Animal Person

On Timelines

2009-07-15T08:31:44-04:00

The idea that each person has their own timeline for converting to veganism met with the following comment from All Means Justifiable:

"I have to say that writing "everyone has their own timeline" is a sentence I personally don't like to hear. Because even if it is true (in a way), its grounds are immoral."

I think this an important comment as it pits theory against practice, words against actions, and highlights the reality that humans can very well know something is wrong--or even not good for their own health--and do it anyway (and to remove the health debate with animal-eating, think smoking, or excess alcohol drinking, or some other action that's bad for you and you might proceed with nevertheless).

The fact that the concept of the timeline exists is simply an admission that human behavior is not necessarily aligned with what's in the head or in the heart. And as long as timelines do exist and we cannot guarantee that we can speed them up, the very least we can do is work to move them along. And I know that many people don't want to hear this, but moving others along, if done too harshly or abruptly, can backfire. Moving people along is more art than science, and for some people it's far more emotion-based than logic-based.

In my experience, knowing your audience and tailoring your approach (but not the substance of your message), is what converts people to veganism . . . when they're ready.

What are your thoughts?

Personal Changes Doesn't Equal Political Change

2009-07-14T10:08:55-04:00

Derrick Jensen comes right out of the gate mentioning Hitler (as opposed to later as per Godwin's Law) in "Taking Shorter Showers Doesn't Cut it: Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," which might annoy some people. But what's more annoying is the reality that the personal choices we make and hold so dear, that we're so convinced are going to change the world, might not really be working as effectively as we would like.

Here are some highlights, just from the article (the comments are a bit of a maze, but if you can negotiate them I think they're worth reading through). They are all Jensen's words exactly, except what's in brackets (not parenthesis-they're him too).

Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance.
People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses.
Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. [And by the way, I would not have said that, necessarily, and perhaps this is a language issue here.]
[Neo-Luddite] Kirkpatrick Sale . . . : “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
[Capitalism] redefines us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming.
We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

It's posts like this that make me feel like an ineffectual white, suburban elitist. I have such a difficult time giving up the notion that I can buy or not buy my way out of a problem, and that my one vote to buy or not buy really does count because if more people did it we'd develop the mythical critical mass that would indeed change the way things are or are done.

While I go to bed in my cushy home each night after a long day of blogging, reading, writing, working, baking vegan cookies, buying local, organic and vegan foodstuffs, recycling, taking short showers, driving very little, volunteering a lot, taking care of the creatures, wearing the same "Life is Good" T-shirts and flip-flops and trying to buy only what I need, and feeling like with each of those decisions--my decisions--the world gets better, I must admit that that last part just might be an illusion. It might be a lie I tell myself to make me feel like I have power to change the world and am changing it with my choices.

What are your thoughts?

On Conditional Love

2009-07-12T09:05:02-04:00

Yesterday I promised to write about "Conditional" over at Alec's Story, and again, if you haven't read the blog I highly recommend it. The other idea that came out of it (perhaps for tomorrow) as well as my e-mails and conversations with another blogger, is the life of a person who cares for a special needs animal.

Nicole at Alec's Story writes:

One of my pet peeves, so to speak, is the concept of “unconditional love” as attributed to dogs by humans. It is a popular way of romanticizing dogs and while I am loath to be the Grinch who stole unconditional love, there are reasons why I think this “compliment” is over- and misused in the context of human-dog relations.

That's a pet peeve of mine, too, along with "children are so honest!" (If you've ever seen the Bill Cosby bit about that, it's hilarious!)

When we adopted Violet Rays we knew she was diabetic and we chose her because we were told she was unlikely to be adopted (and had already been returned) and was living in a crate all day and night, just like at the track but at someone's house instead. We didn't adopt her so we could spoon with her at night or cuddle on the couch with her or have her be our trusted companion. And it's a good thing we viewed her that way because it took over four years to get even an inkling that she cared if we lived or died.

And we're still not sure.

Charles Hobson Booger, III, on the other hand, hangs on our every word and stares at us constantly. He needs to be touched, when we walk him he stays at our side, and he brings us toys to toss at him (he catches them and makes a neat pile of them all for some reason). When you toss a toy to Violet, she promptly takes it into another room and plays by herself. She throws it, catches it, and leaps around joyously with the toy. But she's also an alpha dog and Charles isn't.

Though I test Violet's blood sugar several times a day and give her her insulin and glaucoma medication and eye drops and eye gel, she is only mildly impressed with my dedication. Meanwhile, Charles thanks me all day long just for patting him on the head. If you call Charles' name, his ears perk up into full wombat, and he waits patiently for his instructions. When you call Violet's name her ears do perk up a bit, and if she feels like paying further attention to you she'll let you know.

Charles wants us to be with him, and Violet simply wants to be. When off leash and permitted to do anything, Charles wants to play racing games. Violet wants to explore on her own, roll around, leap, and do a couple of figure eights. She'll let you know when she's finished.

My angle on this pet peeve is my observation that many people adopt or buy an animal to satisfy a need they have. They want love, companionship, snuggling . . . unconditional love. This is the ultimate insult about this type commodification: buying love by proxy. And if they're not satisfied, they can return the animal and say "we never bonded." Is there an unwritten law that animals we purchase or even adopt are obligated to shower us with their unconditional love, or we have every right to return them?

We take an animal in because they need a safe, loving home where their needs can be met and they can enjoy (or not, depending on their disposition) the rest of their lives in comfort, without fear, and with plenty of appropriate stimulation. Not so they can boost our self esteem. If you have issues with self worth and want to feel loved, get a therapist and work all that out. But don't require that the animals in your care give you the type and amount of love you want.

Alec's Story

2009-07-11T08:12:16-04:00

I don't usually do this, but you have got to go to the blog of Nicole, who has a PhD in Sociology with an emphasis on animal studies, and who works in the Animal Law Program at the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The blog is called Alec's Story, and though I was originally going to write about "Conditional," and I probably will tomorrow, there's so much going on in the story of Alec and Nicole that anything I could write wouldn't be nearly as important as reading the blog first.

Have a great Saturday!

Sowing the Seeds of Veganism

2009-07-10T08:48:57-04:00

I was thinking about the Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary calendar of rescued animals photographed by Deb Durant that's on my refrigerator.

It's on the refrigerator, but when you open the refrigerator door you'll see nothing that came from the animals in the calendar. No animal secretion smells, nothing that's dripping bloody liquid. People flock to photos and calendars on refrigerators. You're telling them what's important to you, and they always at least take a gander, but usually ask some questions, too.

I could be reading into this, but it does appear that there's some discomfort on the part of non-vegans when they look through the calendar and I tell them the story. Most had no idea that there were sanctuaries that include animals we use for food, though they don't flinch at the idea that I have a friend who spends her Saturdays (or is it Sundays now?) shoveling poop.

The calendar is a seed--it's a way into the conversation that is likely to continue once the refrigerator door opens and the guest is looking for something to eat.

Books are seeds, pamphlets are seeds, the horrifyingly dry gluten-free cookies I made last night would be seeds if I weren't about to throw them into the garbage (luckily I made only a dozen and can try to fix the remaining 2/3 of the batter). Films are seeds (and Eric of I'm Vegan took a bit of a spill and when he's healed a bit more he'll get back to finishing up), blogs are seeds, vlogs are seeds, my recycled inner-tire rubber handbag is a seed. Websites can be seeds if they don't promote animal products while saying animals aren't ours to use; I find that confusing.

And when you're checking out at the health food store with your cans and bag of vegan dog food, how could that not be a seedy opportunity?

I call my greyhounds sneaky activism opportunities. They're discussion starters and it's up to me to steer the discussion based on how it begins. Here are a handful of conversations I've had over the past few months, with people who stop me to say whatever they need to say about greyhound racing (most people can't wait to tell you their opinion):

Greyhound racing should be banned (and why).
Segue into horse racing.
Possible segue into the tie to gaming that's artificial, but legislated, and needs to change. There are plenty of places to play poker here. Doing it at the dog track when you don't believe in dog racing is supporting an industry you don't believe in. And furthermore, the "I use less gas than going to a casino in Fort Lauderdale" excuse is nonsense. You don't really care about the gas. And look at it this way, you can spend more time in your $85,000 car! (You think I'm talking about someone specific?) And the casino's a much nicer place!
Parlay greyhounds aren't for entertainment to they're not for eating to chickens aren't for eating either (this one takes a couple of minutes + a willing receiver).
Parlay greyhounds aren't for entertainment to they're not for experimenting on to neither are mice (again, takes a minute, but I've done it).
Of course, there's the pure breed discussion as well as the breeding of dogs, in general, discussion (most frequent after the racing discussion for me).

All of this, just from walking through the neighborhood 4-5 times/day. And evidently the dogs are interpreted as an invitation, as when I'm not with them no one stops to talk to me (hmmmm). So there you have it: greyhounds are seeds, too. Big, lanky, bony ones, but seeds nonetheless.

On Vegan Grenades

2009-07-09T08:15:10-04:00

You know those jokes that you get a minute later that are referred to as joke grenades? Well, I think the grenade metaphor also applies to conversion to veganism. There is often lag time between the critical mass event and its accompanying decision to go vegan--and the the actual doing: being a vegan. There's intention, then the becoming, then the vegan.

I don't personally know anyone who read a book or a pamphlet one day, became a vegan the next, and is still a vegan. I do know people who became vegan (also after watching "Earthlings") who are now vegetarians, pescetarians and run-of-the-mill omnivores.

What does this mean? Just that we humans can know one thing to our core, we can believe it entirely, and yet, we can do what basically is the opposite. Exhibit A: Mary Martin, PhD--Animal Person. Remember how I went vegan overnight in the 80s and then in 1998 ate filet mignon and salmon for almost two full years? Exhibit B: My animal-eating husband, who about six years ago said: "Trust me, I feel the same way you do about animals, but I need to do this on my time. If you push me, I'll be doing it because you want me to do it not because I'm ready." And four long years later he said: "The only reason I still eat animals is because you keep buying them and cooking them for me."

That was some very lengthy lag time. But he did it, seemingly overnight, but it really took years.

What happened in those years? Not one book, that's for sure (he reads about golf, history or the economy). Not even my abysmal brochure that I would do completely differently (I'd probably leave out the entire first page) if I had the inclination. And not even Earthlings.

He did see "The Witness" and a version of "Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home" just prior to the final cut however, and both reinforced his direction. And, most important, he has me. I'm no prize to be married to, but I do shop and cook and bake and forward links from The Discerning Brute. We go to dinner and events and he sees how I handle people's endless queries or even hostility to the way we live. We role play with questions or comments he gets at work. In short, though I'm just one person, I'm probably the most important person in his life and I support him.

And I don't judge him. Someone who goes from vegan to vegetarian to eating cows isn't really in a position to judge anyone.

My mother and sister have also had similar paths (to my husband) and have cut animals out of their dining habits almost completely. And shockingly, my dad intends to, but his wife is adamantly against the idea and is making it difficult for him to live by his newfound beliefs.

In short, just because you know that something is right doesn't mean you're going to behave accordingly. If it were so obvious that it can be easy and convenient and affordable to go vegan, we wouldn't have to constantly be showing people how easy and convenient and affordable it is to go vegan. Most people have had decades of indoctrination (that they haven't ever noticed) into a culture that assumes myriad uses of sentient nonhumans, not to mention our god-given right to do with them as we please. And then there's all that twaddle about it being "natural," which clearly isn't getting the deconstruction it's begging for as it's easily dismissed once you think it through.

When you've been vegan for a while, I'd say it becomes second nature, but really it's like becoming who you should be and are most comfortable being. But if you're like most people, that feeling didn't come easily (despite that you can't imagine feeling any other way now).

Vegan education, in my experience, is a multi-pronged, multi-year effort if it's going to be sustainable. You're not helping someone change their diet, you're helping them deprogram themselves of misconceptions and hypocrisy, and everyone has their own timeline and their own unique basket of objections and obstacles to sort out. The trick is to listen and hear what their issues are and guide them to responses to those issues rather than tell them what you want them to hear, and do it in the way they'd be most receptive to--according to the way they best learn.

And if you persevere, and their intentions are indeed to stop using animals, it'll happen. Maybe more like a grenade than a shot, but it it'll happen.

On Discounts on Adoptions

2009-07-08T08:22:32-04:00

Here's a Gray Matter for you (or maybe not): A humane society near me is doing a cat- and dog-adoption promotion this month. You can adopt a dog for $75 rather than $100, and if you adopt a cat for $50 you can get a second one for half the price.

With record numbers of animals being abandoned due to foreclosures and the economy, and let's face it, adopting a dog or cats isn't going to save you any money, do you think it is irresponsible to offer discounts? If someone is going to adopt because of the lower price, how on Earth are they going to be able to provide for the animal(s)?

This sounds like a short-term savings, and it is, but in the case of two cats, you've just doubled your monthly expenses. And I admit to having very expensive (care-wise) dogs, but I imagine that the average dog must cost at least $1,000/year, right?

Two questions:

1. What do you think about discounted adoptions (or even giveaways)?

2. If you don't mind sharing, on average, what are your "pet"-related expenses?

A New Use For Those BBQ Tongs

2009-07-07T15:05:40-04:00

I have wildlife/nonwildlife rescue paraphernalia in my car. A large box with airholes, a small one, a towel or two, a leash, soapy handwipes, you get the idea. I've decided to add the enormous barbecue/barbeque tongs that are collecting dust in the garage (the smaller ones that we use for veggies on the counter-grill still see some action). Why? Because of what happened today, which has happened to me a half dozen times in the past year. I can't do anything about the times it happens when I'm going for a run or walk, but I can do something about the times it happens when I'm in the car.

In case you haven't guessed, it is the relocation of a fresh (or not) carcass, usually with entrails spilling out, to a place more hospitable for the buzzards and hawks who evidently at least in South Florida do not judge the speed of oncoming traffic very well. There's nothing worse than one dead animal being partially responsible for the death of one live animal.

I tweeted about a similar incident about a month ago and someone replied that she was glad there was someone fighting for the safe-dining rights of hawks. I don't know if she was being sarcastic, but in my town I see dead armadillos, opossums, raccoons, all manner of turtles, and squirrels dead in the middle of the road frequently. At least they're dead and it wasn't my fault, but I still have a responsibility.

I've never seen a dead dog in the road but I have seen cats and I always check for a tag, then call Animal Care and Control (or a local shelter) if I can't take the animal myself and have her scanned for a microchip. As someone whose cat (technically my sister's cat) disappeared when we were kids, I know the pain of wondering what has happened. There's no excuse to not at least report the dead animal in case she was someone's "pet" and there's a little girl crying herself to sleep, her mind wandering in all kinds of horrible directions, desperately missing her kitty.

Furthermore, if the animal in the road is fresh and it's easily determined that she is a nursing female, there could be babies close by and scanning the area for little ones unable to care for themselves isn't a bad idea. (And having the numbers of a couple of wildlife rehabbers programmed into your phone is helpful.)

If you've handled fresh carcasses that are open and, shall we say, leaking, you know what a messy, smelly, and surprisingly heavy endeavor it can be. And how difficult it is to get the stench off of you. Depending on where you're going and what you're wearing, you might thank me for what seemed at first like a silly suggestion.

So put those old BBQ tongs in the car (I'm adding that huge spatula, too) and make it easier relocate dead animals to a place where scavengers and vultures of all kinds can eat without being in mortal danger.

Deconstructing Spencer's Comment

2009-07-06T12:10:46-04:00

As much as I don't like responding to comments that are hostile, they also demonstrate a lack of understanding/education/knowledge on the part of the commenter that perhaps, if remedied, might result in a different opinion.

Such is the case with Spencer R's comment from my brief post recommending The Botany of Desire. Spencer R writes:

Vegans sound exactly like religious fundamentalists. You can't pull the god card to claim superiority over the rest of us so you demonize the consumption of animal products. It's an absurd point of view that really has no logical backing whatsoever. Trying to convince people to go vegan is like trying to convince people to only reproduce once. Sure it would help the planet, but there is no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

It's an especially ridiculous concept because the vegans in modern western society would not be able to maintain their living standards without the exploitation of dirt-poor humans in third world countries across the globe. You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. You're hypocrites essentially, and the worst kind in my opinion. Loud preaching hypocrites utterly convinced of their infallability.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, it's called realism and (most) vegans have absolutely zero concept of what that is or how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles.

A few patient individuals chose to respond to Spencer R, and I'd like to deconstruct his comment and add my own response because what he writes isn't uncommon in its tone or its content.

The first three sentences, unpacked, are: Vegans are like religious fundamentalists who act superior and demonize of the consumption of animals. Our beliefs and the way they are manifested are absurd and not logical.

We are people who believe that using animals when we don't need to, and certainly killing them when we don't need to, isn't right. It simply cannot be justified. Logically, it is a perfectly sound position.

As for a world of vegans being improbable, I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we are not vegans because we necessarily think we're going to succeed in worldwide veganization. We are vegans because it's the right thing to do if we claim to believe that sentient nonhumans are not here to satisfy our wants, desires and profit motives. Should we all wage war because it's unlikely that there will ever be peace on Planet Earth?
Saying, "sure, it will help the planet," says that the planet isn't important enough to try to help, particularly if everyone's not going to do it (in the context of that paragraph). Who's not logical?
The second paragraph, frankly, is a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure what being a vegan has to do with exploiting poor people in third world countries. Perhaps Spencer R would like to look into Eric Schlosser's work, such as Fast Food Nation, and also the recent "Food Inc.," not to mention read more writing by actual vegans. We are not ignorant of the exploitation of humans that often goes hand-in-hand with the exploitation of nonhumans. And we are also not ignorant of the fact that though slaughterhouses often employ unskilled and illegal immigrants, so do tomato farms and other fruit and vegetable farms, particularly right here in the Sunshine State (here's one of my favorite organizations that does great work). As for being convinced we are infallible, the great equalizer in the vegan journey is that no one who lives in mainstream American society can be 100% vegan. We avoid harm and exploitation as much as we can, at least for me with regard to people, the planet, and nonhuman animals. But to claim perfection or infallability--now that would be "absurd."
Though this comment is riddled with hyperbole and judgment, the final sentence is the probably the worst offender. To say that people whom you do not know have "absolutely zero concept" of "realism" (and I'm assuming that means "reality") and "how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles," after calling us ridiculous, illogical, absurd, and hypocritical, is a strange way to make your point. So strange that I'm not sure what your point is.

Spencer R, here is a suggestion: Without calling me names, and without insulting me, tell me of this "realism." Explain it to me and please include how it needs to be applied to my daily lifestyle. And please don't include the tired argument about what is "natural." Is cooking food "natural"? Is marinating flesh "natural"? Is bread "natural"? Is people flying in planes "natural"? Are condoms "natural"? What does natural mean and what are the benefits of "natural"? And if you haven't, you might want to explore some sites that detail comparative anatomy and demonstrate how much more we are like herbivores than carnivores.

Thanks. You are welcome here any time, but not simply to rant. If you have something intelligent to say, we all welcome it.

Gluten-Free Coconut Almond Cookies

2009-07-05T14:28:15-04:00

By popular request, here's the recipe I tweaked from one on the back of a flour package. Veganized it, almonded it up a bit, and then made half the batter with dark chocolate chips and half with raw almond slivers.

1 cup sugar (hey, it's a holiday weekend)
1/2 cup Coconut Butter (or Earth Balance, I suppose)
1/3 cup Coconut Milk (as in milk from the carton, not the canned product. Used Regular Unsweetened. I suppose Vanilla Unsweetened Almond Milk would be just fine, too.)
2 tsp vanilla extract
1 tsp almond extract
3/4 cup White Rice Flour
1/3 cup Coconut Flour
2 Tbsp Potato Starch
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/4 cup raw, sliced almonds
1/4 cup dark chocolate chips

Preheat oven to 350. Cream together butter and sugar. Add vanilla and almond extracts and coconut milk. Separately, mix dry ingredients (except almonds and chips). Add dry to wet. Cut batter in half (or not) and mix almonds into one half and chocolate chips into the other (or not). Bake in lightly greased mini-muffin pan for 10-12 minutes according to the original recipe, but it took 15 minutes for my oven to produce perfection.

Enjoy!

On "The Botany of Desire"

2009-07-04T11:53:32-04:00

This is coming very, very late, but part of why "Food Inc." wasn't impressive for me is because I'm not the target audience. I'd already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen "The Future of Food" and "King Corn." And though The Omnivore's Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were "farmed" a certain way (and locally), there's so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it's tough to tell people not to read it.

Because The Botany of Desire doesn't address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there's no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore's Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.

From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that's the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.

And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).

On "Wild Justice"

2009-07-03T10:18:07-04:00

"Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. And those mythical differences, of course, have historically been used to legitimize our use and treatment of our nonhuman cousins. This particular group fits in with other Bekoff books as well as those by Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson (see here for more on some of them from April of 2008).

Bekoff and Pierce (a philosopher) are the perfect combination to write this book because whenever you're presenting the similarities of nonhuman animals to human animals, a philosophical conundrum is created for humans, who like to think that we are worlds different, and above nonhumans. But as the frequently-invoked Darwin would say, those differences are of degree, not kind.

Just to be clear, this book deals with the nonhuman animals who are most like us: social vertebrates, and specifically social mammals (and there are a handful of references to cetaceans who behave similarly). "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to social living" (45), and the hypothesis of Bekoff and Pierce is that "greater social complexity is linked with more complex and nuanced moral behaviors" (53). Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments. They amassed an enormous amount of data, and then "allowed the data to do the talking" (151).

I'll get to what the data said in a moment, but first a few more clarifications.

The authors make a distinction between narrative ethology and "'animal stories' that proliferate on the Web . . . . Narrative from seasoned ethologists provides interpretation informed by their knowledge about a particular species and its behavior, and their attention to context and individual peculiarities" (37).
Bekoff and Pierce "advocate a species-relative view of morality. Each species in which moral behavior has evolved has its unique behavioral repertoire. The same basic behavioral capacities will be present--empathy, altruism, cooperation, and perhaps a sense of fairness--but will manifest as different social norms and different behaviors. . . . Despite some shared evolutionary history, wolf morality is different from human morality and also from elephant morality and chimpanzee morality" (19).
"The scientific investigation of morality, in humans and nonhumans alike, is in its infancy" (39).
Regarding accusations of anthropomorphism (which arise frequently and did in Bekoff's previous book, as well) and also evolutionary continuity, which provides for symmetry in comparisons, the authors write: "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (41).

What did Bekoff and Pierce find?

They found a "suite of behaviors" including cooperation, empathy and justice, and various intelligences that make those behaviors possible. Each behavior comprises a "cluster" of behaviors that may or may not be considered moral, and also aren't necessarily defined as you would imagine. And therein is the necessity to pay close attention to the language in the book, although that is useful only to a degree as "not all ethologists and biologists agree that cooperation among animals is really cooperation . . . . [T]hey may be acting independently and simultaneously, without any cognitive decision to work together" (64). Furthermore, "We need to be careful about language and remember that [for example] altruism has a specific meaning within biology and isn't synonymous with morality" (82).

The authors discuss the three clusters of behavior (cooperation, empathy and justice) and the kinds and degrees of intelligences necessary for them to be present, with justice being the least certain of the three. But whether of not there is wide agreement on the existence of wild justice within social mammal communities (there isn't), we do find that the cognitive, social and emotional lives of these animals are far more developed and rich than most people are willing (or educated enough to) admit.

And therein lies one question the authors pose: Now that we are delving into the lives of animals in this way and are finding that they are not beings who are completly driven by instinct, never thinking about the future or past, and incapable of acting in a way that is good for others, particularly if there is a cost to themselves, aren't we obligated to seriously "[reconsider] the uses to which we put animals in research, education, and for clothes and food, among other things" (137)?

Online Survey on Ethics and Animals

2009-07-02T07:07:57-04:00

A new survey is getting the attention of many within the global animal protection community. Covering both moral and strategic issues, the "Ethics and Animals" survey will provide a snapshot of our movement as of the present moment.

Everyone is invited to participate and share their views on what's best for animals. The survey is at EthicsAndAnimals.questionpro.com, and its closing date has been extended to Monday, July 13, 2009.

For other information, such as banners and links to the survey in other languages, you may visit the blog of ethiQUEST Surveys, the survey administrator: ethiquest.wordpress.com .

The results will be first presented and discussed at the 12th International Vegan Festival, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 22-25, 2009 (more about it here). Later on, a report containing the results and relevant parts of that discussion shall be published at: ethiquest.wordpress.com.

Chime in!

On Humane Societies and Calf-Roping

2009-07-01T08:31:04-04:00

Angus directed me to a story about the Calgary Stampede (rodeo) and the Calgary and Vancouver Humane Societies which had me asking: Whose side are they on?

Here's the backstory:

Calgary has what they call a "western culture," which essentially is their two word justification for abusing animals in the cruel and not-even-close-to fair venue of people-over-animals-who-don't-stand-a-chance.
The Vancouver Humane Society wanted to run the calf=baby/roper=bully ad in the Calgary Sun, which decided against the idea as the abuse of animals is part of their "very proud local institution." The newspaper also claims that the advertising department thought the ad was "offensive" and that is why it wasn't run.
The Calgary Humane Society works with the Stampede to make sure the animals are safe (and by the way that's impossible if the animals are being used in the rodeo. Safe, unharmed rodeo animals is an oxymoron).
The Vancouver Humane Society wants to ban calf-roping. Not the rodeo. Calf-roping (which of course is a hideous practice, but so are the rest of the animal-related rodeo activities).

Do you see where the average, critical thinker might have a problem with this scenario?

If the Vancouver Humane Society is on the side of the animals, why focus on calf-roping? I find it hard to believe that that's the only event they think is a disgusting show of injustice and "bullying."
The Calgary Humane Society is just as bad for working with the Stampede. How can any humane society worker honestly say that they want the rodeo to continue? Why on Earth would they work with the rodeo rather than to ban it completely? (This sounds an awful lot like the previous bullet, I know.)
I don't really believe the rationales the paper came up with for not running the ad, but that's just my opinion.
Then again, the ad begs such a basic question (why calf-roping and not rodeo) that I don't quite understand the purpose. Will the VHS support the rodeo if calf-roping is banned? That's what the ad would make me think. Is calf-roping some kind of low-hanging fruit and just the beginning? If so, campaign to ban the rodeo, for heaven's sake! Just be honest about your goal and campaign for it!

I don't get the overwhelming feeling that anyone is on the side of the animals, here. When I look at the Humane Society of the United States' statement on rodeos, I feel much better. It's off to a promising start and includes a promising end:

The HSUS opposes rodeos as they are commonly organized, since they typically cause torment and stress to animals; expose them to pain, injury, or even death; and encourage an insensitivity to and acceptance of the inhumane treatment of animals in the name of sport. Accordingly, we oppose the use of devices such as electric prods, sharpened sticks, spurs, flank straps, and other rodeo equipment that cause animals to react violently, and we oppose bull riding, bronco riding, steer roping, calf roping, "wild horse racing," chuck wagon racing, steer tailing, and horse tripping.

However, the opposition to the use of certain devices tells me that if those devices weren't used, the rodeo would be acceptable. But the HSUS is by no means an animal-rights organization; it is an animal welfare organization. At least it sounds like it's interested in the welfare of all animals in the rodeo, while the VHS statement is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst.

What's the difference between the HSUS and the VHS and CHS? The "western culture" that is allowed to rule. Yes, we have pockets of it, too. And in all cases where there is something held sacred today for the simple reason that it was held sacred yesterday, the people with the voices and the dollars have to stand up and say: This is 2009 and we are better than this. There is no reason to continue to torment sentient nonhumans, and to do so for entertainment and profit is to allow the lowest part of ourselves to rule our behavior.

Societies evolve morally. Perhaps the pace of that evolution is glacial in some areas. The only way to speed up the pace is to stand your ground, not back down, and present a message that makes it clear whose side you're on.

All rodeos, everywhere, should be banned. Period.

Chipping Away at Greyhound Racing

2009-06-30T06:55:26-04:00

In March of 2007 I wrote, "in a horribly-depressing vote of 198-138, New Hampshire's House voted AGAINST a bill that would shut down live racing at its three greyhound race tracks." E-mails were exchanged between yours truly and NH legislators, and though I knew the hounds would someday be free of racing, they were going to have to wait at least another year. At least.

Nearly two years later, one of the tracks closed. The Hinsdale track ceased operations in December and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

And this year, according to Tom Fahey in "Dog Racing May Be Gone Forever," the two tracks that remained "won permission to drop all racing dates. They will continue to operate as simulcast betting centers, and to host gambling events for charities."

If "won permission" sounds odd, that's because not every track wants to force live dogs to race. Not because it's wrong but because for most tracks it's not profitable. Other types of gambling are profitable, but not usually live dog racing. However, the law in most states where there is live dog racing specifically states that if there is to be gambling there must be live dog racing. So NH tracks "won permission" to drop dog racing, thereby also winning permission to be able to maintain their gambling operations.

This is not a ban on dog racing, but that does often come next.

Thanks to the folks at Grey2KUSA for their tireless efforts for greyhounds.

Finally, I'm off to Orlando to see the neurologist again. Charles looked great the first week after his surgery, and his condition has progressively deteriorated to the point where he is about 80% lame. Not 80% better--80% lame. I'll tweet (http://www.twitter.com/mary_martin)--or you can see updates over on the right column.

Wish me luck!

The Best in Vegan Education

2009-06-29T08:28:30-04:00

Other than being a vegan, the most important actions you can take to help animals who are used for food are:

Give generously to organizations that help those sentient nonhumans directly, such as Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, Maple Farm Sanctuary, Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary and Eastern Shore Sanctuary.
Encourage others to go vegan by educating them about the issues, and particularly about why we should not accept alternatives to eating animals that include eating animals (i.e., if they are "farmed" or slaughtered in a certain way).

I have always been a believer that film is the ultimate medium for thought change, and then behavior change for the average person. Of course, the precise nature of the film is crucial to its success as a vehicle for conversion, and I'm sure you've all seen and perhaps even participated in debates about Earthlings and its degree of efficacy. (As you are likely aware, very few people can actually get through the film in one sitting, plus the first third, about "pets," sends the troublesome message that puppy mills are the problem, rather than breeding in general.)

What makes Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home the best in vegan education and animal rights education is that, without getting too much into the hideous treatment of anyone, James LaVeck and Jenny Stein (a.k.a. Tribe of Heart) have managed to leave the viewer no option that includes eating animals. The film addresses the humane myth straight on, with unprecedented transparency in the discussions of animal farming, by simply letting its characters tell their personal stories. And the characters know better than anyone that animals cannot be farmed humanely, as they, for the most part, are all people who once profited from the use of animals. (Note: I have not seen the final cut but one prior, and the story remains the same, though the percentage of time devoted to each story might be different.)

I've not had great luck veganizing anyone through books. Someone has to be very, very committed to learning and to challenging their thought processes to read a book they know is in direct contrast to the way they think. I'm not saying it cannot or does not happen (e.g., I still hear people say they went vegan after reading Peter Singer).

However, everyone wants to see a good film and even if it's challenging to the way they think, it's an under-two-hour commitment and an easier sell.

But in order to make sure that there is broad access to the film, it's got to make it to the public. And in order for that to happen, it's got to have funding. You might not be in a position to write a pamphlet or book or blog (or even interested), and even if you are you are there's no guarantee of your reach or success. But you probably can donate $10 to Tribe of Heart, though you might have to forego a couple of soy lattes.

Give generously to Tribe of Heart. To my knowledge, there is currently no opportunity like this for vegan education. This film does show some anguish in the eyes of animals, and that's always a very powerful image. But Peacable Kingdom: The Journey Home is the only feature film that shows the anguish in the eyes of people--people who were courageous enough to risk everything by admitting they were wrong and standing up for what is right. I'll never forget the eyes of the dog who had been shot and was thrown, alive, into a garbage truck as it the truck closes on him in Earthlings. But at the same time, I'll never forget the haunted eyes of Harold Brown and Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis as they speak about their lives as animal farmers.

On "Food Inc."

2009-06-27T09:08:38-04:00

(Sigh.)

Here's the idea you have to get used to when it comes to Food Inc.: One message is that there's nothing wrong with eating animals, and in fact it's fantastic and thrilling and a win-win-win (people-planet-profits) when you eat animals that were "produced" by Polyface Farms. There's no remotely vegan or even vegetarian (though I'm not even sure what the latter would look like) message. We eat animals, and the CAFO system is an evil, filthy, cruel one, but it doesn't have to be that way. The moral of the story is that it's all about the way we farm animals, not that we farm them that is what needs changing.

Film is a visual medium and through direction, dialogue, editing, music and any effects, the filmmaker presents (in this case) his agenda. And though I left my notebook at home and was one of three audience members at yesterday's 12:10 pm showing and could easily have taken notes, I think I should be able to say what I need to say without exact quotes.

Everything you need to know about what director Robert Kenner wants to say about animals comes a bit more than half way through the film with what I can only describe as a giddy, ecstatic Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. The tone of the film has just changed from here's-the-terrible-state-of-affairs to look-how-some-ingenious-individuals-are-doing-it-better, and enter Salatin, grinning ear to ear, as he and his family/friends toss chickens upside down into those cones where only there heads stick out so you can yank said heads and access the attached throats to slit. Then they yank the heads, slit the throats, and de-feather and gut the chickens. And all while inspirational music is playing and a breeze is blowing across the fields on a gorgeous, sunny spring day. They grill the chickens, and trust me when I say it's all presented as a peak spiritual experience.

Now, if you can get beyond that, and if you haven't read Pollan and Schlosser and seen King Corn and The Future of Food (both of which are far more thorough on gentically-modified food, corn and Monsanto), you might actually learn something. I tweeted that according to Grist's "Should You See Food Inc.?" quiz, I got a resounding No, so I did know what I was walking into. The film wasn't made for me, so it's almost unfair of me to critique it as I have considering I don't have the same beliefs as the filmmaker or his main sources when it comes to an enormous component of what/whom he calls "food."

Here's the lesson: We have all been lied to about where our food comes from and what goes into making it and who is running the show. We have (and this is true of so many things in this country) the illusion of choice when we go grocery shopping. We are made to believe not only that the tens of thousands of products available in the store come from different companies/sources, but that they are the result of good old fashioned farming that to this day we teach our children about in their books and their toys.

In addition, our system of subsidies has made it so that it is less expensive to exist on fast food than on fruits, vegetables and grains. And then the way we eat causes diabetes. And then the medication we must pay for costs so much that we have to continue to eat fast food rather than choose to eat well because the money that could have gone to eating better has to go to the medication for the disease caused by eating poorly. That's criminal.

Luckily, we know who the criminals are who have put us in this position: the politicians who either came directly from Monsanto or the poultry farmer's association to a position of making food policy, or who are simply bought by them. Our own legislators have put us in this position because they and their friends benefit from it. They are in league, also, with the people who continue to strike fear in migrant workers by performing regular arrests (not of managers, though, but of people more easily replaced), and keeping people with no rights terrified, at tremendous physical risk, and extremely poor.

We also know that many companies with admirable business practices have been bought by colossal corporations (e.g., Tom's of Maine by Colgate, The Body Shop by L'Oreal, Kashi and Mornigstar by Kellogg) and that if voting with your dollars means anything, you need to find out who really owns the food you're buying.

If you dare, check out this small chart and these diagrams, and also please let me know if you know of any from 2008 or 2009. If there's a lesson in Food Inc., it's that you don't know what's in your food or where it came from until you read the label, and then investigate beyond the label.

On Cat Killers and Mental Competency

2009-06-26T10:45:59-04:00

People in South Florida are still in an uproar over the mutilation and slaughter of 19 house cats (allegedly) by 18-year old Tyler Weinman, who was declared mentally competent and not a danger to himself or others (!). There have been inquiries as to the possible relationship between his dissection of cats in school and the 19 counts of cruelty he is being charged with. (Felony animal cruelty is the cruel killing of an animal, and he is also being charges with 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body.) The four counts of burglary he is being charged with carry a heftier sentence than the animal killing. Weinman had participated in cat dissection in school, and that is being discussed as a possible trigger for his behavior.

The outrage I've been seeing and hearing is typical, as we like cats. We humans have decided that, for a combination of reasons that are important to us, cats are worthy of our respect. I do find it interesting that there is a subculture we've all seen via vicious bumperstickers that attest to the existence of people who hate--and I mean hate--cats and want to see them dead or dying. I also find it interesting that I've never heard of a woman among their ranks. I don't trust people who hate cats because there's something else going on there. Cats represent something: independence. Cats are slaves to no one, at least according to their reputation, which in my experience holds true. And people who want to kill those they cannot control scare me.

I can't think of another animal so hated by humans that they have actually created an industry to publicize their hatred and their wish to hurt and kill them. We don't say we hate cows. In fact we say we love them. Grilled. We don't say we hate pigs and want to see them writhing in pain and slaughtered. Pigs definitely don't get much respect from humans, but the evil (and I can't think of a better word and I don't mean it in a religious sense) I see around cat-haters is different. There's sadism there, and that's not good.

I don't know if dissecting a cat corpse can lead to the desire to steal and mutilate 19 live cats; that seems like a stretch. If someone had it in him to kill cats and cut them open and toss out their entrails, I'm fairly certain that cutting open a dead cat isn't the reason. At some point, he was going to kill cats and cut them open. What is most surprising is that he was declared mentally competent, as mentally competent people don't go around killing cats.

Or maybe that's not so surprising.

Mentally competent people, oddly enough, go around mutilating and killing deer and ducks and cougars, though, when doing so either is in season or some governmental body has decided their numbers need trimming. And mentally competent people slice the throats of flailing cows hanging by one leg. And mentally competent people chain calves to crates. And mentally competent people shovel hundreds of day-old male chicks at a time into what is basically a giant blender to be macerated. And mentally competent people tear babies away from their mothers, as both wail in distress and agony. And mentally competent people anally electrocute mink or skin them alive.

And some mentally competent people know that all of this occurs and they still eat and wear animals.

On Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal

2009-06-22T09:06:17-04:00

Stephanie's post about "The Compassionate Hypocrite" on Saturday reminded me of what Catherine Friend and other "compassionate carnivores" are doing in addition to twisting the definition of compassionate beyond recognition. Their claim is that what has become the customary way to take sentient nonhumans from babyhood to untimely death is not humane. It's cruel. There's no "compassion" in the process. It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly.

No argument here.

However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. No factory farms, no large-scale operations where animals are crammed together under a roof, never to see the light of day. No hormones, no "feed" that is unnatural for them and/or genetically modified.

I'd say no argument here if this were some kind of sanctuary situation, and the animals were in need of a loving home for the rest of their lives. But the entire purpose, which cannot be glossed over with any amount of creepy love letters, is that Friend and her ilk are being kind to the animals because they believe animals who are less stressed are tastier, and because, just like the CAFO owners, they will profit from their efforts (and perhaps more, as they charge a premium).

Yes, I do think it's better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered.

But looking at it that way is allowing Friend and others to distract you from a far more important issue: none of this is necessary or justified. No one needs to eat sentient beings, so it's not as if these "farmers" are providing a valuable service to humanity. And regardless of how you treat someone when they're live and regardless of how you kill them, if you don't need to kill them and you're doing so merely to please your palate, how do you justify what you're doing? You can't (at least not in a meaningful way).

Getting people to move their focus from the final chapter of the story of the animals--and I don't mean how they died, but that they died--allows you to appear to be the good guy. It allows you to swoop in with an alternative to the disgraceful human behavior that is factory farming and provide a kindler, gentler way to partake of the flesh of others. And if those whom you're addressing are willing to drink the KoolAid you're serving, plenty of profit awaits.

But the real good guy is the one who, like Cheri and Jim and Howard and Harold says (and this is my paraphrasing of everyone): Yes, I have profited from the lives and deaths of sentient nonhumans. And now I regret that because I realize there is simply no way to raise an animal with the intent to kill that animal and call it anything but betrayal. I wouldn't do it to a dog, and I shouldn't do it to a chicken/sheep/cow/pig. It's just not right.

Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A treacherous giving up to an enemy. (Here, that enemy being Death.)

2. A violation of trust or confidence, an abandonment of something committed to one's charge.

Interesting definitions of betray include:

2. a. To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of.

4. a. To lead astray or into error, as a false guide; to mislead, seduce, deceive (the trustful).

There is no question about the motive here: seduce the sheep into believing you care so that they are easier to deal with and easier to lead to slaughter. At least CAFO owners don't use that kind of deceit--of their customers, the animals and themselves.

On The International and Father's Day

2009-06-21T09:51:10-04:00

Someone on Twitter said The International was the best film he'd seen in years. I think it was in theaters here for all of a week, which is a good sign, as the better a film is, the shorter its tenure at the local multiplex in South Florida. But you only find out how long it's in the theater when it leaves, and by then it's too late to see it. Interesting quandary if you're playing the I'll-find-it-somewhere-next-week game.

Was it a great film, in my opinion? Not fantastic, but good. But what kept my interest was the topic, and how true it is (badly phrased--weapons sales aren't so much about controlling the war but controlling the debt). And there are loads of goofs that confused me and made me stop and rewind to determine if my eyes were wrong. Then there were the predictable twists.

And some of the dialogue was of on-the-nose variety that all screenwriting books tell you to avoid like the plague. But the dialogue I liked was of the Greek chorus-variety or even the "Confucius say . . .". My favorite lines were:

I'm more comfortable tense.
What you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, what people want to believe, everything else, and then there's the truth. . . . The truth means responsibility . . . . That's why everyone dreads it.
The difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense.
Character is easily kept than recovered.
Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.

Thanks to my dad, on Father's Day, with whom we studied film as he studied film at Columbia when we were tots, for teaching me what to look for when I see, and listen for when I hear. And also for teaching me that just because a film or an idea isn't popular, doesn't mean it isn't great.

Happy Father's Day!