egg-laying South African Black hens. They switched to this particular type of ostrich after going to South Africa to "learn all that they could" from "the only place that has really raised commercial ostriches for slaughter."

Their goal: "To be the leader in ostrich artificial insemination."

"For a food source we will have to raise ostriches in larger numbers than has ever been done anywhere in the world," states the website. "This means we must invent how to do this efficiently. We can.The Turkey Industry and the Poultry Industry did. Rooster Cogburn Ostrich Ranch has pursued this missing link in the industry and we have spent a tremendous amount of effort trying to find the answers. With every failure, comes a success and we now know that ostrich chicks can be raised in confinement in large numbers. We have lost a lot of chicks learning how, but after years of hard work, we are at the door."

So while people who care about animals are fighting to free turkeys and chickens from the horrors of factory farming, it seems Rooster Cogburn Ostrich Ranch is trying to create new horrors of its own.

You'll see a couple of pictures of the presumed head-honcho feeding and even kissing his ostriches, but not one word as to their welfare. And if his goal is to mimic the model of the chicken and turkey industries, what are we to believe of the quality of life for these confined, artifically-inseminated birds?

I'd like to preface the following quote with a definition.

Integrity: Uncompromising adherence to moral and ethical principles.

"We believe in the ostrich industry very strongly. We are in it for the long run, not just the quick dollar. Our ranch and our name are very well known and respected in the business not only for the quality of birds we have, but for our integrity."

After extensive Googling, I managed to find one organization with a good bit of information on the ostrich industry -- United Poultry Concerns. Though this information is not specifically about the Rooster Cogburn Ostrich Ranch, it paints a vivid picture of this cruel, growing industry. Check out their links to Nowhere To Hide and Ostrich Investigation for more information.

Related Blogs -- Just Being Neighborly: Chickens In Your Own Backyard and Historic Saguaro Ranch: Where Chickens & Peacocks Rule the Roost

The Truth About PetSmart: Undercover Video Reveals Horrors

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:19:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I was offered a temporary writing position in the PetSmart corporate office here in Arizona. The money was good, but I had to turn it down. I had previously accepted a temp writing job with them about a year and a half ago, writing product descriptions for one of their catalogs for their horse division. I talked myself into letting it be okay even though I knew they used a cruel method of trapping mice -- on sticky traps that force the mice to gnaw their own feet off. Incidentally, loose animals in the store, like snakes and birds (don't ask me how they get loose) sometimes get stuck in the traps too. Yet, that was the least of my guilt once I got on the job.

As a writer for PetSmart, I not only found myself writing about products made of leather, which is a big problem for a vegan like me, but I was writing about products used to make horses uncomfortable in order to force them into submission.

Since then, I've learned a lot about the pet industry, which is why I not only boycott PetSmart, but also PetCo, as they both sell animals -- birds, snakes, lizards and fish that nature never intended to cage. (See my related post, Fly Away: The Exotic Bird Industry.)

Now, though, I have the most shocking reason of all to avoid PetSmart jobs and products at all cost, and encourage everyone within my reach to do the same.

Rainbow World Exotic is a breeding mill for birds and small animals, and PetSmart is its biggest client. An undercover worker spent two months at Rainbow, recording video of the kind of horrors no animal lover would ever want to be associated with:

A male rabbit is trying to mate with a female rabbit in a small cage. The female resists repeatedly and keeps hopping away. A veteran worker explains to the undercover worker that they sometimes have to "force-mate" the rabbits. He reaches in the cage, holds down the female to her great resistance, and lets the male have his way.
In a dark, unsterile room, a worker neuters rabbits, presumably those that are sold into the rabbit industry, as they can certainly not be used as breeders. At one point, he remarks to the undercover worker that he had better get a new blade, as that one was dull. He'd tried three times, and had yet to break the skin.
To determine the sex of birds, workers cut their nails to the quick so they can get blood for a blood test. The birds shriek in pain.
Sick animals are routinely thrown in the trash -- alive -- instead of providing them with veterinary care. In fact, in the two months she spent there, the undercover worker said she never saw a veterinarian visit the establishment.
All of the animals are kept in crowded, filthy cages, often without adequate food, water or attention.
Animals die on a daily basis, often left to be canibalized by other animals.

Click this link to see and hear for yourself the undercover video of Horrors at PetsMart Supplier. You can use this same link to take action and write to PetSmart asking them to stop supporting this abusive pet supplier. Send the form letter, or add a few personal touches of your own.

Where's the Dignity: Undercover Video Reveals Dairy Cow Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:14:00 +0000

My mom is supportive of my vegan lifestyle that I adopted for ethical reasons, but she recently told me she doesn't see anything wrong with dairy because "it's not hurting the cows." My heart pounding and face flushed as they tend to get before jumping to the defense of animals, I explained to my mom how the dairy industry works:

Though they can live to be 25 years old, most dairy cows are slaughtered at around 5 years old when their milk production slows down, as they are worn out from a lifetime spent pregnant and pumped for milk.
Though they would normally suckle for 6 to 12 months, calves are taken from their mothers within 1 to 2 days of birth, a painful separation for them both.
While some of their sisters are raised as cattle for meat and others as dairy cows to one day replace the herd, male calves are used for veal meat, subjecting them to a short lifetime alone, confined to a tiny crate that limits their movement so as to keep their muscles as "tender" as possible.
Dairy cows are horribly overworked, which one expert has compared to a human jogging 6 hours a day, every day of their lives.
Though naturally herbivores, the dairy industry has turned its cows into carnivores, feeding them meat and bone meal, the very practice that has led to the debilitating and dangerous mad cow disease.

Unfortunately, ours is a society that turns a blind eye to this unnecessary suffering, and our mainstream media typically makes it pretty easy. I'm on both the PETA and Humane Society's email lists, so I see undercover video of animal abuse all the time. It's not often that these videos make the network news, but I saw one make it through the other night on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.

The Humane Society filmed undercover video of dairy cows being abused by workers at Hallmark Meat Packing Co., which which sells beef to sister company Westland Meat in California. These cows were so sick, that they couldn't stand, but workers were poking them with sticks, ramming them with forklifts, dragging them by their legs, and spraying them in the face with high-pressure water hoses -- all in an apparent attempt to agitate the cows so badly that they would get up and walk themselves to slaughter.

Equally disturbing about this story is the question of why these cows were being slaughtered in the first place. Westland's provides beef for the federal school lunch program. But these cows were so sick that it's doubtful the meat could pass any test that would clear it for human consumption.

The good news is that Westland's has been suspended from providing any meat at all to the federal school lunch program until the agriculture department has completed its investigation.

The worst news comes from the Humane Society who says of this documented abuse of dairy cows that "it happens all the time."

Backyard Birds Poisoned In Arizona

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:43:00 +0000

The best thing about living in Arizona is the mild weather that lets me work outside in my backyard six or more months out of the year. That's how I've gotten to know my backyard birds so well. In fast little flocks, house sparrows dart in and out of my honeysuckle bushes. Doves clamber up and down from the orange tree. Hummingbirds zip from bush to feeder to branch. In pairs, towhees and thrashers forage in the leaves for seeds and bugs. Mockingbirds swoop and scold my cat. Woodpeckers scale tree trunks and limbs, sporting their signature shreek. And big black grackles watch it all, perched proudly swaying on the tips of nearby trees.

I'm blessed by my backyard birds, which is why I find the following incident so unfathomable.

Last week, a local news channel received a call from people in the Valley (Phoenix metropolitan area) who were watching birds fall in flight from the sky or from branches in the trees, then writhing on the ground to a painful death. As many as two dozen birds were found dead.

Several animal organizations were notified, but only our local Humane Society went out to investigate right away. It didn't take long for them to discover the source of this deadly problem -- poison scattered like bird seed in someone's backyard. Though the offending family refused to be shown on camera, they told reporters that they had been led to believe this poison was an acceptable way to get rid of the birds that they consider pests.

I'm reminded of the last time my bug guy covered an ant pile in pesticide. Though his is an eco-friendly company, I couldn't shake my concern that the birds would root around for ants and, incidentally, ingest the poison. I covered it with a towel to set my mind at ease.

While I'm rescuing baby birds that have fallen from their nests, are these backyard bird haters leaving them helpless and vulnerable on the ground? While I'm filling my bird bath with water, are they hoping they'll die of thirst? While I'm scolding my dog for stalking birds, are they training their dogs to kill?

As much as I want them to be punished, I want much more for these troubled people to discover in birds the joy and zest for life they obviously, so desperately need.

Hank is Already Home!

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:24:00 +0000

If you read my last post, you know I spent last week helping my neighbors find a new home for their 5-year-old cat, Hank. I'm pleased to report great news.

Hank has a history of marking, but it got much worse after moving to this neighborhood a year or so ago. His family thinks it had something to do with the other cats in the area, including my own. But when they brought their new baby into the house a few weeks ago, the marking was worse than ever, especially on the baby items. Hank's family had already asked all their friends and family, but no one they knew could take him. Their last resort, my neighbors told me, was trying to find a no-kill shelter for him before the end of the week, as they were moving into a new house and didn't want to take Hank and his marking with them.

Knowing how hard it is to find space in a no-kill shelter on such short notice, I promised to help.

First I did an online search for no-kill shelters in my area. It was a Monday and most were closed. (Incidentally, I left a message with one, asking for any advice they could give me on finding a home for Hank. That was six days ago. They never called me back.) Then I remembered, my vet's office has a cat adoption room in their lobby usually filled with anywhere from 10 to 20 cats, often a lot of kittens that get left on the office doorstep overnight. I called and was thrilled to learn there was room for Hank, but he would first have to be tested for a urinary tract infection, as marking is often a symptom. When I told my neighbor, he remarked, "Could it really be something as simple as that?"

Preferring Hank to go straight to a new home instead of a shelter, I wrote everyone on my email list who I thought might be able to help, and I posted a copy of it here in this blog. A friend of a friend was interested. She was going to call me. As I stood in my neighbor's carport telling him the good news, Hank sat on the hood of their car listening to every word. My neighbor's daughter overheard too. She came out and cradled Hank in her arms and I told her I was sorry.

Days went by with no call from Hank's potentially-new family. I followed up with my friend and got a phone call from her friend the same night. Yes, she wanted Hank and just needed to make drop-off arrangements. I called my neighbor with the good news, and he had some better news of his own for me.

Hank's family decided to keep him!

Ever since I had told them Hank really could have a new family interested in him, the reality hit. "We're losing our baby," my neighbor told me, going on to wonder if they were just terrible parents for letting him go. They had decided to make some "concessions," he said. To avoid problem interactions with other neighborhood cats, they're going to try him indoor-only, in hopes that the marking will stop, or at least subside.

Though something tells me now that this family probably would have taken Hank with them anyway, at least now they know it's because they want Hank and not because they had no other choice.

Help Me Find a Home for Hank?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:42:00 +0000

This is my neighbor's cat, Hank. His family just had a new baby and Hank's not too happy about it. Though they've been caring for him since his mother died when he was just two weeks old, Hank has to find a new home immediately.
He's 5 years old and fixed. As cute as these pictures are, they do not do justice to Hank's bright, baby blue eyes. He's always been indoor/outdoor and he's always been around cats. Hank is friendly and comes to you when approached. He's affectionate and will make someone a great lap cat.

Hank has to find a home by Saturday (January 19) or he'll be going to a shelter. If you or anyone you know may be interested in giving Hank a home, please email me -- meredith@meredithsimonds.com.

He lives in Mesa, Arizona, so a new family here in the Valley would be ideal. But Hank is open to anyone, anywhere who thinks he's special enough to make a special trip to pick him up.

Please, forward this on to everyone you can on your email list using the envelope icon below.

Thank you!

Bravo to Beaufort: City Council Passes Tethering Ban

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:59:00 +0000

Twelve years ago, fresh out of college, I worked across the street from a small business office that kept its thin black lab tethered outside 24 hours a day. I never saw anyone walk it, feed it or give it any attention at all. My girlfriend and I kidnapped it one night and brought it home. It was a girl; we named her Haley.

When we gave her affection, Haley used her front teeth to chew at our skin, as though so neglected that she didn't know to react to attention. We already had a dog and a cat, and it wasn't practical for us to keep her. We knew someone with a farm, asked her if she would take Haley, and she did. Only much later did a mutual friend tell us that Haley's new owner "hated that dog." I don't if that's true, and we'd since lost touch with her, but I've felt bad ever since, wondering what happened to Haley and if trying to help her actually made things worse.

I'm reminded of this incident because of a new ban on tethering recently passed by the Beaufort City Council in South Carolina. Originally, the ban was introduced to prevent people from tethering their pets to one place for more than 3 hours. However, the ordinance that passed includes no maximum time limit. In essence, it's illegal in Beaufort to tether your pet at all, and some members of the community aren't happy about it.

The City Council says the time limit was impractical as animal control officers would, theoretically, have to sit and watch a pet for 3 hours before being able to take action. Officers do have discretion, however, in terms of enforcement. If it's clear that a pet has been tethered for just a few minutes outside of a store, for example, it would probably be excused.

As I learned from the Beaufort Gazette article, the U.S. Department of Agriculture enacted a ban on tethering more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, it does not include animals kept as pets. (It apparently also leaves out calves that are tethered in tiny stalls to keep their muscles soft for veal meat.)

I don't remember if we called the local animal welfare office before taking action on Haley's behalf on our own. In hindsight, that's certainly what I wish we'd done, and simply followed up until the situation was addressed. I guess we thought we cared more than anyone else would -- certainly more than her owners.

What's the point of having a pet that you not only have nothing to do with, but give only a three- to six-foot radius in which to live?

Bravo to Beaufort for taking precautionary measures on the behalf of their community's pets. It may inconvenience someone who wants to tether their pet in the yard for an hour a day instead of taking them for a walk, but it also prevents an abuser from sentencing their pet to a life of being tethered indefinitely.

In Memory of Tatiana: A Plea of Freedom to the San Francisco Zoo

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:17:00 +0000

After last week's tiger tragedy at the San Francisco Zoo, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is asking the public to urge the Zoo to phase out its tiger exhibit.

It was Christmas Day when Tatiana, a 4-year-old Siberian tiger, apparently jumped the wall of its enclosure and attacked three men, who are now suspected of taunting her. One man died and the other two were injured. When discovered, Tatiana was also shot and killed.

In its recent plea for the Zoo to send the three remaining tigers in the exhibit to a sanctuary, PETA cites an Oxford University study that "concluded that cats become neurotic when they are confined. Given that the average tiger enclosure is about 18,000 times smaller than the animals' natural roaming range, it is simply impossible for these animals to express instinctual behaviors, such as staking out territory in dense forests, choosing mates, running, climbing trees, and hunting."

The best way I can wrap my head around just how cramped these big cats really are in zoos -- confined to a space 18,000 times smaller than what it naturally wants or needs -- is to imagine confining my cat, Sam, to a closet, which is only about 100 times smaller than my entire home. But even a 2,000-square-foot house isn't big enough for my small domestic cat. The first few years, Sam was an indoor cat and it drove him crazy. If he wasn't pacing or crying, he was hiding. Only since allowing him the freedom of the outdoors, to go in and out as he pleases -- roaming outside all night long and sleeping indoors during the day -- has Sam seemed to find peace. Granted, even PETA does not recommend having outdoor cats because of the potential danger of them getting hurt, but that's a risk he and I are both willing to take in the best interest of his happiness. Sam's been an outdoor cat for about 8 years now, and he'll be 12 years old in July.

Yet, those big cat exhibits we see in the zoos do not necessarily represent their overall existence. In fact, big cats are often rotated in and out of the exhibits, spending as much as half of their lives in much smaller cages behind closed doors. Why? Because zoos say the public "demands" to see big cats. That's why, in adopting a vegan lifestyle, I've boycotted zoos for years, as I do not believe any animal should be used (and abused) for my entertainment.

One of my favorite movies as a kid was Born Free, a true story about an orphaned tiger cub raised by humans who called her Elsa. Since making the movie, lead actress Virginia McKenna has said it helped her realize "wild animals belonged in the wild, not imprisoned in zoos.... Freedom is a precious concept, and wild animals suffer physically and mentally form the lack of freedom captivity imposes."

Big Cat Rescue goes on to say of zoos, "animals are lonely, confined, lack privacy, and have little opportunity for mental stimulation or physical exercise. These conditions often result in abnormal and self-destructive behaviors or "zoochosis."

Zoos say they're protecting these animals, especially those that are endangered. Though many are bred in captivity, some animals are captured by zoos from the wild and confined in captivity to "protect" the species. However, as Big Cat Rescue goes on to point out, the best form of protection of a species is presevation of its natural habitat. Wouldn't we rather animals enjoy the freedom they deserve in the wild than the imprisonment they're suffering through in captivity?

Instead of supporting zoos, Big Cat Rescue recommends supporting non-profits such as those accredited by The Association of Sanctuaries, as well as the Born Free Foundation and the African Wildlife Foundation.

In honor of Tatiana's memory, please join me in asking the San Francisco Zoo to phase out its tiger exhibit. As you'll see, you can edit the email plea to include whatever personalized mesage you like. And, most importantly, ask your family and friends to join with you in a commitment to boycott zoos, circuses and all other entertainment venues that exploit, cage or harm animals of any kind.

PetSmart Abandons Bunny Business

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:44:00 +0000

PetSmart has decided not to proceed with the sale of rabbits in its stores.

As PETA let me know in an Action Center Alert email yesterday, PetSmart's official press release reads: "[a]t this time, we're not expanding the test and will not continue to sell dwarf bunnies beyond those already in or planned for our stores."

Though the store attributes its decision to the failure "to meet the business objectives we set," surely the widespread protest against bunny sales, including PETA's campaign and the thousands of emails and letters PetSmart received in opposition, made an impression.

PetSmart doesn't sell dogs or cats because there are already so many adoptable ones in need of homes. In fact, the stores have an adoption program to match abandoned dogs, cats and rabbits with new families. Since thousands of rabbits are euthanized in shelters every year simply because they cannot find a home, PetSmart's decision to sell them seemed hypocritical.

As someone who found an abandoned rabbit in my neighborhood years ago, this is an issue close to my heart.

My girlfriend and I were walking through our condominium community one day 8 or 9 years ago when we spotted a black and white bunny sitting alone in a grassy, fenced-in field. We brought it home and asked around the neighborhood for its owner. We didn't have to look far. Our neighbors across the street had bought "Domino" for their little girl as an Easter present. They kept her in the backyard where she regularly dug under the fence to escape. This last time, they'd apparently decided to just let her go. Sometimes I wish we'd done the same as Domino didn't last long in our home.

We'd never had rabbits as pets before, and had no idea of how to care for her. We had a dog, so we kept Domino in our bedroom, letting her roam around at will. Our cat, Sam, spent the most time with her huddled together under our bed.

Still, we didn't know how to give Domino the kind of care and attention she deserved.

The first time Domino got sick, she recovered on her own. Then we had an opportunity to rescue a dog we loved from an abusive situation. We moved Domino outside into a big fenced-in area on the porch. Sometimes we'd let her out to run through the yard and on more than one occasion our new dog, Sadey, chased after her. I know it was stressful for Domino living under these conditions.

She got sick again, this time so bad with pneumonia that she was in the hospital overnight. She was still sick when we brought her home and Domino died within hours.

With thousands of rabbits abandoned every year, I know I'm not alone in underestimating what it takes to properly care for them. Rabbits are smart, sensitive, social creatures to be considered just as much a part of the family as any cat or dog.

As for PetSmart (and PetCo), I'm still participating in the boycott until they stop selling ALL animals. Though I had a parakeet of my own as a kid, it breaks my heart as an informed adult to see birds spend their entire lives enclosed in cages. Of course, I can say the same of rabbits.

Those who understand domestic bunnies best say they should be kept in pens indoors. But who are we to "keep" rabbits at all? Yes, if they're products of the bunny business, we have an obligation to be their caretakers. But the bunny business is bad business, as is the entire animal industry.

It's believed medieval monks were the first to domesticate rabbits, not as companion animals, but for food and fur. Though most people now shun the consumption of rabbits, why do the vast majority of us still believe it's perfectly normal to cage them indoors?