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.

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?

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.

Green eating

I have just read this article about green eating. I am pleased that the author address the issue of eating less meat. As you may be able to tell I am vegan, and believe that it is one of the simplest and easiest ways to reduce your environmental impact [1]. But let's face it, many people for a variety of reasons will never go vegan, and therefore from an environmental point of view, being a Lessmeatatarian - eating less meat - is a good alternative. A typical Western diet consists of far more meat than our bodies require. This has many adverse effects from being bad for one's health to the obvious problems involved in the intensive rearing of animals, from the sometimes obscene cruelty that is nowadays simply a part of the industry [2] to the breeding and promotion of disease.

Therefore, if you want to do one thing that can make a difference on numerous levels, all of them important, eat less meat.


[1] Of course this only applies if you eat sensibly, cook most of your veggies, grains etc from scratch (or even better, have them raw in a nice salad) and don't live off only polystyrene-packaged take-aways and factory-produced substitutes.

[2] Don't believe the PETA link? See the movie Earthlings. It will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about whether the animals that end up on dinner plates really frolic happily on wide open fields until they are humanely and painlessly killed, or whether the reality is slightly darker.

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.

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.