Fwd: Animal Person

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a New Level of Absurdity in the Slaughter Business

 

 

Posted: 20 Jun 2009 06:23 AM PDT

 

 

Bea sent me a link to an article in Gourmet called "Humane Slaughterhouses," by Rebecca Marx, that is absurd. And the absurdity is in the reality that the author and the featured person who kills sentient nonhumans for a living, think they're onto something. And they were, before they stopped their train of thought prior to it reaching its most important station.

Let's deconstruct:

 

The heading is: "Okay, so your steak comes from a cow that lived a happy life--but how did that life end?" It's a cow who--who--lived an allegedly happy life. And I guess this is where the pro-death penalty people might have an argument. They believe you can take a life that doesn't want to be taken in a humane way, and I don't agree. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The voice of Temple Grandin is of course the foundation. And when that happens, you know what direction you're headed: the justification of taking the lives of sentient nonhumans to please the palates of humans.

The second paragraph needs to be looked at sentence by sentence. "While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter." It's not a

n ostensible paradox; it's an actual paradox. But of course the success of the author in manipulating the reader depends on the reader's belief that the paradox is indeed "ostensible."

Interestingly, the campaigns of happy meaters are acknowledged for perhaps being somewhat of a scam with the next sentence. "Words like 'pastured,' 'grass-fed,' and 'free-range' are now synonymous with quality meat; they carry a potent if symbolic meaning that has eased many a consumer’s conscience and driven many a marketing campaign." Potent if symbolic? In other words, it's a scam.

Finally, "But the idea of how an animal meets its ultimate fate is usually ignored—until, of course, we see YouTube videos of sick cows being hauled to their deaths on bulldozers." The animal is an "it," but I wouldn't expect anything more in this type of article. And though being hauled to their death on a bulldozer is terrible, any other form of slaughter at the hands of another, on that other's timeline and terms, is nevertheless slaughter. It is murder. But by presenting that example to the reader, the author positions herself to then present an alternative that is worlds better by comparison. And perhaps that "better" will distract the reader from the undeniable fact of the unjust slaughter.

The featured slaughterer is Bev Eggleston of EcoFriendly Foods, who says, “My perspective of what is humane is broader than how you harvest a cow. It’s how we treat humans, too. . . . To treat animals fairly, he=2

0needs to treat his workers fairly." Wait . . . harvest?

 

Here's where the train of thinking falls short of the station: "Because of his plant’s small size (it employs 15 laborers), his unwavering conviction that 'the animal needs to be respected,' and his concern for his workers’ welfare, Eggleston’s operation is an expensive and relatively inefficient one." Seriously, folks, if you are going to respect someone, you're not going to hold them captive and kill them. What kind of definition of respect includes: I don't need to kill you but I'm going to because it will make me money?

The chef's perspective is represented by Dan Barber, who serves Eggleston's meat. "For him, the importance of humane slaughter manifests itself in the quality of the meat." The needs of the cow aren't even mentioned. That sounds a lot more honest to me.

At last we come to Grandin's thoughts: "Ultimately, for Grandin, 'humane' is a loaded word. 'I’d rather say low-stress, painless slaughter,' she says—ideally as stressful as a vaccination shot. The biggest obstacle, she feels, is quantity. 'Quality and quantity are two opposing goals,' Grandin says. 'But there’s a sensible balance.'" Where to begin . . . All you need to know is one word: slaughter. The rest is just noise trying to distract you from what's really going on.

 

For all of the verbiage that is supposed to convey legitimate care, and care that is above and beyond the nor

m, one thing will always be true: these people are in the business of killing sentient nonhumans for profit. They have no moral justification for taking the lives of the nonhumans other than that certain humans like the taste of their flesh but don't want to do the killing themselves.

It's absurd that this has to be said, but respecting the needs of cows is the same thing as respecting the needs of dogs. It involves not killing them. Not eating them. And there's no way around that. Even death by vaccination shot doesn't change that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email delivery powered by Google

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal

 

 

Posted: 22 Jun 2009 06:04 AM PDT

 

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

No argument here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

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

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

Interesting definitions of betray include:

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email delivery powered by Google

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On "Food Inc."

 

 

Posted: 27 Jun 2009 06:08 AM PDT

 

 

(Sigh.)

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

Film is a visual medium and through direction, dialogue, editing, music

and any effects, the filmmaker presents (in this case) his agenda. And

though I left my notebook at home and was one of three audience members

at yesterday's 12:10 pm showing and could easily have taken notes, I

think I should be able to say what I need to say without exact quotes.

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

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

sources when it comes to an enormous component of what/whom he calls "food."

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email delivery powered by Google

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chipping Away at Greyhound Racing

 

 

Posted: 30 Jun 2009 04:04 AM PDT

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wish me luck!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Best in Vegan Education

 

 

Posted: 29 Jun 2009 05:32 AM PDT

 

 

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

 

Give generously to organizations that help those sentient nonhumans directly, such as Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, Maple Farm Sanctuary, Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary and Eastern Shore Sanctuary.

Encourage others to go vegan by educating them about the issues, and particularly about why we should not accept alternatives to eating animals that include eating animals (i.e., if they are "farmed" or slaughtered in a certain way).

 

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

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

different.)

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

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Online Survey on Ethics and Animals

 

 

Posted: 02 Jul 20092004:06 AM PDT

 

 

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

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

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

 

The results will be first presented and discussed at the 12th

International Vegan Festival, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,

July 22-25, 2009 (more about it here). Later on, a report containing the results and relevant parts of that discussion shall be published at: ethiquest.wordpress.com.

Chime in!< /div>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Humane Societies and Calf-Roping

 

 

Posted: 01 Jul 2009 05:29 AM PDT

 

 

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

Here's the backstory:

 

Calgary has what they call a "western culture," which essentially is their two word justification for abusing animals in the cruel and not-even-close-to fair venue of people-over-animals-who-don't-stand-a-chance.

The Vancouver Humane Society wanted to run the calf=baby/roper=bully ad in the Calgary Sun, which decided against the idea as the abuse of animals is part of their "very proud local institution." The newspap

er also claims that the advertising department thought the ad was "offensive" and that is why it wasn't run.

The Calgary Humane Society works with the Stampede to make sure the animals are safe (and by the way that's impossible if the animals are being used in the rodeo. Safe, unharmed rodeo animals is an oxymoron).

The Vancouver Humane Society wants to ban calf-roping. Not the rodeo. Calf-roping (which of course is a hideous practice, but so are the rest of the animal-related rodeo activities).

 

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

 

If the Vancouver Humane Society is on the side of the animals, why focus on calf-roping? I find it hard to believe that that's the only event they think is a disgusting show of injustice and "bullying."

The Calgary Humane Society is just as bad for working with the Stampede. How can any humane society worker honestly say that they want the rodeo to continue? Why on Earth would they work with the rodeo rather than to ban it completely? (This sounds an awful lot like the previous bullet, I know.)

I don't really believe the rationales the paper came up with for not running the ad, but that's just my opinion.

Then again, the ad begs such a basic question (why calf-roping and not rodeo) that I don't quite understand the purpose. Will the VHS support the rodeo if calf-roping is banned? That's what the ad would make me think. Is calf-roping some k

ind of low-hanging fruit and just the beginning? If so, campaign to ban the rodeo, for heaven's sake! Just be honest about your goal and campaign for it!

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

All rodeos, everywhere, should be banned. Period.

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On "Wild Justice"

 

 

Posted: 03 Jul 2009 07:24 AM PDT

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

The authors make a distinction between narrative ethology and "'animal stories' that proliferate on the Web . . . . Narrative from seasoned ethologists provides interpretation informed by their knowledge about a particular species and its behavior, and their attention to context and individual peculiarities" (37).

Bekoff and Pierce "advocate a species-relative view of morality. Each species in which moral behavior has evolved has its unique behavioral repertoire. The same basic behavioral capacities will be present--empathy, altruism, cooperation, and perhaps a sense of fairness--but will manifest as different social norms and different behaviors. . . . Despite some shared evolutionary history, wolf morality is different from human morality and also from elephant morality and chimpanzee morality" (19).

"The scientific investigation of morality, in humans and nonhumans alike, is in its infancy" (39).

Regarding accusations of anthropomorphism (which arise frequently and did in Bekoff's previous book, as well) and also evolutionary continuity, which provides for symmetry in comparisons, the authors write: "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (41).

 

What did Bekoff and Pierce find?

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On "The Wild"

 

 

Posted: 05 Aug 2009 04:19 AM PDT

 

Twice in the past 24 hours (once here and once on Stephanie's blog, in the comments)I have come across the following statement: "[insert animal here] are safe from predators, get fed regularly, and are better off on farms than if they were in 'the wild.'" The problem with that statement is it's not as if farmers are searching "the wild" for cows, pigs, chicken and fish, plucking them from their homes, and plopping them on a farm to live out their (shortened) lives prior to slaughter. The choice isn't the wild or the farm.

The animals on farms are created for the sole purpose of human consumption. They are created to be slaughtered. And their lives of exploitation, torment, torture and slaughter cannot be compared to an animal's life in the wild.

The next argument is usually something along the lines of: But animals in the wild might starve to death, and get injured, maimed or killed by predators! Yes, that's true. And animal rights isn't focused on what happens in the world outside of us that we aren't directly profiting from and that isn't happening because of us (that last one is nearly impossible, as you can trace many problems other animals experience back to something human animals have done to them or their habitat or their food). And before any hunter can blurt out "Have you ever seen a deer die of starvation in the woods? It's not pretty. We hunters are helping the deer," remember that hunters aren't in the woods looking for exhausted, starving, sickly deer to put out of their misery. They are looking for healthy, large ones.

Finally, people who object to our moral stance jump species and say we should object to the lion killing the gazelle. I don't know if these people are serious or not, but though we are not unique in the animal world in demonstrating morality, we vegans and animal rights advocates do not concern ourselves with the moral codes of other species. Besides, we have choices. We can choose not to kill and eat someone we do not need to eat in order to survive. Whether lions can do that or not is not something I think about. I do not pass judgment on other species, whose motives I cannot comprehend. I can, however, question the motives of a human who has no need to kill a sentient being or have someone kill for him, yet does so anyway.

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dogs as Smart as 2-yr-old Kids

 

 

Posted: 09 Aug 2009 09:27 AM PDT

 

When I saw the Live Science article about dogs being as smart as 2-year-old kids I knew that if there were any talk of ranking, my beloved greyhounds would be at the less-desirable end of the list (not from personal experience, but from reputation), and I also knew that there would be a whiff of speciesism. Why? Because when you compare two species, or rather a nonhuman animal species to the human animal, the humans almost always come out on top. The point is to show how much another species is like us, but of course never as good as we are, at whatever the measurement is. And of course, the definition of whatever is being measured--in this case intelligence--is our version of intelligence. We define intelligence as what we have, and then compare other

species, to see how much they are like us. It's a no-win for the other species, but it's also a compliment as they have some of the great stuff we've got that makes us . . . us.

First we define intelligence in terms of language and the number of words someone knows. Then we go to math, and then we go to socializing and problem solving.

"While dogs ranked with the 2-year-olds in language, they would trump a 3- or 4-year-old in basic arithmetic . . . In terms of social smarts, our drooling furballs fare even better. . . . The social life of dogs is much more complex, much more like human teenagers at that stage, interested in who is moving up in the pack and who is sleeping with who and that sort of thing. . . . We all want insight into how our furry companions think, and we want to understand [their] silly, quirky and apparently irrational behaviors . . . . Their stunning flashes of brilliance and creativity are reminders that they may not be Einsteins but are sure closer to humans than we thought."

 

The upshot is that the "smartest" dogs are the most recently-developed breeds as we bred them to be responsive to us, unlike the older breeds, such as greyhounds and other hounds whose skills are said to be the result of "instinctive intelligence." That last part is interesting. The way greyhounds, for instance, have been bred and trained takes advantage of their natural talent and instinct, but you could say the same thing about the border collie (number one on the list). One has just been bred and trained to be around people (socially), while the other hasn't.

So we train dogs to be around us and responsive to us and then label that smart (because they have become more like us in ways we can understand), while the behaviors we understand less/cannot decode because they are less like behaviors we exhibit get overlooked and/or called "instinct."

Now, I'm just unpacking what has occurred here. If the assessment that dogs have a certain level of intelligence or are like us results in them being treated better as pets or people wanting to profit from them less, great.

Do you think this helps dogs? It certainly might cause a spike in orders for border collies and the other dogs on top of the list, but does it help dogs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email delivery powered by Google

[Guest guest]

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Why You Should Post Videos Beyond YouTube

 

 

Posted: 02 Sep 2009 04:03 PM PDT

 

I received this from Chris in China, and it underscores the importance of posting videos beyond YouTube.

 

Dear MFA,

Youtube.com is blocked in China.

Which means, none of MFA's videos are available. Some, on your site, are viewable, but since you're only using Youtube for sharing, we can't embed them on sites here yet.

If Mercy For Animals could also post at Vimeo.com or make a downloadable copy available, it could do a world of good here.

US groups need to make sure they post their videos on multiple sharing sites (at least on Vimeo.com). We need to fight for animals everywhere, and that means being aware of what major online tools are not available to all.

For farm animals, China is America 2.0 in the worst way. Please consider posting your videos on a Vimeo channel as well, so we can embed them on sites in China.

The activists in China need your help.

Thanks for all you do!

Chris

P.s.

Just FYI, sites blocked in China right now:

twitter

facebook

youtube

wordpress.com

blogspot/blogger.com

typepad.com

 

Pass on this message!

[Guest guest]

I'm very interested to know how many of you feed a vegan diet, what you feed, any health improvements, etc. Please provide feed back in the Comments section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal Person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Talking With Veterinarians About Vegan Food

 

 

Posted: 20 Jan 2010 06:39 AM PST

 

We have a request, and it's an issue I've written about a handful of times but never had this particular question answered by readers: How do you talk with your vet--who is against feeding your dog vegan food--about your choice to do so? What do you say?

 

I'm fortunate to have a regular (non-specialist) vet who has no problem at all with a vegan diet for dogs. I've never discussed that Emily the kitty eats one meal of Ami vegan kibble on most days (and one of canned, animal-based food). She is doing fine with that. No change in anything about her, though I do think she's a bit perkier.

Violet the diabetic greyhound does very well as a vegan as her recent blood work demonstrated. Charles the lame greyhound doesn't process grains well at all. He never has. He fares best (as evidenced by poop, energy, licking, scratching, and severity of limping) on food with no grains whatsoever and very high animal protein--almost carnivore level.

Home cooking for Violet was difficult because her carb/protein/fat ratios need to be consistent in order for her blood sugar to be predictable. I had to make exactly the same meal for her every day, so I moved to using Natural Balance Vegetarian kibble (note that the canned version is not vegan due to the animal source of Vitamin D3). I did try other vegan dog foods, but I like the ingredients in Natural Balance best. There are plenty of vegan treats on the market, but my hounds prefer bananas, strawberries, blueberries or broccoli.

Because Violet and Charles are chock full of medical issues, they have a handful of specialists. There's the acupuncturist/chiropractor, opthamologist, orthopedist, neurologist, physical therapist and the trainer. None of those approve of a vegan diet and all it took was one conversation, and me hearing that "they have to eat meat" from people who believe people "have to eat meat" to know that the issue wasn't ever going to be resolved.

My regular vet is a curious guy who doesn't think he knows everything and when something happens that he hasn't encountered (e.g., Charles had a corn on his pad), he's happy for me to bring him some research and for us to tackle the issue together (we did this with the corn and removed it together--and no charge, by the way). If he didn't know about feeding dogs vegan food, I might have brought him some of these articles and I would have referred him to Vegan Dogs: Compassionate Nutrition or to VegetarianDogs.com.

I'd question whether the vet needs to know what my dogs are eating or is in a position to judge as long as they are healthy. I recently told my osteopath that I'm a vegan and got all kinds of grief. Then she saw my fantastic blood work and vitals and didn't say another word.

Meanwhile, my husband, who has been vegan for less than 2 years (straight from omni), takes supplements sporadically, and had very low B12. I take fewer supplements and my B12 was high. The message here, like the message with the dogs, is that everyone is different and we don't respond uniformly to the same food or supplements. The ideal scenario is to establish a baseline, whether it's your blood work or your dog's, or other observables such as behavior, scratching, poop, breath, energy level, and then make the change (supplements, food, whatever) and retest in three months and six months to see the direction and progress. For all we know, my husband was B12 deficient as an omnivore. His levels are fine now, but if we didn't check them (and those of the creatures), we wouldn't have figured all of this out.

Back to the questions: Do you arm yourself with research and go to the vet to educate him/her? Do you not say anything at all or lie when they ask you what the animal eats? (My vet asks every time I go.) Do you politely say that you've done the research and are convinced that a vegan diet is perfectly appropriate for most dogs and has the added bonus of not putting you in a position where you're supporting the needless slaughter of other animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are d to email updates from Animal Person

 

To stop receiving these emails, you may now.

Email delivery powered by Google

 

 

Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610