Digging Through the Dirt

Learning From the Women's Suffrage Movement

2011-08-06T07:13:00.009-05:00

My history classes, like most in the United States, were always white-male-centric, with wars being a primary focus. So it's sad that I didn't learn the details of a battle fought by women--the right to vote--until I was 34.

"A Woman's Crusade: Alice Paul and the Battle for the Ballot" by Mary Walton is a biography of an important woman few have heard of. Alice Paul, an American Quaker, began fighting for women's suffrage in Great Britain. Armed with the tactics of English "militants," she returned to the States and fought for the right to vote here.

In addition to being enthralled with history that directly affected me--and about which I knew virtually nothing--I was also interested in how some details of the women's suffrage movement mirrored today's animal-rights movement.

Alice's time in England had taught her about civil disobedience, including hunger strikes. Officials there had no idea what to do with imprisoned suffragettes who refused to eat. They didn't want the women to die on their watch, so they released them. Incidentally Mahatma Gandhi attended a meeting featuring these hunger strikers.

Eventually, though, prison officials decided to forcefully feed the women. Alice was force-fed both in England and in the United States. (She refused to open her mouth, so the tube was inserted into her nose.) Of course, when I think of force-feeding, I think about the ducks and geese who have tubes shoved down their throats and are pumped full of food in order to engorge their lives for foie gras.

Lucy Barns, Alice's right-hand woman, smuggled this description of force-feeding out of prison: "Food dumped directly into stomach feels like a ball of lead." Alice called her forced feeding "something like vivisection." Rose Winslow, another activist, wrote this:

Miss Paul vomits much. I do too, except when I'm not nervous, as I have been every time but one. The feeding always gives me a severe headache. My throat aches afterward, and I always weep and sob.

In England, frustrated by the government's lack of action, the suffragettes turned to methods employed by the Animal Liberation Front (and the Environmental Liberation Front) today.

British suffragettes had blown up the cactus greenhouse in a Manchester park, destroying a $50,000 collection; set fire to an elegant mansion; and burned down the pavilion at a bowling and tennis club in London.

So when an arrest warrant was issued for Lucy Burns in the United States, a reporter asked her if her offense was a form of militancy. What was her offense? Chalking a sidewalk. (If that doesn't sound familiar, check out this post at "Green Is the New Red." Lucy had written "Votes for Women" on a sidewalk across from the White House.

These women who fought for the right to vote, both in the United States and in England (and probably in every other country), were courageous.

All over England, suffragettes "hid in bushes and under platforms, scaled roofs, let themselves down through skylights in order to interrupt meetings with the dreaded call, 'votes for women!'"

In an act that got them arrested and Alice force-fed in England, Alice and activist Amelia Brown crashed an event that Winston Churchill (not yet prime minister) was attending.

For all [the police] vigilance, they missed two young women dressed as charwomen and toting buckets and brushes, who had arrived at 8 a.m. armed with the password, "kitchen." Climbing up to the balcony that overlooked the hall where the guests would dine that evening, Alice Paul and Amelia Brown found a hiding place and remained there throughout the day. One officer making the rounds came so close his cape touched Alice's hair.

[...]

Just as [Prime Minister Herbert Henry] Asquith began to speak, Amelia took off her shoe, reached over, and smashed a window. Both she and Alice cried, "Votes for women."

When Alice returned to the United States, she began working for the National American Woman Suffrage Association, aka the National. But just as the animal-rights movement consists of different cliques that disagree about how animal rights should be fought, similarly Alice eventually left the National to form her own organization, the Congressional Union.

The latter's goal was to convince Congress to amend the Constitution to give women the right to vote. The National's tact was to encourage each state to give women the vote, and some Western states already had. Instead of simply agreeing to disagree about which approach was better, the National (like a certain animal-rights organization, in particular, and some activists in general) actively criticized Alice's group.

One woman complained to a supporter of Alice's that the National was sending her so many "long screeds" denouncing the Union that she didn't have time to read them.

Imagine if Facebook was around then.

Alice, like many animal-rights groups, today didn't play the National's game.

When a new Union press secretary was quoted as saying the National was "lacking in political wisdom," Alice warned her never to do it again. "It puts a bad spirit through all our work and can do us nothing but harm."

When the Congressional Union began to stage picketers outside the White House, the president of the National, Carrie Chapman Catt, called the move "[a] childish method of appeal [that] will never bring a result." She also "sent newspapers an open letter addressed to Alice in which she claimed the picketing was 'hurting our cause in Congress.'"

But after the Nineteenth Amendment passed Congress, the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court wrote Alice, "There were politicians, and a large degree of public sentiment, which could be won only by the methods you adopted."

(Book cover courtesy of Better World Books.)

(Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.)

Milk Board Pulls Sour Ad Campaign

2011-07-22T09:13:00.005-05:00

After 10 days of running its sexist ad campaign, the California Milk Processor Board has withdrawn it.

Its campaign had featured men apologizing to their female significant others for offenses that weren't their fault. The kicker is that the women are PMSing. And, ha-ha, what guy can't relate to that, right?

Except don't women do most of the grocery shopping? The milk board actually thought this campaign would appeal to women?

Jeff Goodby, a co-chairman at Goodby, Silverstein, the advertising agency that created the campaign, told The New York Times that he was "surprised" by people's reactions.

[He also said that] "in no way was this done cynically" — that is, designed to provoke consumers deliberately in a way that would generate publicity for the product.

Either Goodby's ad agency isn't very good, or he's lying. Most women--and likely most men--could have told him the ads were offensive.

A day after the campaign was announced, Carol J. Adams wrote a blog post about it that's definitely worth reading. Of the ad campaign, she says the following:

All this to promote a product that actually helps deplete calcium from women's bones rather than strengthening them. And contributes to the ongoing medicalization of women's lives.

Milk contains cholesterol and saturated fat, which can lead to obesity and heart disease and lots of pills and surgery.

If you want to reduce your PMS symptoms, try eating a plant-based diet. I used to have days where I was doubled over, rocking back and forth on the floor, because my cramps hurt so bad. Not being fond of pills, after years of this I finally gave in and would down a Midol when the cramps came. After going vegan, though, I found that I didn't need the Midol. I still have cramps, but they're just a minor discomfort.

The milk board's campaign was odd, too. The average person consumes cow's milk, so shouldn't the average woman's PMS already be reduced? The study the board cites is a 1998 one that says that calcium and vitamin D help to reduce PMS symptoms.

Women don't need to consume milk to get those vitamins and minerals. Leafy greens are full of calcium, and you have vitamin D right outside your front door (ie. the sun). But if that isn't enough, soy milk and other plant-based milks are fortified with both, allowing you to get what you need to reduce PMS symptoms while avoiding the antibiotics, hormones, cholesterol, and saturated fat of animals' milk.

(Sexist ad courtesy of the California Milk Processor Board.)

Martosko Out, Coggin In

2011-07-21T07:04:00.007-05:00

Registered dietitians Jack Norris (from Vegan Outreach) and Virginia Messina have just published a book about nutrition for vegans called "Vegan for Life," and they list "Digging Through the Dirt" in the list of resources at the end of the book!

As you've probably noticed, work and slacking have taken their toll on "Digging." But I owe it to Jack and Ginny--and to my other blog readers--to begin posting regularly again. And what better way to start than by giving you an update on the man I love to hate: David Martosko?

If you follow HumaneWatch.info--and you should--you'll know that Martosko was either fired or quit from the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom, likely due to his penchant for drinking and driving. (HumaneWatch.info is opposed to and keeps tabs on the CCF's HumaneWatch.org.) I didn't post anything about Martosko's departure because, other than HumaneWatch.info, I didn't have any proof that he actually left. But now I do.

Martosko is now the executive editor for Tucker Carlson's Republican political Web site, "The Daily Caller." Asked by Media Bistro about Martosko's police record, Carlson said this:

David's not the only person in this office who's been arrested, by the way, and I've made it clear to the staff that anyone who judges him for it can leave.

I think people deserve second chances--yes, perhaps even people who risk others' lives because they drink and drive. But what about judging Martosko for his other acts? Like misinforming the public. Defending animal abusers. Combine those things with his drinking and driving, and you get one sleazy, selfish jerk.

As for who has taken Martosko's place at the CCF? HumaneWatch.info says it's Will Coggin, arguably even more vile than Martosko.

A 2007 graduate of William and Mary, he was already causing controversy during his college years.

As a freshman, he co-founded the conservative student group Sons of Liberty. Among this group's claims to fame was an affirmative action bake sale held in 2004. According to news reports, prices were 50 cents for "Black/Hispanic/Native American," 75 cents for "White/Asian/Indian" and $1 for "Human (if you prefer to be judged by the content of your character, rather than by the color of your skin)."

In 2006, as editor of the libertarian student publication "The Remnant," Coggin printed the name of a rape victim and called her a "wannabe victim" and "con artist."

Public-relations guru Rick Berman, who created the CCF, was probably drooling as he read Coggin's resume.

I'll miss Martosko, but I'm sure we'll meet again online. As for Coggin, you have small shoes to fill.

(Photo courtesy of AustraliaSigns.com.au.)

Striking out at the Plate

2011-06-02T14:31:00.006-05:00

The pyramid is a thing of the past.

That's right -- the U.S. Department of Agriculture has shunned its nutrition pyramid in favor of a plate, which it unveiled today.

I wasn't expecting a vegan overhaul; although that would have been nice. But I still have questions about this new image, the biggest one being: How large is the plate?

Serving sizes play major roles in weight gain. I use a "lunch" plate for most of my meals at home. (I call it a "lunch" plate because that's the size plate I used for lunches growing up, one size down from a dinner plate.) But I would think that most Americans use dinner plates more often than "lunch" plates.

It's nice to see that half of the plate is devoted to fruits and vegetables, but that confuses me to. As a kid, I'd have a steak, a baked potato, and another veggie on my plate for dinner. I can't imagine eating fruit with that. Yuck.

And what about breakfast? True, I do have veggies for breakfast now. (I blend fresh spinach into a smoothie. Sounds gross, but it's delicious.) But the average meat-eater isn't going to eat veggies for breakfast. Except for hashbrowns, I suppose. But at that point in the processing, can they really be considered veggies? And that plate actually looks like a lot of food. That's gonna be one big breakfast.

Maybe I'm just not a visual person. I prefer numerical serving amounts to slices of a generic plate.

I had mixed feelings about the word "protein." At first I thought the meat groups would be annoyed that the word "meat" was omitted. But now I think "protein" just reinforces the myth that one can only get protein through animal flesh. And why is this the only nutrient mentioned? Where's my slice for Omega-3s? Or for fiber? And if I'm getting my protein through veggies, then what do I do with that other "protein" slice?

As for the "Dairy" piece, I'd like to flick it off the page. It's worse than worthless; like meat, it harms one's health.

If I were artistically inclined, I'd create my own nutrition plate containing of fruit, veggies, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and soy milkshakes. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine came close with their own image. (Where are the milkshakes?)

I hate to be so cynical and complaining, but all in all, this new nutrition image is about what I'd expect from the USDA: confusing, vague, and harmful.

(MyPlate image courtesy of the USDA.)

Vegan T-shirt Day

2011-05-30T15:02:00.006-05:00

Vegan scientist and author Jonathan Balcombe has created Vegan T-shirt Day, in which we're are encouraged to wear pro-vegan shirts on the first Saturday of every month.

This venture began a month ago, so you can take part in the second Vegan T-shirt Day on Saturday, June 4. Of course, it's great to wear shirts with vegan messages any day, but I think it's cool to have one day a month when all vegans wear these shirts. Not only does it allow us to recognize fellow vegans, but perhaps meat-eaters will be prompted to research veganism if they see a couple people wearing these shirts.

Don't have a shirt with a vegan message? Check out this blog post for links to great shirts. In addition, you can shop for shirts and benefit farmed animals at Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary and Farm Sanctuary.

Of course, if you live in a hot climate like me, you ladies may have to hold off on T-shirts for the next few months. But never fear -- cute spaghetti-strap shirts also proclaim pro-animal messages.

If you have links to other cool shirts, please post them in the Comments section.

Be sure to "like" the Vegan T-shirt Day Facebook page and upload a photo of yourself wearing a pro-vegan shirt on Saturday.

(The beautiful Jenny Brown models a pro-vegan T-shirt, courtesy of Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary.)
(You can find the In Defense of Animals spaghetti-strap shirt here.)

A Plant-Strong Memorial Day

2011-05-25T08:08:00.011-05:00

Keith and I are going to celebrate Memorial Day with Rip Esselstyn and Gene Baur!

No, we don't know either of them personally. I'm Facebook friends with Rip, and he issued an open invitation for a potluck at his house in Austin. Gene Baur will be in town as part of his cross-country trip celebrating the 25th anniversary of Farm Sanctuary.

For those who don't know, Rip Esselstyn is an Austin firefighter who wrote "The Engine 2 Diet," a book that advocates a "plant-strong" diet, which means a diet consisting of whole, plant-based foods. That may sound familiar, as that's what the film "Forks Over Knives" advocates.

Rip's father, former heart surgeon Caldwell Esselstyn, was one of the two primary experts "Forks Over Knives" focused on. And Rip was in the film, too. He's the buff firefighter who can climb up a firepole without using his legs. The next time someone skeptically asks me where vegans get their protein, I'll tell them to look him up.

In addition to the potluck, there will also be a barbecue cook-off. I've never made barbecue, so I won't be entering that, but I'll have to decide what to make for the potluck. I'm thinking macaroni and cheese.

I'll try to take lots of photos of the food and festivities for those of you not able to attend. Whatever your Memorial Day plans are, please leave animals--at least the dead kind; your dogs and cats lounging around the house are fine--out of them.

(Photo of Rip Esselstyn courtesy of ForksOverKnives.com.)
(Photo of Gene Baur courtesy of SuperVegan.com.)

Adopt--Don't Shop

2011-05-15T14:46:00.005-05:00

I joined Toastmasters a few months ago. It's a group that helps people become better at public speaking. Of the 15 or so members of this particular group--it's an international organization with groups all over--I'm vegan and two others are vegetarian. Still more are dog lovers.

I've decided to share my second speech with you. I gave it a couple of weeks ago. My next speech will be on the health benefits of a plant-based diet, and I'll post that here after I give it.

This speech was titled "Adopt--Don't Shop." Enjoy!

In the first speech I gave at Toastmasters, I mentioned that my husband and I share our home with three dogs. But in my nervousness I forgot to mention that all three of our dogs are rescue dogs. That doesn’t mean that they’re trained to find people in a collapsed building or in the wilderness--or that they’re superheroes. For Poncho, Cooper, and Snickers, work means going outside to use the bathroom. What I mean by rescue dogs is that Keith and I adopted them from animal shelters or rescue groups instead of purchasing them at a pet store.

I'm sure you all know that song "How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?" Well, the actual cost of that puppy at the pet store is higher than the dog's monetary value. Puppies and kittens in pet stores, like Petland, come from puppy mills. At puppy mills female dogs are confined to cages and are kept pregnant, churning out litter after litter, to be shipped off to pet stores. When the breeding dogs' fertility wanes, they're often killed, abandoned, or sold cheaply to another mill to try to get one more litter out of the dogs.

I used to foster dogs for a rescue group, and you would not believe the physical and emotional states of the dogs who came from puppy mills. These were breeder dogs who would have been shot if the rescue group wouldn't have taken them in. The mill owners had used them until their bodies were spent. They were no longer profitable, so they were expendable. Their fur had to be cut short because it'd be matted with urine and feces. They smelled awful. But the worst thing was how afraid some of these dogs were. For example, one of my fosters, who I named Straggles, was scared to walk outside because she'd never been on grass before. Most dogs at puppy mills spend their whole lives in wire cages. And, of course, she was scared of people. The one bright spot is that, after these dogs are given some love and some time, most make dramatic recoveries. Straggles, while still timid, was adopted by a couple who had another dog whom Straggles took to.

It's understandable why people buy puppies from pet stores. Who can resist a cute, wiggling dog who flashes his puppy eyes at you? Some people also rationalize their purchase by saying that the puppy needed a home just like a dog in a shelter does. But by purchasing that puppy, that person has created demand for another puppy to take its place. So the puppy mill will continue cranking out more puppies. It’s a never-ending cycle unless we stop patronizing these stores.

Animal shelters take in six million to eight million dogs and cats each year, and half of those are euthanized because there simply aren't enough resources to care for them. Most of these animals are healthy and adoptable. But when someone decides to purchase a dog or cat from a pet store, that leaves one fewer good home for an animal who really needs it.

My husband and I adopted Cooper from a humane society back in Illinois. He was 2 years old and housebroken. He's a miniature pinscher/Chihuahua mix. We adopted Poncho--a Chihuahua/rat terrier mix--from a rescue group in Illinois that specializes in placing older dogs and cats. Adopting an older animal was perfect for me because he was past the hyper stage of being a puppy or young dog. He is content to lie on my lap and nap while I read. But if you want a puppy, shelters and rescue groups have those, too.

Like I said, both Cooper and Poncho are mixed breeds. But if your heart is set on a purebred, you can find those in shelters, too. About a quarter of all dogs in shelters are purebreds. Another great place to find purebreds is a breed-rescue group. There are organizations across the country that each specialize in one particular breed. Snickers is a Cairn terrier whom I adopted from a breed-specific rescue. Some organizations even allow you to foster a dog for a while to see if he or she is a good fit for your household.

Older dogs have a more difficult time getting adopted than younger ones. Oddly large black dogs also have a hard time. Maybe it's because they seem scary. Maybe it's because they don’t photograph as well as lighter-colored dogs. Shelters often run one or two photos of their animals in Sunday newspapers.

The same is true about black cats; shelter workers will tell you that the other colored cats get scooped up first. Like black dogs, perhaps black cats don’t photograph as well. Their low adoption rates could also be due to the superstition that black cats bring bad luck.

Keith and I don't share our home with any cats right now. But sometime in the future we'd like to. When we do, we’ll get two of them, so they have someone to play with when we're not home. We’ll adopt them from a shelter or rescue group, and at least one will be black.

It's easy to locate shelters and rescue groups nearby. There are several shelters in the Georgetown area. In fact, you've probably seen two of them at local festivals. The Georgetown Animal Shelter is, of course, in Georgetown, and the Humane Society of Williamson County is located in Leander. Petfinder.com is also a great resource to find shelters and rescue groups. Just type in your ZIP code, and you'll be surprised at the numerous organizations from which you can adopt. You can also search by the type of animal, the breed, the age, the gender. It's very user-friendly.

If you want to open your heart and your home to an animal in need, instead of purchasing one from a pet store, please consider adopting from a rescue group or from your local animal shelter.

"Forks Over Knives" Gets to the Meat of Our Health Crisis

2011-05-14T17:37:00.003-05:00

I actually had tears in my eyes as I watched the new film "Forks Over Knives" -- not because it's a sad movie but because the simple method of becoming healthy is reaching more Americans.

The title of the film refers to the notion that it's more palatable to eat our way to good health than it is to go under the knife to fix what a poor diet has caused. One of my favorite parts of the movie is when former surgeon Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn says that some people think a plant-based diet (ie. a vegan diet) is extreme. The film cut to the inside of one's leg, where an artery was being removed to be inserted into the heart in bypass surgery. With tongue in cheek, he said some people consider having one's chest cut open, heart exposed, to be extreme.

Indeed it's a lot easier to eat a whole-foods, plant-based diet than it is to undergo medical test after medical test, pay for and consume pills, and contemplate and recover from surgery.

The film focuses on Caldwell and nutrition researcher T. Colin Campbell, the latter of whom wrote "The China Study." In his studies Esselstyn found that heart disease could be stopped -- and even reversed -- by switching to a plant-based diet. In his research Campbell found that animal protein triggers cancer.

The benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet are clear, yet it's so frustrating how brainwashed most people are. They'd rather mock vegans than admit that we're onto something. And they're brainwashed because of the meat and dairy industries, which have a lot of money and political clout.

A former president of the American Dietetic Association, Connie B. Diekman, appeared in the film, and given the scientific evidence that meat and dairy aren't needed to be healthy -- and, in fact, lead to poor health -- she appears shallow and stupid by saying that those two "food" groups are beneficial. Not surprisingly the film said she has ties to the dairy industry.

Film producers also interviewed an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture who accused Caldwell and Campbell of being biased toward plant-based diets. Both grew up on dairy farms, and Caldwell's family also raised cows for beef. But the USDA is biased. It's an agency that's supposed to regulate the meat and dairy industries, yet it also markets for them and buys their products.

Here's a quick rundown of the health benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet:
- It can reverse heart disease.
- It can reverse Type 2 diabetes.
- It can stop the growth of cancer.
- It can lower blood pressure.
- It can help people lose weight.
- It can reduce or eliminate arthritis.
- It can lower cholesterol.

We know cigarettes are bad for us. We know they cause cancer. We know tobacco executives lied to us for years -- and are still doing so. So we never started smoking, and we're raising our kids not to smoke. Well, now we know that animal protein -- whether it comes in the form of meat, milk, eggs, cheese, etc. -- leads to heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and even more than that. Don't be like those people still puffing on cancer sticks. You have the facts. You have the power. Stop feeding yourself and your kids foods that are harming your bodies.

For a much better review, check out film critic Roger Ebert's.

"Forks Over Knives" is playing in select theaters.

5-Minute Errand Could Kill Your Dog

2011-04-10T21:55:00.006-05:00

I left a store this afternoon and in the parking lot was a dog in a car. It was 92 degrees outside. So I went back into the store and asked a salesperson to page the owner of the black Lexus.

She seemed a bit put off at having to do that and asked if I'd rather take water to the dog instead. I'm not sure water would have helped given how hot it was, and I don't know how I'd have given it to the dog with the windows cracked an inch or so. I told her I'd wait inside to make sure the owner showed up.

The owner did and proceeded to yell at me. She had just gone inside for five minutes, the car was parked in the shade with the windows cracked, and I should mind my own fucking business. I tried to explain to her that she didn't understand how hot it could get in the car in a matter of minutes, but it was futile.

When I went to PETA's headquarters for my interview last summer, I heard people in the Communications Department pitching items to media about not leaving dogs in cars in the summer--this after several dogs in different cities had died. While it doesn't take a genius to know that one shouldn't leave a dog in a car on a 92-degree day, until I started at PETA I didn't realize that even

on a 78-degree day, the temperature inside a parked car can soar to between 100 to 120 degrees in just minutes, and on a 90-degree day, the interior temperature can reach as high as 160 degrees in less than 10 minutes.

I can only hope that horrid woman thinks twice before she leaves her dog in a hot car again.

(Image courtesy of Claycord.com.)

New Series Explores Animal Ethics

2011-03-06T16:00:00.005-06:00

A new series of books about animal ethics is being released by publisher Palgrave Macmillan.

The editors of this series—which will total 15 books—write that "[f]rom being a marginal issue, animals have become an emerging issue in ethics and in multidisciplinary enquiry." Indeed, the series looks at animals in relationship to such areas as social work, popular media and public health.

The first book in the series that I read was "An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory" by Alasdair Cochrane, which analyzes what different theories say about how societies should treat animals, beginning with philosophers like Pythagoras and Plato and ending with feminist theorists of today.

I admit I'm not fond of abstract thought or arguments, but I was promised an "accessible overview," so I looked forward to reading this book. And this book is exactly as its title suggests. It is an introduction to animals and political theory that would be great for a 101 college course--or for anyone new to, but interested in, these areas.

A bit of the chapter on liberalism (surprisingly enough) got a bit dry. But overall I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in how different schools of political thought view animals.

I learned a lot not only about political theory as it relates to animals but also about philosophy and political theory, in general. The book goes into detail about the following theories: utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism (that's "communitarianism," not "communism"), Marxism and feminism.

Although the focus of the book is on animals, reading about each political theory made me think about how people view and treat the environment. And I wonder if some people are scared of granting rights to animals because they're afraid that plants and mountains, etc., may be next, and soon it'd be illegal to exploit any of Earth's priceless resources.

In the next few weeks I'll review another book in this series, "An Introduction to Animals and the Law."

Note: I received this book from its publisher so that I could review it.

A Drive Through Conservative Country

2010-12-02T20:00:00.008-06:00

Keith and I drove from the Chicago area to the Austin, Texas, area last weekend. After 32 or so winters in Illinois, we had decided to relocate to warmer climes.

But as we drove through Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, with their conservative billboards, I began to rethink our move -- and what's left of my faith in the citizens of this country.

We had driven through Missouri five years ago to visit my sister in Tulsa for Christmas. This time I noticed fewer porn and religious advertisements. But there was one billboard that simply read "Jesus." Several feet before that was one seeking a sponsor. So as we drove past, the message we saw was "Rent Me Jesus."

Another billboard advertised an expired Sept. 11 Tea Party event.

An Oklahoma billboard gave a figurative high-five to the Arizona law requiring people who look like illegal immigrants to show proof of U.S. citizenship. The top line read "Oklahoma [heart]s Arizona." The second line, in a smaller font: "Oklahoma [heart]s Mexico, too." Sure -- just as long as Mexicans stay in that country.

Two of the letters on a Conoco gas station sign along the highway were reversed. This wasn't one of those signs with the magnetic letters that vandals remove to make curse words. This was the gas station's main sign, and it was very high. After seeing the political bent of previous roadside signage, I wasn't going to give this one the benefit of the doubt. It read "COONCO."

In Texas I was disgusted to see former President George W. Bush’s snide smirk on a billboard. He asked, "Miss me yet? How's that hope and change working out?" Please. As much as I'm angry with Obama and don’t plan to vote for him again, he's so much better than Bush.

Another billboard featured an unflattering portrait of President Barack Obama with the phrase "Socialist by Conduct."

Except for the Tea Party event, the names of the people or groups who paid for these billboards either weren’t written on the ads or they were too small to notice.

But some things are clear: They have money, they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and most are likely racist.

(Obama photo credit: Chris Curtis. Courtesy of CentralTexasNow.com.)

(Bush photo courtesy of "Flaming Zombie Monkeys.")

Health and the Vegan

2010-11-21T10:13:00.005-06:00

A blog post about a vegan regressing to eating an omnivorous diet is getting a lot of attention.

Tasha at the formerly VoraciousVegan.com -- she's in the process of changing it to Voracious.com--announced Friday that because of health problems she's had, she's no longer a vegan.

Unlike some who suspect she's a stool for the meat industry or even a fictitious person, I do believe she's real and has been going through a tough time.

But her enthusiasm for eating flesh ultimately hurts animals, not just because she's eating them, but because she has decided to continue to blog, this time about how delicious her new diet is. Unfortunately, her piece will have vegans second-guessing their decisions and possibly viewing her health arguments as a reason to go back to eating animals.

But this post isn't about criticizing Tasha's decision; it's about sharing my own health experiences transitioning from omnivore to vegetarian to vegan. I hope it helps omnivores or vegetarians not fear going vegan. And I hope it helps vegans remain vegans.

(Incidentally the question I asked Nick Cooney, author of "Change of Heart," in yesterday's blog post, about vegans going back to eating animals had nothing to do with Tasha's story. I hadn't read about her decision until after that post was published.)

I went vegetarian in November 2006, when I was 29. Around May 2007 I noticed that my hair was thinner and that some of it had possibly stopped growing in one spot in the back of my head. I also noticed that my nails were a lot thinner than they'd ever been. I do blame my thinning hair and nails on my diet. Whether the lack of hair growth in that one spot was due to my diet, I don't know. It's possible. (Only I and my hairstylist can notice it.)

But I wasn't overly concerned. In August 2007 I went vegan. At some point soon after I had my cholesterol checked. I don't like to fast, so I only got the general cholesterol test done, not the one that differentiates between HDL and LDL cholesterol. But my total cholesterol, which had been at 177 -- while doctors say anything below 200 is good, "The China Study" says anything below 150 is actually good -- dropped 38 points to 139.

I haven't had my cholesterol tested since then, but Tasha's post has inspired me to get a total blood work-up done in the coming weeks.

Aside from my thinning hair (which no one would notice) and nails, I haven't had any known health problems since going vegetarian or vegan. I've lived with depression and anxiety for decades, so that's unrelated to my diet. Animal rights has actually helped me with those because it's taken my thoughts outside myself and focused them on something bigger than I.

While many vegans talk about having an increased energy level, my energy has remained the same as when I was an omnivore. I'd say it's on the low side, but it always has been.

Health isn't the reason I went vegan. I did it because I believe that if one truly cares about animals, he or she shouldn't eat them. Saying that, though, if I did have a medical issue that could only be cured by eating animal products, I would do it; I couldn't be a good advocate for animals if I'm dealing with my own health problems. (I would begin with eggs first, and see if that worked. Eating animal flesh would be a last resort, and I wouldn't blog about how glorious it was.)

I'm not a doctor or a nutritionist, and I look forward to reading an expert's take on Tasha's situation. While I do believe it's possible to be healthy on an omnivorous diet, I also think it's just as tricky (and perhaps more so because one is tempted by an even greater amount of bad food) as being healthy on a vegan diet. But a vegan diet, in addition to being healthy, is also the best diet to choose if one cares about animals.

Update (5:28 p.m. 11/21/10): On her blog "The Vegan R.D.," my favorite dietitian, Ginny Messina, analyzes the health/nutrition claims made in Tasha's post. Check it out!

'Change of Heart' Offers Advice to Alter People's Minds, Behavior

2010-11-21T00:14:00.002-06:00

In his soon-to-be-released book "Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change," animal-rights activist Nick Cooney examines 80 years of research into human psychology and behavior. Based on his findings, he offers advice (some likely controversial) to activists in all social movements, not simply animal rights, on how best to effect change. Cooney, founder and director of The Humane League in Philadelphia, stopped by "Digging Through the Dirt" to give us a sneak preview of "Change of Heart."

What type of research did you look at?
While writing "Change of Heart," I pored through research from a variety of fields: psychology, sociology, persuasion science, communication, diffusion (how ideas spread through society), and some of the classic literature on the topics of social marketing and social networks. Much of it was fascinating, and would often link to additional studies that broadened my understanding of these topics.

How long have you been an animal-rights activist?
When I was 18, I learned about the horrors of factory farming from the book "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. I became vegetarian then and there, went vegan a few months later, and became active in the animal protection movement at the start of my freshman year in college. For the last seven years, I have run a non-profit that I founded called The Humane League, which works primarily on farm animal protection issues and educating the public about the many benefits of vegetarian eating.

Did psychology play a part in your going vegan and getting involved in animal rights?
Hmm, that's a great question. I'm sure it did, but the thing about psychology is that we usually aren't aware of what motivates us and our behavior choices. Having developed a love of punk rock music in my high school years, and an abiding distrust in what I saw as an often callous society, that probably laid the psychological groundwork for adopting what at the time was a somewhat counter-cultural idea (going vegan). Today vegetarianism and veganism are more mainstream, with everyone from former President Bill Clinton to famous athletes, celebrities, and business tycoons going vegan -- so the psychological motivations that help persuade people to make that switch today are probably different from those that motivated people in decades past. Of course, developing a compassion for others and an internal drive to do good and not cause suffering is probably the root cause of why I went vegan and why most others do as well. Unnecessary suffering is bad, so it doesn't seem right to create it when we can be just as happy, healthy, and live very enjoyable lives without putting meat on our plates.

How is the psychology involved in animal rights similar to that of other social-justice movements? How is it different?
In general it's very similar -- we need to figure out what techniques, messages, and tactics create the most behavior change and direct our efforts there. Behavior change is behavior change, whether that means forgoing a burger, forgoing a pair of sweatshop shoes, or taking public transportation instead of driving. The one additional challenge of animal advocacy, though, is that we are starting from a weaker position for influencing others. Nearly everyone already agrees (at least in principle) that we shouldn't cause other humans to suffer needlessly. Conversely, many people believe that animals were put on Earth in order to satisfy our desires. So that is one very significant difference, a very significant psychological barrier that has to be overcome by animal activists.

Based on your research, what one piece of advice would you give to animal-rights activists?
Act like normal, calm, happy, everyday people while interacting with the public. If they perceive you as something different from them (because of how you dress), or if they get the sense that you're an unhappy or bitter person, or someone who is obsessed with changing them, they are going to tune you out.

What are animal-rights activists, in general, doing wrong?
The biggest thing that animal rights activists are doing wrong, in my opinion, is not putting numbers on their advocacy work. By which I mean this: Ask yourself, how many animals have you actually helped (improved their life, saved them from euthanasia, prevented their suffering) in the past month? How about the past six months? Put a number on it. Then ask yourself, is there another issue or tactic that, if I do it, will allow me to help more animals? Look around and see what others are doing, and compare results in terms of the number of animals impacted.

If we ask ourselves this question, and answer honestly, we're going to come to two conclusions:
1) Focusing on farm animals will enable us to help exponentially more animals than any other issue;
2) We can help the greatest number of animals through vegetarian outreach and/or through creating policy or legislative changes if we have that power.

Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They adopt causes that pique their own interest and operate under the idea that "As long as I am speaking out for animals, I am doing good. Someone has to speak for (carriage horses, circus elephants, lab mice, etc.), so it might as well be me." I understand that sentiment, but we need to realize that by choosing the path that helps far fewer animals, we are condemning tens of thousands of farm animals to a lifetime of horrible suffering -- since we know we could have spared them that suffering by focusing on farm animal issues. In my humble opinion, avoiding causing harm to animals is not enough. I think the ethical thing to do, considering we have so much power and wealth as human beings living in America, is to do what we can to help us reduce as much animal suffering as possible. It's nice to go vegan, but you can help 100 times more animals through doing vegetarian outreach.

Given your research, does one form of activism appear to be more effective than another?
Absolutely, as I mentioned earlier, activism that is focused on farm animal protection and vegetarian outreach is going to be much more effective than any other type of activism 99% of the time. And within that field, there are certain things that I've found to be most effective -- passing out Vegan Outreach leaflets, doing online veg outreach on social networking sites, buying paid online veg advertisements, and (when possible) getting policy or legislative changes made that improve the welfare of farm animals.

What surprised you the most in your research?
I was constantly surprised by the things that motivate human behavior, but one that particularly sticks out is the human tendency to blame the victim. We like to say that we value the innocent most of all. ... But in reality -- and here is the shocker -- studies have repeatedly found that for those who have been victimized in some way, the more innocent they are the less we like them.

For example, stabbing victims who were not to blame for their fate were looked on with less sympathy than stabbing victims who were stabbed because they acted irresponsibly. People who were been beaten by the police but were unable to sue were liked less than people who were beaten by the police but had the ability to sue. And so on and so forth. In particular, knowing that someone is suffering so that you could benefit makes you much more likely to denigrate that person and think they are a flawed individual who does not deserve your sympathy.

The reason we tend to blame the victim and degrade the innocent is because many people cling to what's been called a "just world" theory. People want to believe that the world is just and orderly, and that individuals get what they deserve. It's a way to weave a comforting structure onto an obviously chaotic world. When you hear that someone who is innocent has met with a cruel fate, there are two ways to interpret what happened: a) the world is inherently unjust, and the same thing could happen to you; or b) there must have been something wrong with that person, so they in some way deserved what they got (or, at the least, they don't deserve you worrying about them). Of those two choices, "b" is much more psychologically comforting -- thus, the degradation and devaluing of victims.

This tendency adds an additional psychological barrier that activists need to get past. Often we are fighting for those who are most exploited -- child laborers in sweatshops, those in crushing poverty, animals in farms or labs, etc. -- which means that the public is going to have an inherent tendency to degrade those individuals.

Incidentally -- and I'm just going to throw this out there because the New York Times blogged about it today [Nov. 18] -- Republicans scale much higher on the "just world" theory test than Democrats, by which I mean they are much more likely to cling to that type of worldview. It no doubt influences their politics.

Did you come across any studies about what prompted people to go vegetarian or vegan?
There are a few polls that have been conducted on that topic, which overall found concern for animals to be the top reason, with health and environmental reasons lagging only slightly behind. But as for specific turning points that made people go vegetarian -- a friend went veg, they read a book on animal rights, they saw a video like PETA's "Meet Your Meat" -- I've never seen research on that. I think it's one of several areas of research that's sorely needed in the animal advocacy movement.

Do graphic images work, or do people put up a mental wall when they see them?
The scientific record shows that, yes, graphic images do work, as long as people receive the message that goes with them. There needs to be a constructive message about how people can alleviate the problem -- for example, by going vegetarian, or by adopting a companion animal instead of buying one from a pet store. But if the imagery is so graphic that people throw your flier in the trash, change the channel, or exit your website without receiving the message that goes with it, then such imagery has done a disservice to your cause. So it's somewhat of a balancing act. When you have a captive audience (like a classroom), you have much more leeway in showing graphic imagery because it's harder for people to ignore the message that goes with the imagery -- they can't leave the room!

Based on your research, do animal-welfare measures like California's Prop 2 or Whole Foods' new animal-welfare program do more to advance animal rights or to hinder the movement?
Excellent question. As you may be aware, there is a small subsection in the animal protection movement that refers to itself as "abolitionist" and refers to most other animal advocates and animal advocacy organizations as "welfarist." They believe that laws or policies that improve the welfare of animals are bad because they re-instill the idea that it is OK for us to control and kill animals -- as long as we do it "nicely" (or "less horrifically"). They believe that by working for or welcoming welfare improvements, like Prop 2 or Whole Foods' program, we teach the public to be complacent and give them the sense that they have done enough and can go on consuming their "happy meat," "happy eggs," etc.

These beliefs, however, are based on a gut instinct of how the human mind works, a gut instinct that (like many gut instincts) is wrong. The scientific research paints a much different picture. There are several strains of research that show why this perspective is not accurate. To name a few:

a) Hundreds of studies have found that when people made a small change, they became more likely to adopt a larger change when later asked to do so. This goes completely against the central tenet of the abolitionist theory on social change. It is called the "foot in the door" phenomenon, and it's been demonstrated in literally hundreds of studies. One thing I need to point out, though, is that people won't automatically engage in ever-more-compassionate behavior. They need to be encouraged to do so. So we should always be pushing people to take the next step.

b) There is a great deal of research on what's called "message discrepancy." The central question addressed by the research is, if you're speaking to an audience (in person, in one-on-one communication, through a pamphlet, etc.), how different should your message be from your audience's current viewpoint in order to achieve the maximum amount of behavioral change? Should you ask for a little (say, slight meat reduction), so as not to turn them off? Should you ask for a lot (such as, go vegan) so that, even if they don't do that, they'll do something closer to that? The research indicates that our request should be within our audience's "area of acceptance" -- the range of beliefs that they could possibly see themselves holding in the future. If we stray outside of that area of acceptance, our influence over behavior begins to drop dramatically. Because most people in the U.S. could not see themselves going vegan (at this point), to create the maximum behavior change then for most people we should initially advocate something less -- like meat reduction or vegetarianism. Then, once we get our foot in the door by having them make that switch, we can steer them towards veganism. This is also something that can be proven empirically, and in an informal way already has been. Some groups hand out booklets that encourage vegetarianism or meat reduction. A few of the self-described abolitionist groups hand out tracts that talk about the philosophical rights of animals and the need for people to go vegan. If you hand out 10,000 of each to the same target audience and then track the results (in terms of behavior change), you can get a pretty clear idea of which works better at creating behavior change and reducing the number of animals being killed and eaten.

There are some other areas of research that also highlight why the "abolitionist" theory on social change just does not square with the scientific record, and I do mention them a bit more in my book. But the book itself is not there to proffer my own opinion -- just present the facts of what the research record shows.

Are there different tactics one should use for different people, in an effort to get them to go vegan?
Generally speaking, yes. If the primary goal is behavior change, it's obvious that different people are motivated by different messages and different techniques. I personally don't push for a "0 to vegan" switch -- I think it's more effective to get people to go vegetarian first (which does 97% of the good anyway, in terms of number of animals impacted), and then once they've got that down, encourage them to go vegan.

In terms of what message to use, I'm unsure myself as to the overall impact of using environmental or health messages versus messages about reducing the suffering of animals. The first two can in some cases lead to people actually making decisions that hurt more animals (for example, someone might switch to eating chicken for health reasons, which results in numerically more animals suffering and being killed). On the other hand, I've met hundreds if not thousands of people who have gone veg for solely health or environmental reasons. I almost always focus on the animal cruelty issue myself, unless I'm in a one-on-one conversation that gets steered towards one of those other areas. But that's just my personal experience. Hopefully someone or some organization will do some definitive research on this issue in the future.

Are there different tactics one should use for different animal-rights issues -- for example, encouraging someone to switch to a vegan diet vs. urging someone to buy toothpaste that hasn't been tested on animals?
Certainly, because those two decisions are vastly different in terms of how hard and how easy they are. For the former (going vegan), to better succeed we need to provide people with a whole host of resources: vegan recipes, health info, guides to local veg restaurants and grocery stores, etc. Buying toothpaste not tested on animals is much easier, so fewer resources are needed. In both instances, though, there are two fundamental parts: showing the cruelty that's going on and providing practical resources so people can avoid being a part of that cruelty.

Why is it more difficult to get a family member to go vegetarian or vegan than it is to get a stranger to make the switch?
That's another great question. There are likely several reasons why, but one of the main ones is that we all want to feel intellectually independent. None of us want to feel like we've adopted a particular belief -- especially an important belief, like our ethics regarding animals -- because someone told us to. And if you have a family member who's gone vegetarian and is trying to get you to do the same, if you're like many people you'll essentially recoil back and resist changing. It's tied in to the psychological phenomenon called "reactance" -- when someone wants to take away a perceived freedom (like the freedom to eat meat), we tend to begin embracing that freedom even more so, and valuing it even more highly.

Conversely, if I were to get a booklet about reasons to go vegetarian, or read a great book like "Skinny Bitch" (or "Skinny Bastard," since I'm a guy) that discusses the cruelties of factory farming, the person who wrote that message isn't anywhere near me in space and time. If I decide to go vegetarian, clearly it's because I wanted to of my volition -- not because some person was trying to make me do so. There is research that actually shows people are more receptive to a message when the speaker is absent than when he or she is present. (Of course, many people do go veg in part because a friend did -- and that speaks to the power of social networks and peer relations. But that is different from family members.)

And to answer your question one final way -- like any behavior change, it's a numbers game. You have maybe 10, 20, 30 members in your extended family. On the other hand there are tens of thousands of people walking around on your local college campus or downtown area. So you have an exponentially larger pool of people to work with.

Did your research provide any insight into why some people who once called themselves vegan went back to eating animals?
No, to my knowledge there is little, if any, data out there about this other than very small-scale or anecdotal reports. This is another area where research is sorely needed: How can we lower the recidivism rate of people going back to eating animals? As Ben Franklin said, "A penny saved is a penny earned." Getting someone to stay vegan does just as much good as getting someone to go vegan. I personally think that making vegan eating as easy as possible, and making sure people eat healthy, are two keys, but I hope that sometime soon research will be done to give more concrete answers.

Based on what you learned, have you changed how you or The Humane League advocates for animal rights?
Yes, in some small ways, and I'm sure it will change what I do in larger ways as the years go on. Picking which issues to work on and which tactics to use is, I think, the biggest battle in terms of being effective as an animal activist, and I feel like we already do a good job with that. But we want to help as many animals and reduce as much animal suffering as possible, so learning more about human psychology and learning these many techniques and methods that can improve our efficiency -- even if it's just by 15 [percent] or 20 percent -- represents a great step forward and spares many, many more animals from harm.

"Change of Heart" (Lantern Books, 2010) goes on sale Wednesday, but you can pre-order it now.

"Animal Camp" Inspires, Teaches Through Its Profiles

2010-11-12T19:07:00.000-06:00

In "Animal Camp: Lessons in Love and Hope from Rescued Farm Animals" (Skyhorse Publishing, 2010) Kathy Stevens describes an aspect of animals that we rarely learn about: their negative personality traits.

We read about a sheep so jealous of her crush's girlfriend that she head-butts her. And about a horse who makes friends with a cow but then shuns him when she's accepted into a new clique.

But the book mostly chronicles the positive characteristics of the animals Stevens has taken in at Catskill Animal Sanctuary.

We stare in suspense and wonder as an abandoned, emaciated horse gets his life back. And we watch a friendship develop between a cow and a pig.

"Animal Camp" is Stevens' second book. Her first, "Where the Blind Horse Sings: Love and Healing at an Animal Sanctuary," was published last year. At least one animal from the latter makes a reappearance in "Animal Camp."

Each chapter of "Animal Camp" can stand alone, so it sometimes gets a bit repetitive with descriptions of animals we've already met. But that's a small complaint.

I liked how Stevens dared anyone to call her anthropomorphic, who accused her of giving "human" traits to animals.

In my view, the term anthropomorphism is used either malevolently, for instance, by scientists trying to assuage their guilt or deny their humanity as they justify horrific experiments performed on animals, or mistakenly, by people who know little about animals and thus accept the popular notion that they are fundamentally far more emotionally limited than humans.

Throughout "Animal Camp" we see just how similar animals are to people.

I loved how Stevens described the most difficult aspect of her work:

Yes, absolutely, this is the hardest part of my job--encouraging people to look at animal consumption squarely in the face, to have the courage to address their role in the suffering, and to assess honestly whether they can still legitimately call themselves kind if they're knowingly contributing to such horrific suffering.

Indeed at several points in the book Stevens reminds readers of the abuse animals endure at the hands of agribusiness because so many people continue to eat them.

But, those of you who haven't made the change to veganism, don't be scared off. Most of the book centers on the transformation individual animals undergo at Catskill Animal Sanctuary. Once neglected, abandoned, starving, these animals show us their strength, their resilience. They show us how important love is.

And it appears that the employees and volunteers at CAS have that resource in abundant supply.

Note: I received this book from the publisher for the purpose of reviewing it.

Two Trucks Hauling Pigs Crash This Week

2010-11-03T18:49:00.000-05:00

Photo courtesy of the Indiana State Police.

Twenty-three pigs died Monday after the tractor-trailer they were riding in fell from an exit ramp in Indiana.

Only two days later a woman died after a tractor-trailer hauling pigs crashed into her car in eastern Illinois.

In the first accident, 79 pigs were being transported from Manitoba, Canada, to Bob Evans Farm in Hillsdale, Mich.

Photo courtesy of MyFoxChicago.com.

The driver, who was later cited for driving too fast to avoid a collision, took the Indiana Toll Road exit ramp too fast, causing his vehicle to fall 25 feet to another ramp below. Some of the surviving pigs got loose but eventually another truck transported them to Michigan -- and likely to their deaths in a slaughterhouse.

Take a look at this second photo. Can you imagine how happy those two pigs must have been -- scared and confused, too, I'm sure, but happy to be in the sunshine, to be free? And then imagine how they were feeling on that second dark, crowded truck as they drove to their deaths.

Warren Skalski / for the Chicago Tribune.

In this morning's accident a man driving a tractor-trailer of pigs blew a red light and slammed into a car turning in front of him. The 32-year-old woman was pronounced dead on the scene. The truck driver was ticketed for "failure to reduce speed to avoid a personal injury accident and disobeying a traffic device."

Photo courtesy of the Chicago Tribune.

Glenn A. Friesen "was hauling hogs for his own company in Goshen," Ind. It doesn't appear that any of those pigs got loose. News reports don't say if any died in the accident.

In August I wrote about a semi carrying 34 bulls that had caught fire after the driver rear-ended another semi.

If those tractor-trailers had been school buses carrying children instead of animals, people would be outraged. Instead some laugh at how bizarre it is to see a pig on a highway or curse because they have to take an alternate route.

Let's avoid one more accident like this by refusing to take part in the objectification of animals. Please don't eat them.

Missouri Dogs Big Winners in Election 2010

2010-11-03T17:46:00.000-05:00

Voters came up big for animals in Missouri and Arizona yesterday, approving a measure to regulate Missouri puppy mills and defeating a proposal to give hunters and fish killers more power in Arizona.

It's still too close to call the Illinois governor's race. Republican Bill Brady is trailing Democrat Pat Quinn by only 8,000 votes -- although the chance of Brady pulling out a win is looking slim.

As a state legislator Brady sponsored a bill that would allow the mass euthanasia of dogs and cats in gas chambers, where animals watch their companions convulse and die and where some suffer slow, stressful deaths. After being hit with a torrent of criticism, Brady withdrew his sponsorship and another colleague picked it up, but the measure has been tabled.

Here's a rundown of animal-related measures from Election 2010:

Good for Animals

Missouri
Despite efforts by the Tea Party and Joe the Plumber to quash it, Missouri voters passed Prop B, a measure that limits breeders to no more than 50 breeding dogs. The state has 3,000 puppy mills -- the most of any state, according to The Humane Society of the United States. And the nation's largest puppy broker, The Hunte Corporation, is based in that state.

Arizona
Arizona voters gave a big win to animals by rejecting Prop 109. If it had passed, hunting and fishing rights would have been amended into the state constitution and hunting and fishing would have been the "preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife."

Oklahoma
Voters in Oklahoma narrowly approved a measure that makes it easier to get an initiative on the ballot. This change could be good if activists want to introduce a pro-animal proposal but bad if used by anti-animal people. Nevertheless I'm glad it passed.

Bad for Animals

North Dakota
Voters in North Dakota failed to pass a measure that would have banned captive hunting, such as game preserves where people pay to kill large animals.

Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee
A large percentage of voters in Arkansas (85%), South Carolina (89%) and Tennessee (90%) chose to amend their state constitutions to include the right to hunt and fish.

Thanks to everyone who voted on behalf of those who can't!

(Image courtesy of AnimalSlavery.net.)

Forget Halloween! Standard U.S. Diet Oozes With Horror

2010-10-31T11:19:00.000-05:00

Note: After I published this post last year, "Digging Through the Dirt" reader and animal activist Bea Elliott suggested I repost this every Halloween. Thanks, Bea!

For her children's Halloween party, my cousin is making ghoulish treats like "bat wings," "bloody fingers" and "dried scabs."

Her menu got me thinking: What could be more terror-filled than the standard American diet?

After all, the average U.S. diet has all the elements of a good horror film:

Blood and Guts -- Ah, blood and guts. The men in the audience tend to love these. The more gore, the better. With 10 billion land animals slaughtered each year (just in the U.S.), think of how much blood is spilled. Cows, pigs, chickens all hanging upside-down on the disassembly lines, their throats being slit, blood dripping onto the floors. It's a horror lover's dream.

And whether it's removing intestines from an animal, "clearing cow innards on the slaughter floor" or experiencing vomiting and diarrhea from eating feces-tainted meat, you gotta love the guts.

Knives -- For slitting an animal's throat, removing those intestines or chopping her body into pieces, knives are essential. Of course, sometimes overworked slaughterhouse employees end up cutting themselves. But the more blood, the better, right?

Chain Saws -- Chain saw massacres don't just occur in Texas. No, sirree. Slaughterhouse workers across the country cut the flesh from a cow's corpse using these fine instruments.

Fear -- The essential element of a horror film. Even if the murder occurs off-camera (arguably more frightening than on-camera slayings), the audience must feel a sense of fear, for it provides a rush -- albeit a safe one. The viewer is able to get his rocks off and return to a relatively safer reality when the credits roll.

Not so for farmed animals. They experience fear daily -- from suffering in cramped, overcrowded cages to being transported to slaughterhouses in frigid or sweltering temperatures to taking that walk to the kill floor. It's non-stop fear.

Blood-curdling Screams -- While I've seen many videos of agribusiness cruelty, I was unable to make it through one taken at a pig farm that supplies Hormel. The video began with a blood-curdling scream that sounded human.

Murder and Death -- So many ways, so little time. Although why kill quickly? The fun is in the torture, isn't it?

For example, here are some notes from my blog post about the Hormel video.

[W]e see someone beating a pig and then telling the undercover PETA investigator, "Don't be afraid to hurt 'em."

In the next scene an employee says, "When I get pissed or get hurt or the fuckin' bitch won't move, I grab one of those rods and jam it in her asshole."

In another scene "a worker slams piglets deemed 'runts' headfirst into the concrete floor in an attempt to kill them." These little babies lie in a bloody pile and twitch because they're not dead yet.

Of course, there are other ways to do it. One could improperly shoot a cow's head with a bolt gun and have her wake up and struggle as she's hanging upside-down getting her throat slit.

Or a chicken would be improperly stunned and boiled alive in the de-feathering tank. And let us not forget all those male baby chicks who can't produce eggs, so they are ground up alive in machines called macerators.

Mummies -- Not all horror movies contain mummies, of course. But they can be frightfully scary. Just take a look at this photo.

What's worse than being pursued by a mummy? Having to live with one. That's right -- chickens at a Dunkin' Donuts egg-laying facility were forced to live in overcrowded cages along with their dead, decomposing and sometimes mummified former cagemates.

Flesh Eaters -- Braaaains! Braaaains! What -- you don't eat brains? Oh, but you do eat legs, shoulders, breasts, hips, thighs, arms, butts -- even anuses. Now that's disgusting!

Zombies -- Yes, the average American is a zombie, sleepwalking through her meals, eating what she's been taught to eat, never questioning.

Leave the horror off your plates -- go vegan!

(Photo of slaughtered chickens courtesy of Farm Sanctuary.)
(Photo of murdered pigs courtesy of World News Network/Sweet Radoc.)

Should Killing Animals Be a Constitutional Right?

2010-10-27T18:10:00.004-05:00

Four states are set to vote next week on whether to make hunting and fishing constitutional rights.

Animal murderers in Arizona, Arkansas, Tennessee and South Carolina feel threatened by the growing animal-rights movement and view these ballot initiatives as proactive measures to keep their killing lawful.

"They start with cats and dogs and the next thing you know, someone says it's inhumane to shoot a deer," ["said Steve Faris, a Democratic Arkansas state senator and the bill's lead sponsor there."]

Note to Faris: It is inhumane to shoot a deer. Whether it's a dog, a person or a deer, we all have the ability to feel the scorching pain of our flesh being ripped open.

Ironically national organizations like The Humane Society of the United States aren't fighting these proposals. There are several possible reasons for this: saving resources to push for other legislation, wanting to appease the National Rifle Association and/or not being overly concerned with hunting because its numbers have been declining for years.

Ten state constitutions already provide for the right to hunt and fish. Nine of those provisions were put in place after 1996.

Interestingly, in a piece in Psychology Today animal behaviorist Jonathan Balcombe writes that nature -- and more specifically the "wild" animals in it -- aren't as ferocious and out to get us as we think they are. He cites a book by a "veteran wildlife filmmaker" who "points out the relative rarity of predator-prey interactions in the wild."

"[I]f you see a bear feeding on a deer carcass in a film, it is almost certainly a tame bear searching for hidden jellybeans in the entrails of a deer's stomach."

And the Discovery Channel's Web site for "Man vs. Wild" has this disclaimer: "On some occasions, situations are presented to Bear [the show's host] so he can demonstrate survival techniques."

Balcombe surmises that we perpetuate the myth that nature is uncaring because it makes us feel better.

I believe a major reason why we tout cruel nature is that it absolves us of guilt for being cruel ourselves; If nature is cruel and we are just another part of nature, then surely it is natural and defensible to be cruel, so the thinking goes. But how many species do you know that cage others and kill them before they grow to be adults, as we do to most of the animals destined for our dinner plates. What other animal conducts harmful experiments on other creatures before killing them? Only us.

Of course, there's no reason to hunt or to fish. We won't starve to death.

Faris, the Arkansas legislator, gave another false reason for the importance of keeping hunting and fishing legal: They're important to the state economy. But so was slavery. Arkansas can exist, more civilly, without them.

Incidentally if you get a kick out of the Darwin Awards (which highlight the dumb ways people manage to die) or are feeling a bit down about the slow but steady progress animal rights is making, set a Google alert for "hunting accidents." Reading about people getting killed by their own or a fellow hunter's gun can be downright uplifting.

I don't condone killing any type of animal -- whether they be non-human or human. But I'd rather a hunter kill himself than an innocent being with his gun.

(Image courtesy of SmartAssProducts.com.)

Farm Museum Displays Tools of Torture

2010-10-18T17:52:00.000-05:00

While animal-rights activists want all forms of farmed-animal use abolished, some people -- those like Michael Pollan's slow-food followers -- only speak out against factory farming.

They believe that we should go back to the kind of farming that existed before farmers were told to "go big or get out." A time of more smaller farms, each with fewer animals.

Of course, those animals were still killed for their flesh or because they had outlived their profitability. But how were they treated before they were sent to the slaughterhouse? Did they live idyllic lives?

A recent trip through a "farm museum" in northern Illinois showed me just how well the animals were treated. The relics on the walls could easily have been hanging in the Tower of London. Just in time for Halloween, take a look at these torture devices.

Top of "cattle horn trimmer"

"Cattle horn trimmer"

"Hand carved shaft used to hang hog carcass for butchering"

"Hog mouth holder"

"Chicken catcher"

Milking machine

Milking machine used from 1944-1959

"Nose clamp to lead bull"

"Cow chain [to] prevent kicking"

Protecting the Innocent -- Both Animals and People

2010-10-11T18:57:00.000-05:00

The headline in the suburban Chicago newspaper read "Man gets taste of hot dog vendor's mercy." But the vendor's mercy was misdirected.

Here's the gist of the story:

After hot-dog vendor Joe Hornbaker refused to testify against him, charges were dropped against a convicted drunken driver who allegedly went on a drunken "rampage" two months ago.

Scott B. Muller, 23, was arrested in August after allegedly jumping onto Hornbaker's van, punching its windshield and breaking a rearview mirror. Hornbaker refused to appear in court against Muller.

"'I've been that guy,' Hornbaker said with a laugh," referring to the young and drunk Muller.

It's sad that Hornbaker finds Muller's actions so funny.

Muller on May 4 was fined and placed on a year of court supervision, after pleading guilty to a charge of drunken driving in Naperville. He could have faced new penalties for violating the terms of that supervision had Hornbaker opted to pursue the vehicular damage complaint.

Clearly Muller didn't learn any lesson from that conviction for drunken driving.

While Hornbaker said Muller apologized to him and that the attack on his van is "water under the bridge," the rest of society shouldn't be so forgiving of a man who is a threat to anyone on the road. Drunken driving is attempted murder. While Muller wasn't driving (or at least wasn't charged with a DUI) in August, he was allegedly drunk.

The news story spun Hornbaker's actions as those of a nice, "laid-back" guy, but I view them as harmful to society. Muller clearly isn't mature enough to drink alcohol, and he needs help. He's not going to get it if people write him off as simply young and foolish.

Muller isn't the victim; the drivers who share the road with him are.

(I realize the above doesn't have anything to do with animal rights, but I feel very strongly about drunken driving.)

The other victims
It wouldn't have mattered what Hornbaker did for a living. My opinion of his actions wouldn't have changed. But since we're talking about victims -- and this is a blog about animal rights -- I do wish Hornbaker would consider showing mercy to the animals whose flesh he sells.

Pigs are kept in crates so small they can't turn around. Their piglets are taken from them shortly after birth. The runts are routinely pounded on concrete floors or walls to kill them. The others are castrated, the ends of their teeth cut off, their tails chopped off -- all without painkillers. When it's time for them to be slaughtered, they travel on crowded trucks in extreme heat or bitter cold, their skin sometimes sticking to the sides of the vehicle. They are often slaughtered while still conscious.

Here's another look at an undercover video Mercy For Animals released last year of a pig supplier:

It's our responsibility -- the responsibility of each of us -- to protect the innocent among us, whether they be animals or people.

(Image courtesy of U.S. Army Medical Department.)

Consumers Trust HSUS, PETA Over Agribusiness

2010-10-06T17:31:00.000-05:00

It looks like the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom isn't as effective as David Martosko would like to believe.

After targeting People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for years and more recently focusing on The Humane Society of the United States -- in efforts to discredit both organizations -- the CCF isn't going to like the results of a new survey.

The study, commissioned by the pro-agribusiness Center for Food Integrity, found that most consumers are

twice as likely to believe the Humane Society of the United States and People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals over farm organizations when it comes to humane treatment of farm animals.

All that money animal ag is giving to the CCF, and these are the results? That's gotta hurt.

After HSUS and PETA, farm animal veterinarians, USDA and university experts ranked next, followed by state and national farm organizations and small livestock farmers. Large-scale livestock farmers ranked last in animal welfare credibility.

Charlie Arnot, the CEO of the Center for Food Integrity, theorized that the more an organization (or company) profits from animal ag, the less trustworthy it appears. Of course. For animal ag the bottom line is what matters, animals be damned.

Costumes Mask Suffering in Puppy Mills, Dairy Industry

2010-09-26T15:41:00.000-05:00

As my husband and I drove down a busy four-lane road yesterday, I saw someone in the parkway dressed as a dancing puppy. At first I thought it was cute. That is, until I saw that the sign he was holding advertised puppies for sale at Petland.

Just a bit down the road and on the other side, someone stood dressed as a cow. The cow advertised an Oberweis ice cream shop, a local chain related to Oberweis Dairy, which gets its milk from 40 dairy farms in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Unfortunately, these costumed characters entice people to patronize these businesses and hide the reality behind them.

Each cute puppy in a pet store comes from parents who spend their lives in cages, unsocialized and unloved.

Each milkshake, ice cream cone or gallon of milk one buys comes from cows who are impregnated for the sole purpose of lactating. Their male calves are taken from them and usually sold for veal. Their female calves are destined to repeat their mothers' cruel fate. When a cow's milk production wanes and she's no longer profitable, she's sold for hamburger.

I admit it -- I'm a sucker for animals, even costumed ones. But I'm no longer a sucker when it comes to cruelty to animals. Don't you be one either. Don't be taken in by cute images of animals that only serve to mask the suffering behind animal industries.

Two Suburban Chicago Restaurants Worth Checking Out

2010-09-26T13:12:00.000-05:00

A vegan restaurant is scheduled to open in my hometown next month.

Featuring raw foods, smoothies, teas and desserts, Vegan Cafe is the work of two women, Linda Merkle and Laurie Sloan. Merkle credits her raw diet with alleviating her rheumatoid arthritis symptoms.

Vegan Cafe's proceeds will benefit Sloan's Thanks Jordan Foundation, a non-profit that helps families of children with cancer.

Although I'm not a fan of raw foods -- although I do believe in their healing properties -- I'm excited to try this new restaurant. When I grew up there, Lockport (Ill.) had few restaurants to choose from: two typical Greek restaurants (with American food), a hot dog stand, some pizza places, McDonald's, Burger King, a Chinese restaurant, an expensive French restaurant. Now that the town has grown, more restaurants have opened, namely a Popeye's and a Sonic. Vegan options (aka healthy food) are still hard to come by.

Opening any restaurant is a huge risk, a raw one even more so. But I hope the community sees what a positive change this is for Lockport and supports Vegan Cafe. I wish both women the best of luck.

Naf Naf Grill
Moving from the southwest Chicago suburbs to the western 'burbs, I wanted to give a shout-out to a restaurant in Naperville. While it's not vegan, it is vegan-friendly.

Naf Naf Grill, which recently moved to a new location on Freedom Drive, has yummy falafel pitas and lentil soup. The pita is so big that I typically have to take part of it home. And the staff is incredibly friendly. (I'm not receiving anything for writing this.)

Unlike Lockport, Naperville has oodles of restaurants from which to choose. But if you're in the area and are looking for something different, check out Naf Naf.

(Photo courtesy of The Herald-News. Credit: John Patsch/Staff Photographer.)

Dairy Worker Gets 'Slap on the Wrist' in Cruelty Case

2010-09-26T11:43:00.000-05:00

A worker caught on tape punching calves on an Ohio dairy farm has been sentenced Friday to eight months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Billy Joe Gregg had been charged with 12 counts of animal cruelty but pleaded guilty to just six misdemeanors. He's already served four months since his arrest after Chicago-based Mercy for Animals released its undercover footage of Plain City's Conklin Dairy Farms in May.

The tape showed workers

Violently punching young calves in the face, body slamming them to the ground, and pulling and throwing them by their ears
Routinely using pitchforks to stab cows in the face, legs and stomach
Kicking "downed" cows (those too injured to stand) in the face and neck – abuse carried out and encouraged by the farm's owner [emphasis mine]
Maliciously beating restrained cows in the face with crowbars – some attacks involving over 40 blows to the head
Twisting cows' tails until the bones snapped
Punching cows' udders
Bragging about stabbing, dragging, shooting, breaking bones, and beating cows and calves to death

As part of his sentencing, Gregg is not to have contact with animals for three years and is required to receive counseling.

"Gregg's punishment is a slap on the wrist compared to the unimaginable suffering endured by the animals who were victims of his malicious abuse," says MFA's Executive Director, Nathan Runkle. "It's an outrage that in Ohio it's a mere misdemeanor to sadistically punch, beat and stab farmed animals, break their bones and otherwise torture them. This case should serve as a wake-up call to all compassionate citizens that Ohio must do more to strengthen its animal cruelty laws."

Gregg was the only employee charged. In July a grand jury failed to indict Gary Conklin, the farm's owner, saying he had acted appropriately in kicking a cow to get her up.

Related Posts

Dairy Employee Charged with Misdemeanors

Dairy Owner Kicks Sick Cow; Employees Punch Calves

(Image courtesy of The Huffington Post.)

Tweets Trip up Animal Protection Chief

2010-09-22T17:22:00.000-05:00

The chief investigator for Colorado's Bureau of Animal Protection is being criticized for thousands of tweets he's made on state time -- many against animal rights in general and against The Humane Society of the United States in particular.

In the past 18 months Scot Dutcher (aka Skinnyhorse) has published nearly 4,700 tweets, half at his Department of Agriculture job overseeing 100 animal-cruelty investigators.

Dutcher is part of a group on Twitter, mostly involved in animal agribusiness, who have been bashing The Humane Society of the United States for the past couple of years. The HSUS became their target when it became the target of the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom.

The HSUS is fighting back, though, giving Denver media outlets the scoop on Dutcher.

"Colorado animals and taxpayers deserve better than this," said Holly Tarry, the state director of the Humane Society of the United States. "A state employee charged with protecting animals that clocks in and spends his day churning out anti-animal protection tweets."

Tarry points to one tweet that compares the inability to shoot owned animals to the inability to destroy inanimate objects.

"In another tweet, the state's principle animal cruelty investigator criticized the felony charge for a woman who taped a dog to the fridge."

Denver's Channel 9 news reported that in one tweet "he sarcastically called on people to 'eat more polar bears.' In another he mentioned 'that success over animal rights is the best revenge.'"

Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture protects its own. Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Jim Miller gave him a talking to and reminded employees about the department's social-networking policy, but Dutcher still has his job.

"There really should be no reason why organizations shouldn't trust him," [Miller said].

But large animal-advocacy groups, like The HSUS, work with state agencies all the time on animal-cruelty cases. If Dutcher dislikes these groups so much that he spends hours a day criticizing them, how can he work with them to help animals?

Dutcher's Twitter profile says he's "Anti-animal rights, pro animal welfare. Support animal use in ag, exhibition, sporting, and med research." While readers of this blog know that animal welfare means very little, he may be even less than an animal-welfarist. In July he retweeted and commented on a post.

While we bicker about animal welfare... RT @AmericanHumane @DenverPostPicks: Child-poverty rate increases 50% in CO

The HSUS's Tarry called him on it on Denver's Channel 7 news.

"I think it's one thing to be concerned with child poverty, but to pit it against animal protection is a really strange position for the chief of animal protection to take."

(Image courtesy of FashionablyGeek.com.)

CCF, Martosko Buy Support for HumaneWatch

2010-09-01T17:46:00.000-05:00

The Center for Consumer Freedom must be desperate for people to leave comments on its HumaneWatch site.

It's begun rewarding two commenters a week $100 each, to go to their favorite animal shelter. The "Comments of the Week" contest runs through October.

Given the number of Facebook followers HumaneWatch appears to have -- although there's no telling how many were duped into thinking HumaneWatch actually cares about animals -- the contest hasn't been very successful.

Perhaps David Martosko's ploy hasn't worked because HumaneWatch supporters don't actually care about animals.

If Martosko wants more people to comment on the HumaneWatch Web site, maybe his lackies should approve everyone's comments, even the ones that disagree with him.

I commented twice in the past several months, following the commenting guidelines.

Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.

Not surprisingly, neither of my comments made it past moderation.

Or maybe the CCF is using this "contest" to claim that it donates money to animal shelters. Regardless, $1,600 or so to help dogs and cats is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands it spends to keep the cruel animal-agribusiness industry afloat.

Would Witnessing an Animal's Murder Create More Vegans?

2010-08-28T16:57:00.000-05:00

One tactic that the animal-agribusiness industry advises to combat the animal-rights movement is to show the public how animal ag works. In other words, farmers, invite people into your facilities.

Animal ag claims that the animal-rights community is made up only of city folk who don't know anything about "raising" animals. (They must never have heard of Harold Brown or Howard Lyman.)

I'm wondering what result this tactic would have.

Earlier this week Chicago Tribune food writer Monica Eng brought her 7-year-old daughter to a farm in a county near mine to watch a pig being slaughtered. Other children were present.

All of these kids were cool cucumbers compared with Miranda, who sat nervously on my lap squeezing my hand and asking: "So first they'll shoot him in the head, right?"

"Right," I said, just as a shot rang from the knock bolt and pierced the pig's skull. The body continued to twitch as Sam Clark, the butcher, carried it over to a pit and sliced its neck, releasing a flood of red.

Miranda covered her eyes. One of the children gasped, "Oh my God."

As the animal was bled, skinned and eviscerated before us, the children watched closely — all except Miranda, who wept into her hands, stole quick glances and turned her gaze to a group of concerned donkeys nearby.

When she finally returned her full gaze, she saw Clark lifting the carcass off the cradle as a last gush of blood fell to the ground. He headed for the cooler.

I'd first heard of Eng in 2008 when she got a Chicago restaurant to create a dish for her designed as roadkill. (It's no longer on the Trib site.) So I'm a bit biased against her.

Initially when I discovered that Eng had done this to her child, I was almost shaking with disgust. What parent would think that this was ok? Either the child reacts by crying or sitting in stunned silence, or the brutal murder doesn't affect the child at all. The latter, of course, would frighten me.

From the animals' point of view, though, maybe it's good for children to witness this horror. As disturbing and scarring as it is, hopefully the image will stay with the children and they'll decide in a few years to go vegetarian.

Although she claims to be "conflicted," Eng continues to eat animals. This despite having watched each species she eats die in 2008.

I didn't want to see a pig get killed. Heck, I don't think anyone does.

But I felt like I couldn't continue eating meat if I didn't. So this summer I embarked on an unpleasant pilgrimage to bear witness to the death of every kind of animal I ate. And in some cases, to kill the animal myself.

Hopefully the kids who recently witnessed the pig's murder have more empathy than she does.

I don't actually advise parents to put their children through such a traumatic event. But if their children ask them where their "meat" came from, parents should at least be honest and tell them that an animal had to die.

I think my sister dances around the issue of my veganism with my 5-year-old niece. I doubt she says, "Tracy doesn't eat meat because she doesn't want to be part of an animal's death." Or something like that. Instead she likely says, "Tracy doesn't like meat." Or something like that.

But if parents are too uncomfortable to be honest with their children, then maybe they shouldn't be feeding their kids "foods" whose origins make them cringe.

Scare tactics

In a recent interview Sarah Hubbart, the communications coordinator of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a pro-Big Ag group, echoed the advice of inviting the public to view one's "farm." Although I doubt she was referring to slaughtering animals during a "farm tour."

Interestingly, Chuck Jolley, an animal ag writer, used scare tactics to begin his piece.

I bet you're looking for the usual picture of the person being interviewed. You won't see it and that's a decision I made for security reasons. Sarah is a perfectly normal human being who should be able to drive home at the end of the day without worrying if someone tampered with her car or booby-trapped her front door.

Yes, Jolley wants to protect Hubbart from dangerous animal advocates.

But, Chuck, have you ever heard of Google? It took me two seconds to find a video of this young woman.

Her photo is also on AAA's staff page. They don't seem too worried about animal advocates knowing what they look like, nor should they be.

Ironically the beings who should -- and do -- live in fear are the ones owned by the people Jolley and Hubbart protect, people whose livelihoods depend on the suffering and slaughter of farmed animals.

I can't begin to imagine the horror felt by the pig Monica Eng and those children watched being murdered, or the horror felt by the other (billions) of animals killed for their flesh each year.

[Abigail Faith Snyder (left), 6, covers her eyes while Tribune reporter Monica Eng holds her daughter Miranda Zanca, 7, as they watch a pig getting [his] throat cut at Faith Farm in Bonfield. (Heather Charles/Tribune / August 15, 2010)]

Words Matter for Nonhuman -- and Human -- Animals

2010-08-13T14:39:00.000-05:00

Recently a female animal advocate posted an item on Facebook about Heston Blumenthal, a British chef she dislikes. A guy commented on it, calling the chef a "cunt." I responded by writing, "Let's respect women, as well as animals, and not use the word 'cunt.'" He told me to "get real ok and wake up and smell the coffee!" The woman subsequently told me to "fuck off."

In the animal-rights movement we're told, "Speak your mind even if your voice trembles." When we encounter animal abuse or speciesism in any form, we are encouraged to speak up. But some of the same people who say this are those who criticize others for speaking out against sexism.

What one person considers sexist, another may not, and that's fine. But the discourse, if there's one, should be civil and respectful. People can agree to disagree. But it's not helpful if one person is ridiculed -- or worse -- when she chooses to confront what she sees as sexism.

Stephanie Ernst at "Animal Rights & AntiOppression" recently wrote about sexism and misogyny in the animal-rights movement. While I haven't experienced abuse like many who've commented have -- either firsthand or indirectly -- the exchange I had on Facebook is a minor example of some animal advocates not recognizing that women deserve just as much respect as any other living being, be they nonhuman animals or men.

Just as I no longer use animal terms as insults (e.g. "That guy's a pig"), I am against using female terms in negative ways. Calling someone a "cunt" or a "pussy" implies there's something wrong with vaginas and, by extension, with women.

The man's response to me touched on an argument carnists use against animal advocates. They accuse us of being idealistic, of not living in the real world. They say we're never going to get everyone on Earth to go vegan, so why even try? Of course, we see value in trying. Each day we see our world moving in that direction.

I really don't know what the man meant by his words. Perhaps he thought I'm a prude. Maybe he thought, "Sexism exists. Get used to it." But I refuse to accept sexism, just as I refuse to accept speciesism or racism, etc.

Dealing with 'It'

As a journalism major and former newspaper copy editor, "The Associated Press Stylebook" is like a bible. It's easy to navigate and answers whatever grammatical, style or formatting questions I have: Does "Ph.D." have periods in it? Should I write "Web site" as one word or two?

And I owe it an apology. Too often when reporters write stories about an animal, they refer to him or her as "it." I assumed it was because the AP Stylebook called for the non-personal pronoun. It does, but only in some cases.

Do not apply a personal pronoun to an animal unless its sex has been established or the animal has a name.

While I would prefer a personal pronoun ("he" or "she") were used in every case, I'm glad the stylebook calls for it in at least some cases.

If only reporters -- even Associated Press reporters -- knew that.

The most recent example I've come across of "it" being used incorrectly was in stories about the bull who escaped a burning truck in Indiana and now lives at Farm Sanctuary.

A group of children found the 2-year-old bull several miles away from last week's crash scene near Chesterton. It was taken to the Porter County Animal Shelter [...]

Bulls are males. This bull, who now has a name (Jay), should have been referred to as "he."

Reporters also usually refer to animals using "which" or "that" instead of "who" or "whom." Like the above rule, the AP Stylebook calls for the latter only if the gender is known or if the animal has a name. Still, reporters usually choose the former pair of words regardless.

Using "it," "which" and "that" implies the animal is an object, not a living, feeling being.

It's important to consider what implications a word has, not only for women and animals but for all groups in society.

(Image courtesy of Feminists for Animal Rights.)

Farmed Animals Can't Say 'Take This Job and Shove It'

2010-08-13T10:50:00.000-05:00

Two unusual ways to quit one's job went viral this week: A flight attendant slid off a plane and a young woman announced her resignation via dry-erase board.

After a confrontation with a passenger Steven Slater, a flight attendant for Jet Blue,

grabbed the plane's intercom and made an expletive-laced speech, grabbed a beer from the galley, opened the door and slid down the emergency evacuation chute.

At the time of this post's publication, a Facebook page dedicated to him had almost 200,000 followers.

The second incident in which a woman supposedly told her co-workers and sexist boss she quit via dry-erase board turned out to be a hoax, but not until it had made its way around Facebook.

The popularity of both resignations shows how many people feel about their jobs (or former jobs). They feel disrespected, taken for granted. (By the way, this isn't why I found a new job.) It's a horrible feeling, putting in most of one's waking hours at a place where one feels unappreciated, perhaps giving years of your life to your employer only to be laid off.

Now imagine you could never leave that workplace, that you had to live there, in fact. That you had to depend on the very people you hated to provide you with food and water and medical care. It sounds like slavery, doesn't it? And there's more. Imagine being repeatedly raped and having your babies stolen from you after you gave birth. Imagine not being laid off, but actually being killed when you were no longer wanted.

This is the life of farmed animals.

Their lives are only as valuable as the money they bring in. (Any commissioned salespeople feel that way?) And often that money comes at the expense of the animals' lives. A "beef" cow or a male pig or a "broiler" hen is only useful after he or she has been fattened and sent to slaughter.

The worth of "dairy" cows is measured in milk production, that of "layer" hens in egg production.

Animal agribusiness doesn't consider the intrinsic value of each animal's life. They don't care about individuality or personality. To them these animals are objects, machines.

I'm sure most of you know what it feels like to be dehumanized, to be regarded as just another cog in your workplace's machine. It's awful. Now imagine how much worse it is for farmed animals.

For information on going vegan, please visit ChooseVeg.com.

Swine Flu in Post-Pandemic Stage, To Be Part of Seasonal Flu Vaccine

2010-08-12T10:37:00.000-05:00

The World Health Organization on Tuesday downgraded the worldwide "swine flu" outbreak, which first surfaced last year, to post-pandemic status.

This change means that the swine flu -- or H1N1, as agribusiness lobbied successfully for it to be called -- "has largely run its course."

However, the swine flu vaccine will be part of the 2010-2011 seasonal flu vaccine.

As we enter the post-pandemic period, this does not mean that the H1N1 virus has gone away. Based on experience with past pandemics, we expect the H1N1 virus to take on the behaviour of a seasonal influenza virus and continue to circulate for some years to come.

In WHO Director-General Margaret Chan's virtual press conference she "also raised the specter of deadlier flu pandemics in future."

"Lurking in the background we still have H5N1," she said, a reference to the bird flu strain.

(Image courtesy of TopNew.in.)

Related Posts

Pigs to Get Swine-Flu Vaccine

Government to Press: No More 'Swine'

Health Organizations Cave to Pork Producers

Swine Flu Claims 1st U.S. Life As Agribusiness Whines About Media Coverage

A Disease by Any Other Name ...

Agribusiness on Defensive Amid Swine Flu Outbreak

Mexican Officials Trace Swine Flu to Smithfield Plant

Do Corporations' Political Donations Have Your Vote?

2010-08-11T12:32:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you've heard the saying "You vote with your wallet." You try to buy items that jibe with your beliefs: organic, sweatshop-free, not tested on animals, not derived from animals' bodies, etc. And maybe you simply buy less stuff, to help the planet and your sanity.

One other consideration you should keep in mind is who you're giving your money to. What are the large corporations spending their money on? In an election year it's quite telling.

For example, Target recently caught heat for its donation of $150,000 to MN Forward, a group supporting Republican Tom Emmer for Minnesota governor. Emmer's opposition to same-sex marriage and other gay-rights measures angered people who support gay rights, including one Minnesotan whose son is gay. She videotaped her last trip to Target, returning $200 worth of merchandise and cutting up her Target card.

It's no secret that most businesspeople support Republican candidates. They place more of a priority on increasing their wealth than on social-justice issues. Target's CEO Gregg Steinhafel stated as much in an apology letter.

"While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry," Steinhafel wrote.

I don't believe Steinhafel was surprised about whom and what he was supporting. I do believe he was caught off-guard by the consumer backlash.

Best Buy and Red Wing Shoes are among other corporations that have contributed to MN Forward.

Another giant retailer -- this time Wal-Mart -- donated $50,000 to Illinois Sen. Bill Brady a couple of months ago. Brady is the Republican choice to run for governor. I first heard about him earlier this year after he sponsored a bill to legalize the use of carbon monoxide gas chambers to kill unwanted dogs (at shelters or animal-control facilities). The practice had been banned in this state last year. After criticism from dog lovers, he passed the bill to someone else to sponsor.

It's virtually impossible to avoid giving some of your money to corporations whose interests clash with yours. But having information about donation practices at least lets you make a more informed decision when you vote with your wallet.

Write in "Digging" for Best Blog

2010-08-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

If you haven't had a chance yet to vote for the 2010 Veggie Awards, sponsored by Veg News magazine, you still have time. The survey closes at the end of this month.

If you're so inclined, please write in "Digging Through the Dirt" for your favorite blog.

You can complete the survey here.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank those of you who follow "Digging" either through Google or Facebook. I was really excited to see the number of Facebook followers hit 200 recently! If you're not yet following "Digging Through the Dirt" via Facebook, start now.

Thank you, all, for your kind words, support and encouragement!

(Image courtesy of Veg News.)

Bull Burned in Interstate Crash Will Live at Farm Sanctuary

2010-08-06T11:57:00.000-05:00

On the morning of July 27 a traffic reporter posted a Facebook update about a northwest Indiana interstate being closed due to "cattle" on the road. Several people commented with puns, and a fellow traffic reporter supplied a quote from the old TV series "Rawhide":

Thanks! Will try to "steer" around it :-)
Can't you just tell them to "moo-ve" over? I know, I know... lame.
Don't have a cow, man!
"Don't try to understand 'em, just throw the rope and brand 'em."

I chose a different tact.

That's sad. I wonder if those cows are going to slaughter. :( I stopped eating animals four years ago and wish I had stopped sooner.

The accident was more sad that I realized.

The semi carrying 34 bulls caught fire just before midnight July 26 after the driver rear-ended another semi while talking on his CB radio. Eighteen of the bulls died, and others were injured. The driver escaped through his window. Part of Interstate 94 was closed for six hours while authorities tried to round up seven of the bulls who had escaped the semi.

One bull, though, wasn't found until 12 hours later, several miles from the accident site. The 2-year-old was taken to an animal shelter, where a veterinarian treated burns to his mouth and side. Next week he'll be taken to Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, N.Y., where he will receive love and care and hopefully move past the traumatic experiences of his young life.

Unfortunately, the 15 other survivors were transferred to another transport truck and continued their trip to Milwaukee. I don't know if they were going to a slaughterhouse, but it seems likely.

(Photos of the 2-year-old bull who survived the fiery crash courtesy of Porter County Animal Shelter, via Farm Sanctuary.)

Animal Advocacy Comes Full Circle

2010-08-05T13:03:00.001-05:00

When I was an oblivious -- but curious -- carnist, I typed "vegetarian" into Google and clicked on a site called GoVeg.com. After reading a bit about the intelligence of pigs and chickens, I decided I could no longer eat animals.

Now, four years later, I'm going to be working for the organization that helped me discover my passion: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

There aren't many workplaces where, sitting in the lobby, one hears the receptionist ask a caller, "And what size is the cage the goat is in?" But that's the type of conversation I overheard during my three-day interview at PETA's headquarters in Norfolk, Va., in July.

I'll be working from home, though, so I'll miss out on exchanges like that. But, like some employees in Norfolk, I'll have dogs sleeping near my desk.

I've been given a tremendous, exciting opportunity: I'll be able to work on behalf of animals full time. As a special projects coordinator, I'll create and manage campaigns to keep animal issues in the media spotlight.

While I wanted to tell my readers about my new job -- it'd be weird if I didn't mention it -- my unwritten, self-imposed rule about not writing about work will remain. I think it's best to keep my professional work separate from my personal blog. But "Digging Through the Dirt" won't change, as it's always been primarily focused on animal exploiters and I rarely wrote about PETA.

I know that some in the animal-rights community dislike PETA, and I understand your concerns. But I hope that -- however you feel about PETA -- you'll support me in this new phase of my life.

Update (10/22/10): "Digging Through the Dirt" is my personal blog. Any claims I make or views I express here are my own, and not necessarily endorsed or representative of those held by PETA.

Region of Spain Bans Bullfighting

2010-07-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

Spain is known for its bullfighting, but lawmakers in one northeast region of the country voted today to ban the barbaric event.

As of January 2012 bullfighting will be illegal in Catalonia.

Barcelona, the region's capital, used to have three bullrings. Now it has one, and attendance has been low. Still animal-rights advocates and bullfighting fans both view this ban as an impetus to further outlaw bullfighting in Spain and elsewhere.

"The suffering of animals in the Catalan bullrings has been abolished once and for all[," said Leonardo Anselmi of PROU, an animal-rights group]. "It has created a precedent we hope will be replicated by other democratic Parliaments internationally, in those regions and countries where such cruel bullfights are still allowed."

Such regions include parts of South America, Mexico, southern France and Portugal.

Until two weeks ago, I didn't know exactly what bullfighting entailed. It's gruesome.

Lances are driven into the bull's head and neck muscles and are then twisted to ensure a lot of blood loss. Then bright sticks with harpoon points are plunged into his back.

Finally, the matador appears and, after provoking a few exhausted charges from the dying animal, tries to kill the bull with his sword. If he misses, succeeding only in further mutilation, an executioner is called in to stab the exhausted animal to death.

[...]

If the crowd is happy with the matador, the bull's ears and tail are cut off and presented as a gift.

This isn't a sport; it's public animal torture.

Joan Puigcercos, a Catalan lawmaker, said this about the bullfighting ban: "We have a responsibility that goes beyond the borders of Catalonia. It is a responsibility to civilization."

(Photo courtesy of the World Society for the Protection of Animals.)

Cow, Calf Shot Dead at Fair; Vet Blames Victim

2010-07-27T21:48:00.001-05:00

A tragic incident today at the California State Fair illustrates just how happy the state's "happy cows" really are.

This morning a pregnant cow who was on exhibit -- yes, you read that right -- broke free. Veterinarians tried to tranquilize her, but the gun didn't fire. So supposedly to prevent human injuries or death, the supervising veterinarian gave police permission to shoot the cow.

She was shot several times in her side because police didn't know "how to properly euthanize" a cow. I'm sure proper euthanasia would have meant that the calf -- a source of future profit -- would live. But the cow and her calf both died. And, I hate to say this, but it's probably just as well, considering the life dairy cows lead.

The veterinarian added insult to injury (or death, in this case).

The supervising veterinarian at the fair said the animal was angry and upset.

"I think she's a nutcase," Dr. Ben Norman said. "She doesn't respond too well."

[...]

"My decision was, because I didn't want to cause any problems with the people here at the fair," Norman said. "She wasn't predictable ... also, she's a little mean."

I'd be a "little mean," too, if I were imprisoned, about to give birth and on display and I knew my baby was going to be stolen from me like my previous ones had been.

And for a doctor to use the term "nutcase," it's insulting to the cow and to people who have mental-health disorders. This situation is simply further evidence that most veterinarians, especially those charged with tending to farmed animals, don't have the animals' best interests at heart.

Witness Carolyn Hayden, who filmed the incident, was upset after the shooting.

"I will tell everybody what I saw," witness Carolyn Hayden said. "It was awful, it was like the worst thing I've ever seen happen."

Last summer a pregnant cow at the the Kalamazoo (Mich.) County Fair broke free as she was being unloaded into the Miracle of Birth tent. She was to remain on display until she gave birth, a common attraction at these disgusting events.

After 45 minutes she was barricaded after being lured into a corner by the sight of a newly born calf.

If you're still consuming dairy, please put yourself in the position of these cows. Their suffering is unimaginable. Please don't support it.

(Photo of the cow at last year's Kalamazoo County Fair, courtesy of Sam Zomer/ Special to the Kalamazoo Gazette.)

Book Explores Animal Ag's Psychological Hold

2010-07-27T21:09:00.001-05:00

I just finished reading "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism" by Melanie Joy, and I highly recommend it.

The book explores the psychology behind eating meat, which goes beyond simply being raised to eat meat.

Joy, a social psychologist and professor of psychology and sociology, examines the ways that animal agribusiness, and society as a whole, prevent people from questioning and changing their behavior.

Joy has coined a new term to describe meat-eaters: carnists.

Carnists are not merely omnivores. An omnivore is an animal -- human or nonhuman -- that has the physiological ability to ingest both plants and meat. But, like "carnivore," "omnivore" is a term that describes one's biological constitution, not one's philosophical choice. Carnists eat meat not because they need to, but because they choose to, and choices always stem from beliefs.

The book, though, doesn't criticize carnists. In fact, it's written for them, for people who haven't escaped animal agribusiness's mind-hold.

But vegetarians and vegans should read this book, too, not only to learn the psychology behind this ingrained behavior but possibly to generate strategies for appealing to carnists to change their ways. Of course, as Joy writes, people won't change until they're psychologically ready. But every little bit, every seed we plant, helps.

Because it's packed with so much information and terms, "Why We Love Dogs" is a book that I will likely read again.

Joy writes of psychic numbing, "a psychological process by which we disconnect, mentally and emotionally, from our experience." In some instances, like a tragic accident, this psychic numbing helps us.

But it becomes maladaptive, or destructive, when it is used to enable violence, even if that violence is as far away as the factories in which animals are turned into meat.

Joy also describes the invisibility of the animal-agribusiness system.

When an ideology is entrenched, it is essentially invisible.

Such is the case with meat-eating. It's so pervasive in our culture, that unless you're a vegetarian or a vegan, you don't even notice it. It's taken for granted.

It's also physically invisible, for although 10 billion land animals are killed each year in the United States, we never see them until they are dead and packaged. As Paul McCartney once said, if slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians. But those involved in animal agribusiness do their damnedest to keep us out. When an undercover investigator gains access and exposes the inner workings, the ag industry works to prevent another breach.

I'd like to thank Melanie Joy for giving us the word "carnist." By being able to use "carnist" -- which denotes a conscious choice -- rather than "meat-eater" -- which simply denotes an action -- I feel more empowered as an animal-rights advocate.

If you're a carnist, you have a choice. I hope you'll choose a diet consistent with your values.

Marketing Animal Cruelty

2010-07-22T13:46:00.001-05:00

Just last month a restaurant in Arizona offered its patrons a "lion burger" in an effort to capitalize on the World Cup craze.

More recently other animals have been used in other cruel marketing stunts.

A tour operator in Russia is being investigated for animal cruelty after he forced a donkey to parasail to attract attention for a private beach.

The donkey was then towed by a boat for half an hour, initially flailing its legs and then hanging forlornly under a multi-coloured parachute at least 30 metres above the surf.

The operator's marketing ploy backfired, as vacationers were dismayed by the antic.

The donkey screamed as he sailed through the air, and children on the ground cried when they saw him.

"This is a little town and we all know that donkey well," one local woman told reporters. "He worked for several years on the beach, being photographed with tourists. As soon as his ordeal was over, a lot of the people on the beach ran forward to soothe him."

Lobster Claws

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has brought attention to a so-called game found at some bars and restaurants, including The Beach Club in Long Beach, Calif.

People "playing" the Lobster Zone maneuver a mechanical arm to pick up a lobster. It's like those money-draining games you see at children's venues, where the metal claw only rarely is able to pluck a toy from the machine. Only this game is even less fun, especially for the lobster, who, after being caught, is "dropped down a chute, boiled or cut up while still alive, and then eaten."

Jerome Lapin, president of American Coin Merchandising, has come out against this machine.

"As the world's largest operator of skill crane machines, we are totally opposed to this inappropriate use of this type of equipment. ... We can only hope that the people playing these skill cranes come to realize this is a sadistic misuse of machines designed to dispense toys and teddy bears."

If you'd like to ask The Beach Club owner Steve Hoy to stop using this cruel device and to stop torturing lobsters, you can do so here.

99 Bottles of What on the Wall?

When I stop to think about the people who were charged with coming up with these outrageous and incredibly inhumane gimmicks, it's disconcerting.

We all have devious, perhaps occasionally evil, thoughts, but we know enough not to act on them. What kind of person mulls over a campaign and thinks, "I know! Let's bottle beer in the bodies of dead animals. That'll get us customers."

But some idiot did act on that idea.

BrewDog, a brewer in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, has bottled beer in the taxidermied bodies of stoats (also known as shorttail weasels), squirrels and hares.

A Doncaster-based taxidermist worked on the animals and has insisted that the animals were not killed for bottling, with some having been killed on roads.

But he doesn't say how the others were acquired or where their supply would come from if the demand is high. Hopefully that won't happen, though. Each bottle sells for 500 pounds.

Founder James Watt's marketing is drunk on hyperbole.

"This is the beer to end all beers. It's an audacious blend of eccentricity, artistry and rebellion; changing the general perception of beer, one stuffed animal at a time."

When I think of a stuffed animal, the image of my childhood bedroom comes to mind, with assorted stuffed animals gathered on my bed. They were toys that had never been alive. Why not use those?

Of course, Watt has an answer.

He also added that it is better for the animals to be: "celebrated and valued than left to rot."

Perhaps it's time to dig up Grandma and "celebrate" her.

I realize that simply by blogging about these stunts, I'm providing advertising for these cruel ventures. However, I'm convinced that most people will be repulsed by this animal cruelty and won't frequent these businesses.

(First photo courtesy of Time; second photo courtesy of TheDrum.co.uk; third photo features a living stoat.)

Post-Massage Colds a Message From One's Body

2010-07-21T12:10:00.000-05:00

I've had two professional massages in my life, the first in 2003 and the second just two days ago from a friend who's studying Asian bodywork and massage. (Ok, so she's not a professional yet, but she's close enough for me.)

Within days of getting each massage, I came down with a cold.

After the first instance I was told that I should have drunk a lot of water after my massage, as the massage releases toxins in the body. I remembered that advice after my more recent massage, but apparently I didn't drink enough.

Although colds are yucky, they've proven to me that massages are incredible tools and have confirmed that our bodies are amazing entities.

On a massage forum I found this comment from a person whose credentials are unknown, so take it with a grain of salt. Although it does make sense to me.

Other things can build up too like cellular debris, viruses and bacteria. Some people actually catch a cold after a massage because something was left dormant too long in their muscle tissue.

According to a piece written by a chiropractic orthopedist and a licensed massage therapist, there are times when one shouldn't get a massage.

If you think you are getting a cold or getting sick or you actually are sick, a massage will only make you worse. It is too much for the body to handle. Also if you are over-fatigued, a massage may be too much for you.

I felt fine before -- and during -- the massage, so I believe that the massage awoke the dormant virus.

I'm amazed by how our bodies work. We don't give them enough credit or treat them as well as we should. I know I need to start stimulating my body with yoga and soothing it with meditation. And you, my dear omnivorous reader, need to refrain from putting parts of dead animals into your body. (Sounds weird, doesn't it? But that's what you're doing.)

By getting this cold, my body has taught me something: I can't go seven years between massages. Now I have an excuse to get one on a regular basis.

Do you have a massage story you'd like to share? Or how about natural cold remedies? (I swear by hot tea.)

Beagles, Monkeys From Testing Lab Find Freedom

2010-07-20T15:00:00.004-05:00

A group of beagles and and of monkeys recently got their first taste of freedom, as they were rescued from an animal-testing facility after it went out of business.

AniClin Preclinical Services in Oxford, N.J., closed a few months ago, leaving 120 beagles and 55 macaque monkeys behind.

AniClin's parent company, Azopharma, went into bankruptcy on Good Friday, April 2 and the building housing these animals was locked up with a sign posted for employees not to return.

Advocacy group Win Animal Rights succeeded in getting the animals released.

According to a former employee, only one of the beagles had been used for testing. But all lived the lives of property, not of dogs.

Day after day, month after month, year after year, they were confined to plexiglass crates, fed and watered on precise schedules, kept clean. But with no opportunity to leave their solitary little boxes and spend time with others like themselves, the 118 beagles — lab dogs used to test drugs and chemicals — displayed nothing of the much-acclaimed breed's characteristics: joyful, noisy and curious.

As you can see in this video, the dogs were unaccustomed to grass.

Freedom (pictured top-right), one of the rescued dogs, even attended this year's Animal Rights Conference this past weekend in Arlington, Va.

Animal-rights group In Defense of Animals helped transport the 55 macaque monkeys to sanctuaries in Oklahoma and Texas. IDA is now led by Scotlund Haisley, who oversaw animal-rescue teams for The Humane Society of the United States.

We don't know what exactly they were doing to the monkeys. We do know that the monkeys, who are 4 – 6 years old, were, according to the lab, being held in individual housing, isolated from each other. Some enclosures even faced the wall at one point, so they couldn't even see other monkeys – just one of numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act cited by the USDA that attest to the anguish these monkeys endured in the lab, including psychological suffering so severe that some were pulling hair out from their chest, shoulders and forearms.

I hope that events like this create more awareness about the victims of vivisection -- like animal agribusiness, an industry that exists behind closed doors.

While sensitive animals are imprisoned and tortured, people like animal experimenter J. David Jentsch become wealthy. Jentsch is a professor of behavioral neuroscience and an animal experimenter at UCLA. He also created the pro-animal-testing organization Pro-Test for Science, which has been called "a publicity stunt aimed at preserving researchers' federal funding and turning public attention from the nature of the researcher's own work, which involves addicting monkeys to methamphetamine."

In May Jentsch bought a house for $1.029 million in Sherman Oaks, Calif. He sold his previous home, which he had purchased for $670,000 in December 2007, to the Regents of the University of California.

Anti-Vivisection Protesters' Indictment Thrown Out

On a related note, a judge last week dismissed the indictment against four protesters charged under the Animal Rights Terrorism Act for a series of protests in California against animal experimentation.

Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled that the government's indictment against the AETA 4 didn't specify what crimes the four were alleged to have committed.

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest.

The government has the option to re-indict the four.

(Photo of Freedom courtesy of OnePlanetOnePerson.com.)

'Forks Over Knives,' 'PLANEAT' Examine Role of Meat, Dairy on Health

2010-07-12T12:16:00.000-05:00

I can't wait to see two new films about how people's animal-based diets affect their health.

"Forks Over Knives," in part, looks at T. Colin Campbell's research findings, which he published in his best-selling book, "The China Study." Campbell's research found that animal protein -- the kind people consume when they consume animals or their secretions -- can trigger cancer.

The title of the documentary refers to how simply changing the way we eat can save us from having to undergo drastic surgery.

The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods.

I'm not sure when this film will be released. The trailer says this summer, but the Web site says this fall. Whichever it is, you can bet I'll be there.

"PLANEAT" not only looks at the role an animal-based diet plays on our health, but also how it affects the environment.

‘PLANEAT’ is a provocative challenge to our love of meat and dairy. Tracking the work of a group of scientists, doctors and environmentalists, the film forces us to confront the evidence that a heavily animal-based diet is bad for our health, the environment and the future of the planet.

The movie is making its way through film festivals. No release date has been set.

These two films give me such hope!

Regardless how one feels about animals, people need to be told how what they're eating is affecting them. Although I have a family history of breast cancer, no doctor had ever told me that eating meat could affect my chances of getting it.

It's time people's eyes were opened to the medical realities of an animal-based diet.

A Nice Day for a Vegan Wedding

2010-07-12T11:19:00.002-05:00

Although Keith and I got married in December, we waited until June to have a small, casual, outdoor ceremony for family and friends.

A few weeks ago we gathered at Messenger Woods in Homer Glen (IL) for the short ceremony. The forecast called for a 30 percent chance of thunderstorms, but the day -- both weather-wise and overall -- was beautiful.

We feasted on an Indian buffet at the Orland Park Civic Center.

The food, catered by the Taj Mahal restaurant in Orland Park, was delicious. The Taj Mahal is one of our favorite restaurants and definitely our favorite Indian one.

The food, including the yummy cake from Bleeding Heart Bakery, was vegan.

In lieu of gifts, we suggested guests donate to one of three non-profits: Vegan Outreach, which leaflets colleges to spread awareness of farmed-animal cruelty; South Suburban PADS, which provides shelter and support services to homeless people; and Equality Illinois, which fights for equal rights -- including marriage -- for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in this state.

Related Posts

Rings First Step in Eco-Friendly, Nontraditional Wedding

Earthly Affair's Style Eco-Friendly, Down to Earth

(Top photo: Our boys -- Poncho, Snickers and Cooper -- pose for a shot with us. Bottom photo: My niece, Reed, was our beautiful flower girl.)

McDonald's CEO Disrespects Animals ... and People

2010-07-10T15:41:00.000-05:00

Although I've attended protests before -- of pet stores and KFC -- today I attended my first PETA protest.

We gathered at the entrance of McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner's gated community in Oak Brook, IL.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been protesting the way the restaurant chain slaughters chickens. I wrote about the resumption of its McCruelty campaign in February 2009 when Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders attended a protest outside Chicago's Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's.

In the slaughterhouses of McDonald's U.S. and Canadian chicken suppliers, birds are dumped out of their transport crates and hung upside down in metal shackles, which can result in broken bones, extreme bruising, and hemorrhaging. Workers have the opportunity to abuse live birds, and birds have their throats cut while they are still conscious. Many birds are immersed in tanks of scalding-hot water while they are still alive and able to feel pain.

Perhaps by taking the issue to Skinner's home (or as close to it as the gated fortress would let us) he'll reconsider this method of slaughter.

While we didn't see Skinner, his neighbors were not pleased to see us. One woman who claimed to be a PETA member told us we shouldn't be there. Asked why, she said it was because she lived there. She also reminded us that chickens aren't pets and that people need to eat.

I don't disagree.

But people don't need to eat flesh, and chickens can experience pain just like dogs and people. Shouldn't McDonald's lessen that pain?

(Of course, people who truly care about an animal's pain should go vegan.)

Would you eat Silly Putty?
In other McDonald's news, China is investigating the safety of two chemicals found in McNuggets.

A CNN investigation in June found that McNuggets -- those sold both in the United States, as well as in China -- contain "tertiary butylhydroquinone, a petroleum-based product, and dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent used in cosmetics and other goods," such as Silly Putty.

McDonald's claims the chemicals are "harmless."

I ate McNuggets regularly as a kid, and I certainly would have liked to have known they contained these non-food components.

It's sad that people like McDonald's CEO Skinner accumulate wealth by not caring how animals -- both human and non -- are treated.

(Photos courtesy of Keith A. Means.)

'Scholar' Lacks Understanding of Veganism

2010-07-08T15:09:00.000-05:00

Intelligence is way up there on the list of qualities I admire in someone.

In fact, it was learning about the intelligence of pigs and chickens that caused me to go vegetarian four years ago.

Advanced degrees don't necessarily equate with intelligence, as is evident in a piece published earlier this week in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Just the headline alone -- "Vegans and the Quest for Purity" -- indicates the author is barking up the wrong tree. Veganism isn't about being pure. Vegans aren't perfect nor are we pure. We're simply regular people who have been awakened to the cruelty that we had been contributing to.

The piece includes an impressive bio of its author, Harold Fromm, at the end.

Harold Fromm is a visiting scholar in English at the University of Arizona. He is author of The Nature of Being Human: From Environmentalism to Consciousness (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009) and co-editor, with Cheryll Glotfelty, of The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology (University Press of Georgia, 1996)

Given his published works, one would assume Fromm had more environmental knowledge than the average person. But his piece includes a tired argument against veganism.

Furthermore, there are critics who explain that farming vegetables involves the killing of huge numbers of animals with plows, pesticides, and herbicides.

Somehow Fromm doesn't know -- or doesn't want to admit -- that farmed animals are fed plants. So meat-eaters end up killing more plants than do vegans.

I have to give Fromm credit, though. He has provided an "argument" against veganism that I'd never heard before.

And since we are carnivores ("omnivores," if that makes you feel better) from the moment of conception, we emerge from the womb already "guilty." Even if our parents eschewed meat, to have been born at all we must have been eating our mother during gestation, and after birth we need her milk, which is just another dairy product from animals.

I must not have been paying attention when it was reported that fetuses actually eat their mothers.

A fetus takes in part of the foods that a mother consumes, but a pregnant woman is not being eaten from the inside. But even if she were, that has nothing to do with veganism, as the mother has (hopefully) consented to the pregnancy.

As for her breast milk, she is willingly giving that to her newborn baby. That's who the breast milk was designed for.

Cows, on the other hand, are forcibly impregnated (raped) and their milk, which should be given to their calves, is taken from them and fed to people.

It's sad that Fromm, if he researched veganism at all, doesn't understand the difference.

Ducklings Enjoy Life After Hatchery

2010-07-07T17:01:00.001-05:00

Today's post is a mixed bag of updates.

First, the good news.

Some ducklings rescued from a California hatchery are enjoying life at Farm Sanctuary in Orland, Calif.

Eighty-eight birds were taken from Cal-Cruz Hatcheries in Santa Cruz after Compassion Over Killing conducted an undercover investigation there in January 2009. The group released its video last month after prosecutors chose not to charge anyone with abuse.

Of the 88 birds rescued, 38 survived and were brought to Farm Sanctuary, where all but eight were adopted to forever homes.

According to Leanne Cronquist, the shelter director for Farm Sanctuary in Orland, these Pekin ducklings likely would have been killed for their flesh when they reached 6 weeks old. They were rescued at 5 weeks. Thankfully they get to experience a full life, likely 6 to 8 years but possibly 10.

"This was the first group of rescued ducklings since I started working for Farm Sanctuary," Cronquist said via e-mail. "They were very shy at first and tended to stick close together. When we gave them a pool for the first time, they became very excited. Of course they were pretty small, so we created steps so they could easily climb in and out. But once the first duck jumped in, everyone else quickly followed, forgoing the steps and trying to scramble over the high sides.

"Seeing them now it is clear how happy and unique they are. They have formed such tight bonds with each other. You can't deny that they have personalities and deserve better treatment than what was depicted in the video."

Daisy and Gordy are two particularly stand-out members of the flock. Daisy's beak may be disfigured, but she has dealt really well with her disability and gets along just fine. When it's time to eat, she skillfully digs her bill into the food bowl and scoops out as much as possible. She spends most of her time in our main pond with fellow hatchery escapees, Matt and Lenny. Because of her misshapen beak, Daisy makes nasal sounds when breathing which make her easy to find in a crowd! Because of minor health concerns, Gordy isn’t currently able to hang out with Daisy and the others so she spends her days with another survivor named Otis in a neighboring location. Incredibly boisterous, she always fluffs up her feathers and talks (loudly!) to every passerby.

The remaining three, Atlas, Aurora and Hendrix, also hang out with Daisy, Matt and Lenny in the main pond. Atlas and Aurora used to lived separately from our main group of ducks due to an initial health concern. But since then, they have been integrated into the flock and made friends with Hendrix. The three are inseparable.

Aurora and Atlas have long-term health problems, so they will remain at Farm Sanctuary, as will Hendrix since he's their buddy. But the other five can be adopted out to forever homes.

Don't have the ability to provide a home for them? Then how about "adopting" them financially through Farm Sanctuary's Adopt-A-Farm Animal Project?

"They get excited when their food is put down in the mornings and love to go down the hill to swim or nest," Cronquist said. "This is what their lives are meant to be."

Schwarzenegger Signs Egg Bill

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday signed into law a measure requiring all eggs sold in the state to comply with Proposition 2, which the voters passed in November 2008.

Prop 2, in part, phases out battery cages for "egg laying" hens in California by 2015. This new law closes a loophole: Eggs from battery cages in other states won't be sold in California, beginning in 2015.

Conklin Not Charged in Dairy Abuse

And now for the bad news.

Gary Conklin, who was seen kicking a sick cow on his dairy farm in Mercy For Animals' undercover video released in May, will not be charged with animal cruelty.

[Union County (Ohio) Prosecutor David] Phillips said the video posted on YouTube used out-of-context scenes to create a false perception that Conklin was involved in the abuse, but investigators and grand jurors saw the original video.

I'm interested in seeing a response from Nathan Runkle, founder of MFA, regarding this specific accusation. Runkle strikes me as someone who crosses all his "T"s and wouldn't deliberately allow a falsely "inflammatory" (Phillips' word) video to be released to the public.

For now, this is the only response from MFA that I've seen.

The group Tuesday said the decision not to charge Conklin has failed concerned citizens and animals that deserve protection, giving Conklin Farms "a free pass" for animal abuse. "Mercy For Animals was the only true watchdog and defender the animals at Conklin Dairy Farms had," said Daniel Hauff, the group's director of investigations. "The dairy industry and local law enforcement had all failed to detect the abuse or hold the abusers accountable."

Ironically Phillips had considered prosecuting the undercover investigator and Mercy For Animals for not reporting Billy Joe Gregg's abuse sooner. Gregg, an employee at the dairy facility, was the only person charged.

"As soon as the investigator and MFA became aware of Gregg's actions, someone should have notified law enforcement or the humane society," he said. "Had they done so, much of the abuse at the hands of Billy Joe Gregg shown on the video never would have happened, and the animals would have been spared."

Curious, isn't it? Phillips is concerned about the animals being spared. No animals on dairy farms, regardless how well they're treated, are spared. They are all slaughtered when they are no longer profitable.

If you care about sparing an animal, go vegan.

(Images courtesy of Farm Sanctuary.)

Ohio Farm Board, HSUS Reach Compromise

2010-06-30T18:35:00.000-05:00

Despite a last-minute push by The Humane Society of the United States to collect enough signatures, its animal-welfare initiative will not be on Ohio's ballot in November.

The HSUS has worked out a compromise with the Ohio Farm Bureau, heading off what would have been a contentious election battle.

Both sides are claiming victory, spinning the compromise as more than it is.

An e-mail from Gene Baur, the president of Farm Sanctuary, which worked with The HSUS on this campaign, said "the animals won!" and that "agribusiness in Ohio is committed to change for farm animals." While Ohio animal ag did make concessions, they don't care any more about the animals today than they did yesterday.

The compromise includes the following:

A ban on veal crates, to be phased out within six years.
A ban on new gestation crates in the state after December 31, 2010. Existing facilities are grandfathered, but must cease use of these crates within 15 years.
A permanent moratorium on permits for new battery cage facilities in place immediately.
A ban on the transport of downed cows and calves for slaughter.
A ban on strangulation and other forms of on farm killing that are not included in euthanasia standards as outlined by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Enactment of legislation establishing felony-level penalties for cock fighters.
Enactment of legislation cracking down on puppy mills.
Enactment of a ban on the acquisition of dangerous exotic animals as pets, such as primates, bears, lions, tigers, large constricting and venomous snakes, crocodiles, and alligators.

While some of these measures sound good -- Baur's been fighting for federal downed-cow legislation for decades -- I don't know how the bans will be put into place. I don't know if Ohio's new Livestock Care Standards Board can implement bans themselves or if the state legislature has to vote on them.

The legislature will have to vote on at least the last three items, and the compromise is not legally binding.

Animal ag's response
If Farm Sanctuary and The HSUS are guilty of spinning the compromise, then animal agribusiness (in the form of good ol' David Martosko) is dizzying itself.

Martosko's press release accuses The HSUS of "slink[ing] away in [a] face-saving move."

[HSUS's Wayne] Pacelle secured only a few weak promises from Governor Strickland concerning animal-welfare measures that had nothing to do with the reasons the group gave for coming into the Buckeye State.

But that's not completely true. Ohio initiative's Web site detailed the issues The HSUS wanted to see changed.

Extreme confinement in tiny cages for months on end: Tens of thousands of veal calves, 170,000 breeding pigs, and approximately 27 million egg-laying hens in Ohio are confined in cages and crates so restrictive the animals can barely move an inch for virtually their whole lives. Many don't even have enough room to stretch their limbs or turn around.

Allowing "downer cows" to enter the human food chain: Allowing sick and injured animals into the food supply threatens public health and food safety. Cows too sick or injured to stand or walk on their own to slaughter should be humanely euthanized, not inhumanely dragged or pushed while being shocked and beaten onto the kill floor to be used for human consumption.

Inhumane methods of euthanasia for sick and injured animals: In Ohio, a factory farmer was videotaped killing sick pigs by hanging them execution-style from a tractor, leaving them to writhe in the air for minutes on end. He was acquitted of cruelty for the hangings, a verdict Ohio's agribusiness community hailed as a "huge victory," because Ohio has no law specifically requiring humane farm animal euthanasia method.

But, Martosko notes, the moratorium on battery cages could be lifted at any time, and the veal industry had already announced a phaseout of veal crates by 2017.

Martosko quotes himself in his press release.

"HSUS's press release listing its animal agriculture 'gains' is laughable. It's just a restatement of current law and an acknowledgement of the way livestock practices are already evolving."

These practices are evolving because of The HSUS. Animal ag doesn't want them. That's why they've spent millions trying to defeat ballot initiatives like the one Ohioans would have voted on in November.

Today was the final day The HSUS could turn in its 500,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. But if animal ag doesn't live up to its end of the deal, The HSUS can try again during another election. Although are we to wait 15 years to see if gestation crates are gone?

A Vegan Who Promotes Animal Ag?

2010-06-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

I'm baffled by a piece I read today by a vegan named Ryan Andrews, and I'm hoping someone could enlighten me as to why he would have written it.

It's basically a PR piece for animal agribusiness.

Now I don't know Ryan Andrews, although a Google search shows that he's pretty involved in the vegan community. He's on the board of advisors for Support Vegans in the Prison System, has worked with the Vegetarian Resource Group and has a blog called "Ask Ryan" for the Vegetarian Society of Colorado.

I hesitate to criticize anyone working on behalf of animals, but the piece he wrote just boggles my mind.

He wrote about his tour of Magnum Feedyard, a feedlot in Wiggins, Colo. He calls it both a family farm and a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation -- aka "factory farm"), and I don't care what it is. Animals on family farms end up slaughtered just like those on factory farms do.

Magnum houses 22,000 cows, all of whom will eventually be killed for their flesh.

When animals arrive at Magnum, they are usually 7 – 9 months of age, and receive four days of 100% grass feed to help maintain rumen health. Cattle are normally kept on the feedlot until around 12 to 15 months of age (180-200 days on feed), during this time they gain 500 to 600 pounds.

And then they're killed? Oh, did he forget to mention that? Well, he does later when he describes their quick transport to the slaughterhouse and then uses a euphemism to describe their murder.

Nearly every week, a truck picks up cattle and transports them to a meat packing plant. This is where cattle are harvested and the carcasses fabricated. It's important for the cattle to be transported quickly and calmly. The more stressed the animal, the lower quality the meat.

And that's that. Nice and tidy. No mess. Quick and painless.

Andrews also packs his piece full of information and statistics that no casual visitor -- even one pretty knowledgeable about animal rights would know. He cites sources at the end of the story, but the piece is too blatantly positive to strike me as true. I question his motivation for writing it. Check out his ending.

And, I have to say it. If my experience at Magnum is representative of other cattle farms, all those accounts of the dismal, depressing, disastrous cattle conditions seem to be exaggerated.

No, I'm not going to start eating meat again.

However, if I did eat meat, my visit to Magnum would have made me feel great about eating non-organic, non-grass-fed beef. Seriously. I can't imagine the quality of meat would be substantially better with organic and grass-fed. Nor can I imagine the living conditions would be substantially better for the cattle.

Now, to be clear, we don't require meat in our diet. And I don't think we should be using cows for food, doesn't matter if the cattle are kept on a feedlot or chilling in a waterbed listening to John Tesh. But that's my own value system and I'm well aware that 97% of people in the U.S. eat meat on a regular basis.

[...]

People want meat. And Magnum's feedlot system is dialed in. They're producing safe and cost-effective meat in, arguably, the most cattle-conscious way (short of opening up those pens and letting them run free). Rock on Magnum.

Rock on? Seriously? Hey, way to go, animal killers!

I hate how he basically apologizes for not eating meat. It's "my own value system"; you do whatever you want. And sure 97% of Americans eat meat, but shouldn't we be working to reduce that number? Instead he's telling meat-eaters it's ok. His being vegan lends a huge amount of credibility to animal ag -- so much so that David Martosko of the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom and other animal exploiters are tweeting the link to Andrews' story.

Rock on, Ryan Andrews. You've done the animals a great disservice.

Dog, Cat Expert Harms Farmed Animals

2010-06-24T15:08:00.000-05:00

A Chicago pet expert has sided with animal agribusiness, publishing a piece titled "Endangered Species: U.S. Farmers" on his blog.

Steve Dale, who had his own weekly show on Chicago's WGN Radio -- which is how I came to know of him -- is a syndicated pet columnist and a dog and cat behavior consultant, according to his blog, "Steve Dale's Pet World."

"Endangered Species: U.S. Farmers" criticizes California's Prop 2 and the Ohio initiative that is likely to be on November's ballot -- both of which phase out the use of confining crates for calves, pregnant pigs and chickens used for their eggs.

It bothers me that a man who makes his living by advocating on behalf of dogs and cats hasn't made the connection to other species of animals. But what annoys me more is that he's actually giving publicity -- and swaying public opinion -- to the side of people who murder animals.

If Dale hasn't made the connection and wants to eat animals, fine. But don't give animal abusers a microphone. And certainly don't tell your many fans that it's ok to eat animals.

What's the difference between a dog and a pig, between a cat and a cow?

He ends his post with agribusiness's "Chicken Little" arguments.

Everyone wants U.S. farmers to treat farm animals humanely....[Rancher Trent] Loos says we're pretty much there already; others contend we need to do better. All agree, though, if we go too far - animals don't benefit, U.S. farms go away - and we import nearly all our food. Sound like that could never happen. Experts say 'we're on our way for that to happen now.' Do we really want to be dependent on other countries for our food. Not only will prices go up, but also huge concerns about food safety.

We already have huge concerns about food safety under the current conditions. At least once a month I read about animal flesh being recalled.

And if prices for animal flesh and secretions increase, then that'd mean fewer animals who are tortured and killed. Isn't that a good thing, Mr. Animal Lover?

One segment that won't disappear, though, is U.S. farmers. While people who imprison and kill animals like to consider themselves farmers, true farmers actually grow crops. And a population that's eating more plant foods is going to give them a bigger market.

Shady Illinois Butcher Supplied Flesh for Lion Burger

2010-06-24T14:01:00.000-05:00

An Illinois butcher who served time in 2003 for selling the flesh of federally protected animals seems to be back to his old tricks.

Richard Czimer, whose Homer Glen shop I've passed countless times (and I may have even gone into once as a child), provided "lion meat" to an Arizona restaurant that's lion burgers to capitalize on the World Cup.

I put "lion meat" in quotes because no one, even Czimer himself apparently (although I don't believe him), knows much about its origins.

"This man buys and sells animals for the skin, and when I need something and he has ability to get it, I will bargain for the meat. It's a byproduct," he said.

And where does that mystery man get the lions? "I wouldn't have any idea," said Czimer, who operates a small retail store in addition to his wholesale business. "He has his sources, and I do not infringe on his business, just as he does not infringe on mine."

Sounds shady, doesn't it?

And "a byproduct"? The lion(s), if indeed that's the only species of animal in these burgers (aside from the cows that are mixed in), was killed for his skin. Czimer is an accomplice, not an innocent bystander merely purchasing a byproduct.

[In 2003] Czimer admitted to purchasing the carcasses of 16 tigers, four lions, two mountain lions and one liger -- a tiger-lion hybrid -- which were skinned, butchered and sold as "lion meat," for a profit of more than $38,000.

What an unscrupulous, greedy man. (Although anyone who profits from the murder of any animal is a jag in my book.)

Czimer, who served a measly six months in 2003 for selling federally protected tigers and leopards between 1997 and 1998, also sells the flesh of black bears, kangaroos, ducks, deer, buffalo, camels, ostriches, alligators, llamas -- the list is practically endless -- at Czimer's Game and Sea Foods.

The supposed lion flesh in the most recent incident was sold to a one-man Phoenix, Ariz., distributor called Gourmet Imports-Wild Game. Owner Rick Worrilow then sold the flesh to Cameron Selogie, who is selling it at his Mesa restaurant, Il Vinaio.

Mr Selogie said he had explained to protesters that African lions are on the protected list, but not endangered.

Oh, well, that's ok then. Actually African lions are "classified as 'threatened' by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, an international protection agreement."

I've had it up to here with people who put profit ahead of animals' lives. I don't care if they're killing lions or pigs, tigers or chickens. It's wrong, and it needs to stop.

And, as an aside, how can one look at the image above and think it's ok for a beautiful, living creature to be killed for someone's taste buds?

(Image courtesy of CNN.)

Plan Commission in Chicago Suburb Votes Down Puppy Mill Store

2010-06-23T12:15:00.002-05:00

A Chicago suburb's plan commission has voted against giving a proposed puppy mill store a conditional-use permit.

Alex Gershbein plans to open Planet Pooch Boutique, a store that will sell puppies and offer grooming, in seven Chicago-area locations.

But the Glenview Plan Commission voted 4-1 yesterday not to allow the business to move into a shopping area called The Glen Town Center.

Commissioners took care to note that they based their decision to vote against this proposal strictly on the basis that Mr. Gershbein had not met the standards for a conditional use of the property.

They mentioned specifically that he had not addressed their concerns about the grooming salon and its possible interference with nearby businesses, although they listened intently to the concerns of activists and residents alike.

According to a spokesperson for The Puppy Mill Project, a charity that advocates against puppy mills, about 50 animal advocates turned out for the meeting.

"Most people wouldn't deliberately buy a puppy mill puppy. But that's what they're getting when they buy from pet stores," said Amy Parker, of Deerfield, IL. "No matter what the store tells you, mass commercial breeding is the only way to supply enough puppies to meet pet store demand."

Planet Pooch's Gershbein is also involved with Pawsh Puppies, another puppy mill store in the Chicago area that has been the target of animal activists. The landlord of his Halsted Street store in Chicago also attended the meeting and told the commission that Gershbein "had stopped paying him rent, owed him $44,000.00, and had finally vacated the premises only that morning, after he was threatened with eviction by the Cook County Sheriff's police."

Thanks to protests and organized groups like The Puppy Mill Project, it's only a matter of time before stores that sell animals will be considered as taboo and disgusting as cigarette smoking.

If you'd like to welcome a dog or cat into your family, please adopt from a shelter or a rescue organization. You'll find many wonderful animals at Petfinder.com.

(Catherina is a 2-year-old Maltese looking for her forever home.)

Puppy-Mill Giant Joins Forces With Animal Agribusiness

2010-06-17T13:41:00.000-05:00

The world's largest supplier of puppies to pet stores is hosting a regional animal-agribusiness meeting next week.

The topic? Those pesky animal advocates.

The Hunte Corporation, "the world’s largest distributor of purebred puppies to the pet industry," will host the Regional Missouri Farm Bureau Meeting on Thursday.

The title of the keynote presentation, given by a Missouri Farm Bureau employee, is "Understanding the Activists ... Wolves In Sheep's Clothing."

Andrew Hunte, the CEO of The Hunte Corporation, is urging anyone involved in animal exploitation to attend.

We believe that educating the public is extremely important and we want to do our part to ensure that people simply know the truth. If your livelihood involves pets, animals or livestock in an way, it is being directly threatened and I would encourage you to attend this important meeting."

It's ironic that Hunte simply wants people to know the truth. If people saw the parents of their pet-store puppy, they'd be horrified.

Dogs at puppy mills are bred as often as possible, they don't know what grass feels like, they don't play with other dogs or kids. They are simply machines used to churn out litters of puppies for profit -- while millions of other dogs are euthanized each year because they don't have homes.

And as miserable as these dogs' lives are, the lives of farmed animals are even worse.

While it'd seem to make sense for these two cruel industries to band together to fight people who actually care about animals -- be they dogs and cats or cows, pigs and chickens, etc. -- it's really a stupid move for animal ag. Even people who say they'd never go veg detest puppy mills.

Thursday's speech is supposedly "extremely in-depth and exposes the alarming agendas, motives and tactics of some of America's most radical animal rights groups."

And by "radical animal rights groups," I'm guessing they mean The Humane Society of the United States, which any animal-rights activist will tell you is nowhere near radical. Many would even hesitate to call it an "animal rights group." Nevertheless, the people whose livelihoods depend on animal exploitation fear The HSUS.

As far as the "alarming agendas, motives and tactics" used by animal activists, they're really quite simple and not at all alarming. We want to end animal exploitation, suffering, murder -- that sort of thing.

We have one motive: We care about animals. The motive of puppy mill operators and those in animal agribusiness, of course, is money. They sell animals and the products of animals for profit.

Our tactics are simple, too. We educate others to the suffering of animals, whether they be dogs in puppy mills or cows on dairy farms.

Don't Be Deceived by HumaneWatch

2010-06-16T12:04:00.001-05:00

It's sad to see that some animal-rights activists have bought in to HumaneWatch's deception.

It's also easy to see how they've been duped.

HumaneWatch is a bogus Web site created by Rick Berman and David Martosko of the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom. It even has a Facebook page and runs ads on Facebook that hide the CCF's anti-animal/pro-corporate stance.

What animal lover could find fault with a photograph of a cute puppy (right) followed by this copy?

Love animals? You'll love HumaneWatch too. You'll help us keep national "humane society" groups HONEST.

But if animal lovers knew who funds HumaneWatch and the CCF, they'd never agree to join such a group.

The CCF is funded in part by animal agribusiness, and Martosko relishes calling animal activists "wackos" and "nuts."

As I've noted before, the goal of the CCF is to discredit The Humane Society of the United States, to make it less powerful. The CCF doesn't care about dogs and cats in local humane shelters. That's just a ploy. What the CCF does care about is preventing The HSUS from passing ballot initiatives that will hurt the CCF's animal-agribusiness clients.

Sure, it's good to have oversight of organizations, whether they be billion-dollar corporations (like BP) or charitable groups. However, the CCF is obviously the wrong entity to be doing the so-called monitoring.

For more information about what HumaneWatch really is, check out this video created by an HSUS supporter, without input from The HSUS.

Don't be taken in by the cuddly puppy in their ad or by the animal-friendly sound of "HumaneWatch." The people behind it are heartless, greedy businessmen whose lack of a conscience allows them to go to great lengths in their deception.

(Top photo: David Martosko illustrates just how much he cares about animals.)

Profits Over Puppies

2010-06-11T15:37:00.001-05:00

While caring about farmed animals hasn't yet gone mainstream, caring about dogs and cats has been mainstream for quite a while.

So it's surprising that a pet-store owner -- or as Jennifer Nicole Hack, Examiner.com's Chicago dog-training blogger, calls them, "puppy mill shops" -- is expanding his facilities.

Laurence Portnoy owns Pawsh Puppies in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood and in Northbrook. But Hack says Northbrook Court mall isn't renewing his lease, likely due to protests there. Unfortunately, some stripmall owners are giving him space.

Sadly, the puppy peddlers have plans to open multiple locations. Chicago is a humane, dog loving city[.] All these stores will be boycotted by animal loving residents in the area.

His new venture is called Planet Pooch, with "puppy mill shops" in Lincoln Park, Schaumburg, Naperville and Orland Park.

Hopefully the original Planet Pooch, a pair of doggy daycare centers in California, can sue Portnoy for infringing on their name. I spoke with the receptionist at one location who said she hadn't heard about a Chicagoland Planet Pooch.

For those who don't yet know how pet stores get their puppies, they get them from puppymills where female dogs are impregnated as often as possible. Their puppies are taken from them and sold to pet stores, which then sell them for tens of hundreds of dollars to unsuspecting people.

Please, if you care about dogs and cats, adopt them from a shelter or from a rescue organization.

A Rescue or a Business?

Most rescue organizations are reputable and have a dog's best interest in mind. Unfortunately, every so often one pops up that appears a bit shady.

I came across one of those today. Someone began following me on Twitter, so I glanced at that person's tweets. The majority of her (or his) tweets were linked to eBay Classifieds pages that advertised puppies for "adoption" from Posh Puppies Rescue and Adoption Center.

Two things raised a red flag for me.

First, I've never known a rescue to have so many purebred puppies. Sure, purebred puppies can be found at rescues, but not in the numbers that this organization has them.

Second, while I don't know anything about eBay Classifieds, a "classifieds" section, to me, implies people are selling stuff.

Posh Puppies' Web site says their puppies are leftovers from pet stores.

These darling, precious babies are given 2 chances to be sold~if they are not sold, they are returned to the commercial kennel to await their fate.
Most of the time, they are destroyed~many at only 12 weeks of age because their "shelf life", as it's called, has expired.

It sounds like a nice thing that this woman, Helen M. Martin, is doing.

But after I asked my animal-advocacy friends on Facebook if they were familiar with this "rescue," one of them (thanks, Tracie!) pointed out the "adoption" price of several of the puppies: $395, $450, even $695! All of which are much higher than any legitimate rescue organization I've seen.

According to its Web site, Posh Puppies is a 501(c)(3) charity, as most other rescues are. But I find it hard to believe Posh Puppies' first priority isn't to make a profit.

If you want to adopt a dog or a cat, check out Petfinder.com. It's worth noting that Posh Puppies is not on that site.

Update (6/23/10): It's unclear whether Laurence Portnoy is involved with Planet Pooch. However, Alex Gershbein of Pawsh Puppies is.

(Rowdy, a 5-year-old Cairn terrier, can be adopted through Cairn Rescue USA, one of many reputable rescue organizations.)

Public Hunting of Deer Removed From Options -- At Least for Now

2010-06-11T11:02:00.000-05:00

The Will County Board yesterday sent the issue of reducing the number of deer in Will County (IL) forest preserves back to committee.

But they took the shotgun-hunting option off the table -- at least for now.

The board wants the operations committee of the Forest Preserve District of Will County to look into other methods to control the deer population. Allowing sharpshooters to kill about 400 female deer is still an option.

But Elizabeth Krzak, a New Lenox veterinarian, argued that killing deer is not the answer. "Immediately after the population is culled, it flourishes because there is less competition," Krzak said.

The surviving does respond to the increased food by delivering twins and triplets in the spring instead of single fawns, she said. Krzak suggested birth control as an alternative.

But Marcy DeMauro, the executive director for the forest preserve district, said state law doesn't allow for contraceptive vaccinations for white-tailed deer.

Diane Seiler, D-Lockport, wondered if there were a more humane way to reduce the deer population than by using sharpshooters.

While the board opted not to pursue public hunting, Will County Board Chairman Jim Moustis, R-Frankfort, left the idea open, saying he may reintroduce it after more discussion in committee, according to Jeff Ruhe, an anti-hunting advocate from Beecher who attended the meeting. Moustis also leads the forest preserve's operations committee.

Ruhe also noted that forest preserve president Cory Singer, R-Frankfort, "promised to push for hunting and made a long speech supporting it."

These guys are really jonesing for their buddies to be able to kill some deer.

[I]f the group decided to reduce the number of deer through the use of marksmen, perhaps some of the environmentally conscious local hunters would volunteer to help with that project, Moustis said.

Oh, the altruism.

But at least public hunting is off the table for now.

(Photo courtesy of PrairieWildlife.net.)

Promotion of Veal on Columbus Day Adds to Insult

2010-06-07T15:15:00.000-05:00

The marketing arm of the Cattlemen's Beef Board plans to promote veal consumption for Columbus Day this year.

The move is part of a campaign by the Beef Checkoff Program (you need to register to gain access) aimed at Americans of Italian descent.

The Beef Checkoff Program's veal retail marketing team announced a promotion slated for this fall that will aim to position veal as the dish for Columbus Day, as turkey is the dish for Thanksgiving.

Although one of my great-grandfathers emigrated from Italy, my family never celebrated Columbus Day. I don't know how popular this campaign will be, but it's sad and inappropriate for a number of reasons.

First, of course, is the suffering that calves experience so that people can eat "veal." I put "veal" in quotes because it's really just a euphemism for the flesh of a baby cow.

In the dairy industry male calves -- which are worthless to milk producers -- are taken from their mothers shortly after birth and confined in veal crates so small they can't stretch their limbs. The crates inhibit muscle growth, to ensure tender meat. The calves are fed a diet low in iron, causing them to become anemic, so that their flesh will remain pale. They are killed after 12-23 weeks, and their flesh sold as veal.

This marketing campaign is ironic because of how Christopher Columbus and fellow white men for centuries afterward treated the native peoples they encountered.

I'm reading Howard Zinn’s "A People's History of the United States," and it's incredible how these European explorers and settlers regarded fellow human beings. In Columbus' log he wrote about how easy it would be to turn the native peoples into slaves.

Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

["]They . . . brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned . . . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features . . . .They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane . . . They would make fine servants . . . .With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.["]

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing.

Later, of course, the white settlers would enslave Africans. While human slavery still exists, it's uncommon in this country. But widespread slavery in the United States does still exist -- in the form of animal agribusiness, among other industries.

Because we think of ourselves as exceptional, we view "the other" as inferior. Descendents of native peoples and of African slaves are still regarded as inferior in this country, in general. And animals are treated as such, too. They exist for our purposes; they have no value except that which we bestow upon them, usually in the form of dollars. It's all about what we can get from them -- their flesh, their milk, their eggs -- just as it was for Columbus. What could he get from the native peoples?

As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.

He was in search of gold. Today those in animal agribusiness are looking for dollars, and they imprison and torture billions of animals each year to get it.

Columbus isn't worthy of celebration, and to eat the flesh of animals only adds insult to the day.

Chicken Facility Gets Slap on Wrist in 'Landmark' Settlement

2010-06-07T14:51:00.000-05:00

New England's largest egg supplier has reached a settlement in an animal-cruelty case.

In April of last year I wrote a blog post about a Mercy For Animals' undercover investigation into Maine Contract Farming LLC (although MFA is now calling it Quality Egg of New England).

Titled "Video Reveals Rotting Corpses, Chickens Kicked into Manure Pits at Egg Facility," the post documented the abuse that MFA found in its six-week probe.

The video not only revealed rotting corpses but also workers throwing chickens into trash cans to die and whipping birds around by their necks to kill them.

In a subsequent post, I wrote about the conditions that Maine Department of Agriculture employees found when it visited the facility.

The Maine Department of Agriculture workers, responding to the undercover investigation by Chicago-based Mercy For Animals, "felt burning in the nose and eyes, coughing, tightness of breath, and they sought medical attention for ammonia exposure."

These were the symptoms felt by people, obviously much larger than chickens, who were in the factory-farm facility for a matter of hours -- and who were likely wearing protective clothing and masks.

Now think about the chickens who have to live in these conditions their entire lives. They are much smaller than people, so ammonia fumes will affect them much sooner and more severely. There is no escape for them, no doctor to look after them.

Care to guess what Maine Contract Farming's punishment is?

[The company] admitted to 10 civil counts of animal cruelty for not providing hens with adquate shelter and food during a brief time in early 2009. The agreement involves 10 of the farm's five million hens.

The company also has to pay $25,000 in fines, $100,000 to the state and court costs.

But 5 million hens?! Even the most ardent animal lover wouldn’t be able to ensure the health and well-being of 5 million hens. The punishment is a joke."

What's even more pathetic is that this is viewed as a "landmark settlement."

"We believe that this is a landmark settlement," Mercy for Animals [founder] Nathan Runkle told MPBN's Susan Sharon. "This should send a very clear message to the egg industry that animal abuse will not be tolerated, and we believe that the state is trying to do the best things to prevent further cruelty to animals."

I disagree that this sends an anti-abuse message to the egg industry. What's sad is that this meager punishment is viewed as a precedent. It just shows us how low of a priority punishing farmed-animal abuse has been.

Media Outlets Pull CCF's Smear Story

2010-06-07T14:33:00.004-05:00

It appears two more television news stations have discovered the truth about the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom and have removed their stories critical of The Humane Society of the United States.

Hawaiian station KHON-2 last week and Wichita station KSN-TV on Friday aired reports about how The HSUS supposedly misleads the public into thinking our donations go to local animal shelters. The story was spoon-fed to them by David Martosko of the CCF.

But after being contacted by The HSUS, the Hawaiian station removed the story from its Web site. It appears the Wichita station has followed suit, as no hint of the story can be found on its Web site.

If this sounds familiar, it's because the same thing happened with a Georgia news station in May 2009.

As I noted after Atlanta station WSB-TV pulled its story, "news organizations don't typically cave to threats of lawsuits. They have lawyers, and they also have the First Amendment. So I have to think that the people at WSB are doubting the validity of the story they aired."

I was right. In fact, less than a month ago the general manager at WSB-TV sent Rick Berman, the creator of the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom, a letter chastising him for continuing to use the piece.

Station manager Hoffman wrote that "we [at WSB-TV] have had the opportunity to learn more about HSUS." He noted, "we believe that you have misrepresented the Broadcast as supporting your contention that HSUS actively misleads the public in its advertising. WSB-TV has no evidence of that nor do we believe it to be true." Hoffman also reminded Berman that "we immediately corrected an error in our original Broadcast regarding HSUS and Katrina relief efforts in our next news program."

I have no doubt that the CCF will continue feeding this story to news stations in more states. But sooner or later media outlets will get wise to their duplicitous ways.

Meanwhile, the National Federation of Humane Societies has sided with The HSUS.

After catching wind of the campaign, the National Federation of Humane Societies — a comprehensive trade federation that represents the animal welfare industry — sent Berman a letter regarding the situation, stating the claims by the CCF were "inaccurate based on our collective experiences.”

It calls on Berman to identify his corporate funders and urges him "to cease your smear campaign against HSUS that negatively impacts the efforts of our members to improve the lives of animals in their local communities."

Update (6/7/10): Well, that didn't take long. A station in Augusta, Ga., and one in Connecticut also have smear on their Web sites. They look like blog posts, though. I don't see any video. I'm guessing in a matter of days these, too, will be pulled.

(Image courtesy of The Dog Files.)

Turning Guilt Into Action

2010-06-04T11:39:00.001-05:00

As hard as it is to watch videos of farmed animals being abused, I can do it because I feel empowered, not helpless. By eating vegan, I have the ability not to contribute to that industry.

But it's harder for me to view photographs of the animal victims of the BP oil spill.

I feel helpless and guilty because I know I contribute to their pain. I live in the Chicago suburbs, where public transportation often isn't an option. While I drive a sensible car, my commute to and from work is a long one.

I could boycott BP, but what good would that do? Oil companies all destroy our planet.

No, I need to make changes closer to home. Even though I recycle and try to conserve energy, I know I'm not doing enough. Although I'm vegan -- a diet that helps the planet immensely -- there is more that I could, that I should, do. Like when I transitioned from an omnivorous diet to a plant-based one, I simply have to learn about alternatives to my current lifestyle, and I need to develop the mind-set to stick to it.

One of my friends unplugs her microwave each time she's done using it. I'm going to do that, too. It's a little thing, but it can't hurt.

As for my commute, changes are in the works for that.

Do you have any tips for lessening one's dependence on oil?

(This poor thing is an oil-covered bird. Courtesy of The Washington Post.)

Outrageous Responses to Animal Abuse

2010-06-03T14:29:00.000-05:00

In the past week we've seen two undercover videos of animals being abused in agribusiness.

Some of the responses from the industry would be hilarious if animals' lives weren't at stake.

Compassion Over Killing yesterday released footage of ducklings being scaled alive, mangled in machines and washed down a garbage-disposal-like contraption.

Brian Collins, the owner of Cal-Cruz Hatcheries in California, was unsympathetic to the ducklings' plight.

"Some [ducklings/chicks] do get lost, and I'm not saying it's OK," Collins said. "But put it in perspective; it's a very small percentage. And it's a consumer-driven market. We have to keep the costs low."

Note to non-vegans: If you want to end the abuse, don't financially support it.

He went on to blame the animal-agribusiness system.

"If there is some industry standard I'm missing, educate me, or design something better," Collins said.

That's like saying, "Hey, if you know a way to get my dog to behave, let me know. Otherwise I'm gonna continue to kick him."

The craziest response to an undercover video came Tuesday in response to Mercy For Animals' investigation of Conklin Dairy Farms in Ohio.

Susan Crowell, an editor at "Farm and Dairy," suggested that perhaps Billy Joe Gregg, the man seen abusing cows on much of the video, had been working for Mercy For Animals. That perhaps MFA, an organization that fights against animal abuse, had paid this man to abuse cows and calves. Ooook.

So perhaps Mercy For Animals also paid Gary Conklin, the farm's owner, to abuse cows, too? He's seen on the video kicking a sick cow in the neck.

As odd as her suspicion is, her thoughts got even more outrageous. Her husband soothed her -- she was supposedly distraught at the animal abuse -- by putting the cruelty into perspective: What about the children?!

My God, that's true! Who is looking out for the children of this country?

Yes, that's right: Instead of trying to protect animals, Mercy For Animals should be fighting child abuse. Because, God knows, no one cares about children.

Crowell cites three instances of child abuse that all occurred in private homes.

Where are the undercover videos, where are all these well-funded activists, [Crowell's husband] asked, when it comes to children instead of animals?

[...]

We all have a responsibility to work together to prevent child abuse and neglect. Who will speak up for our future?

There are hundreds of worthy causes in this world, and we don't have to choose just one to fight for. The beautiful thing about helping animals is that you can do it at every meal. You have to eat anyway, right? So eat vegan when you take breaks from your undercover work documenting child abuse in people's homes.

(Image courtesy of The Humane Society of the United States.)

Proposal for Deer Hunting Advances; Other Species May Be Next

2010-06-03T11:24:00.000-05:00

A committee of the Forest Preserve District of Will County yesterday approved a plan to allow shotgun hunters and sharpshooters to murder deer.

Despite residents' concerns, the operations committee voted 5-3 to send the measure to the full board for a vote June 10.

"I don't think there's any kind of control when you're talking about hunting," said Nancy Dollarhide of New Lenox. She warned of "opening a Pandora's box" in which hunters would begin to see the forest preserves as open areas for their sport.

And she's right.

[S]ome [board] members spoke enthusiastically of starting new programs for a segment of outdoors lovers otherwise left out of the preserves.

I hate when hunters are referred to as "outdoors lovers." People who love the outdoors, who love nature, don't destroy it. These people simply get their rocks off by killing innocent animals. They'd do it indoors if they could. Hell, some have even done it over the Internet.

Furthermore, no one is excluded from forest preserves. It's true that people can't bring their bows or guns in, but if they're really "outdoors lovers," they wouldn't need to.

This is just a euphemism for cruel people wanting to kill even more animals.

But all along the reason for allowing hunting has been because there are too many deer in the preserves. Now they're adding another reason, the true reason: My hunting friends and I want to kill animals closer to our homes. We don't want to have to drive to Southern Illinois.

Forest preserve board President Cory Singer, R-Frankfort, who seems to be the orchestrator of the hunting proposal, yesterday "made lengthy remarks about the safety of similar hunting programs and the appeal it would have in Will County."

He also said that "other forest preserve districts have developed deer management programs that include hunting." He said, "We are not pioneers on this."

But no other forest preserve districts in Illinois allow hunting. If hunters get their wish, though, deer hunting in Will County preserves will be just the beginning.

(Courtesy of Vegan Angel.)

U.N. Panel Urges Shift to Plant-Based Diet

2010-06-02T15:07:00.000-05:00

A United Nations panel has recommended people switch to a plant-based diet if we want to reverse the environmental destruction of our planet.

The report, "Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials," lists our use of fossil fuels and our type of diet as the top two ways to change the environment.

Current patterns of production and consumption of both fossil fuels and food are draining freshwater supplies; triggering losses of economically-important ecosystems such as forests; intensifying disease and death rates and raising levels of pollution to unsustainable levels.

The writers of the report realize how sensitive people are when it comes to their meat and dairy.

"Some tough choices are signaled in this report, but it may prove even more challenging for everyone if the current paths continue into the coming decades," added Mr. [Achim] Steiner.

Steiner is the executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, which hosts the panel that produced the report.

"The Panel have reviewed all the available science and conclude that two broad areas are currently having a disproportionately high impact on people and the planet's life support systems—these are energy in the form of fossil fuels and agriculture, especially the raising of livestock for meat and dairy products," he said.

The report found that animals in agribusiness are fed half of all the world's crops. It concluded that "a substantial reduction of [environmental] impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

Now if you think the world can't change, just focus on the United States. We have a voracious population, and we drive many of the trends in the rest of the world. Think about how much good we Americans could do if more of us ate plant-based diets. This U.N. report is just another reason it's so important to go vegan.

Abuse of Chicks, Ducklings All in a Day's Work

2010-06-02T13:52:00.000-05:00

Compassion Over Killing released its undercover video, documenting cruelty at a hatchery in Santa Cruz, Calif., today.

Although the footage was shot at the Cal-Cruz Hatcheries in January 2009 and 88 ducklings were confiscated because of abuse, the district attorney decided this past April not to prosecute anyone at the facility. And, unfortunately, I can see why. The horrendous, painful abuse that the chicks and ducklings suffer is the norm in animal agribusiness. And as cruel and inhumane as it is, if it's the norm, it's legal.

The actions shown in this video are very much like those seen in Mercy For Animals' undercover video of the Hy-Line International hatchery in Spencer, Iowa, which they filmed in May and June of last year.

The newborns -- some still in shells -- are considered objects, inventory. They're sorted like one would sort apples.

The Compassion Over Killing video, though, shows an "egg chute" in which injured birds are disposed. Think of spraying your kitchen sink to get scraps down your garbage disposal. That's exactly what they do to innocent, scared chicks and ducklings.

Although Cal-Cruz Hatcheries no longer breeds ducklings, I'm sure nothing else has changed. Why should it? The daily abuse they commit is perfectly legal.

Eight Swans-a-Swimming

2010-06-02T11:47:00.000-05:00

Since we're on the subject of birds, I wanted to share with you the beautiful sight that greets me now as I walk into work.

My building's property-management company rents swans to keep geese away from the pond outside. Obviously I don't support renting animals, but it is the lesser of two evils. I wouldn't want geese shot or poisoned because they're mussying up the lawn.

So two swans live at my building in the warmer weather. When I returned from Memorial Day weekend yesterday, I discovered that the female swan had recently given birth to six cute babies. The family was swimming in the pond as I made my way across the enclosed bridge above it.

It's so neat to watch the mom teach her little ones. Yesterday when a co-worker and I went out to take pictures, five of the babies waddled into the water where their parents were. But one stayed behind on some rocks. One of the parents walked into the rocks, got down low and waddled into the water. The baby followed.

This morning a piece of seaweed was hanging off the mother's bill. She wiggled her tail feathers, and a baby swam up, pulled the seaweed and ate it.

Two women stood on the lower, outside bridge and took pictures. Men passed by and stared and smiled at the babies.

In general, people really do care about animals. Most just haven't made the connection between animals and the animal products they consume.

The Ugly Abuse of Ducklings

2010-06-02T10:55:00.001-05:00

A Washington, D.C.-based animal-advocacy organization is scheduled to hold a press conference today to release an undercover video documenting abuse at a California hatchery.

An investigator with Compassion Over Killing in January 2009 captured mistreatment of ducklings at Cal-Cruz Hatchery in Live Oak, Calif. The abuse was so severe that the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority confiscated 88 of the birds last year.

Of the 88 ducklings confiscated in May 2009, 40 were on the verge of dying and had to be euthanized, [said Lynn Miller, interim manager of Animal Services].

"They were dehydrated. Some had burns, hypothermia, were covered in feces and malnourished," he said. "Some were beyond salvaging."

I don't know why it's taken so long for the video to be made public. I can only assume that investigations by Animal Services and by the district attorney's office have taken this long.

The video was turned over to county Animal Services officials in February 2009 and a separate investigation was conducted by local authorities that turned up corroborating evidence of abused ducklings.

Animal Services gave a report to the district attorney's office, but it declined to prosecute.

The hatchery no longer produces ducklings. Instead they've shifted their focus to chickens.

Are ducklings and chicks so different? If the people at this hatchery mistreated one type of bird, wouldn't they mistreat another?

(Photo courtesy of Robin Robertson.)

Animal Exploiters To Blame for Canine Influenza

2010-05-30T09:53:00.000-05:00

Canine influenza, an isolated disease just seven years ago, can now be found in 30 U.S. states.

And animal exploiters are to blame.

The disease began as equine influenza, or flu in horses. But because the greyhound-racing industry in Florida fed contaminated horse meat to the dogs, equine influenza crossed the species barrier and formed canine influenza. The virus was first reported in March 2003 in Florida, according to a pamphlet by Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, makers of a canine-influenza vaccine. (Other sites say it was first discovered in 2004, but all agree it was discovered at a greyhound-racing facility in Florida.)

I learned this yesterday from my veterinarian.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention back up this claim.

The H3N8 equine influenza virus has been known to exist in horses for more than 40 years. In 2004, however, cases of an unknown respiratory illness in dogs (initially greyhounds) were reported. An investigation showed that this respiratory illness was caused by the equine influenza A H3N8 virus. Scientists believe that this virus jumped species (from horses to dogs) and has now adapted to cause illness in dogs and spread efficiently among dogs. This is now considered a new dog-specific lineage of H3N8. In September of 2005, this virus was identified by experts as "a newly emerging pathogen in the dog population" in the United States.

If "H3N8" sounds confusing, think of "H1N1," the swine flu.

When I heard that the disease was created at a greyhound track and was now in 30 states, I assumed greyhound rescuers had inadvertently spread the disease. But it looks like the track owners themselves did. I don't know the intricacies of greyhound racing, but perhaps the owners shuffle dogs to and from different tracks.

From June to August of 2004, outbreaks of respiratory disease were reported at 14 tracks in 6 states (Florida, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kansas). Between January and May of 2005, outbreaks occurred at 20 tracks in 11 states (Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts).

The virus is spread through direct contact of dogs (licking or nuzzling each other), through coughing or sneezing and through contaminated surfaces, clothing or hands.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, 80 percent of infected dogs will show signs of symptoms, such as coughing, a nasal discharge and a low fever. Some dogs will exhibit more severe symptoms, such as a high fever and respiratory problems. My vet said 8 percent of dogs die from the disease.

I don't mean for this post to be an advertisement for Intervet/Schering-Plough. I opted to get the canine-influenza vaccine for one of my dogs, the only one I had brought in yesterday. But I'm neither advocating for or against it. Please discuss it with your vet.

This post is important, though, because canine influenza is just one more newly created disease that animal agribusiness has forced us to be concerned about. Mad cow, avian flu and swine flu are others. Not to mention the other diseases that eating high-fat, cholesterol-filled meat and dairy cause: cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.

(Image courtesy of Vegaplanet.)

A Visit With Nature

2010-05-29T17:36:00.001-05:00

Keith and I spent some time surrounded by nature this afternoon.

We strolled through McKinley Woods in Channahon (IL). If the president of the Forest Preserve District of Will County gets his way, this is one area gunmen will be allowed to murder deer.

What's neat about this area is that on one side of the path is the Illinois & Michigan Canal and on the other is the Illinois River.
We saw six squirrels chasing each other, an egret flying along the canal and lots of dragonflies and minnows. We even heard what Keith thinks was a bullfrog. I'd never heard one before. He sounded like a cow with a deep voice.

We also saw many bicyclists and a few fellow walkers. As unseen frogs plopped into the water as we passed, I felt like I was intruding on the animals' home. But I'm sure they're used to having visitors, and as long as we respect them and their home, then it should be fine.

Hopefully people with guns will not be allowed entrance.

(Photos courtesy of Keithy.)

Abuse on Dairy Farm No Anomaly

2010-05-28T14:44:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Mercy For Animals' recent undercover video at a dairy farm, some people are wondering if abuse in animal agribusiness is the norm. Perhaps, they'd like to believe, it's an anomaly.

Here's what Mercy For Animals says about it:

Although many of the abuses documented at Conklin Dairy Farms are sadistic in nature, numerous MFA undercover investigations at dairy farms, pig farms, egg farms, hatcheries and slaughterhouses have revealed that violence and abuse to farmed animals – whether malicious or institutionalized – runs rampant nationwide.

You can search "Digging Through the Dirt" for "undercover investigations" and see for yourself the kinds of abuse this organization and others have revealed: chickens living with mummified corpses of other chickens, pigs being hanged by a forklift, sick cows being pushed by a forklift for transport to slaughter.

But let's pretend for a minute that all farmed animals have an idyllic life -- playing outside with their friends; exploring on their own; not being castrated, dehorned, de-tailed, branded. You get the idea.

Even if they lived this way (which they don't), they are still murdered. No farmed animals in agribusiness get to live their normal lifespan. Far from it. Why are they murdered? One word: MONEY.

These murders take place every day. In fact, 10 billion land animals are killed each year in the United States for their flesh (or because they don't produce enough milk or eggs to be profitable). It's a common, everyday occurrence.

But sometimes their murders make headlines. Such is the case with a story Business Week reported yesterday. Although instead of referring to it as murder, it's called "culling" or "herd reduction."

U.S. dairy farmers plan another round of herd reductions in a bid to bolster milk prices, according to the National Milk Producers Federation.

The number of animals targeted for slaughter wasn't specified. In the nine previous culls since the summer of 2003, more than 480,000 dairy cows were sent to processors, a federation official said.

Cows, pigs, chickens ... they're commodities to agribusiness. They're inventory that they need to liquidate. These animals aren't valued for who they are, only for how much money they can bring in. As I told a dog rescuer yesterday, farmed animals are like breeder dogs at a puppy mill -- only they're treated far worse.

(Photo of an employee at Conklin Dairy Farms stomping on a calf's neck courtesy of Mercy For Animals.)

Bumper Stickers an Easy Way to Advocate for Animals

2010-05-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

After having it for 11 years, I finally sold my Saturn a few months ago -- and with it, my two animal-advocacy bumper stickers.

My new car has felt naked without a message on its back end. So today I've added one.

I had searched the Internet for one to purchase but didn't find any I liked enough. One of my previous stickers was from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It gave a phone number for a free vegetarian starter kit. The other was one I designed myself on Zazzle.com, and it urged people to adopt from shelters and rescues instead of supporting puppy mills.

This time I again turned to Zazzle and designed my own. It's pictured above.

Most of you probably no the value of bumper stickers in advocating for animals and likely have a few yourself. But those of you who don't should consider it. It's an easy way to spread your message. Once you purchase one and stick it on your car, you don't have to do anything else. Think of all the time you spend in your car and how many people will see the back of it. I even park my car in my driveway now -- the garage has stuff in it -- so it sits as a 24/7 message.

When I had my Saturn, I once noticed a passenger in the car behind me taking a picture of one of my stickers. And three girls stopped to look at my bumper stickers as they passed my house one day.

Most of the bumper stickers I see on my way to work are pro-hunting and anti-abortion. It's time we animal lovers made our numbers known on the streets.

(Image courtesy of Zazzle.com. Sorry for all the white space.)

Dairy Employee Charged with Misdemeanors

2010-05-26T16:08:00.001-05:00

Police have arrested one of the employees apparently seen abusing cows on an undercover video by Mercy For Animals.

Billy Joe Gregg, 25, was arrested by the Union County Sheriff's Department this morning, after they were called to the Conklin Dairy Farm in Plain City, Ohio, to be on hand while Gregg was fired.

According to Sheriff Chief Deputy Tom Morgan, Gregg has been charged with a dozen counts of cruelty to animals, which is only a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750.

MFA, a Chicago-based animal-advocacy group, released its undercover video this morning. It shows an employee or employees punching calves, kicking cows' udders and poking cows with a pitchfork.

The video also allegedly shows the owner of the farm, Gary Conklin, kicking a sick cow in the neck.

If Gregg is, in fact, the person who can be seen the most on the video, his actions are inexcusable and he should be facing more than misdemeanors. However, he's a scapegoat.

That kind of behavior likely would have been seen by supervisors and possibly by Conklin himself. Judging by Conklin's own behavior in the video, he condoned such cruelty and should also be held accountable.

In an interview with ABN radio, "Ohio's voice for agriculture," Morgan wouldn't comment on whether the department was pursuing other "suspects."

According to a news story yesterday, Mercy For Animals had been in touch with the county prosecutor before the video went public.

The Chicago-based organization said it has met with prosecutors and is pushing for criminal charges against employees of the facility.

So I don't understand why Gregg hadn't been arrested before this morning. The only thing that would have changed is public outrage.

More Industry Response

Despite those in animal agribusiness condemning the actions in the video, ag supporters also blame animal activists.

In his interview with the chief deputy, Andy Vance seemed to blame activists for going public with the cruelty.

When you look at the public nature of this and the high profile that, I guess, the Internet and some of the activist groups who are involved have brought to bear, I'm guessing that this has put some additional strain on your department and your staff and deputies trying to not only investigate this case but also do your everyday job of protecting the community and the county of Union.

Morgan's response was that "We've got our day to day operations to take care of, and this has been a drain on our manpower."

Well, sorry for the inconvenience. Perhaps you should blame Conklin and the culture of violence at his facility.

Vance isn't the only one blaming us activists. The Web site AgWired, "News from the world of agribusiness," calls us out directly.

This is a group of militant vegans with an agenda so it is good to question their credibility and motivation.

We all have an agenda. Even the animal-agribusiness people. Perhaps especially the animal-agribusiness people. They make their living by exploiting animals. If I were going to question anyone's credibility and motivation, it'd be those who benefit financially.

Sure, Mercy For Animals may get some extra donations in light of this video. But it won't be anywhere near the money that agribusiness rakes in. And people like me who are blogging about the MFA video won't see any money. We do it -- and the people at MFA do it -- because we care about animals. We're not so myopic as to view animals as objects. We can see their pain. We know they don't deserve to be imprisoned and murdered. That's our motivation.

We will continue fighting until they are free. That's our agenda.

(Photo of rescued calves, courtesy of Farm Sanctuary.)

Dairy Owner Kicks Sick Cow; Employees Punch Calves

2010-05-26T12:51:00.000-05:00

The people at the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom think that mud and fallen branches constitute animal cruelty.

So I imagine David Martosko is scurrying to write pieces condemning the abuse that Mercy For Animals has uncovered on a dairy farm in Ohio. Right?

Chicago-based MFA today released footage of its undercover investigation at Conklin Dairy Farms in Plain City, Ohio.

During a four-week investigation between April and May, MFA's investigator documented farm workers:

Violently punching young calves in the face, body slamming them to the ground, and pulling and throwing them by their ears
Routinely using pitchforks to stab cows in the face, legs and stomach
Kicking "downed" cows (those too injured to stand) in the face and neck – abuse carried out and encouraged by the farm's owner [emphasis mine]
Maliciously beating restrained cows in the face with crowbars – some attacks involving over 40 blows to the head
Twisting cows' tails until the bones snapped
Punching cows' udders
Bragging about stabbing, dragging, shooting, breaking bones, and beating cows and calves to death

Wow. I wrote the beginning of this post without having seen the video. And now that I watched all 3 minutes and 43 seconds of it, I'm stunned. I can't believe people treat animals like that. Watching it, I wondered what kind of videos we would have seen in the days of U.S. slavery if the technology had been available. Black people were property back then, just as these cows are.

Industry Response

As I predicted in yesterday's post, the agribusiness industry is responding like it always does after the release of an animal-cruelty video. They're trying to distance themselves from the abuse while criticizing the undercover investigator.

After being shown kicking a sick cow, Gary Conklin, the owner of the facility, had the audacity to say that he cares about his animals.

"As fourth-generation farmers, our family takes the care of our cows and calves very seriously."

On his blog Troy Hadrick, who raises cows and then sends them to be killed for their flesh, first cautions people not to believe everything they see on the Internet, as if somehow this cruelty could be staged.

He then blames the undercover investigator for not coming forward immediately to put an end to the abuse. These investigators don't like this abuse, but they need to record it in order for changes to be made across the industry.

Finally, he condemns Conklin but qualifies it with "if these allegations of abuse are found to be true." The dude's on tape kicking a cow, for Christ's sake.

Ray Prock Jr., who owns a dairy farm in California, also blames the investigator. The criticism takes up one-third of the short post on his blog.

I firmly believe that the right thing to do when anyone observes another person abusing an animal they should immediately stop what they are doing and confront the person or report it to their supervisor if that is not effective then make contact with someone in a regulatory capacity. An employee who blatantly abusesan animal observes another employee doing the same without taking the appropriate action should be immediately terminated.

But animal abuse, animal cruelty is inherent in this industry. It's the norm.

If you still haven't gone vegan, please watch this video. If you're scared that it'll be too hard to watch it, then go vegan without watching it. If you can't stand to see what your money is supporting, then you shouldn't be supporting it.

CCF Scrapes Bottom of Barrel in Undercover Video

2010-05-26T11:17:00.000-05:00

Before I write about Mercy For Animals' most recent undercover investigation, about which they held a press conference today, I wanted to write about a different undercover probe.

This one is by the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom.

I was hesitant to write about this because this blog could easily turn into a tennis match between the CCF and The Humane Society of the United States, recording the lobbing of accusations as the CCF tries to discredit The HSUS and the latter fights back.

And, of course, the CCF's accusations are just red herrings. But this most recent red herring, in light of MFA's video today, was too good to pass up.

The CCF has obtained footage shot at the HSUS-run Duchess Sanctuary in Douglas County, Ore. It's home to "about 200 formerly abused, abandoned, neglected and homeless horses."

The headline of the press release on the CCF's Web site is "Watchdog Group's Investigation Exposes Unacceptable Conditions at HSUS Horse Sanctuary." I'll wait a minute while you finish laughing at the CCF calling itself a "watchdog group."

So what "unacceptable conditions" are shown on the video? Are horses being beaten? Are they stuck in cages so small they can't turn around? Are they living with decomposing corpses of fellow horses? After all, these types of animal abuse are routinely seen in undercover videos shot by animal-advocacy groups.

But the video doesn't show any of this. It does, though, show muddy ground and some fallen tree branches.

That's it. That's all the CCF has. I'm actually surprised they didn't bash The HSUS for the overcast weather. How dare The HSUS have horses outside when it's cloudy!

If this is animal abuse, then what could we call agribusiness's routine treatment of animals? Those animals are tortured, forcibly impregnated, separated from their families and murdered.

If the CCF is outraged at the conditions on their video, perhaps they should sever ties with the corporations and organizations who actually commit animal abuse.

Martosko, Berman, if you're reading this, check out my next post. I'll show you what true animal cruelty looks like. Not that you don't already know what you and your organization support.

(Photo of Violet, a horse taken in my Duchess Sanctuary, courtesy of The Fund for Animals.)

Mercy For Animals To Release Undercover Video

2010-05-25T15:27:00.001-05:00

Mercy For Animals will go public with its newest undercover investigation Wednesday.

An employee of Conklin Dairy Farms in Plain City, Ohio, secretly videotaped animal cruelty for four weeks, beginning in April.

[MFA] says [the video] shows dairy farm workers beating cows in the face with crowbars, stabbing them with pitchforks, breaking their tails, and punching, throwing, and kicking calves.

Nathan Runkle founded MFA while he was growing up in Ohio. The organization's headquarters are now in Chicago.

This investigation will hopefully help the efforts of the animal initiative that will be on Ohio's ballot in November.

If passed, the proposal, set into motion by The Humane Society of the United States and Farm Sanctuary, would require the Livestock Care Standards Board (made up of people who profit from animal exploitation) to enact modest changes: banning veal and gestation crates and battery cages; not allowing "downer" cows (cows so sick they cannot stand) into the human food supply; and requiring humane methods of euthanasia.

It's a modest proposal, but animal agribusiness is against it.

The video will be released at a press conference at 11 a.m. tomorrow in Dayton.

I'm feeling a bit psychic today, so here's my prediction for how agribusiness will respond to the video tomorrow:

This is an isolated incident. Ninety-nine percent of farmers take good care of their animals. They have to to ensure they produce a good product.
We need to continue to tell our story, to show the public that these are bad actors.
The employees weren't following proper animal-care guidelines. They've since been fired.
The worker who shot the video is just as responsible because he (or she) should have gone to management at the first signs of animal abuse.
Mercy For Animals is just trying to ramp up support for the HSUS ballot initiative. They don't really care about the animals.

Unfortunately, though, animal abuse in agribusiness is the norm.

The best way to combat it is to go vegan.

(Photo of Dylan, who isn't related to the MFA investigation, courtesy of Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary.)

BP's Attempt at Greenwashing Backfires

2010-05-20T13:24:00.004-05:00

A new aquarium exhibit in California is set to open today.

Ironically it's called the BP Sea Otter Habitat.

Four years ago British Petroleum (now known by the innocuous -- at least until the recent oil spill -- initials BP) donated $1 million to the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif. In return it got its name on the new sea otter exhibit. For BP $1 million is a small price to pay for the benefits of greenwashing.

Everyone loves cute little sea otters, so having its name on the exhibit would lead to positive connotations of a company that cares about animals and the environment.

But the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico painted that greenwashing black. After all, oily sea otters are synonymous with the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, a disaster BP doesn't want its oil-rig explosion compared to.

Fortunately for sea otters, they don't live in the Gulf of Mexico. But BP's 582-page document "Regional Oil Spill Response Plan — Gulf of Mexico" claims they and other cold-water mammals live in the gulf.

In a section titled "Sensitive Biological & Human-Use Resources," the plan lists "seals, sea otters and walruses" as animals that could be impacted by a Gulf of Mexico spill — even though no such animals live in the Gulf.

(Of course, many other animals do live there.)

The plan doesn't mention what to do in the event a deep-water well can't be shut off. It does, though, tell people what to say to the news media in the event of an oil spill.

Gotta present a pretty face, regardless how environmentally disastrous your actions.

KFC Opts for Pinkwashing

I'm sure most of you have already heard about this, but since we're on the subject of dubious public relations, I figured I'd mention KFC.

Kentucky Fried Chicken has teamed up with Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a an organization that supposedly fights cancer.

But diet plays a large role in preventing cancer -- a low-fat, plant-based diet, that is. And "The China Study" revealed that animal protein can trigger cancer.

So why would Susan G. Komen partner with KFC?

Corporate relationships must have a meaningful mission-related benefit to the general public or to particular constituencies of Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

That's from the Komen Web site. Apparently deceiving the public in order to raise money is a mission-related benefit.

If you haven't checked out John Robbins' piece about this at The Huffington Post, you'll want to. Here's an excerpt:

Pardon me for being cynical, but I have to ask, if Komen is going to partner with KFC, why not take it a step further and partner with a cigarette company? They could sell pink packages of cigarettes, donating a few cents from each pack while claiming "each pack you smoke brings us closer to the day cancer is vanquished forever."

If only corporations would act in the best interest of consumers, animals and the environment. Then they wouldn't have to engage in PR deception.

Edit: Check out Andy Stepanian's piece at The Huffington Post about BP's public-relations efforts along the Gulf Coast.

(Sea otters caught in Alaska's 1989 oil spill, courtesy of Anchorage Daily News.
KFC given the finger, courtesy of peta2flickr.)

Palin, Other Hunters on Heartless Power Trip

2010-05-17T13:56:00.000-05:00

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized animal-rights activists Friday at a National Rifle Association convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Palin ridiculed efforts to limit hunting in Alaska.

"I have bad news for those groups," she said. "Bambi's mother is dinner - even in L.A.

"Where do those people think their venison comes from? The deer didn't die of natural causes. It wasn't road kill."

Does this woman even have a heart?

When I worked in central Illinois, my boss brought in homemade chili for us one weekend ... venison chili. He was a hunter. At that point I was a meat-eater, I had never heard the phrase "animal rights," and the idea of going vegetarian hadn't even occurred to me. But there was no way I was going to eat chili made from a deer.

I'd seen "Bambi" as a child, and the horror and sadness I felt because of the hunters in that film have stayed with me. Yes, I know it was hypocritical of me to turn my nose up at the thought of eating deer while I continued to eat chickens, cows, pigs, etc.

I'll never understand, though, how someone could come within feet of a beautiful, living animal and then murder him or her. And they're so proud of it.

On my way to work this morning I passed a black pickup truck with the license plate BUKDEER. The truck had bow-hunting decals on its back window, and the tailgate was painted green camouflage. Painted over that, in red letters, was "People Eating Tasty Animals." This phrase is used by juvenile animal exploiters who think it's funny to rename PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

What kind of person publicizes their love for killing innocent creatures?

As I've said before, behavior like this negates the argument that hunters kill to protect animals. Hunters who favor deer hunting in Will County (IL) forest preserves contend hunting is necessary to prevent deer from starving to death, that they'd be doing a public service.

But it's clear that these murderers just get off on killing. Like Palin's desire for the limelight, murdering animals is a power trip.

Push for Deer Hunting Turns Into a Family Affair

2010-05-14T12:49:00.000-05:00

Last night's meeting of the Will County (IL) forest preserve board was a family affair, with two of the president's relatives supporting him in an effort to get hunting -- both bow and shotgun -- into the preserves.

Despite what an April story said, no board voted last night on the issue of whether to allow hunting of white-tailed deer.

However, some hunters did gather at last night's meeting. They urged the board to put bow hunting back on the table. The operations committee on May 6 voted unanimously not to consider bow hunting. Shotgun hunting and sharpshooters, though, are still being considered.

Among the people at the meeting was Cass Wennlund, a (former?) relative of mine. He's either separated from or divorced from one of my cousins. (A second cousin once removed or a third cousin -- you get the idea.)

I had no idea he favored hunting, although I'm not surprised. One of his sons shares his name with a type of gun.

I also didn't know that he is Cory Singer's brother-in-law. Singer (R-Frankfort), a Will County Board member and the president of the forest preserve board, appears to be the person leading the push for deer hunting.

Wennlund, a lawyer from Mokena, is the son of former state Rep. Larry Wennlund, who also favors hunting and is Singer's father-in-law. The senior Wennlund's views were expressed via another Mokena lawyer and a member of the National Rifle Association.

"I want to make sure this organization goes in the right direction when harvesting deer," said Ed Ronkowski.

Note to Ronkowski: Plants are harvested. Deer are animals capable of feeling pain and joy. Don't diminish them by using a euphemism to hide the fact that they'd be murdered.

Ronkowski wants the board to take a page from the Boy Scouts.

Ronkowski told board members that the Rainbow Council Boy Scouts of America owns property on North Winterbottom Road in Morris. Because there are too many deer, it has allowed bow hunters who pay a $1,000 fee to hunt on the property.

[...]

"I would ask this board to go in the direction of the Boy Scouts and allow hunting and allow bow hunting," Ronkowski said.

While I obviously don't support what the Boy Scouts have done (not to mention what this teaches boys), that is private land. It's not paid for by taxpayers, nor is it called a "preserve."

A vote on the fate of the deer isn't expected until June or July.

(Photo courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times.)

HSUS Gets MADD, Files Ethics Complaint Against Berman

2010-05-11T15:24:00.001-05:00

The Humane Society of the United States has joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving in filing an ethics complaint against Rick Berman and his American Beverage Institute.

They contend that the ABI violated New York law by not registering and reporting its lobbying efforts.

ABI spent more than $70,000 to purchase and publish advertisements to influence and defeat pending legislation intended to make roadways safer by cracking down on recidivism by convicted DWI offenders.

But The HSUS advocates on behalf of animals. So why would it care about the lobbying of the American Beverage Institute?

Because the ABI is owned by Berman, who also owns the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is hell bent on slinging mud at The HSUS.

So The HSUS is fighting back -- albeit more professionally and with fewer cringe-inducing puns than David Martosko and the CCF.

"Rick Berman has for years been running a commercial public relations operation and masquerading as a nonprofit organization," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Now, it appears that he is violating the law by failing to disclose to New York authorities his lobbying efforts to protect drunk drivers."

It really is a shame that Berman is allowed to profit from his co-called non-profit groups. He uses their status to get tax breaks and to appeal to people's trust. Non-profits are good, right? They have altruistic motivations. Right?

Berman's corporate front groups play down the dangers of drunken driving and secondhand smoke, argue obesity is not a public health issue, defend the cruelest forms of animal abuse, and seek to depress workers' rights and prevent minimum wage increases — all under the guise of "public interest" advocacy, and without disclosing the identity of industry clients on whose behalf they speak.

The press release about the ethics complaint claims that, according to the most-recent tax filings, 92% of the money the CCF took in from its unnamed sources got funneled into Berman's for-profit PR business, Berman and Company.

(Photo of Rick Berman courtesy of "Forces of Ronald.")

Deer an Excuse to Implement Hunting Program?

2010-05-11T11:51:00.001-05:00

The tagline at the top of the home page for the Forest Preserve District of Will County (IL) reads, "Bringing People and Nature Together."

But I doubt deer hunting is what they had in mind when they chose that slogan.

Nevertheless, as I wrote last week, the forest preserve board of commissioners and the Will County Board (which appear to contain the same people) are considering allowing the murder of white-tailed deer.

The proposal is being pushed by some members of the forest preserve board, with the president likely leading the charge.

Forest Preserve District President Cory Singer, R-Frankfort, is perhaps the biggest proponent of [bow and shotgun hunting].

I've been told by someone in the know that "some [higher-up] just wants to get a hunting program started."

A Will County Board member seems to have suspicions about the motivation for hunting, too. Kathleen Konicki e-mailed me in response to an e-mail I sent to county board members, urging them to vote no on the hunting proposal.

[T]he forest preserve has extensive holdings in my area, and there has been no evidence or complaints from adjoining landowners indicative of over-population. Frankly, at this point, I don't feel any action is warranted. I feel blind-sided by this sudden claim of overpopulation and resource devastation. [...] There was no mention of such problems, until [forest preserve] President Singer took office.

[...]

Bottom-line, I do not share President Singer's enthusiasm for this program nor his sense of urgency to implement it.

At the operations committee meeting May 5 Walter Krzak, a veterinarian from New Lenox, "noted that the forest preserve district's study of the situation seemed skewed toward hunting."

His sister, Alice Krzak, also of New Lenox and also a veterinarian, "attended one of the public forums and noticed something about them: 'I felt (the meeting) was definitely pro hunting.'"

While the operations committee unanimously (0-10) shot down the proposal for bow hunting last week, their decision may only be a recommendation. A newspaper story said that the full board of commissioners will make the final decision. But Konicki, in her e-mail, said bow hunting "has been taken off the table and is no longer being considered."

According to the forest preserve's Web site, the committee said that "culling needed to be managed as a conservation program, not as a recreational program." Yet they voted 6-4 in favor of considering shotgun hunting. They also voted 9-0-1 in favor of considering using sharpshooters.

After learning about the votes, bow hunters aired their frustration in bow-hunting forums like ArcheryTalk.com.

Ill be damned if the sharp shooters are going to be the one having all the fun.

Regardless what hunting proponents may say, this statement reveals the true reason they hunt: It's fun.

It's a time to socialize, to exert one's manliness, to have control over something in their lives.

They call hunting a "sport." Recreation, fun, excitement ... all of those are inherent in sports.

Yet they defend hunting by saying the deer would suffer and starve without them. They portray it as mercy killing. In response to my e-mail Michael Wisniewski, a Will County Board member and treasurer of the forest preserve, didn't bother with a salutation. Instead he went right into his mercy-killing defense.

should we let the deer starve to death ?

Get diseases from malnutrition ? Perhaps an infection that wastes the entire herd?

I do support mercy killing. If my dog is suffering from a disease, is in pain and has a horrible quality of life, I would likely take him to the veterinarian to be euthanized. But I won't be smiling, laughing, high-fiving my friends. Nor will I have someone take my picture, with me propping up my dead dog, proud for having just ended his life.

You can contact the Forest Preserve District of Will County by using this online form.

'Peaceable Kingdom' Shows Animals As Individuals

2010-05-10T11:36:00.000-05:00

It was fitting for Evanston's (IL) "Talking Pictures Festival" to show "Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home" on Mother's Day, for much of this documentary centered on the bond between mother and child.

Although the bond was not between human mother and child, the love between goats, between cows, between chickens was the same.

"Peaceable Kingdom" features a few people who were once animal farmers and who have since come to see animals as unique, feeling individuals, as beings not deserving of suffering and murder.

After a goat was separated from her baby following a hoarding situation, she'd stand outside each new transport truck that brought goats to a sanctuary, calling to a baby she hoped was inside. Finally mother and baby were reunited.

We also saw footage of farmers dragging calves by one leg while their mothers called after them in confusion.

And we viewed a chicken in a sanctuary who taught her chick how to scratch at the hay on the floor. Who picked up corn and gave it to her baby. Who protected her young one underneath her feathery body.

This is the second edition, if you will, of "Peaceable Kingdom." The film's producers were unhappy with aspects of the first film and have made numerous changes. I had seen the first version and didn't feel like I was watching a re-run.

But the newer film does contain the most memorable scene, for me, from the first. A scene in which former dairy farmer Harold Brown is talking about an interaction he had with a cow named Snickers. When Brown saw Snickers a year after meeting him, Snickers ran to him and literally and figuratively nudged his heart.

Brown, who is traveling the country with this film, spoke afterward. I had seen him speak at the Animal Rights Conference in 2008 and was impressed with his articulate nature and with his knowledge. Yesterday was no different.

He said vegetarians and vegans are sometimes referred to as "food nannies" -- thanks, CCF -- wanting to tell people what to eat. But he asked if people really had free choice to decide what to eat. He cited the number of television advertisements that tout food containing animal products.

"We've got to stop being consumers and become citizens."

He said we need to employ critical thinking and ask ourselves what it is that we're supporting.

One member of the audience asked Brown if Michael Pollan had seen the film. Brown's response? "I don't know, but I'm gonna make damn sure he does."

I wish the movie would have ended with a plea to go vegan and a Website where viewers could learn more. Instead, though, I feel like people will be moved by the movie and want to do something, but won't know what to do. Or they may think they should at least go vegetarian but won't have any resources to support them.

I was happy to know that some omnivores were in attendance, but I think some missed the point of the movie. While Brown summed it up perfectly during his Q&A, some of the questions were too focused on eating organic or bashing factory farms, as if "organic" or "humanely raised" animals don't suffer the same cruel fate as others.

Of farmed animals, Brown said, "We are our brothers' keepers. [...] They aren't here for us; we're here for them."

(Movie clip and photo courtesy of Tribe of Heart.)

Urge County Board to Vote NO on Deer Hunting

2010-05-07T14:27:00.001-05:00

The Will County (Illinois) Board will vote Thursday on whether to allow deer hunting in county forest preserves.

The Will County Board will decide at its May 13 meeting whether to allow the program - that may include sharpshooting and public hunting with bows and shotguns. If approved, hunting would begin this fall.

Preserves would be closed to the public -- the tax-paying public, mind you -- while these jackasses get off on killing innocent animals.

Unfortunately hunters -- including at least one on the county board -- have come out in full force in favor of this proposal. In fact, I heard that one board member wanted to kill only male deer. (The males have the antlers, showpieces for one's wall.) But it's the females one must target if they want to reduce the population.

Kenneth Sanderson, of Crest Hill, said: "It needs to be done, and it needs to be done by hunters, not sharpshooters. I'm all for anything that will open more ground for hunting. I just bought my son his first bow. This would be a golden opportunity for him while providing a public service."

Well, thank God for this guy, providing a public service and spending quality bonding time with his son.
Killing is fun for these people.

You have to cull the deer, and archery is a better way to do it," said Nelson Mack, a New Lenox bow hunter. "This is better than going up to Wisconsin."

It's like a stay-cation. How cool is that!

For the past decade Will County, the county in which I grew up and currently live, has been one of the fastest-growing in the country. And local officials love that.

But this suburban sprawl has encroached on the homes of animals. And now county officials claim there are too many deer, using the same argument: If we don't kill them, they'll starve.

Yet the board hasn't looked into other less expensive, more humane options. They simply want to kill.

They'd never condone killing people because our numbers are out of control. But deer feel the same pain as people.

The Bradley family, of Homer Glen, were against any form of hunting.

"I live in the woods. I feel like I live with them," Laura Bradley said. "The only aim that should be taken at a deer is through a camera lens. It's not that there are [more] deer, but less acreage. It's not their fault."

Unfortunately, the plan to allow deer hunting was decided long before it became public -- despite what board members have told the media.

Public hunting was proposed after weighing other options such as repellents, fencing, trapping and relocating, fertility control and reintroduction of predators.

But we still have a small chance to change the minds of board members. Please e-mail the members of the Will County Board and urge them to vote NO on deer hunting. Even if you don't live in Will County, please make your voices heard.

Will County Board e-mail addresses:
fstewart@willcountyillinois.com; janderson@willcountyillinois.com; Katrina.Deutsche@gmail.com; csinger@fpdwc.org; lauriewillcounty@live.com; tomweigel@att.net; ann.dralle@sbcglobal.net; countyboardlaurie@yahoo.com; mwisniewski@willcountyillinois.com; chuck.maher@gmail.com; jtraynere@comcast.net; jimblackburn49@hotmail.com; lgoodson@willcountyillinois.com; bsmith@marketmailers.net; rocklaw94@aol.com; worksol@sbcglobal.net; debcntybrd@hotmail.com; Konicki@willcountyillinois.com; DHSwillcounty@yahoo.com; walteradamic@att.net; stjohns.church@comcast.net; denisewinfrey@sbcglobal.net; wfstax@juno.com

(Photo courtesy of Zoobangoo.com.
Second photo courtesy of TheCuteReport.com. Looks like your dog, doesn't he?)