On animal rights

My response to a fellow Facebook user and bird enthusiast, on PETA’s 12 steps (honestly I didn’t know them and frankly can’t be bothered, I don’t need a 12-step programme to teach me what is right). I have had to knok this off inbetween 50 million other things so if there are inconsistenies or errors, you think I'm talking plain old rubbish, please point it out. I know I've left out a lot.

Anyway, PETA’s points (as quoted by the mentioned person) in bold, his comments in italics and mine as is:

1 1. Abolish by law all animal research. (There would be no cures for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, etc., and testing of new drugs would be done on humans, or not at all.)

---this is a long answer and I urge you to read up on the many alternative methods and viewpoints. Animal research is unfortunately hit-or-miss at best (thalidomide anyone?) and many more sophisticated means of testing medicines have appeared, not least of which TraumaMan http://www.simulab.com/product/surgery/open/traumaman-system, cell cultures, lab-grown tissue and organs, computer simulations, microdosing...of course I could also point out the fact that many substances have very different effects on humans than they do on other animals. There’s a wealth of literature out there, should you want to read up more I’d be happy to point you in the right direction.

2. Outlaw the use ...of animals for cosmetic and product testing, and classroom demonstration (physicians would perform their first surgeries and procedures on humans without any previous experience).

---again, see my friend TraumaMan above (and computer models, and a myriad of other lovely, interactive and non-icky physical models) for classroom demonstration. Furthermore with over 8000 known safe cosmetic ingredients not to mention the plethora of currently available products, I do not think there is any justification for testing cosmetics on animals. Short of conning people into buying yet another silly anti-aging cream or hair colour, what is the point? Why should animals suffer and die for human vanity?

3. Vegetarian meals should be at all public institutions, including schools.

---what’s the problem there? Surely any child has the right NOT to eat meat should he or she choose not to? Surely only serving animal products can be argued to be infringing on the rights of these children?

4. Eliminate all animal agriculture (resulting in no milk, eggs, chicken, fish, or meat for food, no leather for shoes or clothing). (How many foods do you eat that contain eggs or dairy products, or a derivative of the same? Did you know your keyboard and mouse may have been made with animal products?)

---none. I am vegan and do not use any of the products you mention. I am aware that animal products are ubiquitous but this does not have to be so. The animal agriculture sector is unfortunately also the locus of the worst animal abuses – think battery farming, sow crates, veal crates, dehorning, debeaking, foie gras, downer cows, dumping or alternatively gassing or maceration of day-old male chickens...the list goes on. Even welfarists should be offended at the kind of cruelty routinely perpetrated, not even mentioning specific cases like that of Conklin Dairy Farm. This could be a whole discussion on its own. There are great environmental and nutritious benefits to a vegan diet. If you want to understand my views on food animals, this piece puts it in a far more eloquent way than I can: http://www.peacefulprairie.org/letter.html

5. Eliminate all herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.(Farmers would not be able to produce as much food as they do now, driving the cost of living up, and eliminating the export of food to hungry nations. Animals such as coyotes are already a problem in some areas, coming into yards to eat garbage and prey upon outdoor pets.)

---I have no problem with dangerous pesticides (like Aldicarb) and herbicides being eliminated. There are safer alternatives. Distribution issues and politics have a far larger effect on food production and prices than predators and pests. Given that animal agriculture is a current fact of life, I’d far rather support cruelty-free methods like using Anatolian hounds to guard sheep rather than using, say, gintraps or poison. Were there no more animal farming, this would be a non-issue. Pesticides and herbicides are a broader conservation issue – many of our raptors are endangered because of “pest control”. Even our endangered Cape Parrots are killed because they eat from the pecan trees that have replaced their natural yellowwood forests.

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture. (Animal issues would be controlled by people with little or no experience in customary animal husbandry.

---judging by certain laws like the 28-Hour Law* the USDA doesn’t know too much about animal welfare either.

* whereby a person may not confine animals in a vehicle or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest. 28 hours??? More than a fll day and night. It can even be extended to 36, by written request. Oh and this does not apply to poultry. Neither does the Humane Slaughter Act, which also neglects to protect rabbits and numerous other animals.

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

---and the problem here is? Does anyone here support fur?

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

---once again, I am unable see a problem with that. I realise that I may offend hunters here but I can’t really comprehend the sport in killing animals.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods.

---I think we all agree with this one.

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments until all companion animals are extinct. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade. Eliminate pet ownership.

---ok this is a prickly one. Something like 4 million cats and dogs are euthanased in the US annually because humans allow them to breed unchecked and do not look after the young. So clearly there are some problems. I am also most concerned about how many people in the pet trade operate, not least selling wild-caught parrots. However I myself have a number of companion animals; they make me very happy and I provide them with a good home. Some of them are adopted, some (like the mynahs) are invasive species and cannot be returned to the wild here. We have bought a bird from a pet shop. We spotted her when going to buy water bowls and perches. She’s a one-legged yellow-backed lory that was being kept in a hamster cage, away from the other birds. I couldn’t leave her there.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports (resulting in no horse shows, cat or dog shows, animal actors, rodeos, animal movie stars).

---…no elephants being beaten and abused by handlers in circuses, no greyhounds being shot and their ears cut off before they’re dumped, no bullfighting, no “dancing bears”, no dogfighting, no horsefighting (I shit thee not), no fire bulls...no Taiji slaughter...you see where I’m going with this? Dog and cat shows may be innocuous, many other entertainments are not at all. I am happy to elaborate if you like.

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of the species (resulting in the elimination of critical medical research relating to Cancer, AIDS and other life threatening diseases, as well as crop production improvements such as the difference between the Holstein and the Angus, and eliminate all pedigreed animals, etc... ).

---this is a somewhat tricky one. I generally am sceptical of GM (whether breeding or actual GM) because I don’t think we have enough knowledge, wisdom or foresight. Killer bees anyone? Not to mention companies like Monsanto who force food dependency by only providing their super duper disease resistant seed on the condition that farmers have to keep buying from them, etc. I am all for studying genetics, just not too convinced about the manipulation of genes for profit. And of course this would not eliminate pedigreed animals – how would it do that? I don’t have any problem with curbing attempts to breed animals to a point where they are not healthy, like pugs who have respiratory issues and chihuahuas whose legs break like chicken bones because they are just too small. And cows are not crops ;)

You may sympathize with one of the points above... however, do you agree with all of them? If you disagree with only some, you cannot, in good conscience, continue to support the animal rights agenda with donations or support of their legislation. For example, I happen to agree with item 9, above, but if I send money to the animal rights groups, it may be used to support items with which I disagree.

---once again Art, PETA are not the custodians of animal rights, neither of my conscience. Animal rights thinking has existed long before PETA. I do not give them money. I base my ideas on simple extension of human rights (the right to life, the right to bodily integrity, non-intervention, conservation etc.) and furthermore I have read some of the ideas of people like Peter Singer, Gary Francione, James LaVeck, and South African thinkers like Michelle Pickover and Dr Les Mitchell. I do support causes like: CLAW www.claw-sa.org , HHCU www.horsecare.org.za , Sharklife www.sharklife.co.za , and numerous others that actually put in the legwork of making animals’ lives better. My family and I have rescued, rehabilitated and released numerous birds and other creatures. I try to educate my own child and other children about the importance of treating animals with compassion and respect.

At the end of the day animal rights is not about an agenda, it is a philosophy that has at its core the best interest of animals, not from a condescending viewpoint of the “crown of Creation” or “top of the food chain”, but from a deeply felt need to understand what is truly the best way to co-exist with creatures that are more similar than different to us. I am unable to understand why anyone would oppose this ideal.

Of Rhinos and Citrus Trees

This blog post is long overdue about the desperate situation faced by rhinos in Africa but also in response to this post by Kevin Leo-Smith, who believes that our "Western bunny-hugging, conservation attitudes ARE BUSY pushing the Rhino towards extinction." Now while I find that statement, as well as his Facebook statements about "armchair rhino activists" quite insulting and offensive, the future of the rhino are more important than either of our opinions. Thus in the interest of constructive debate, I will engage with Mr Leo-Smith as far as possible. Due to time constraints, I can't nearly address everything I'd like to address, but here goes.

My first question to Mr Leo-Smith is as follows. Is it really our bunny-hugging conservation attitudes, or does it have more to do with the following issues?

• Certain people believe - despite clear evidence - that rhino horn has medicinal properties, and they are willing and able to pay for these. In Tanzania, among others, there is a thriving trade in the skin and body parts of albinos, as they are believed to possess magical properties. I am sure that Mr Leo-Smith will agree that sustainably harvesting skin from albinos is not an option, but that educating their countrymen could be.

• Many people in Africa are poor and disempowered. Now we can create a new industry in rhino horn but I have a sneaking suspicion that - much the same as with mining - the (mostly white) investors and business owners that will make the money, while the impoverished Africans will still need to poach rhino to get a slice of the pie . Tourism is widely seen as a part of the answer to Africa's economic problems - I have a hunch that over its lifetime a live rhino is far more valuable to the country than a bit of horn. Also, these are expensive animals and losing them at such a rate must deal quite a blow to these game reserves - not good for our economy.

• There are people illegally flying around in South African airspace with hi-tech weapons, invading private property and endangering the lives of, not the armchair rhino sympathisers but the actual game rangers, conservationists and normal staff working on the ground. Does anyone else see a problem here? The anti-poaching committee discussion was the first real peep from SANParks, those people to whom us taxpayers entrust this work, and nothing from the government. Perhaps I am paranoid but I am sure there are kickbacks involved here. Why is the military not involved in what is essentially a small-scale invasion? Why does it fall to private reserves to fight this when the military has the skills and the equipment to track poachers and intervene?

Secondly, I would like to point out to Mr Leo-Smith that not all conservationists are privileged whites; not all Africans are potentially poachers, or at all pleased at the wholesale killing of rhinos; and, while I appreciate their circumstances, it is worth remembering that the poachers are also armed and are often more than willing to shoot to kill, and that their opponents - game rangers and the like - are often also poor Africans.

One thing Mr Leo-Smith and I seem to agree on is that education is key, and that we need a multi-pronged approach. I just think that legalising rhino horn is not part of that approach. We will only be endorsing rhino horn as a legitimate product and (as others have pointed out) opening up easy distribution channels for illegal rhino horn. How will the end user be able to tell the difference? And honestly, if we can't monitor armed helicopter gangs, how will we monitor the rhino horn trade? Legalising rhino horn will make a few people a quick buck, and will exacerbate the problem in the long run.

Education, ground-level enforcement, diplomatic efforts between our government and buyer countries, economic empowerment of our people and the commitment of all stakeholders will be necessary. I am willing to, and do, financially support conservation efforts, and am willing to dedicate physical resources to the fight, Mr Leo-Smith, with no expectation of return other than the conservation of a magnificent animal. So, other than legalising rhino horn, what are your suggestions? I am looking forward to hearing them.

Just to clarify

I have recently gotten myself into numerous veganism-related discussions, some more amicable than others. I felt that perhaps I should clarify why I feel so strongly about the vegan lifestyle, and why I will not shut up J

Yes it is a personal choice. But while omnivores exercise that choice, animals suffer and die. People attack vegan ideology from economic, cultural, personal liberty and other perspectives. And whereas I feel that the facts stand up for themselves in these matters, the plain and gory truth is that, for you to eat an animal, the animal must die. For you to eat eggs, a chicken must lay them. For you to eat dairy, a cow must become pregnant, have a calf, and be milked.

This is where Mr James LaVeck's brilliant quote comes in:

"There is a reason why human rights groups do not endorse 'humane' methods of executing political prisoners, and why children's rights advocates do not collaborate with the pornography industry to develop standards for films that make 'compassionate' use of runaway teens. To do such things is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between right and wrong must never be allowed to blur."

Yes I completely subscribe to that. Even if slaughtering methods were humane (which it simply cannot be due to the overwhelming demands for meat, and let's for one minute forget how animals are raised), it is my honest opinion that taking away a sentient being's life – except in extremis, such as a dog with a terminal illness – can never be anything but cruel.

As for eggs and dairy, is it possible to provide these to a 7-billion strong population in a "humane" way? No, again the demand is too big. We simply do not have the space for truly free-range chickens, and cows do not produce enough milk to be viable if their calves are left with them. Besides that, as long as animals are exploited for their "products" they will remain a commodity, in the same way that slaves were still a commodity no matter how well they might have been treated by some of the slave owners. And being a commodity means not having universal, inalienable rights. It means being vulnerable to abuse, it means never being free, and it means that when you are no longer economically useful, you will be discarded by the cheapest means.

Gary L. Francione calls our relationship with animals morally schizophrenic, and I feel this is accurate. We accord some rights to companion animals and all decent people are horrified when cruelty is inflicted on these companion animals. But most of the same people seem blissfully unaware that similar cruelty is perpetrated against "food" animals every day. And of course people generally do not feel that animals should have rights like humans do, forgetting how the same rhetoric, the same excuses were used to subjugate black people and women, to excuse the horrible abuses of religious inquisitions and in the early lunatic asylums.

We are told that anthropomorphising animals is bad science, but is it? Animals, especially mammals but to a large extent birds, have similar brain structures and similar neurotransmitters, and their brains behave in similar ways to ours when similar stimuli are applied. So how different can their emotions be? Even here our beliefs about animals display a certain logical disconnect. We accept that animals can feel fear, but not that they can experience love, or grief. Except maybe a dog, right?

When these things are brought to people's attention, those doing so are usually seen as "extremists" and all-round unpleasant people. But knowing how animals – whom I passionately love – suffer every day, for every egg or slice of bacon someone eats, how can I be expected to remain silent? I do not judge nor do I seek to prescribe. What I want to do is to challenge misconceptions, but perhaps more importantly, I want to challenge why people hold the opinions they do. Is it truly your opinion or did you inherit it?

Evyl Shnukums' Guide to Vegan Living

Because I have all the zeal of a recent convert, and because switching to veganism can be tricky in a place like South Africa, I have decided to write mine very own beginner's guide to being vegan.

First off examine your motives and ideas. If you approach this as a huge sacrifice, you will probably endure pain. If you approach it as a conscious, "fcuk you I won't buy what you tell me" decision, you'll have a lot more fun.

Bear in mind that a. this list is hardly exhaustive and b. I have been vegan for a total of 6 months, so I am hardly an expert. And of course the links here are rather lazily added, I'll add more when I can be bothered.

1. Let's get the worst out of the way. Say goodbye to cheese. This is the one thing you probably will miss. Few cheese replacements are any good although Bute Island Cream Sheese is awesome, and Free Food's No-D Cheese (available from Fresh Earth) melts well in white sauces etc.


2. You gotta like veggies. This may seem obvious, but I hear whispers of people who don't like vegetables. I feel sorry for them :)


3. Meat is actually quite expensive so going vegan means you can afford to buy awesome stuff like cashews and capers and other tasty things you can eat instead of meat and animal products.


4. Learn to cook. If you can toss up a nice veggie meal you will a. save money, b. eat less frankenfoods, c. have a prettier plate and d. still get all those nutrients people are forever quizzing you about. Find lots of recipes here.


5. Don't let all your food consist of substitutes but do make use of them when convenience is an issue. Some substitutes (e.g Fry's, Bassets' Tofu Treats Ice Cream) are as good as the oringinal.


6. Pack a lunchbox. Even if you have a work cafeteria, the chips and/or green salad will seem a bit samey by the third week.


7. Get recommendations from people about restaurants, or go there and check out the menu. Don't be afraid to ask waiters, caterers etc what is in the food. They will usually be quite helpful, considering that some food allergies can be fatal they will usually be happy to tell you exactly what goes into a dish. Shahi Khana in Norwood and Sho Ming in Kensington, for example, are very understanding and helpful.


8. Be prepared to get flak from people. The majority of people are cool with veganism but some people seem genuinely offended that a person may not want to eat dead animals.


9. Arm yourself with knowledge. Read up on nutrition. Neutral sources like Patrick Holford will be a good start, as will veggie websites and recipe books. Also read up on general facts. E.g. if someone tells you that the Amazon is being cleared to grow soy for vegans, tell them that "85 percent of the world’s soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed. Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use…" . Even better, refer them to Livestock's Long Shadow, published by the FAO.


10. Join the Vegan Society.


11. Do not be discouraged. Be assured that however small the difference *you personally* make, the cumulative difference made by all people who try, will have an effect.


12. Remember that veganism is not really just a dietary preference. It is a lifestyle choice, and in some cases a political statement. It includes boycotting companies who test on animals (and trust me the bastards are everywhere), boycotting fur, boycotting products with animal ingredients. In a similar vein I avoid buying clothes made in China. It's that "fcuk you I won't buy what you tell me" approach again. No I'm sorry I will not buy your factory farmed chicken, your cosmetics tested on helpless animals, your tissues made from old-growth forests' trees, or your branded crap made in a sweatshop.

It's only fun till someone gets hurt

We all grew up with the idea of the circus as something fun and wholesome. Most kids love animals and a circus is the closest you can get to lions and elephants. If you were like me you also believed that they must be well taken care of - after all they are powerful animals and they would attack their trainers if not properly treated, right? And yes, their cages are small but when they're not travelling they get to frolic in open fields and rest until the next season, right?

Not quite. Circus animals are trained from a young age, and are taught how to behave by domination and punishment. They spend most of their lives either in tiny travelling cages or performing in noisy, crowded environments.

Recently this lion was removed from a circus and is currently in recovery at the Drakenstein Lion Park. Please consider donating to this worthy cause. In any event please consider not supporting circuses featuring animal acts.

Greyhound racing - again

Please call and/or forward this to as many people as you know who will be likely to attend and object to greyhound racing

Your help is needed now to stop dog racing and we only have a few weeks left to do it. However, it is not in the form of an e-mail, SMS or petition but your presence is needed at a hearing to state your objection to the introduction of greyhound racing.

The DTI is holding public consultations so that members of the public and interested groupings can submit their input. The process is neither confrontational nor a debate, and all that citizens are required to do is give their name, state whether or not they support greyhound racing, and why.

How?

Simply by attending the hearing nearest to them and participating in the process and saying NO to greyhound racing. In this instance as your presence and input are required inside the actual hearings to make a difference.

Where and when?

CAPE TOWN
13 FEBRUARY 2009 : 09h00-12h30
PROTEA SEAPOINT HOTEL

PORT ELIZABETH
20 FEBRUARY 2009 : 09h00-12h30
PROTEA MARINE HOTEL

BLOEMFONTEIN
26 FEBRUARY 2009 : 09h00-12h30
GARDEN COURT HOTEL

PRETORIA (HATFIELD)
27 FEBRUARY 2009 : 09h00-12h30
PROTEA MANOR HOTEL

EAST LONDON (ESPLANADE)
6 MARCH 2009 : 09h00-12h30
GARDEN COURT HOTEL

POTCHEFSTROOM
13 MARCH 2009 : 09h00-12h30
WILLOWS GARDEN HOTEL

BE THERE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

WHY CONDEMN DOG RACING?

The introduction to South Africa of abhorrent practices that surround this activity as they exist in other countries globally ultimately would result in enormous untold suffering and deprivation of welfare for thousands of animals in the future. Empirical research shows that the greyhound racing industry is in rapid decline around the world, for good reason, in that progressive societies are realizing the extent of cruelty involved in the sport, and thus a greater lack of support for the practice. 

Global evidence reveals that ultimately only a few interested stakeholders will profiteer enormously off the back of suffering not animal amongst the animals, but amongst the millions of impoverished citizens for whom gambling merely adds to their economic deprivation. If South Africa is to thrive both economically and as a prosperous democracy, both government and its citizens should be engaging in positive economic opportunities, not encouraging a lose-lose industry whereby both the poor and the animals will be the resultant casualties at the hands of a few profiteering opportunists. In so many other respects, South Africa continues to hold its head high globally for its extremely progressive constitution and democratic practices, which many fought and sacrificed so much in order to achieve. It would be a very sad day indeed if South Africa slid back to darker days involving oppressive practices that involve causal suffering, both economically and socially. 

As a country, we should continue to serve as an example to the rest of the world as a thought leader and that we reject all forms of regressive practices, however lucrative they are to a small pool of self-interested business proponents who have no self-regulatory system to combat welfare issues or concern for the poor.

A Vegan Pagan's Prayer

I found the most beautiful prayer on this website and had to share:

A Vegan Pagan's Prayer

Lord of the forest and field, Lady of the starlit night,
I acknowledge the truth that for me to live, something must die.
I give thanks for the gift of free will,
And I acknowledge the responsibility that comes with the freedom of choice.

I choose then to abstain from the cycle of unnecessary suffering.
I pledge to be an agent of healing, not a bystander to slaughter.
I say to the animals:
You do not have to suffer and die for me.
I say to the workers:
You do not have to kill for me.
I say to the corporate death machine:
You will no longer profit from my blindness.
I say to the Earth, and to all that is holy,
That though we are taught to feast upon war,
I choose to lay down the sword
And take in peace instead.
I ally myself with Nature, not as her master, but as her child.
I will not claim dominion over that which is wiser than I.

Lord of the forest and field, Lady of the starlit night,
May compassion fulfill and transform me
May I give as You give, may I love as You love
And may my choices bring grace to my life
As You bring grace to the world.

So mote it be.

Picture from here

Greyhound racing, or, let's take a really crap idea from overseas and inflict it here

This was forwarded to a mailing list I'm on. Please take a moment to read and, should you feel that greyhound racing should remain banned - as I do - please write to Prof Snyman-Van Deventer. Feel free to quote from the Greyhound Crusaders info below.
http://www.sportingweb.co.za/sportingweb/view/sportingweb/en/page93?oid=8811&sn=Detail
Greyhound racing research
South African Department of Trade and Industry

26 August 2008

Members of the public who want to submit their inputs regarding the possible legislation of greyhound racing in the country have until the endof October 2008 to do so.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has appointed the University ofthe Free State Faculty of Law, under the supervision of Prof Elizabeth Snyman-Van Deventer, to oversee the process.

Greyhound racing was banned years ago because gambling was regarded as immoral at that time.

Now that gambling has been revisited in the country,there are debates on possible legislation of greyhound racing.

The animal welfare and protection groups are in support of the ban ongreyhound racing, while other role players have been calling for the racingto be reintroduced.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals (NSPCA)says the legalisation and introduction of dog racing into South Africa will result in the suffering, unspeakable living conditions and often untimely and brutal death of thousands of greyhounds.

The research team under Prof Snyman-Van Deventer will hold workshops across the country later this year to gather input from the public. Members of the public can also send their written submissions to Prof Snyman-Van Deventer at 051 401 2698 or send them by e-mail to **snyman.rd@ufs.ac.za* <snyman.rd@ufs.ac.za>*.

For further information, contact Mpho Mosing at 012 394 1504/083 436 5534.

Issued by:Media and Public Relations, the DTI

Director: Sidwell Moloantoa Medupe

Mobile: + 27 (0) 73 522 6801 E-mail: msmedupe@thedti.gov.za

DTI website: http://www.thedti.gov.za/

From a UK-based group:

Why Greyhound Crusaders are so strongly opposed to greyhound racing

Firstly due to the thousands of greyhounds that are destroyed every year once they are retired from racing, average age 3-4 years old. Additionally, thousands of greyhound pups are destroyed each year because they are considered 'unsuitable for racing'. The RSPCA believes: "at least 20 greyhounds a day - either puppies which do not make the track, or 'retired' dogs aged three or four - simply 'disappear', presumed killed" (Please view the recent APGAW (Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare) report at this link: http://www.greyhoundpetition.org/APGAW_Report.pdf

Also the fact that many greyhounds every year sustain serious, sometimes fatal injuries whilst racing. Additionally, greyhounds have fallen victim to extreme abuse: Greyhounds have been found drowned, poisoned, shot, abandoned, some emaciated, some with their ears hacked off (or burnt off with acid) to remove identifying tattoos. Some greyhounds are subjected to 'drugging' as a way of 'fixing' certain races. Greyhounds taken on by rescuers are often in a poor state of neglect i.e. flea-ridden, worm-ridden, rotten teeth.

We have personally been involved with and assisted others in the rescue of many unwanted racing greyhounds over the past few years and during this time witnessed greyhounds with cigarette burns on their bodies, greyhounds with missing toes due to past injuries, greyhounds who have had to have many of their teeth removed due to previous neglect. Untreated injuries that have poorly healed. The list is endless.

You may have read the horrific story of David Smith from Co. Durham exterminating in the region of 10,000 unwanted greyhounds in a fifteen year period by shooting them callously with a bolt gun and burying them in his back garden. The Sunday Times along with other national newspapers exposed this in 2006.

More recently, the Sunday Times have also exposed two disturbing cases where healthy greyhounds are being sold to veterinary colleges by those involved in the greyhound racing industry, to be exploited for scientific purposes. On Sunday 2nd March 2008, a Sunday Times article exposed the Royal Veterinary College (the oldest and largest veterinary college in Britain) as having an agreement with a greyhound clinic in Essex to buy body parts taken from healthy greyhounds that were being euthanased regularly by the clinic, the healthy greyhounds were being supplied to the clinic by greyhound trainers who no longer had a use for these dogs.

The full article can be viewed here:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3466712.ece

On Sunday 11th May 2008, a second article appeared in the Sunday Times, this time exposing Liverpool University's Small Animal Teaching Hospital as being supplied with healthy young greyhounds by the largest greyhound breeder in Britain, a Mr Charles Pickering. Mr Pickering admitted to selling young, perfectly healthy greyhounds who had failed to make the grade (i.e. chose not to chase the artificial hare or considered simply too slow for the tracks) to the university's animal teaching hospital to euthanased and used for scientific research. The article also revealed how greyhound trainer 'Richard Fielding' who was also supplied greyhounds by Mr Pickering, gave his older (still healthy) greyhounds once they retired from racing to the university veterinary staff to be euthanased so their organs could be removed for teaching and research purposes. The full article can be viewed here:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3908388.ece

We are sickened and outraged by the appalling atrocities inflicted upon the racing greyhound and this is why we endeavour to educate the general public about the disturbing reality of greyhound racing and why we campaign tirelessly for total abolition.

If you could spare a few moments to please view this short videohttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1rAB-PY7XZQ (volume up), as this supports the many reasons why we are so compelled to be a voice for the greyhounds.

We hope that our correspondence to you today will explain the reasons for our concerns and we would like a ban on greyhound racing for the reasons stated above. Many of the general public are horrified at what happens toman's best friend and it is high time the government did something to stop the thousands of greyhounds being killed every year.

"A noble death", or, a whole lot of bull

I have just read this http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10357 and responded here http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2008/08/27/a-noble-death/

I will freely admit that I am not a philosopher and I do not have time to answer every assertion in the article. I guess my most important question is this: does it even matter whether some people get some aesthetic gratification out of it? Does aesthetic gratification justify inflicting harm on a sentient being who has no choice as to whether he partakes of this spectacle?

If the subject (victim) were human would this article have been written? If so, I think the DSM-IV-TR may have something to say about it, and so may the authorities. If a fight between an animal and a human, where the animal had an equal chance, would be "grotesque", is a bullfight not the same?

And as for the issue of animals not having rights if they cannot be "called upon to uphold those rights for themselves", that is a rather backward notion. Should children and the mentally disabled be denied rights, because they cannot be expected to uphold those rights for themselves? I think that the rational human being is in a position to uphold said rights, and therefore shoulders the responsibility. Yes I do find it somewhat hypocritical that people eat (factory farmed) meat - needless to say I don't - and protest bullfighting, but it can be argued that people need meat. Can the same be said of bullfighting? More importantly, do we have the right to inflict our whims on the animal whether it has rights or not?

As for the comparison between bullfighting and the lion attacking the wildebeest, this seems puerile. It is the nature of a predator to kill and eat prey. But humans can choose which aspects of our nature we express. Again, the bull has no say in the matter.

At any rate I find it sad (and as a psychology student, disturbing) that people consider the torture and death of a sentient being, an aesthetically pleasing spectacle.

Fashion victims part 2: Skinned alive for the catwalk

Just read this article by Merrilees Parker:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043067/Fur-goodness-sake-Skinned-alive-catwalk.html

"My argument was that there should be a middle ground - various other welfare improvements which would improve a chicken's lot without making it prohibitively expensive - and it was with the same open mind that I approached my investigation into the booming fur trade.

...

Unlike the food industry, where growing public concern has brought about improvements in animal welfare and transparency in labelling products, the people who wear fur don't seem to give a damn about how it has been produced.

Without pressure from its customers, the fur industry will remain unregulated and, as long as that is the case, anyone buying fur could be supporting animal cruelty. Is any item of clothing really worth that?

For me, the answer is an emphatic no."

Do read the full article and comment. I tried, but my comments haven't been published. I have to say I am appalled that - in a time when I thought more humans were becoming sensitised to the idea of universal basic rights - fur is become more acceptable and even popular. Perhaps I have been too optimistic.

Fashion victims

I was alerted to this on Facebook and sent off the following, rather snotty, mail to the parties involved:

gillg@sundaytimes.co.za

johnr@702.co.za

Dear Ms Gill and Mr Robbie

I am writing to express my disgust and disappointment at the article that can be found at this link

http://www.thetimes.co.za/Entertainment/CelebZone/Article.aspx?id=804921

Big spenders lose appetite for costly trinkets, 21 July 2008

and particularly the paragraph quoted:

"[Mr Robbie's] wife, Jenny, sprang a big surprise when she showed me her purchase du jour (or nuit, as it happened): a red fox-fur jacket. At R3250, she called it a “snip” in comparison with what her old man was spending on his collecting passion, and posed for the picture of the night as she modelled it for us. The slur-on-fur movement now appears to be a been-there-done-that concept and two other pre-used animal coats changed hands that night — including another pretty jacket, this time a silver fox for R3500."

Mr Robbie I am not taking issue so much with the fact that your wife bought an apparently second-hand fur jacket (of course all fur is essentially pre-used), although I do think it is irresponsible of any sort of celebrity to promote cruelty in such blatant fashion. Had the fur been new it would have been a different matter.

What shocked and disgusted me however, Ms Gill, was the callous statement you made regarding the anti-fur movement. Do you truly see concern over the unnecessary and incredibly inhumane killing of animals for their fur as a trend, to support when in vogue and to discard when the novelty has worn off? Did it never occur to you that perhaps some people feel more passionately about the suffering of animals than they do about pink satin-lined jackets? I didn't expect too much from a "society writer" but that was deplorably shallow even for someone of your ilk.

I sincerely hope that concern for the rights and welfare of others, be they human or animal, will never go out of fashion.

Feel free to send them your opinion on the matter too