The squirrels littering your lawn with acorns as they bound overhead will live to plague your yard longer than the ones that aerate it with their burrows, as per a University of Illinois study.
Researchers know from prior studies that flying birds and bats live longer than earthbound animals of the same size. Milena Shattuck and Scott Williams, doctoral candidates in anthropology, decided to take a closer look at the relationship between habitat and lifespan in mammals, comparing terrestrial and treetop life. They published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The two hypothesized that, like flight, treetop or arboreal dwelling reduces a species’ extrinsic mortality - death from predation, disease and environmental hazards; that is, causes other than age.
“One of the predictions of the evolutionary theory of aging is that if you can reduce sources of extrinsic mortality, you’ll end up exposing some of the late-acting mutations to natural selection, and therefore evolve longer lifespans,” Williams said.
Williams and Shattuck observed that for arboreality, the theory holds. Mammals who spend the majority of their time up a tree enjoy longevity over those who scurry along the ground. The pattern holds consistent both on the large scale among all mammals, and also in specific classes the pair studied, such as tree squirrels versus ground squirrels………
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
This morning I posted “On California’s Animal Abuse Registry Proposal” over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression and welcome any discussion about it. I should be able to watch the press conference about the bill this afternoon if a conference call doesn’t take too long, and I’ll update if there’s anything new and exciting.
Also, I couldn’t resist mentioning a word that was new to me until today, and it’s surprising that it’s new given what is is:
Anthropolatry: The productive suffix -latry (from Greek, meaning “worship”) clues us up that this is a form of worship, and the anthropo- part means “humankind,” as it does in many related words. The outcome: “worship of human beings.” You don’t hear much about it as a religious practice but it’s probably what aliens would conclude about us after a stroll past department store windows!
What a fitting addition to discussions about speciesism!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
If you have an interest in inter-species play/fight behavior, then watch this video I took yesterday. Otherwise, it might be rather boring. You have been warned.
Animal Place is home to 11 goats and 8 sheep. The sheep have learned goats are more aggressive than they and many have horns. Every now and then, a younger sheep will show an interest in interacting with one of the goats.
Lenny, a 2-yr-old Merino wether (neutered) and Annie, a middle-aged Boer doe, began the dance of play. Some may argue they are displaying signs of dominance, but Lenny’s lack of intense aggression leads me to believe they are more play than actual fight. Further, Annie shows incredible restraint when she head-butts Lenny.
Sheep and goats are different in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. Goats are browsers while sheep are grazers – both are ruminants, with a four-chambered stomach. The horns on goats and sheep differ. When approached by potential predators, sheep form a tight flock and tend to run away. Goats tend to form a tight herd, turn to face the predator in a straight line, and only back down if forced to (I’ve seen foolish dogs head-butted and tossed by goats). There is one sheep at Animal Place who acts like a goat when faced with a dog, and he once “saved” the sheep flock from a roaming Border Collie by charging down the hill and chasing the dog off. (He came up to me quite pleased with himself). So, of course, there are individual variances and personalities.
When fighting, sheep back up and charge; goats circle around, move a few feet away, rear up at an angle, and then land hard for the head-butt. The fighting “head-butt” behavior is also a form of play and a way to interact socially with conspecifics and, dangerously, sometimes with humans as well.
The Video
Annie exhibits classic goat head-butting behavior. Lenny does not exhibit classic sheep head-butting behavior and tries, in his own small way, to emulate Annie. He does not have the behavioral inclination to rear up or angle himself, but you can see him try a couple of times to hop a little before butting heads.
You can also see how restrained Annie is in her rearing and butting behavior. Instead of ramming full-force, she slows slightly before making contact with Lenny. I think this shows Annie’s ability to modify her behavior to accommodate Lenny. She does not do this with goats.
You’ll see a white sheep, Simon, come in for a closer inspection and back away quite quickly when he realizes there’s a goat involved. I am certain he thinks Lenny is nuts.
Lenny is naturally polled – he was born without horns. As you can plainly see, Annie has horns.The only time Lenny becomes uncomfortable is when Annie’s horns encounter his unnatural wool and snag.
After a bit, Lenny becomes clearly uncomfortable. He pulls back and starts to grind his teeth (it looks like he is chewing his cud). But Annie’s not giving up and they smash heads again. About 30 seconds later (not in video), Laura comes over and intervenes. You can see and hear the distinct difference between two horned goats head-butting and what you’ve been seeing between Annie and Lenny. It’s not just the sound, either, it’s the force. Annie has really been restraining herself with Lenny but does not do so w/ Laura.
I love the moment after. Laura standing proud in the middle, a referee. Annie is annoyed off to the side and Lenny isn’t sure what to do. But I think he’s probably relieved.
And just for sake of comparison, I kept in when Annie and Laura continue their “fight”. You can see the difference in force. Laura does not rear up a lot because she was dragged around by a broken front leg before arriving at the sanctuary. It healed but not completely.
I like what this video conveys: Nonhuman animals can adjust their behavior to accommodate others. Individuals can show curiosity and avoidance or show curiosity and interference. Sheep are not all “sheep” – Simon would not do what Lenny did. Goats are not all “goats” – one of the other goats would have hurt Lenny, but Annie adjusted to his behavior.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.
Some might consider this a false dilemma, as built into it is the presumption that “we cannot avoid factory farms altogether” when we easily can. It’s a choice. Anyone can make it if they want to.
But let’s say I have chosen to avoid factory farming, and in fact the consumption of animals entirely (to the extent that it’s practical), while most people will make no such choice. Is it true that the least I can do is support the engineering of animals who experience less unpleasantness than they would have had they not been engineered that way?
Before you answer, here are some details to inform your decision:
The first “knockout animals” were laboratory rats, whose anterior cingulate cortex have been damaged/blocked so that though they might still feel pain, they do not find it unpleasant. In other words, the perception of pain is affected. Now, any medication we take and surgical procedures we undergo also have a long line of breeding, enslavement, torture and killing of sentient nonhumans leading up to them, so objecting to “knockout animals” on those grounds is to stand on somewhat thin ice. My objection is: Why do such research when you don’t need to? Why kill and maim and waste taxpayer dollars–or any dollars–on such things?
Here’s the part that either I’m misunderstanding, or makes one wonder what all of the buzz is about:
Because the sensory dimension of the animals’ pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured.
Like when they’re about to be, say, slaughtered?
This is where I’m confused. This proposed measure would take away some of the perception of pain, but what about the terror? What about all of the elements of being confined and enslaved and killed and watching others meet their untimely demises? What about boredom and frustration? What about being torn from your family? What about being raped?
Here’s what I see: Once again, as with attempts to convince the public that animal farming could ever be humane, humans are desperate to provide alternatives to consuming animals that don’t include not consuming animals. This reinforces the notion that you have to have some kind of superhuman degree of willpower to decide not to kill anyone or have anyone killed for you (if it’s not necessary).
I don’t think that people who are going to eat animals no matter what care what degree of pain the animals are feeling because they’re currently feeling more pain than any of us can imagine and those people are still eating them.
Not to mention the reality that there is so much more involved in being bred for slaughter than pain, and none of that is addressed. And of course, the reality that all of this involves using sentient nonhumans when that’s unnecessary isn’t even considered.
If a person cares about what “livestock” experience on their way to becoming “meat,” there is one easy, inexpensive action that person can take to make certain s/he is not a party to the various kinds and levels of suffering and injustice the animals experience. That action is to opt out and go vegan.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Sophie is a 6-yr-old sheep and proud of it. Rescued as a bummer lamb from a farm, along with two other lambkins, Sophie has lived her whole life at the sanctuary. Lucky sheep!
Here are a couple shots of Miss Sophie.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Photos of Sanctuary Animals
Every animal at the sanctuary is precious and for visitors, it’s hard not to want to bring them home! Well, now you can! Welcome one of the Animal Place residents into your home with a matted photo. Even if you haven’t visited the sanctuary, welcome a bit of it into your home! And know that a portion of your purchase directly benefits the animal in the picture and all the animals at the sanctuary!
Each photo is 8×10” printed on acid-free paper on an 11×14” mat and secured in a poly-bag. Each photo is attached in such a way that you can re-frame or re-mat, if you prefer.
Is this a gift? Make sure to include the recipient’s address in the “merchant notes” block.
Each photo is $18. Purchase three and receive a 20% discount – only $43.00! Please specify which three you want in the “merchant notes” section.
Choose from:
Gilbert the Goat
Finnegan the Rooster
Nicholas the calf
Summer & Freedom the calves
Virginia &Lenny the sheep
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
When we left off, the New York Times’ Roger Cohen had eaten dog while in China, and wasn’t thrilled about it emotionally. Logically, he admits it does make perfect sense to eat dogs if you eat pigs and cows. He writes:
There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.).
I’m intrigued by his mention of cannibalism, even if to set it aside. Why? Because his previous paragraph is:
But do pigs have any more or less of a soul than dogs? Are they any more or less sentient? Do they suffer any more or less in death? Are they any more or less part of the mysterious unity of life? I think not.
It’s a bit difficult to take on the soul question for human or nonhuman animals, particularly for an atheist. I’m not sure what soul means or whether it can be physically located anywhere so . . . I’ll set it aside here. But the other issues–sentience, suffering, being part of the “mysterious unity of life”–Cohen’s own criteria for lumping anyone into one category, are all equally true for humans. His aside demonstrates how self-conscious he is about attributes shared by pigs and dogs, which he knows is also shared by humans.
What Cohen doesn’t say, which is the real point of his quasi-lament over dining on dog, is that we don’t eat humans because they are human. But in the nonhuman world, there’s simply no reason to make any distinctions.
If sentience and suffering and “the mysterious unity of life” are really your concerns, you aren’t going be eating anybody.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
“Dog Days in China” is a small piece with no gruesome slideshow. But it’s also remarkable in that Roger Cohen, a 50-something man who writes for the New York Times, wonders:
But do pigs have any more or less of a soul than dogs? Are they any more or less sentient? Do they suffer any more or less in death? Are they any more or less part of the mysterious unity of life? I think not.
There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.).
I repeat: If you eat meat (I’d say: products that come from animals), you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (i.e., product that comes from an animal).
The theory is sound. There’s no way out.
But as Cohen experiences, humans don’t live “in theory.” The theory that the mind finds inescapably well-formulated is often overwhelmed and overturned by human emotions.
I must confess I’ve been having a hard time. My bout of anguish began a few weeks back on a wintry night in central China, in the restless megalopolis of Chongqing. I was cold, wet and seeking refuge.
His “anguish” leads him to a dog restaurant where he dines on dog. His “refuge” could easily taken the form of the Sichuan noodles he likes, sans dog. Or pig, or duck, or fish. “Dog was not easy for me,” he writes. “The memory has proved hard to digest.”
When it comes to the legislation (which may or may not mean anything for dogs and cats), Cohen sides with the people who recognize that cats and dogs are no different from chickens and geese. He writes, “I’m not happy that I ate dog. But I’m happy China eats dog.”
This is a good news/bad news story. It’s great that someone realizes that there is no real difference between dogs and cows. However, remember that he understands that emotion (”the heart”) is what ultimately governs what most of us do, and certainly what he does, so he won’t be eating any more dogs.
And, presumably, he will continue to eat other animals. And that’s the bad news.
Stay tuned tomorrow as I question setting aside cannibalism.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Angus sent me a link to “Animal Parts: High Style of Just Plain Beastly” wherein Zosia Bielski reports that “hipsters are going whole hog, donning road kill as accessories and cow hooves on their feet.”
Several designers, one of whom is a vegetarian, are using parts of dead animals they found on the side of the road to make everything from shoes to hats to cufflinks, which evidently are difficult to produce because “[f]inding two animals who have little heads roughly the same size is just a nightmare.”
The underlying philosophy is that the dead animals “should be used in their entirety.” (Used in their entirety by humans, thereby ignoring the reality that the carcasses play in the lives of other creatures, such as scavengers.) The garments and accessories are considered ethically sourced because no one was intentionally killed for them (although sources include “critters fallen victim to pest control,” which sounds pretty intentional to me). However the designers also use discarded parts of animals killed by butchers, to “give new life to something that would normally be thrown away.” A significant amount of mental acrobatics is involved in convincing yourself that you are not in some way an accomplice to the killing of sentient beings and then profiting from them when you take their parts after they’ve been slaughtered and you use and profit from them.
There’s a lot of talk of whether or not this is morbid, yet no acknowledgment that every animal part we wear comes from an animal who died. This isn’t about what’s morbid or what’s not, and what’s art and what’s not. This is about using animals and presenting yet another variation on the theme of humans believing they have a right to make food, clothing or art from the bodies of other animals.
The final paragraph of the article is perhaps the most cringe-worthy. Sarah Jay, the fashion director of Fashion Takes Action, an organization that promotes green methods and materials, says:
“To wear the life of another animal is a very special thing and it’s a very sacred thing.
It’s giving the animal purpose after life. We should all be so lucky.”
Meanwhile, it’s death they’re wearing–not life. And making it into some kind of spiritual experience is offensive. Nonhuman animals are not here to be purposeful to humans.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
There was nothing surprising about Oprah’s most recent show about food. It was full of Michael Pollan, Food Inc., the way we treat animals, and the way we turn food into food facsimiles with unusually long shelf lives. Recommendations included: know the people who produced your food, get out of the supermarket (go to a farmer’s market), and cook at home more (especially junk food, as if you had to make your own french fries you’d eat a lot fewer of them). Nothing wrong with any of that.
You wouldn’t expect Pollan or Oprah to deliver a vegan or animal rights message and they didn’t. Fine.
Alicia Silverstone was on the show as a spokesperson for the health benefits and other benefits of veganism. She had one perfect opportunity to present herself as pro-animal rights when Oprah (laughingly) asked: But what if the cows and the chickens are treated really, really nicely . . . (would you eat them)?
Alicia (laughing): Well, I’d have to see the cows and the chickens.
First of all, I don’t see what’s so funny. But I get that this is entertainment and the mood was light. And people often giggle when speaking of things that make them feel uncomfortable. It’s true that there was a tiny opening for a real message, and we’d all like to think that in a similar position, we’d be able to articulate one. Silverstone let the moment pass her by.
The more controversial moment was when Oprah asked Silverstone if she ever cheats and Silverstone admitted to eating some cheese. Why is that an issue? First of all, she’s not evil because she eats some cheese. That’s not the point. And I won’t say she’s not a “real vegan,” as I’m not the vegan police. (Also, her response seemed like the eating of cheese was sort of an accident anyway–she didn’t order something with cheese.)
This moment was significant because if you “cheat,” it is presumed that it’s either very difficult or very unappealing to be a vegan. There’s so much sacrifice or bad analogs or whatever that lead you to crave and succumb to “the real thing.” It’s largely about willpower, cheating tells me, and once in a while it’s too much to expect yourself to not want to eat (fill-in-the-blank) while you’re on the diet known as veganism. And that’s not a message I want to send the millions of people who watch Oprah.
In addition, talk of cheating creates a space for omnivores to pounce, “A-ha! I knew she couldn’t do it! Even the great vegan cookbook author/actress can’t go without cheese!” And a similar pouncing has come from some vegans. It was all just an unfortunate moment in an unscripted interview.
I enjoyed every recipe I tried from Silverstone’s The Kind Diet and though I might not be a fan of the way she does her activism (PeTA, etc…), a book by a vegan that helps other people go vegan (she recommends taking baby steps and calls it “flirting,” which I suppose could be viewed as an innocuous, fun way of easing into veganism) can’t be a liability for vegans or veganism. Or can it? I’d imagine that the more resources available to the mainstream about going vegan and cooking/preparing vegan food, the better the odds that more people will go vegan.
I am aware that many vegans won’t buy Silverstone’s book because they don’t agree with her on some important issues.
What do you think? Are there vegan cookbooks you won’t purchase or vegan food bloggers you don’t support because you don’t agree with them on issues other than veganism?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
On a cool, foggy morning I crouch next to her, scratching her neck as she stretches, and angles for the optimal position. The emerging sun glints off her hair, reflects back. She looks into my eyes. I gaze back into brown-black pools of what? Intelligence? Thought? Emotions? That and more? We had never communicated like this before – she, a cow; me, a human. For years, I tried to make eye contact, to convey my love, respect, joy at being near her. And, she would look away, shake her head, throw off my advances. Not today.
Sadie is a steady being, a painful one, a creature who is sometimes a complete mystery to me, sometimes a bright light of clarity. I fumble in my friendship with her. She tolerates my awkward attempts at communication, endures my steady hope that today, today is the day we understand each other.
Who is Sadie?
To know Sadie now, you must know who she was…or perhaps, wasn’t.
Mercy for Animals recently investigated a large, New York dairy farm. ABC News and Nightline both covered the story. Follows is video footage. Please be warned, some of the content may be difficult to watch.
The video is not easy to view. I love cows, they are my favorite of the large farmed animals. Two cows on a small dairy farm in northern California inspired me to go vegan. At the sanctuary, there is Sadie, a cow who I am honored to know and love. She too came from a small dairy farm and her life was miserable - she was tail-docked, de-horned, and deprived of her babies time and time again.
Practices Common on Most Dairy Farms
Tail docking occurs on farms of ALL sizes, not just factory farms. Approximately 1/3 of all dairy cows endure the amputation of their tail without pain relief. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of Bovine Practitioners oppose this practice.
Dehorning without pain relief occurs on ALL farms, not just factory farms.
Maternal deprivation occurs on ALL farms, not just factory farms. 100% of all male calves are removed from their mothers the day they are born. 97% of all female calves are removed from their mom within the first 24-hours of birth.
Only 1.7% of the nine million cows in the United States spend most or all their time grazing on pasture. Approximately 75% of all dairy cows never see pasture or graze green grass.
The only practice not common on dairy farms, though often brought up in these discussions, is the use of growth hormone - only 17% of cows in lactation are injected with the hormone. Most dairy cows have been artificially selected to produce 8-10 times more milk than a normal cow would.
So, let’s be clear - these horrible things you see in the video? They are not merely restricted to “factory farms”. They happen on most farms. Choosing a “less cruel” milk
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
I’ve been blogging here less partly because I’ve been blogging at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (check out my latest post “On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights” and the better-than-the-post comments) but also because I’ve been feeling like a broken record and I don’t want to bore anyone.
It seems like the answer to most questions/responses to most issues is one of these:
Speciesism.
It’s just another excuse people have concocted because they like the taste of cow/pig/chicken/fish flesh.
It’s not difficult once you get the hang of it–it’s just different at first.
We can care about animals and people at the same time; they’re not mutually exclusive.
If you don’t have to enslave, rape, dominate, or kill someone (or have someone else do it for you), why would you? Why choose enslavement, rape, domination and slaughter?
Just because you did something for years doesn’t mean it has some magical inherent value and you should continue to do it today and tomorrow.
Legal experts in China are proposing a ban on the eating of dogs and cats.
Many people support this, particularly affluent types, who have become dog and cat people and now own them as “pets.” This is what I hear: The wealthier people become, the more likely they are to want to own others for their pleasure.
The reasoning is fascinating: “We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems.” So the ban isn’t being suggested because eating cats and dogs is wrong, but because it’s creating conflict. No one will propose a ban on eating chickens because there’s no conflict there.
Here’s an interesting combination of great sentiment and horrible sentiment that involves two responses from the above list: “Online critics said it was hypocritical to protect only dogs and cats, and that the government should focus on human welfare before protecting animals.” Yes, it is hypocritical (speciesism), but who said that we either protect humans or animals? Where do people get that idea?
Let’s just say the ban was meaningful. Notice how the story ends: “The focus has now been narrowed to prevention of animal abuse, which is defined as inflicting unnecessary pain and brutality.” So we went from a ban to a vague statement about the prevention of abuse that clearly doesn’t consider slaughter abusive. And I’m sure it will be claimed that what is done to the dogs and cats is necessary and isn’t brutal. Or if it’s brutal it is necessary. I think we all know where this is going. It sounds like it might not even help cats and dogs in a meaningful way.
Now, I haven’t heard from Chris, who lives in Beijing, regarding this issue. He often has insight into why something might be different in action than what I think in theory when it comes to China. But my initial reaction is that this is like Americans giving up “red meat.” All they do thereafter is replace cows with chickens and pigs and fish.
What do you think?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
A couple of years ago I catalogued the dozens of excuses/rationalizations from well-meaning, compassionate people about why they eat animals, and all fell into one of six categories:
It’s what god wanted (and other versions, such as: That’s why they were put on the earth. . . . By god.)
God thinks vegetarians are evil, and we want to please god. Not to be confused with #1, this one comes directly from The Bible. Cain was a farmer, Abel was a herder. Cain was the bad guy, Abel was the good guy. Net message? Cain=farmer=evil murderer; Abel=slaughtered animals=victim/good son.
We are physiologically carnivores. First of all, very untrue factually. Second, if the people who believe this would eat all of their “meat” unseasoned and raw, after having killed the source animal with their bare hands and ripped open the carcass with nothing but said hands and some teeth, I’d feel like maybe their argument was at least sincere. In fact, I’d even permit them to not ever kill anyone, but rather to eat the kill of another that has been quietly decomposing for a day or two, as many carnivores do. And let’s not forget they’d eat no grains and the only vegetables they’d eat would be the partially digested ones from the stomachs of carcasses. Now, who’s a carnivore?
We can’t get everything we need without eating animals. We simply cannot survive without killing them! It’s us or them! Tell that to the American Dietary Association.
We’re smarter and more evolved and have more to offer the planet, so we should be able to do as we please. This speciesist rationale, also known as because we can, should be replaced with because we have a conscience. Because we have a conscience and can choose nonviolence over destruction, domination and death, we should. Why choose violence if you don’t have to?
And my personal favorite:
6. As long as you say a prayer for their souls and thank the beasts, you can eat them without bad karma, just like indigenous people. If you’ve seen Avatar, you know that this excuse has gotten a fresh boost from the people of Pandora, who, in their Gaia/Lovelock-ian splendor kill animals and teach the lead male, Jake Sully, how to properly do so. The lead female, while teaching Jake, is even excited when she shoots her bow and kills a . . . whatever he was. Of course, she teaches Jake the prayer that makes killing the animal all better. Not sure if the animal sees it that way.
If you’re going to claim that it was good for Native Americans so it’s good for us, please know that they had an ecological ethic that we simply don’t share. They killed only what they would eat, used practically every part of the beast, killed him themselves, and didn’t consider animals beneath them as we do. Saying a prayer and thanking the animal are parts of a larger spiritual context and a relationship with “Mother Earth” that most mainstream people in the developed world don’t ordinarily live by. And yet they romanticize and even fetishize indigenous people’s practices when it’s to their advantage. The fact remains, however, that if you don’t need to kill anyone to survive, no amount of storytelling and mythmaking (or myth borrowing/co-opting) around that slaughter excuses it.
Finally, as for saying a prayer for the soul of the animal you’ve just killed or are about to eat, I find that backward. When you eat the flesh of another, it’s your own soul (if you believe in souls) you should be praying for. Ingesting suffering can’t possibly be good for anyone’s karma.
A disturbing trend I’ve seen among the used-to-be-called-New-Age, but now called “spiritual” people, is the co-opting of all things Native American (both North and South). They do their sweatlodges (I actually did one out of curiosity, and yes, it’s really hot in there! And they make you smoke, which is something I am very much against and I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that tobacco is healing my spirit). They have their dream catchers, their animal skin rugs and their drum circles. They burn their sage, they claim to have read all of Carlos Castaneda, and they couch their eating of animals in spiritual terms. They say they are taking the abundant gifts Mother Earth gives them and they are grateful for the sacred experience of communing with her. The “sacrifice” of the animal will feed their souls. They speak of their part in the universal circle of . . . .
Are you annoyed yet?
All of the talk of ritual and the flinging around of “sacred” and “spirit” doesn’t change the cold, hard fact of killing someone, or having someone do it for you, and then eating that someone when it’s not necessary–no matter who you are or what tradition you come from. But in my experience, humans will draw from anybody’s history–or dig their heels deep into their own–in order to justify what they want to do: Eat animals because they enjoy the taste of them.
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?
If you want to help with the relief efforts in Haiti while also eating tasty, vegan goods, then check out the list below and see if any vegan bake sales are going on near you.
Animal Place staff will be baking and tabling at the Sugar Plum Vegan Cafe in Sacramento - come by and say hi! Also, eat food!
California
1/23 (Sat) Sacramento
Sugar Plum Vegan Cafe
2315 K Street
11:00 – 3:00 pm
Benefits Food for Life Global
1/23 (Sat) San Francisco
Patricia’s Green
Hayes St. at Octavia
11:00 – 4:00 pm
1/31 (Sun) Los Angeles
Locali
5825 Franklin Ave
11:00-4:00 pm
Benefits Doctors without Borders Minnesota
1/30 (Sat) Minneapolis
Ethique Nouveau
317 West 48th St
12:00-5:00 pm Nebrasaka
1/24 (Sun) Omaha
McFoster’s Natural Kind Cafe
302 S. 38th St
12:00-2:00 pm
Benefits Mercy Corps New York
1/28 (Th) New York City
Angels and Kings
500 East 11th St.
7:00-9:00 pm
Benefits Sodoprec (Dominican veterinarians, site in Spanish)
1/31 (Sun) New York City
MooShoes
78 Orchard St.
11:30 – 6:00 pm
Benefits Doctors without Borders
Pennsylvania
1/24 (Sun) Philadelphia
25 E Street
Doyelstown
11:00 am Ohio
1/23 (Sat) Akron
Vegiterranean
21 Furnace St.
11:00-5:00 pm
Benefits Doctors without Borders Oregon
1/31 (Sun) Portland
People’s Coop
3029 Southeast 21st Ave.
2:00-5:00 pm
Benefits Mercy Corps Washington
1/31 (Sun) Seattle
Neptune Coffee
8415 Greenwood Ave North
2:00-5:00 pm
Benefits Partners in Health
Facebook invite page here. Washington D.C. DC Vegans
1/24 (Sun) DC
Takoma Park Farmer’s Market
Carroll Ave & Laurel Ave
10:00-2:00 pm Facebook Event Page
Benefits Mercy Corps
In “Therapists Report Increase in Green Disputes” in the Environment section of today’s New York Times, Leslie Kaufman reports that American households have become a battleground for beliefs about the environment.
While no study has documented how frequent these clashes have become, therapists agree that the green issue can quickly become poisonous because it is so morally charged. Friends or family members who are not devoted to the environmental cause can become irritated by life choices they view as ostentatiously self-denying or politically correct.
Problems arise when the individuals in the family (or couple) are at different points in their awareness of actions and purchases that affect the environment.
Changing the family diet because of environmental concerns can be particularly loaded, Ms. Buzzell [a therapist] added. She warns wives and mothers not to move a family toward vegetarianism before everyone is ready.
When I read that last sentence, I cringed. Not because of the “wives and mothers” bit, as we learn that women tend to pay more attention to these issues, so change/desire to change the family does more often begin with them. And it wasn’t “vegetarianism” rather than “veganism,” as though my husband went from omnivore to vegan overnight, I do understand that most people stop eating flesh first.
What made me cringe was that everyone had to be “ready” before making a change that the planet needs so desperately. Does Planet Earth have the time for everyone to decide they’re “ready” to give it a break?
But then I remembered that, as a vegan, I purchased and prepared the flesh of cows and chickens for my husband for nearly six years because I knew that if the change didn’t come from him he would likely end up resenting me, plus he might even go back to eating and using animals. I didn’t have the same urgency in my environmentalism back then, or more accurately it wasn’t related to animals. It was all about other things we could do to tread more lightly on the earth.
I do think the adult-adult relationship is different from the adult-child relationship, particularly with young children who are formulating their values based on what is said and done in the home. My adult-adult experience was that it was actually painful at times to live with someone who ate animals and I wondered how long I could deal with it. What I had going for me was that early on my husband said, “I feel the same way you do, but I’m just not ready yet.” If he had said, “I’m never giving up my steak” I don’t know if I would have lasted that long. We didn’t go to therapy for this issue, because I knew that talking about it wouldn’t help, not to mention the likelihood of a therapist in South Florida understanding my position was nearly nil.
Let’s face it, the longer you’ve done something, the more attached you are to it and to the rationalization you employ to keep the behavior going. But here’s my question: For those of you with significant others who are not vegan, do you have a time line with benchmarks in your head? Is it purely a matter of months or years for you? Do you discuss veganism or environmentalism frequently? Are you in one of the American households where disputes are common?
Summer and Freedom are six-months old and like to copy whatever the adults are doing. So when they saw Nicholas (2) and Elsa (15) bonding through some head pushing, they had to be just like them!
Pretty cute stuff, huh?
Freedom is on the left - he’s a bit more bloated, because he was born with a congenital defect. His tail is missing and his anus is in the wrong spot, which gives him some digestive and pooping problems. Summer is on the right and in really great health.
In the background, Nicholas is on the left - he just turned 2 in December. Elsa, the old lady cow of the herd is 15 and on the right.
If you are in the Grass Valley/Sacramento/Auburn/Nevada City region and want to help farmed animals, consider joining us at one of our volunteer orientations. If you are a brave Bay Area farmed animal lover, we welcome you too!
Below are the three upcoming orientations. They will be held in Grass Valley, California. The sanctuary will be moving in April and the first orientation occurs at the end of May. We will try and have an orientation each month. In order to volunteer at the sanctuary, you must attend an orientation.
To register for the orientations, click on the links below.
Saturday, May 22nd from 11:30-3:30 pm - Register here
Wednesday, June 16 from 10:00-2:00 pm - Register here
Saturday, July 24th from 11:30-3:30 pm - Register here
The volunteer program at the new sanctuary is a developing one. Volunteers will continue to assist with animal health checks, cleaning, feeding and other animal care duties. Those interested in becoming Education Volunteers will assist and potentially run tours, animal activist workshops, camps, classes and assist with tabling and outreach. There will also be an opportunity to help out with the vegan, community garden we will be growing at the sanctuary.
“On Atheism and Veganism” created what was for the most part a respectful, interesting discussion that brought up a couple of items I’d like to clarify or explore.
First off, I began the post with, “For me, atheism and veganism go hand-in-hand.” I went on to explain why that is and my penultimate sentence was, “I see these counter-culture positions as parallel and based on the same evolution of thought and deconstruction of the stories of childhood.”
I never stated a belief that atheism and veganism are actually connected in some way that many people are missing. Yet, for instance, the twittosphere was full of childish comments and ridicule in that direction. Again, I was making a personal observation about the evolution of my own thought process and asking if anyone else saw things similarly. And I thank everyone who read those words, treated them respectfully, and responded accordingly.
Next I’d like to acknowledge the Norm Phelps article Gingerlks (thanks!) linked to that you may have seen called “Why the Animals Need Religion.” Phelps writes:
If the abolitionists had thrown up their hands in disgust at the level of support for slavery in White churches and condemned religion, they would have sabotaged their own cause by alienating almost the entirety of the American public. If we throw up our hands in disgust at the level of support for animal abuse in America’s churches and synagogues, we will set back the animals’ cause by at least a generation and probably more. Like the old abolitionists, we must convert the churches, not write them off.
I don’t disagree with that, but I also don’t advocate for atheism when I advocate for veganism. If I’m speaking with an atheist I might use my personal thought process in my vegan advocacy, but if someone wants to believe there is a god, and that belief is helpful to them, and they’re not hurting anyone because of that belief, I have no problem with that. When it comes to believers, I agree with Phelps that all religious traditions have some kind of basis for mercy or compassion or relieving suffering that we can use in our advocacy. They might not have a rights position, but we use what we have. I say I don’t mind someone’s belief in a god if “they’re not hurting anyone,” but in my mind they are and I explore that notion with them in my advocacy.
Finally, and this will be an entire post someday, there are the people, many of whom I am surrounded by, who subscribe to some kind of Eastern tradition, and probably who have a living guru whom they “follow,” and who eat animals. These folks hold that their spirituality includes the recognition that all sentient beings are part of the same larger “consciousness” of the Universe, and that we humans are no better than any other animal.
Ask them what they had for breakfast.
Far more than any Judeo-Christian tradition, these individuals whose lives are governed by karma, choose to have someone create and kill animals for them to eat. And that is something I just don’t understand. But in my vegan advocacy that’s the perfect place to begin (or end).
In other words, I don’t talk about veganism and atheism to anyone but atheists. Just like I talk about karma and veganism with people who have allowed the idea of karma to rule their lives. And I talk about doing unto others to people who like to believe they live by The Golden Rule.
We do need to reach religious people. It would be a tad disingenuous for me to advocate within the Judeo-Christian community as I’ve never been known to be part of it. But I can and do advocate for animals among “spiritual” types as well as atheists, as I know the language and the practices of those people better than I know that of traditional religious people.
Ninety-nine percent of us are not vegans, so heaven knows there are enough people who need to hear a story that is different from the one they are telling themselves. Most of those people believe in a god or call themselves “spiritual.” I am not advocating for trying to change their minds about that, but for using what they believe as a link to why they should consider veganism.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
In May of 2008, Santa Cruz County Animal Services confiscated dozens of animals from a live market slaughterhouse. A live-market slaughterhouse is both feedlot and slaughterhouse. They serve a small market, and because the animals are often in poor health, they provide an affordable “product”.
There were hundreds of animals at the facility, mostly pigs, goats and sheep. In total, only 24 of the animals would receive an opportunity to live out the remainder of their lives. Anti-cruelty laws in most states, as they apply to farmed animals, are woefully inadequate. Only the most emaciated, including one downer goat, were saved. The rest are no longer alive. It hurts to think about them.
Read more (will take you to Animal Rights and AntiOppression blog)
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Disclaimer:
Animal Rights Blog is owned by 1800blogger which is a (for) profit organization. We are not a charity. If you send any money through this button, please understand that the money is being used for working capital for Animal Rights Blog and 1800blogger. Please check with your accountant to see if this is a tax-deductible contribution.
