|
| ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS
MAY 2005 NEWSWEEK: "THE FLAP OVER FOIE GRAS" -- May 2, 2005 edition The current, May 2, edition of Newsweek, has a story headed, "A Flap Over Foie Gras" and sub-headed, "Chefs--and diners--love the fatty duck liver, but animal-rights activists are crying fowl at the birds' treatment." (Pg 58) Unfortunately, while letting it be known that animal rights activists disapprove of foie gras, the article almost serves as an advertisement for it, telling us "To French food writer Charles Gerard, foie gras--the swollen liver of a deliberately overfed goose or duck--was 'the supreme fruit of gastronomy.'" The words "deliberately overfed" are misleading, making the ducks or geese sound like spoiled dogs in rich households. Animals raised for foie gras are not overfed, but force-fed. They have a pound of corn meal thrust down their throats into their stomachs, via a long metal tube, two or three times a day. Their traumatized livers swell five to ten times their normal size in two weeks. During their last days, many of the animals can barely stand. Footage from a New York foie gras farm shows a duck, too week to fight, being eaten alive by rats. Check out http://www.GourmetCruelty.com and http://www.nofoiegras.org to learn more. The article does note statements made in 2002 by Cardinal Ratzinger, now the new pope, specifically referring to force-feeding geese as "degrading living creatures" in a way that appears to "contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible." And it notes that Chef Charlie Trotter stopped serving foie gras after seeing ducks force-fed. However readers tend to take away from an article the final point. The final paragraph in this article tells us that Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, says that "waterfowl, lacking the mammalian gag reflex, do not suffer from the process." The final lines of the article are: "And Charlie Trotter himself would be the last to deny how good it is. Its texture as meltingly soft as a chocolate truffle, its flavor a mouth-filling meatiness and sweetness that helps justify humanity's million-year struggle to the top of the food chain." You can read whole piece on line at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7613524/site/newsweek/ The article at least opens up the subject of foie gras cruelty for discussion in this leading magazine. I urge animal advocates to check out the photos and footage at the websites cited above and send letters to Newsweek that focus on the horrendous cruelty rather than the "meltingly soft" texture of this delicacy. Always make sure letters do not borrow any exact phrases from my alerts or cited websites. While many letters on a topic will lead a publication to print at least one or two, letters with some identical phrases can have the opposite effect. Newsweek takes letters at: letters@newsweek.com . They must include your name, address, and daytime phone number.
USA TODAY COVERS J. LO FILM OPENING FOCUSING ON ANTI FUR DEMONSTRATIONS -- USA TODAY 5/2/05 Good news is that the USA Today coverage on the opening of Jennifer Lopez's new movie focuses on the anti fur protests. The Monday, May 2, article is headed: "'Monster' of a premiere; Lopez draws protesters; Fonda doesn't." (Life, Pg 3D.) We read that, "Lopez chose Friday's Monster-in-Law premiere to show off a new haircut and step out very publicly with the love of her life.... The savvy singers knew their public display would take some of the attention away from the crowds of PETA picketers, who were brandishing posters of mink-loving Lopez wrapped in fur with the caption 'Monster-in-Fur.'" We read: "'They have wonderful pictures of Jennifer,' joked premiere guest Randy Quaid, while others, including Sally Field, Jacqueline Bisset and Stockard Channing, tried to look past images of skinned foxes." The article mentions that Lopez was "dressed in Neil Lane and Fred Leighton jewels and a satin Zac Posen gown (and not a hint of fur)...." A demonstrator is quoted: "She's not a fashion icon, she's a fashion moron." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-01-monster-premiere_x.htm It provides a great opportunity for anti fur letters in the USA's most widely circulated newspaper. USA Today takes letters at: http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18 PETA's website on J. Lo and fur is http://www.jlodown.com/
LAST CHICAGO ELEPHANT DIES ON WAY TO ANOTHER ZOO -- CHICAGO TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE 5/2/05 Sad news, but also a sign of hope on the cover of the Monday, May 2, Chicago Tribune: The headline reads, "Death stuns zoo, riles protesters; Wankie euthanized after tough trip from Lincoln Park to Utah." The story opens: "The third and last elephant in the recent care of Lincoln Park Zoo was euthanized Sunday after it fell ill en route to a new zoo home in Salt Lake City. "The death of the 36-year-old female African elephant Wankie comes amid a long face-off with animal rights activists over the suitability of housing elephants in zoos. "On Sunday, Lincoln Park Zoo president Kevin Bell said Wankie's death may bring an end to elephants at the zoo. "The zoo plans to transform the area for elephants into a pen for camels, he said. "’We have no plans to bring elephants back to Lincoln Park Zoo in the future,' Bell said. "It is the third elephant death for the zoo in the last six months. Wankie was the last surviving member of a trio of female elephants brought to Lincoln Park Zoo from the San Diego Wild Animal Park in 2003 amid protests from animal rights groups." Later in the article we read: "A spokeswoman for In Defense of Animals, another animal rights group that had been opposed to the zoo's handling of the elephants, said Sunday the zoo had rushed Wankie out of the city 'to circumvent the public hearing scheduled in the Chicago City Council May 12' on sending the elephant to a sanctuary instead of another zoo." And on PETA’s involvement we read: "In April 2003, when plans were being made to transfer the three female elephants from the San Diego Wild Animal Park in California to Lincoln Park, PETA sent a letter to Bell asking the zoo to reconsider. 'Chicago's long, bitter cold winters will have a devastating effect on elephants who are accustomed to being outdoors year-round in San Diego's warm climate,' PETA wrote." An April 26 PETA news release on the issue (you'll find it at: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6309 ) tells us: "Wankie’s two companions of more than 30 years, Peaches and Tatima, died at Lincoln Park Zoo after the three were discarded by the San Diego Wild Animal Park two years ago to make room for younger elephants captured in the wild." And also, "A resolution introduced by Alderman George Cardenas recommending that Wankie be sent to a sanctuary and that Lincoln Park Zoo become the ninth U.S. zoo to permanently close its elephant exhibit is pending." You can read the whole Chicago Tribune article on line at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0505020157may02,1,3952578.story?coll=chi-news-hed The Lincoln Park Zoo’s welcome announcement that it does not plant to acquire more elephants comes too late for Peaches, Tatima, and Wankie, but it may help others. And the front-page story provides an excellent opportunity for letters to the editor on the ethics of keeping wild animals captive for human entertainment. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform and advises, "The more concise the letter, the better the chances for publication." The Chicago Sun Times has the story on its website, headed, "Zoo's last elephant is dead,"at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-elephant02.html That paper takes letters at: http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html Those in San Diego, home of the Wild Animal Park that sent the
elephants to Illinois, might want to send letters on the issue to the San
Diego Union Tribune. That paper takes letters at: letters@uniontrib.com
Include your full name, address and telephone number.
RON REAGAN ON MSNBC COMES OUT AGAINST PET CLONING AND IN FAVOR OF ADOPTION 5/2/05 Ron Reagan has done it again. On Wednesday, March 30, he slammed foie gras. (Click here for that alert.) Today, Monday May 2, the host of MSNBC's "Connected: Coast to Coast," came out against cat cloning. His tone was light but he ended with a recommendation that people drive down to their local animal shelter and adopt a real live kitty because they would be saving a life. I will paste the web version below. Please send and an appreciative comment to Ron Reagan at: RReagan@MSNBC.com I thank activist Priscilla Gargalis for making sure we knew about this. • May 2, 2005 | 5:53 p.m. ET In fear of copied cats (Ron Reagan) This just in from the frontier of cloning (from where else, but in California?): Assemblyman Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys has introduced a bill that would render illegal the cloning of those four-legged feline bundles of delight and bedevilment—domestic cats. That's right, a ban on kitty cloning. This is bad news for the company reputed to be the only pet cloning outfit in America, Genetic Savings and Clone as well as upstart Allerca which has been planning to clone and market hypoallergenic cats. Levine's concern? A disaster such as befell us when we crossed African and European bees and accidentally created “killer bees.” He may have a point. Even now, the only thing keeping cats from world domination is their inability to open those little cans of food. A bit of misapplied genetic tweaking and cats could gain opposable thumbs and forefingers. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. Humans would be reduced to a race of mouse breeders and mackerel farmers. Cat worship a la Ancient Egypt would become mandatory. Kitty inquisitions would force us to renounce dogs: The days of the week would be scrambled and Christmas would be moved to July; no particular reason— cats are just perverse that way. Of course, there are less paranoid reasons to frown on cloned cats: Cats that, by the way, will run you some $32,000. Take a drive down to your local animal shelter. There, for the nominal cost of spaying or neutering, you'll be able to adopt a real live, all-natural kitty. You'll save a life. You'll make a new friend. And you just might preserve civilization as we know it. E-mail RReagan@MSNBC.com
LOS ANGELES TIMES LEAD STORY ON WANKIE'S DEATH 5/3/05 The front page of the Los Angeles Times, Tuesday May 3, Metro Section
(B1) has a story on Wankie's death. It is headed "Last of 3 Elephants
Sent From San Diego to Chicago Dies; Wankie's death follows those of
Peaches and Tatima. The three were moved in 2003. Activists had warned of
dangers." You'll find it at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-elephant3may03,1,3481730.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=1&cset=true
It provides a great opportunity for letters on the ethics of keeping wild
animals captive for human entertainment. Please write. http://savewildelephants.com
is a good resource on the issue. The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.com
. Always include your full name, address and telephone number. Please do
not CC me or anybody else (a BCC is fine) on your letter.
NEW YORK TIMES J. LO FILM COVERAGE FOCUSES ON ANTI FUR PROTESTS 5/4/05 The New York Times coverage of the opening of Jennifer Lopez's new film focused on the anti fur protests. The article, headed "A Fleeting Image of Elvis In a Sequined Muumuu" appears in the Wednesday, May 4 New York Times, page B2. It described the set-up: "The red carpet was in a giant tent, put up to protect the frail reporters' constitutions against the shouts of the anti-fur people. In case that wasn't enough, large speakers blaring light jazz were set up facing the protesters. Publicists asked us not to speak with any of the protesters, which was odd, as they usually make those sorts of requests only about their own clients." There is a brief interview with Jacqueline Bisset: "Jacqueline Bisset, who still looks great even though she asked us not to interview her under the glare of the television lights, asked us about the tent. "We explained. '''They're mad at J.Lo? Well, I agree. I must say I'd throw something at her,' she said, laughing. "'No I'm not, but I mean, everyone was so publicly against it a few years ago and they're all back wearing fur and I don't get it. I think it's a joke. That's why the tent is here? It's complicated. I used to wear fur, but I haven't since about 1978.''' Then we get to Jennifer Lopez's entrance: "Enter Ms. Lopez, furlessly, wearing a pale green Greek-style dress, which would have made her look sort of like CARRIE on prom night if the anti-fur people broke loose with the red paint. "Her handler walked the carpet before the interviews asking us not to ask Ms. Lopez about the fur protest. "(Now that's more like it!) "Ms. Lopez came to us. We asked her about the fur protest. '''They told me that they were out there,' she said. 'And I think the whole idea for them is to get us to talk about it, and I'm not going to entertain that energy right now.' "Will you continue to wear fur? '''I don't really want to, again, that's what they want us to do,' Ms. Lopez responded. 'They want me to come down the line and talk about it and I don't want to do that. I don't agree with all of these tactics, so I don't want to talk about it, if you don't mind, we can move on.''' You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/nyregion/04bold.html And you can learn more about PETA's protest against J. Lo and her new clothing line, which includes mink shorts, at: www.jlodown.com The New York Times coverage gives us a great opportunity for anti-fur
letters to the editor. The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com
Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be
published.
NEW YORK TIMES ON FATE OF GREYHOUNDS WHEN TRACK CLOSES -- 5/5/05 The Thursday, May 5, New York Times has a story on the front page of the B section, (B1) headed, "As Racing Ends, What About the Dogs?" Focusing on the closure of one track, it discusses the issue of greyhound racing, but unfortunately, perhaps in an attempt to be balanced, it tends to whitewash the industry. It opens: "When the news came last week that live racing would end on May 14 at Plainfield Greyhound Park, Max Friedman did not waste time worrying. He started working the phone. "Mr. Friedman, who owns 45 dogs that race at the track, said he quickly arranged for 25 of his dogs to race at Shoreline Star Greyhound Park in Bridgeport. He found room for 15 more at Hinsdale Greyhound Park in New Hampshire. "Yet while Mr. Friedman was personally relieved that he would have only five dogs left to 'pet out,' the phrase used by greyhound owners to offer dogs for adoption as pets, his success addresses just a fraction of the problem: There are about 1,000 dogs that need to be moved to new locations." On the fate of the dogs: "The fate of the dogs has become a pressing topic here, with some longtime critics of greyhound racing stirring fears that hundreds of dogs could be put to death. "In fact, firm answers about the fate of the dogs have been hard to come by. "Track officials, after initially offering little information, are trying to calm concerns. They do not dispute that many of the dogs at Plainfield cannot race elsewhere, but they say their kennels will stay open until they find places for each animal, either for racing or as pets. "Karen Keelan, executive vice president of Connecticut Yankee Greyhound Racing, which owns the track, said she could not release a precise account of dogs and where they will go. She said she was still taking inventory and dog owners were still seeking spots at other racing sites." What the article misses is the fate of the dogs once they stop winning races at the other tracks. Last year, "Real Sports" on HBO did a terrific expose on the industry in which viewers were told that a dog who has lost a race will be described, coming off the track, as "Dead Dog Walking." I transcribed much of the show. You'll find it on this website here. Keenan spoke of the "near-hysterical reaction from animal rights advocates" and said, "We're not going to let unnecessary euthanizations take place," adding, according to the article, that "dogs that suffer from disabling injuries or illnesses are sometimes euthanized." In other words, dogs, injured racing, who can no longer race, are killed. Amongst many quotes about how much the industry cares about the dogs, the animal protection side of the argument is briefly presented: "Some greyhound advocates say the industry's promises to care for the dogs were misleading, that dogs may simply be transferred elsewhere to be killed. They say the closing of the track provided a window into what they call a largely self-regulating industry where uncompetitive dogs die mysteriously. "If they don't end up dying in Connecticut, they may die in New Hampshire or Massachusetts,' said Melani Nardone, the Connecticut and New York representative of the Greyhound Protection League. 'It's a very, very shady system and it happens all the time." You can learn more about the Greyhound Protection League, and about dog racing, at http:www.Greyhounds.org The front page of the group's website on racing greyhounds tells us: "Some are placed as pets, but nearly 20,000 are killed each year. The 'fortunate' ones are killed humanely. Others become documented horror stories. But thousands disappear to fates unknown." Another good source of information is PETA's fact sheet on the issue, "Death in the fast lane": http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=68 You'll find the full New York Times article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/nyregion/05dogs.html It is terrific that the New York Times covered the issue and gave it prominent placement. Letters to the editor should be appreciative, partly because studies have shown that papers, including the New York Times, are far more likely to publish laudatory than critical letters. Our letters can keep alive the discussion of greyhound racing and give New York Times readers more information on the dark side of the industry. The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be
published.
LA TIMES PIECE ON J LO headed "PERSON FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF AUDIENCES - JOEL STEIN 5/8/05 There is a funny piece by Joel Stein, in the opinion section of the Sunday, May 8, Los Angeles Times, headed "Person for the Ethical Treatment of Audiences." (Page M2) It covers animal rights protests against J. Lo for her promotion of fur. You can learn more about that at www.jlodown.com ) Unfortunately the piece, which focuses on how much Stein hates J. Lo's new movie, tends to make light of our cause -- but not entirely -- it does keep mentioning skinned animals. And it gives J. Lo much negative attention and gives us the opportunity to remind readers that animal cruelty, fur in particular, is a serious issue. Since studies have shown papers are far more likely to print laudatory than critical letters, we should try to get our message out without taking Stein to task. You can read Stein's piece on line at: The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be
published.
WASHINGTON POST AND OTHERS ON MILITANT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVITY -- 5/9/05 The Monday, May 9, Washington Post includes a story (Page A03) headed, "Animal Rights Activists Step Up Attacks in N.Y. Families of Drug Executives Are Harassed." (It is also in The Charlotte Observer, the Washington University Daily, and New Hampshire's Concord Monitor -- links below.) It opens: "Early one recent morning, the wife of a pharmaceutical executive was followed to her workplace, her car was broken into and her credit cards were stolen; later $20,000 in unauthorized charitable donations were billed on the cards. "It was the latest in a series of attacks by the Animal Liberation Front on the Long Island family. The activists, who have asserted responsibility, once scrawled 'Puppy Killer' in red paint on the executive's house and have posted the couple's phone, license plate and bank account numbers on the Internet, along with this threat: "If we find a dime of that money granted to those charities was taken back, we will strip you bare." "The Animal Liberation Front has targeted the executive's employer, Forest Laboratories Inc., as part of a six-year campaign against one of the company's contractors, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Huntingdon, a British-based firm, uses animals to test household products and medications. "'Anybody who does business with this company, they become a legitimate target for the campaign,' Jerry Vlasak, an ALF spokesman and a physician in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview." The article includes the following quotes from the executive's wife: "You feel powerless against what's going on around you....We are victims; we are innocent. These people have no clue what they do...We all have things we believe in, but do we set bombs and light cars on fire?....We live in a country where people shouldn't live like that." The article does tell us that the ALF does not condone violence against people. And it includes an interesting quote from Vlasak: "The above-ground campaign writes letters, and it's the underground actions that capture the interest." But the quotes from the executive's wife reveal the significant trade-off for the attention brought to the cause. Direct action, and SHAC style harassment in particular (SHAC = Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) can make those who abuse animals, or support that industry, look like the victims. Activists familiar with the SHAC campaign know about the type of horrendous cruelty that gave it momentum -- they have seen footage from HLS laboratories showing a scientist punching a beagle puppy in the face, and a primate, conscious on an operating, lifting her head with her chest cut wide open. (You can view that footage and learn more about the campaign at http://www.SHAC.net ). But Washington Post readers haven't seen that footage or even heard about it. They read only about the "victimization" of those in the biomedical industry as activists attempt to put HLS out of business. Many mainstream groups condemn militant tactics -- and I agree that the mainstream of our movement should not be associated with this sort of activity. Some activists feel the methods are unethical, and some feel they are bad for the cause. But condemning militant activism is not going to make it go away -- no social justice movement has been without it. So activists must, rather than simply condemning militant tactics, do whatever is in our power to shift the focus of the discussion to the animals and the ways they are victimized for trivial purposes by the biomedical industry and Huntingdon Life Sciences. Activists who oppose militant tactics will do well to express their opposition but should not miss the opportunity to point to some of the absurd and horrendous uses of animals by the biomedical industry and to discuss the need for a shift to alternatives. You can read the whole Washington Post article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800793.html You can email letters to letters@washpost.com . The paper advises, "Please do not send attachments; they will not be read. ...Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments." The article is on The Charlotte Observer website under the heading "Animal Rights Group Adds Bite to its Bark" at: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/11599570.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news The Charlotte Observer takes letters at: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/contact_us/feedback/ "The Daily" of the University of Washington, Seattle has the story headed, "Militant Animal Liberation Front Escalate Attacks" at The Daily takes "Letters to the editor and opinion info" at: opinion@thedaily.washington.edu And New Hampshire's Concord Monitor has the story, headed, "Animal rights group escalating attacks" on line at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050509/REPOSITORY/505090347/1013/NEWS03 The Concord Monitor takes letters at: letters@cmonitor.com or http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?Url=/forms/opinion/letter_to_editor.pbs Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.
PAMELA ANDERSON'S STAND AGAINST CHIMP ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE 5/11/05 The "People" section of the Wednesday, May 11, International Herald Tribune, includes the following: "Pamela Anderson refused to shoot a scene with a live chimpanzee on her television show 'Stacked,' the World Entertainment News Network reported. Anderson, known for her work with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was shooting an episode about a retired scientist traumatized by memories of sending primates into outer space for NASA. Anderson was positive about the story line, but said, 'I asked them to lose the chimp. We've replaced him with a robot.'" You'll find that piece on line at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/features/peepwed.php It provides a nice opportunity for supportive letters to the editor against the use of chimps in entertainment. The International Herald Tribune takes letters at: letters@iht.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published. You'll find information about the use of chimps in entertainment on the Jane Goodall website at: http://www.janegoodall.com/chimp_central/conservation/issues/in_entertainment.asp And there is a terrific ten minute film about chimpanzees in entertainment, featuring Jane Goodall, Roger Fouts and academy award winning writer/director Callie Khouri (she wrote 'Thelma and Louise') which you can watch on the web at: http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/news/movie.asp Watching it is ten minutes well spent.
"TORTURE ON THE FARM" -- COVER OF AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE 5/23/05 edition The cover of the current, May 23, edition of Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative, shows a close-up photo of sows housed in gestation crates, so small that the animals cannot even turn around, and the headline, "Torture on the Farm. Why conservatives should care about animal cruelty." The 'contents' page has a photo of veal calf chained in a crate, and points to page 7 with the heading, "Fear Factories: Modern farming practices are a predatory enterprise, unnaturally propped up by political influence and government subsidies. Conservatives can do better." The article inside is by Matthew Scully, ex senior speechwriter for George W. Bush, and author of the book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." The article is headed, "Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism – for Animals." It is very much a conservative piece, aimed at Buchanan's right wing audience, designed to make them feel that animal protection is not a cause from which they are excluded. It is beautifully written and powerful. And it is groundbreaking because, as Scully writes, "Though it is not exactly true that liberals care more about these issues—you are no more likely to find reflections or exposés concerning cruelty in The Nation or The New Republic than in any journal of the Right—it is assumed that animal-protection causes are a project of the Left, and that the proper conservative position is to stand warily and firmly against them." Scully has provided us with an electronic copy, which I will paste below. However, he asked if I would include something to encourage people to buy the issue since it would be nice if The American Conservative got rewarded for this extraordinary coverage with a little boost in sales. I hope people will buy a hard copy of this edition, either for themselves or for their conservative friends or family members. Unfortunately I found it hard to find a hard copy on any of my local newsstands but you may have luck at your local Barnes & Noble. And you can download the current issue on line for $3.00 at http://tinyurl.com/9xka9 and print out the pictures and article. (Online Newsstand has a $5.00 account minimum.) I strongly recommend at least visiting that page as it displays the striking cover photo. And I urge politically conservative animal advocates to send appreciative letters to the editor. The magazine advises: "The American conservative welcomes letters to the editor. Submit by email letters@amconmag.com ... Please include your name, address and phone number. We reserve the right to edit all correspondence for space and clarity." Here is the article: Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism – for Animals By Matthew Scully The American Conservative, May 23, 2005 A few years ago I began a book about cruelty to animals and about factory farming in particular, problems that had been in the back of my mind for a long while. At the time I viewed factory farming as one of the lesser problems facing humanity—a small wrong on the grand scale of good and evil but too casually overlooked and too glibly excused. This view changed as I acquainted myself with the details and saw a few typical farms up close. By the time I finished the book, I had come to view the abuses of industrial farming as a serious moral problem, a truly rotten business for good reason passed over in polite conversation. Little wrongs, when left unattended, can grow and spread to become grave wrongs, and precisely this had happened on our factory farms. The result of these ruminations was Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. And though my tome never quite hit the bestseller lists, there ought to be some special literary prize for a work highly recommended in both the Wall Street Journal and Vegetarian Teen. When you enjoy the accolades of PETA and Policy Review, Deepak Chopra and Gordon Liddy, Peter Singer and Charles Colson, you can at least take comfort in the diversity of your readership. The book also provided an occasion for fellow conservatives to get beyond their dislike for particular animal-rights groups and to examine cruelty issues on the merits. Conservatives have a way of dismissing the subject, as if where animals are concerned nothing very serious could ever be at stake. And though it is not exactly true that liberals care more about these issues—you are no more likely to find reflections or exposés concerning cruelty in The Nation or The New Republic than in any journal of the Right—it is assumed that animal-protection causes are a project of the Left, and that the proper conservative position is to stand warily and firmly against them. I had a hunch that the problem was largely one of presentation and that by applying their own principles to animal-welfare issues conservatives would find plenty of reasons to be appalled. More to the point, having acknowledged the problems of cruelty, we could then support reasonable remedies. Conservatives, after all, aren’t shy about discoursing on moral standards or reluctant to translate the most basic of those standards into law. Setting aside the distracting rhetoric of animal rights, that’s usually what these questions come down to: what moral standards should guide us in our treatment of animals, and when must those standards be applied in law? Industrial livestock farming is among a whole range of animal-welfare concerns that extends from canned trophy-hunting to whaling to product testing on animals to all sorts of more obscure enterprises like the exotic-animal trade and the factory farming of bears in China for bile believed to hold medicinal and aphrodisiac powers. Surveying the various uses to which animals are put, some might be defensible, others abusive and unwarranted, and it’s the job of any conservative who attends to the subject to figure out which are which. We don’t need novel theories of rights to do this. The usual distinctions that conservatives draw between moderation and excess, freedom and license, moral goods and material goods, rightful power and the abuse of power, will all do just fine. As it is, the subject hardly comes up at all among conservatives, and what commentary we do hear usually takes the form of ridicule directed at animal-rights groups. Often conservatives side instinctively with any animal-related industry and those involved, as if a thing is right just because someone can make money off it or as if our sympathies belong always with the men just because they are men. I had an exchange once with an eminent conservative columnist on this subject. Conversation turned to my book and to factory farming. Holding his hands out in the “stop” gesture, he said, “I don’t want to know.” Granted, life on the factory farm is no one’s favorite subject, but conservative writers often have to think about things that are disturbing or sad. In this case, we have an intellectually formidable fellow known to millions for his stern judgments on every matter of private morality and public policy. Yet nowhere in all his writings do I find any treatment of any cruelty issue, never mind that if you asked him he would surely agree that cruelty to animals is a cowardly and disgraceful sin. And when the subject is cruelty to farmed animals—the moral standards being applied in a fundamental human enterprise—suddenly we’re in forbidden territory and “I don’t want to know” is the best he can do. But don’t we have a responsibility to know? Maybe the whole subject could use his fine mind and his good heart. As for the rights of animals, rights in general are best viewed in tangible terms, with a view to actual events and consequences. Take the case of a hunter in Texas named John Lockwood, who has just pioneered the online safari. At his canned-hunting ranch outside San Antonio, he’s got a rifle attached to a camera and the camera wired up to the Internet, so that sportsmen going to Live-shot.com will actually be able to fire at baited animals by remote control from their computers. “If the customer were to wound the animal,” explains the San Antonio Express-News, “a staff person on site could finish it off.” The “trophy mounts” taken in these heroics will then be prepared and shipped to the client’s door, and if it catches on Lockwood will be a rich man. Very much like animal farming today, the hunting “industry” has seen a collapse in ethical standards, and only in such an atmosphere could Lockwood have found inspiration for this latest innovation—denying wild animals the last shred of respect. Under the laws of Texas and other states, Lockwood and others in his business use all sorts of methods once viewed as shameful: baits, blinds, fences to trap hunted animals in ranches that advertise a “100-percent-guaranteed kill.” Affluent hunters like to unwind by shooting cage-reared pheasants, ducks, and other birds, firing away as the fowl of the air are released before them like skeet, with no limit on the day’s kill. Hunting supply stores are filled with lures, infrared lights, high-tech scopes, and other gadgetry to make every man a marksman. Lockwood doesn’t hear anyone protesting those methods, except for a few of those nutty activist types. Why shouldn’t he be able to offer paying customers this new hunting experience as well? It is like asking a smut-peddler to please have the decency to keep children out of it. Lockwood is just one step ahead of the rest, and there is no standard of honor left to stop him. First impressions are usually correct in questions of cruelty to animals, and here most of us would agree that Live-shot.com does not show our fellow man at his best. We would say that the whole thing is a little tawdry and even depraved, that the creatures Lockwood has “in stock” are not just commodities. We would say that these animals deserve better than the fate he has in store for them. As is invariably the case in animal-rights issues, what we’re really looking for are safeguards against cruel and presumptuous people. We are trying to hold people to their obligations, people who could spare us the trouble if only they would recognize a few limits on their own conduct. Conservatives like the sound of “obligation” here, and those who reviewed Dominion were relieved to find me arguing more from this angle than from any notion of rights. “What the PETA crowd doesn’t understand,” Jonah Goldberg wrote, “or what it deliberately confuses, is that human compassion toward animals is an obligation of humans, not an entitlement for animals.” Another commentator put the point in religious terms: “[W]e have a moral duty to respect the animal world as God’s handiwork, treating animals with ‘the mercy of our Maker’ … But mercy and respect for animals are completely different from rights for animals—and we should never confuse the two.” Both writers confessed they were troubled by factory farming and concluded with the uplifting thought that we could all profit from further reflection on our obligation of kindness to farm animals. The only problem with this insistence on obligation is that after a while it begins to sounds like a hedge against actually being held to that obligation. It leaves us with a high-minded attitude but no accountability, free to act on our obligations or to ignore them without consequences, personally opposed to cruelty but unwilling to impose that view on others. Treating animals decently is like most obligations we face, somewhere between the most and the least important, a modest but essential requirement to living with integrity. And it’s not a good sign when arguments are constantly turned to precisely how much is mandatory and how much, therefore, we can manage to avoid. If one is using the word “obligation” seriously, moreover, then there is no practical difference between an obligation on our end not to mistreat animals and an entitlement on their end not to be mistreated by us. Either way, we are required to do and not do the same things. And either way, somewhere down the logical line, the entitlement would have to arise from a recognition of the inherent dignity of a living creature. The moral standing of our fellow creatures may be humble, but it is absolute and not something within our power to confer or withhold. All creatures sing their Creator’s praises, as this truth is variously expressed in the Bible, and are dear to Him for their own sakes. A certain moral relativism runs through the arguments of those hostile or indifferent to animal welfare—as if animals can be of value only for our sake, as utility or preference decrees. In practice, this outlook leaves each person to decide for himself when animals rate moral concern. It even allows us to accept or reject such knowable facts about animals as their cognitive and emotional capacities, their conscious experience of pain and happiness. Elsewhere in contemporary debates, conservatives meet the foe of moral relativism by pointing out that, like it or not, we are all dealing with the same set of physiological realities and moral truths. We don’t each get to decide the facts of science on a situational basis. We do not each go about bestowing moral value upon things as it pleases us at the moment. Of course, we do not decide moral truth at all: we discern it. Human beings in their moral progress learn to appraise things correctly, using reasoned moral judgment to perceive a prior order not of our devising. C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man calls this “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” Such words as honor, piety, esteem, and empathy do not merely describe subjective states of mind, Lewis reminds us, but speak to objective qualities in the world beyond that merit those attitudes in us. “[T]o call children delightful or old men venerable,” he writes, “is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not.” This applies to questions of cruelty as well. A kindly attitude toward animals is not a subjective sentiment; it is the correct moral response to the objective value of a fellow creature. Here, too, rational and virtuous conduct consists in giving things their due and in doing so consistently. If one animal’s pain—say, that of one’s pet—is real and deserving of sympathy, then the pain of essentially identical animals is also meaningful, no matter what conventional distinctions we have made to narrow the scope of our sympathy. If it is wrong to whip a dog or starve a horse or bait bears for sport or grossly abuse farm animals, it is wrong for all people in every place. The problem with moral relativism is that it leads to capriciousness and the despotic use of power. And the critical distinction here is not between human obligations and animal rights, but rather between obligations of charity and obligations of justice. Active kindness to animals falls into the former category. If you take in strays or help injured wildlife or donate to animal charities, those are fine things to do, but no one says you should be compelled to do them. Refraining from cruelty to animals is a different matter, an obligation of justice not for us each to weigh for ourselves. It is not simply unkind behavior, it is unjust behavior, and the prohibition against it is non-negotiable. Proverbs reminds us of this—“a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel”—and the laws of America and of every other advanced nation now recognize the wrongfulness of such conduct with our cruelty statutes. Often applying felony-level penalties to protect certain domestic animals, these state and federal statutes declare that even though your animal may elsewhere in the law be defined as your property, there are certain things you may not do to that creature, and if you are found harming or neglecting the animal, you will answer for your conduct in a court of justice. There are various reasons the state has an interest in forbidding cruelty, one of which is that cruelty is degrading to human beings. The problem is that many thinkers on this subject have strained to find indirect reasons to explain why cruelty is wrong and thereby to force animal cruelty into the category of the victimless crime. The most common of these explanations asks us to believe that acts of cruelty matter only because the cruel person does moral injury to himself or sullies his character—as if the man is our sole concern and the cruelly treated animal is entirely incidental. Once again, the best test of theory is a real-life example. In 2002, Judge Alan Glenn of Tennessee’s Court of Criminal Appeals heard the case of a married couple named Johnson, who had been found guilty of cruelty to 350 dogs lying sick, starving, or dead in their puppy-mill kennel—a scene videotaped by police. Here is Judge Glenn’s response to their supplications for mercy: “The victims of this crime were animals that could not speak up to the unbelievable conduct of Judy Fay Johnson and Stanley Paul Johnson that they suffered. Several of the dogs have died and most had physical problems such as intestinal worms, mange, eye problems, dental problems and emotional problems and socialization problems … . Watching this video of the conditions that these dogs were subjected to was one of the most deplorable things this Court has observed. … “[T]his Court finds that probation would not serve the ends of justice, nor be in the best interest of the public, nor would this have a deterrent effect for such gross behavior. … The victims were particularly vulnerable. You treated the victims with exceptional cruelty. … “There are those who would argue that you should be confined in a house trailer with no ventilation or in a cell three-by-seven with eight or ten other inmates with no plumbing, no exercise and no opportunity to feel the sun or smell fresh air. However, the courts of this land have held that such treatment is cruel and inhuman, and it is. You will not be treated in the same way that you treated these helpless animals that you abused to make a dollar.” Only in abstract debates of moral or legal theory would anyone quarrel with Judge Glenn’s description of the animals as “victims” or deny that they were entitled to be treated better. Whether we call this a “right” matters little, least of all to the dogs, since the only right that any animal could possibly exercise is the right to be free from human abuse, neglect, or, in a fine old term of law, other “malicious mischief.” What matters most is that prohibitions against human cruelty be hard and binding. The sullied souls of the Johnsons are for the Johnsons to worry about. The business of justice is to punish their offense and to protect the creatures from human wrongdoing. And in the end, just as in other matters of morality and justice, the interests of man are served by doing the right thing for its own sake. There is only one reason for condemning cruelty that doesn’t beg the question of exactly why cruelty is a wrong, a vice, or bad for our character: that the act of cruelty is an intrinsic evil. Animals cruelly dealt with are not just things, not just an irrelevant detail in some self-centered moral drama of our own. They matter in their own right, as they matter to their Creator, and the wrongs of cruelty are wrongs done to them. As The Catholic Encyclopedia puts this point, there is a “direct and essential sinfulness of cruelty to the animal world, irrespective of the results of such conduct on the character of those who practice it.” Our cruelty statutes are a good and natural development in Western law, codifying the claims of animals against human wrongdoing, and, with the wisdom of men like Judge Glenn, asserting those claims on their behalf. Such statutes, however, address mostly random or wanton acts of cruelty. And the persistent animal-welfare questions of our day center on institutional cruelties—on the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see. Having conceded the crucial point that some animals rate our moral concern and legal protection, informed conscience turns naturally to other animals—creatures entirely comparable in their awareness, feeling, and capacity for suffering. A dog is not the moral equal of a human being, but a dog is definitely the moral equal of a pig, and it’s only human caprice and economic convenience that say otherwise. We have the problem that these essentially similar creatures are treated in dramatically different ways, unjustified even by the very different purposes we have assigned to them. Our pets are accorded certain protections from cruelty, while the nameless creatures in our factory farms are hardly treated like animals at all. The challenge is one of consistency, of treating moral equals equally, and living according to fair and rational standards of conduct. Whatever terminology we settle on, after all the finer philosophical points have been hashed over, the aim of the exercise is to prohibit wrongdoing. All rights, in practice, are protections against human wrongdoing, and here too the point is to arrive at clear and consistent legal boundaries on the things that one may or may not do to animals, so that every man is not left to be the judge in his own case. More than obligation, moderation, ordered liberty, or any of the other lofty ideals we hold, what should attune conservatives to all the problems of animal cruelty—and especially to the modern factory farm—is our worldly side. The great virtue of conservatism is that it begins with a realistic assessment of human motivations. We know man as he is, not only the rational creature but also, as Socrates told us, the rationalizing creature, with a knack for finding an angle, an excuse, and a euphemism. Whether it’s the pornographer who thinks himself a free-speech champion or the abortionist who looks in the mirror and sees a reproductive health-care services provider, conservatives are familiar with the type. So we should not be all that surprised when told that these very same capacities are often at work in the things that people do to animals—and all the more so in our $125 billion a year livestock industry. The human mind, especially when there is money to be had, can manufacture grand excuses for the exploitation of other human beings. How much easier it is for people to excuse the wrongs done to lowly animals. Where animals are concerned, there is no practice or industry so low that someone, somewhere, cannot produce a high-sounding reason for it. The sorriest little miscreant who shoots an elephant, lying in wait by the water hole in some canned-hunting operation, is just “harvesting resources,” doing his bit for “conservation.” The swarms of government-subsidized Canadian seal hunters slaughtering tens of thousands of newborn pups—hacking to death these unoffending creatures, even in sight of their mothers—offer themselves as the brave and independent bearers of tradition. With the same sanctimony and deep dishonesty, factory-farm corporations like Smithfield Foods, ConAgra, and Tyson Foods still cling to countrified brand names for their labels—Clear Run Farms, Murphy Family Farms, Happy Valley—to convince us and no doubt themselves, too, that they are engaged in something essential, wholesome, and honorable. Yet when corporate farmers need barbed wire around their Family Farms and Happy Valleys and laws to prohibit outsiders from taking photographs (as is the case in two states) and still other laws to exempt farm animals from the definition of “animals” as covered in federal and state cruelty statues, something is amiss. And if conservatives do nothing else about any other animal issue, we should attend at least to the factory farms, where the suffering is immense and we are all asked to be complicit. If we are going to have our meats and other animal products, there are natural costs to obtaining them, defined by the duties of animal husbandry and of veterinary ethics. Factory farming came about when resourceful men figured out ways of getting around those natural costs, applying new technologies to raise animals in conditions that would otherwise kill them by deprivation and disease. With no laws to stop it, moral concern surrendered entirely to economic calculation, leaving no limit to the punishments that factory farmers could inflict to keep costs down and profits up. Corporate farmers hardly speak anymore of “raising” animals, with the modicum of personal care that word implies. Animals are “grown” now, like so many crops. Barns somewhere along the way became “intensive confinement facilities” and the inhabitants mere “production units.” The result is a world in which billions of birds, cows, pigs, and other creatures are locked away, enduring miseries they do not deserve, for our convenience and pleasure. We belittle the activists with their radical agenda, scarcely noticing the radical cruelty they seek to redress. At the Smithfield mass-confinement hog farms I toured in North Carolina, the visitor is greeted by a bedlam of squealing, chain rattling, and horrible roaring. To maximize the use of space and minimize the need for care, the creatures are encased row after row, 400 to 500 pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw, or engage in stereotypical nest-building with the straw that isn’t there, or else just lie there like broken beings. The spirit of the place would be familiar to police who raided that Tennessee puppy-mill run by Stanley and Judy Johnson, only instead of 350 tortured animals, millions—and the law prohibits none of it. Efforts to outlaw the gestation crate have been dismissed by various conservative critics as “silly,” “comical,” “ridiculous.” It doesn’t seem that way up close. The smallest scraps of human charity—a bit of maternal care, room to roam outdoors, straw to lie on—have long since been taken away as costly luxuries, and so the pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn, covered with festering sores, tumors, ulcers, lesions, or what my guide shrugged off as the routine “pus pockets.” C.S. Lewis’s description of animal pain—“begun by Satan’s malice and perpetrated by man’s desertion of his post”—has literal truth in our factory farms because they basically run themselves through the wonders of automation, and the owners are off in spacious corporate offices reviewing their spreadsheets. Rarely are the creatures’ afflictions examined by a vet or even noticed by the migrant laborers charged with their care, unless of course some ailment threatens production—meaning who cares about a lousy ulcer or broken leg, as long as we’re still getting the piglets? Kept alive in these conditions only by antibiotics, hormones, laxatives, and other additives mixed into their machine-fed swill, the sows leave their crates only to be driven or dragged into other crates, just as small, to bring forth their piglets. Then it’s back to the gestation crate for another four months, and so on back and forth until after seven or eight pregnancies they finally expire from the punishment of it or else are culled with a club or bolt-gun. As you can see at www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm , industrial livestock farming operates on an economy of scale, presupposing a steady attrition rate. The usual comforting rejoinder we hear—that it’s in the interest of farmers to take good care of their animals—is false. Each day, in every confinement farm in America, you will find cull pens littered with dead or dying creatures discarded like trash. For the piglets, it’s a regimen of teeth cutting, tail docking (performed with pliers, to heighten the pain of tail chewing and so deter this natural response to mass confinement), and other mutilations. After five or six months trapped in one of the grim warehouses that now pass for barns, they’re trucked off, 355,000 pigs every day in the life of America, for processing at a furious pace of thousands per hour by migrants who use earplugs to muffle the screams. All of these creatures, and billions more across the earth, go to their deaths knowing nothing of life, and nothing of man, except the foul, tortured existence of the factory farm, having never even been outdoors. But not to worry, as a Smithfield Foods executive assured me, “They love it.” It’s all “for their own good.” It is a voice conservatives should instantly recognize, as we do when it tells us that the fetus feels nothing. Everything about the picture shows bad faith, moral sloth, and endless excuse-making, all readily answered by conservative arguments. We are told “they’re just pigs” or cows or chickens or whatever and that only urbanites worry about such things, estranged as they are from the realities of rural life. Actually, all of factory farming proceeds by a massive denial of reality—the reality that pigs and other animals are not just production units to be endlessly exploited but living creatures with natures and needs. The very modesty of those needs—their humble desires for straw, soil, sunshine—is the gravest indictment of the men who deny them. Conservatives are supposed to revere tradition. Factory farming has no traditions, no rules, no codes of honor, no little decencies to spare for a fellow creature. The whole thing is an abandonment of rural values and a betrayal of honorable animal husbandry—to say nothing of veterinary medicine, with its sworn oath to “protect animal health” and to “relieve animal suffering.” Likewise, we are told to look away and think about more serious things. Human beings simply have far bigger problems to worry about than the well being of farm animals, and surely all of this zeal would be better directed at causes of human welfare. You wouldn’t think that men who are unwilling to grant even a few extra inches in cage space, so that a pig can turn around, would be in any position to fault others for pettiness. Why are small acts of kindness beneath us, but not small acts of cruelty? The larger problem with this appeal to moral priority, however, is that we are dealing with suffering that occurs through human agency. Whether it’s miserliness here, carelessness there, or greed throughout, the result is rank cruelty for which particular people must answer. Since refraining from cruelty is an obligation of justice, moreover, there is no avoiding the implications. All the goods invoked in defense of factory farming, from the efficiency and higher profits of the system to the lower costs of the products, are false goods unjustly derived. No matter what right and praiseworthy things we are doing elsewhere in life, when we live off a cruel and disgraceful thing like factory farming, we are to that extent living unjustly, and that is hardly a trivial problem. For the religious-minded, and Catholics in particular, no less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI has explained the spiritual stakes. Asked recently to weigh in on these very questions, Cardinal Ratzinger told German journalist Peter Seewald that animals must be respected as our “companions in creation.” While it is licit to use them for food, “we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.” Factory farmers also assure us that all of this is an inevitable stage of industrial efficiency. Leave aside the obvious reply that we could all do a lot of things in life more efficiently if we didn’t have to trouble ourselves with ethical restraints. Leave aside, too, the tens of billions of dollars in annual federal subsidies that have helped megafarms undermine small family farms and the decent communities that once surrounded them and to give us the illusion of cheap products. And never mind the collateral damage to land, water, and air that factory farms cause and the more billions of dollars it costs taxpayers to clean up after them. Factory farming is a predatory enterprise, absorbing profit and externalizing costs, unnaturally propped up by political influence and government subsidies much as factory-farmed animals are unnaturally sustained by hormones and antibiotics. Even if all the economic arguments were correct, conservatives usually aren’t impressed by breathless talk of inevitable progress. I am asked sometimes how a conservative could possibly care about animal suffering in factory farms, but the question is premised on a liberal caricature of conservatism—the assumption that, for all of our fine talk about moral values, “compassionate conservatism” and the like, everything we really care about can be counted in dollars. In the case of factory farming, and the conservative’s blithe tolerance of it, the caricature is too close to the truth. Exactly how far are we all prepared to follow these industrial and technological advances before pausing to take stock of where things stand and where it is all tending? Very soon companies like Smithfield plan to have tens of millions of cloned animals in their factory farms. Other companies are at work genetically engineering chickens without feathers so that one day all poultry farmers might be spared the toil and cost of de-feathering their birds. For years, the many shills for our livestock industry employed in the “Animal Science” and “Meat Science” departments of rural universities (we used to call them Animal Husbandry departments) have been tampering with the genes of pigs and other animals to locate and expunge that part of their genetic makeup that makes them stressed in factory farm conditions—taking away the desire to protect themselves and to live. Instead of redesigning the factory farm to suit the animals, they are redesigning the animals to suit the factory farm. Are there no boundaries of nature and elementary ethics that the conservative should be the first to see? The hubris of such projects is beyond belief, only more because of the foolish and frivolous goods to be gained—blood-free meats and the perfect pork chop. No one who does not profit from them can look at our modern factory farms or frenzied slaughter plants or agricultural laboratories with their featherless chickens and fear-free pigs and think, “Yes, this is humanity at our finest—exactly as things should be.” Devils charged with designing a farm could hardly have made it more severe. Least of all should we look for sanction in Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, of the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak. Those religious conservatives who, in every debate over animal welfare, rush to remind us that the animals themselves are secondary and man must come first are exactly right—only they don’t follow their own thought to its moral conclusion. Somehow, in their pious notions of stewardship and dominion, we always seem to end up with singular moral dignity but no singular moral accountability to go with it. Lofty talk about humanity’s special status among creatures only invites such questions as: what would the Good Shepherd make of our factory farms? Where does the creature of conscience get off lording it over these poor creatures so mercilessly? “How is it possible,” as Malcolm Muggeridge asked in the years when factory farming began to spread, “to look for God and sing his praises while insulting and degrading his creatures? If, as I had thought, all lambs are the Agnus Dei, then to deprive them of light and the field and their joyous frisking and the sky is the worst kind of blasphemy.” The writer B.R. Meyers remarked in The Atlantic, “research could prove that cows love Jesus, and the line at the McDonald’s drive-through wouldn’t be one sagging carload shorter the next day …. Has any generation in history ever been so ready to cause so much suffering for such a trivial advantage? We deaden our consciences to enjoy—for a few minutes a day—the taste of blood, the feel of our teeth meeting through muscle.” That is a cynical but serious indictment, and we must never let it be true of us in the choices we each make or urge upon others. If reason and morality are what set human beings apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide us in how we treat them, or else it’s all just caprice, unbridled appetite with the pretense of piety. When people say that they like their pork chops, veal, or foie gras just too much ever to give them up, reason hears in that the voice of gluttony, willfulness, or at best moral complaisance. What makes a human being human is precisely the ability to understand that the suffering of an animal is more important than the taste of a treat. Of the many conservatives who reviewed Dominion, every last one conceded that factory farming is a wretched business and a betrayal of human responsibility. So it should be a short step to agreement that it also constitutes a serious issue of law and public policy. Having granted that certain practices are abusive, cruel, and wrong, we must be prepared actually to do something about them. Among animal activists, of course, there are some who go too far—there are in the best of causes. But fairness requires that we judge a cause by its best advocates instead of making straw men of the worst. There isn’t much money in championing the cause of animals, so we’re dealing with some pretty altruistic people who on that account alone deserve the benefit of the doubt. If we’re looking for fitting targets for inquiry and scorn, for people with an angle and a truly pernicious influence, better to start with groups like Smithfield Foods (my candidate for the worst corporation in America in its ruthlessness to people and animals alike), the National Pork Producers Council (a reliable Republican contributor), or the various think tanks in Washington subsidized by animal-use industries for intellectual cover. After the last election, the National Pork Producers Council rejoiced, “President Bush’s victory ensures that the U.S. pork industry will be very well positioned for the next four years politically, and pork producers will benefit from the long-term results of a livestock agriculture-friendly agenda.” But this is no tribute. And millions of good people who live in what’s left of America’s small family-farm communities would themselves rejoice if the president were to announce that he is prepared to sign a bipartisan bill making some basic reforms in livestock agriculture. Bush’s new agriculture secretary, former Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, has shown a sympathy for animal welfare. He and the president might both be surprised at the number and variety of supporters such reforms would find in the Congress, from Republicans like Chris Smith and Elton Gallegly in the House to John Ensign and Rick Santorum in the Senate, along with Democrats such as Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, or the North Carolina congressman who called me in to say that he, too, was disgusted and saddened by hog farming in his state. If such matters were ever brought to President Bush’s attention in a serious way, he would find in the details of factory farming many things abhorrent to the Christian heart and to his own kindly instincts. Even if he were to drop into relevant speeches a few of the prohibited words in modern industrial agriculture (cruel, humane, compassionate), instead of endlessly flattering corporate farmers for virtues they lack, that alone would help to set reforms in motion. We need our conservative values voters to get behind a Humane Farming Act so that we can all quit averting our eyes. This reform, a set of explicit federal cruelty statutes with enforcement funding to back it up, would leave us with farms we could imagine without wincing, photograph without prosecution, and explain without excuses. The law would uphold not only the elementary standards of animal husbandry but also of veterinary ethics, following no more complicated a principle than that pigs and cows should be able to walk and turn around, fowl to move about and spread their wings, and all creatures to know the feel of soil and grass and the warmth of the sun. No need for labels saying “free-range” or “humanely raised.” They will all be raised that way. They all get to be treated like animals and not as unfeeling machines. On a date certain, mass confinement, sow gestation crates, veal crates, battery cages, and all such innovations would be prohibited. This will end livestock agriculture’s moral race to the bottom and turn the ingenuity of its scientists toward compassionate solutions. It will remove the federal support that unnaturally serves agribusiness at the expense of small farms. And it will shift economies of scale, turning the balance in favor of humane farmers—as those who run companies like Wal-Mart could do right now by taking their business away from factory farms. In all cases, the law would apply to corporate farmers a few simple rules that better men would have been observing all along: we cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life. And when human beings cannot do something humanely, without degrading both the creatures and ourselves, then we should not do it at all. (Matthew Scully served until last fall as special assistant and deputy
director of speechwriting to President George W. Bush. He is the author of
Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy.)
ZOO PRESIDENT RESIGNS AFTER THREE MORE DEATHS -- Chicago Tribune front page 5/13/05 Wankie, the last of three elephants who were moved from San Diego to Chicago just over two years ago, died on May 1, in transit from Chicago to Utah. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released a statement after her death, calling for the resignation of Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo director Kevin Bell. The statement said: "The zoo moved her before waiting to hear the verdict of the upcoming May 12 Chicago City Council's Parks & Recreation Committee hearing. Council members were set to vote on a well-supported resolution calling for Wankie to go to a sanctuary and for the zoo to permanently close its elephant exhibit. PETA suspects that a rushed exit strategy did not allow for adjustment to the travel crate. A stressed Wankie may have been tranquilized for the 1,400-mile journey, which could have contributed to her collapse and breathing problems about halfway through the trip." Two weeks later a front page Chicago Tribune headline tells us: "Zoo chief offers to quit; 3 rare monkeys' deaths stun Lincoln Park institution." It opens: "Three rare monkeys that had recently been moved to a different exhibit at Lincoln Park Zoo died this week, the latest in a spate of animal deaths that have rattled the venerable facility. "Zoo President Kevin Bell offered to quit, saying the monkey deaths will bring new scrutiny to the zoo and his leadership, but the board's chairman refused to accept Bell's resignation. We read later: "Just what caused the three langurs to die was not immediately clear, although a statement released by the zoo said there is a 'strong suspicion' among zoo experts that the deaths were 'connected to a change of exhibit.'" On the zoos morbid recent history: "The string of zoo deaths started Oct. 16, when Tatima, a 35-year-old elephant, succumbed to a rare lung disease. The death sparked protests from animal rights groups, which had argued that Tatima and two other elephants in the zoo's exhibit should never have been transferred from the San Diego Zoo to cold-weather Chicago. "The campaign intensified after Peaches, 55, died Jan. 17. Wankie, the last of the zoo's elephants, died less than two weeks ago, prompting Bell to ask for a long-term scientific study on whether it is harmful to keep animals in cold-climate zoos. "Mumbalie, a 7-year-old gorilla, was put down April 28, despite transfusions and dialysis. "Zoo officials said a camel died in December, prompting an anonymous complaint to the USDA. Documents show the USDA came to examine the camel facility after receiving the complaint and found the zoo needed additional shelter in the camel yard." The American Zoo and Aquarium Association is planning an investigation but re read, "PETA seeks independent audit." "Debbie Leahy, director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' captive animals and entertainment issues division, said her group does not hold much faith in the AZA's report because it is not truly an independent audit. Leahy is quoted: "I've never heard of another zoo having this many animal deaths in such a short period of time. Mr. Bell should resign. We need a new director at Lincoln Park Zoo who's going to work with, not against, animal protection groups." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0505130319may13,1,5525446.story?coll=chi-news-hed It provides a great opportunity for letters to the editor against keeping wild animals in captivity for human entertainment. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform A good source of information is http://www.SaveWildElephants.com
GENESIS AWARDS ON ANIMAL PLANET -- 5/15/05 The Genesis Awards are on television today, Sunday, May 15, in the United States, on "Animal Planet" at 12 noon Pacific, 3pm Eastern. The following is from the HSUS Hollywood office ( www.hsushollywood.org ) which puts on the event, an annual animal friendly awards night: "It may seem like dogs have their paw print all over this year's Genesis Awards Television Special. After all, they figure prominently in eight out of the 22 distinguished media wins, including HBO's 'Real Sports' expose of greyhound racing; the PBS documentary 'Best Friend Forgotten' about pet overpopulation, and WTTW Chicago's 'Out Of The Pit,' a compelling history of dog fighting. "Canines (Benji, Ratchet, a rescued Iraqi dog and Clover, a shelter adoptee) even appear in person, managing to steal the limelight away from a stellar line-up of celebrity presenters, including Alicia Silverstone, Carl Reiner, Nicollette Sheridan, Bill Maher, Stockard Channing and Sela Ward. "But our furry friends don't have it all their own way as the Nineteenth Genesis Awards honors the news and entertainment media for its coverage of a wide array of animals and the issues most affecting them. From elephants in zoos and circuses to tigers and exotic pet ownership to bears and illegal hunting to the various animals used for food to the cruelty of the Canadian seal hunt the Genesis Television Special touches upon them all, enlightening and inspiring viewers to make a difference on behalf of animals everywhere. "Tune in and be motivated." (Those who do not get cable TV should be able to purchase a video from the HSUS Hollywood office.) The Animal Planet site advises: "We welcome your e-mail comments and questions, which you can send to us by clicking here: http://extweb.discovery.com/viewerrelations " Under "Question Regarding" choose "Network/Program Related." Then on the next page, under "Network" choose "Animal Planet." Then under "Program/show" choose "Genesis Awards." Then under "Select the type of information needed" choose "General Question/Comment." It would be great for Animal Planet to get lots of positive feedback for airing this two hour show centering on animal protection.
ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT (and SBS Australia): "BARNYARD BRAINS." 5/14/05 On Saturday, May 14, ABC World News Tonight aired a terrific piece on farmed animal intelligence. (The same segment aired on SBS in Australia on Sunday, May 16.) I will paste the transcript below, though the transcript does not have the impact of the video, on which we saw sheep making selections from computer screens and pigs playing video games. The piece discussed vegetarianism, mentioning that Jane Goodall is vegetarian. She told viewers we should all eat less meat, and a farmer said that animals must be treated with compassion. The story's weakness was a lack of footage showing how farm animals are generally treated now -- the kind of images you will find on www.FactoryFarming.com Please thank the station for airing the terrific piece. On accepting a Genesis Award a few years ago, one of the ABC producers let us know how much feedback matters. The email address is NETAUDR@abc.com . "WORLD NEWS TONIGHT" must go in the 'subject' line. Aussies can thank SBS. The SBS website advises "We appreciate your feedback and comments. The address for comments is: comments@sbs.com.au " Here is the transcript from the segment, which aired Saturday, May 14, on ABC World News Tonight: STORY: BARNYARD BRAINS NEW RESEARCH ON FARM ANIMALS [CORR: DAVID WRIGHT] [CORLOC: BERKSHIRE, ENGLAND] [1]18:55:37 BOB WOODRUFF (ABC NEWS) (OC) Finally tonight, if you could talk to the animals would they have anything to say? Well, new research suggests that they might. ABC’s David Wright reports tonight from Berkshire, England, on brain power in the barnyard. [1]18:55:51 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) Testing the IQ of a sheep may seem laughable. But at the Babraham Institute, they know better. Sheep number 26 gets a reward every time she recognizes a face correctly. Her score, 50 out of 50. [1]18:56:12 KEITH KENDRICK (NEUROLOGIST, BABRAHAM INSTITUTE) If it was a monkey, no one would have any, any problems, possibly even if it was a dog. They would say, yeah, yeah, that’s -you know, expected. But a sheep, no one really believes. [1]18:56:21 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) This joystick was designed for chimps but Hamlet, the pig, is a computer wiz. He gets a reward every time he moves the cursor into the blue area. A Jack Russell terrier couldn’t achieve this task after a year of trying. In other words, pigs are smarter than dogs. [1]18:56:43 PROFESSOR JOHN WEBSTER (UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL) They’re very curious and they’ll charge off on their own. And they will investigate the world with their noses down and batter through like a small boy. [1]18:56:50 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) New research shows that chickens can be taught to run the thermostat of the chicken coop. And that even the lowly cow has a surprising inner life. Cows have been known to form life-long friendships. And one recent study found that they actually show excitement when they’ve learned something new. [1]18:57:09 PROFESSOR DONALD BROOM (UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE) As if they’re saying, eureka, I found out how to solve the problem. [1]18:57:13 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) If farm animals are intelligent creatures, that has some uncomfortable implications. [1]18:57:19 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (OC) Should we all be vegetarians? [1]18:57:21 DOCTOR JANE GOODALL (ANIMAL RESEARCHER) We should eat less meat. [1]18:57:24 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) Dr. Jane Goodall, who pioneered research on chimpanzees, is a vegetarian. [1]18:57:29 DOCTOR JANE GOODALL (ANIMAL RESEARCHER) I stopped eating meat as soon as I began to really think about it. People actually don’t think about it. [1]18:57:35 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) John Redmore disagrees. He runs an organic farm in England [1]18:57:41 JOHN REDMORE (FARMER) We’ve been eating meat since we’ve managed to stand on hind legs. And so, a natural part of being human is to eat meat. [1]18:57:46 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (OC) Even if they’re smart? [1]18:57:48 JOHN REDMORE (FARMER) Yeah. They’d eat us. [1]18:57:51 DAVID WRIGHT (ABC NEWS) (VO) But he says, it does mean that farm animals should be treated with compassion. After all, the research shows they may be able to recognize it. David Wright, ABC News, Berkshire, England. [1]18:58:04 BOB WOODRUFF (ABC NEWS) (OC) Food for thought, I guess. So to speak. That’s “World News
Tonight” this Saturday. Tomorrow on the broadcast, millions of people
fighting cancer one yellow bracelet at a time. I’m Bob Woodruff. For all
of us here at ABC News, have a good evening, good night.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL AND FRONT PAGE ON ZOO DEATHS 5/19/05 The deaths at Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo have made the front page of the Chicago Tribune every day this week. You'll find the Thursday May 19 front page story headed, "Zoo opens records on animal deaths. Pathology reports contain no surprises" on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0505190202may19,1,1416393.story OR http://tinyurl.com/7znwo The Thursday, May 19, Chicago Tribune also includes an editorial (the newspaper's official opinion) on the issue. It is headed, "Sad days at the zoo." (Page 26.) It opens: "Lincoln Park Zoo is embroiled in controversy triggered by the baffling and heartbreaking deaths of nine animals since October. Three elephants, three rare monkeys, two gorillas and a camel have died either on site or in transit, a toll that has damaged one of Chicago's favorite institutions." It notes animal rights protests saying they are based more on emotion than fact. Summarizing the front page story, it reports: "Wednesday, the zoo took a crucial step toward being more transparent when it made available to reporters key records on the recent animal deaths, records that held no great surprises. There was no 'smoking gun' that might have shown inadequate treatment or care. The reports confirmed what the zoo previously released about the deaths of the three elephants, Peaches, Tatima and Wankie. Peaches suffered from geriatric ailments, Tatima died of a disease similar to tuberculosis, and Wankie, who did not survive a journey to Salt Lake City, was weakened by infection and had lung lesions. "Last week's inexplicable deaths of three Francois langur monkeys continue to trouble zoo officials, who await toxicology reports and blood and tissue cultures. The monkeys died after they were moved to a different exhibition space that had outdoor access." It quotes the Zoo Director, who says there is "no mismanagement." The following line is salient: "The zoo's travails have sparked a legitimate debate about the future of zoos in an age when information about animals can be easily and widely disseminated on television and the Internet." Then the piece concludes: "Still, for most people, a zoo offers the only chance to see a gorilla up close, to take in the full measure of an elephant. The Lincoln Park Zoo remains a marvelous place to visit, a tremendous asset to Chicago. It faces a crisis as it seeks to move forward in the wake of tragedy. The zoo's staff and officials deserve patience from the public, and in return zoo officials must display openness and honesty. The zoo appears to be heeding that message." That is a summary -- you can read the whole editorial on line at: The line questioning the future of zoos opens the door for letters on that issue. Please write. PETA has a good fact sheet to which you may wish to refer, headed "Zoos: Pitiful Prisons" at http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=67 The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform
NPR'S "ALL THINGS CONSIDERED" COVERAGE OF LINCOLN PARK ZOO DEATHS 5/19/05 On Thursday, May 19, the National Public Radio show, "All Things Considered" included a four minute segment on the many recent Lincoln Park Zoo deaths. You can hear it on line at:
OP-ED ON SANTA CRUZ ISLAND PIG MASSACRE IN SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 5/22/05 The Sunday, May 22 San Francisco Chronicle includes an op-ed by HSUS's Mike Markarian on the slaughter of 2,000 wild pigs on Santa Cruz Island, headed, "Pig eradication plan out of control." (Page C2.) We learn that in an attempt to protect vegetation, Indian graves, and native species, "The Park Service and Nature Conservancy... have sentenced the pigs to death, and have hired a New Zealand company called Prohunt to conduct a 27- month lethal eradication program that began in early April. Pigs have very thick skulls and are difficult to kill with a quick, clean shot. Wounded pigs and orphaned piglets will be chased with dogs and finished off with knives and bludgeons." The piece picks apart the premise that killing the pigs will help save native foxes. It discusses other mismanagement of the Channel Islands, such as horribly cruel and destructive poisoning schemes. It ends: "When there is a need to step in and correct environmental damage caused by a species, animal welfare must be part of the calculus. The National Park Service and the Nature Conservancy haven't demonstrated that need, and certainly haven't considered a humane solution. A multimillion-dollar program to kill animals with guns, dogs, knives and beatings is cruel, wasteful and indefensible." You can read the whole piece on line at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/22/ING5OCQ5Q01.DTL It presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor on the way we treat members of other species -- you might wish to write about the treatment of wildlife, or about the treatment of other pigs. A good source of information is http://www.factoryfarming.com/pork.htm or for photos, http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/photos_gestation.htm The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters@sfchronicle.com and advises, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication." Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor.
NEW YORK TIMES FRONT PAGE ON COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT NOTES PRIMATE LAB ISSUE 5/25/05 A Wednesday, May 25, New York Times front page story headed, "Columbia's President, an Expert On Free Speech, Gets an Earful" examines Lee C. Bollinger's difficulties at Columbia University. It includes the following line: "For more than a year, PETA, the animal-rights group, has been tailing Mr. Bollinger around the world to disrupt his appearances over what it feels is cruel treatment of primates in Columbia's research labs." You'll find the full article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/nyregion/25bollinger.html The line on primate experimentation in this front page story presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor about the outrageous primate research being conducted in Columbia's labs. Visit http://www.columbiacruelty.com for details, such as descriptions and footage of "Monkeys with metal pipes surgically implanted in their skulls for the sole purpose of inducing stress in order to study the connection between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. One monkey, left alone to recover from the hideous implant surgery, was photographed with blood running down her face long after she had come out of anesthesia. The animals were given nothing but an aspirin after the anesthetics wore off. " The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published. (Note: Last week PETA released more ugly undercover primate experimentation footage, this time from Covance Laboratories in Virginia. Check out www.CovanceCruelty.com )
CNN's "ANDERSON COOPER 360*" COVERS DOGS ABANDONED BY MILITARY 5/26/05 Once again, CNN's Anderson Cooper has turned his attention to the suffering of animals. On Thursday, May 26, his show included a piece on dogs abandoned by soldiers heading off to war. I will paste the transcript below, which is available on line at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/26/acd.01.html. Please thank Cooper for the coverage. Loads of positive feedback makes it easier for animal friendly reporters to get the OK for animal friendly coverage. The show asks for comments at: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10 and sends a thank you note, assuring us that every email is read. I thank Judith Fish and Jane Mehaffy for making sure we knew about the piece. Here is the transcript: VO: Soldiers off to war, leaving thousands of cats and dogs homeless. Tonight, what can be done to save the cats and dogs left behind by soldiers going off to war. COOPER: I wish I had good news to tell you about those animals. Sadly, I do not. They are among more than 1,000 abandoned cats and dogs that are found every year in and around Ft. Stewart in Georgia, animals abandoned by their owners, U.S. soldiers heading off to Iraq. Most soldiers care for their pets, but some don't plan well enough, and when they're deployed, the pets are left behind, homeless. And they end up in shelters. And you know what that means. CNN's Gary Tuchman investigates. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Her name is Lady. And Lady is a mother, 15 times over. The collarless dog and her newborn pups were found abandoned in a field near the Army's Ft. Stewart. They're being treated with loving care at the Liberty County, Georgia animal shelter, blissfully ignorant of the fact they are on animal death row. RANDY DURRENCE, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: Dog comes in without a collar, no markings or anything, we give them 72 hours. Then if they come in with a collar, any markings, tattoos, anything like that, they are here for seven to 10 days. TUCHMAN (on camera): That must be very difficult for you. DURRENCE: It is very difficult. TUCHMAN (voice-over): The shelter is jammed over capacity. In large part because the human population is so under capacity in nearby Ft. Stewart. So many soldiers have gone to Iraq that many of their pets have ended up homeless. Before the massive deployment to Iraq, the shelter averaged 1,200 animals a year. (on camera): And what are you on pace for this year? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably closer to 1,500 to 1,600 animals. TUCHMAN (voice-over): The animal control officers have received a call from a woman that a stray dog is hiding under her house. Officer Linda Cordry arrives at the scene. LINDA CORDRY, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: Come on, baby. Hello. Come out. It's all right. Come out. Hi. Hi. Come on. Hi. See? Come on. That's a good baby. TUCHMAN: Officer Cordry gives the spaniel mix the name Scrappy Dappy Doo. CORDRY: That's a good baby. Want to go with me? We live in such a transient community that people come and go, and the last thing on their minds a lot of times is their animals. CAPTAIN KAREN O'CONNOR, ARMY VETERINARIAN: Oh, good job. TUCHMAN: To be sure, most of the soldiers at Ft. Stewart take good care and make proper arrangements for their pets. Captain Karen O'Connor says her dog Taylor is like her child. O'CONNOR: There we go. It's OK. If he flexes a little, I can see it. TUCHMAN: Captain O'Connor is also an Army veterinarian, and as part of her duties, has to go into this room to put pets to sleep, dogs and cats who nobody has wanted to adopt from the Army shelter located inside Ft. Stewart. O'CONNOR: It's awful. I hate doing it. You know, I spend a few minutes with each animal, try to apologize to them. I always sedate them ahead of time, so they're, you know, kind of woozy and out of it. And then we do it by injection, so they just drift off. So at least it's -- it's peaceful. TUCHMAN (on camera): This yellow labrador retriever was scheduled to be euthanized a week and a half ago. But every week the fort newspaper has a feature called "Pet of the Week," and she was the pet of the week last week. Nevertheless, nobody has adopted her. And very sadly, these are the last few minutes of her life. She'll be put to sleep later today. (voice-over): Dr. O'Connor does not name the pets who come in. O'CONNOR: It's for the benefit of me and my staff emotionally. TUCHMAN: But at the county shelter, they do. This dog was just brought in, along with her seven puppies. They were found in a dump. Three were taken by the County Humane Society and will be adopted, but the clock is ticking for the mother and her other four babies. (on camera): Why don't we give her a name right now and let you decide? CORDRY: Sounds good to me. How about Gigi? Gigi. TUCHMAN: She answers to Gigi. How about that? She walks right over to you just seconds after you named her. CORDRY: Hi, girl. Come on, Gigi. TUCHMAN (voice-over): Gigi's puppies, as well as Lady's, will be given a little extra time. Puppies and kittens are not put to sleep until they are at least six weeks old. But about 75 percent of these dogs and cats will not make it. CORDRY: Had they cared for the animal properly, they would have had her spayed or neutered before this happened. TUCHMAN: Nobody has asked to adopt the dog we found, Scrappy Dappy Doo. So he plays in his cage, his deadline approaching. Gary Tuchman, CNN, Hinesville, Georgia. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Man, so sad. Six to 8 million cats and dogs enter shelters
every year. Half of them are killed, that's 3 to 4 million. If you're
interested in adopting any of the military pets from the shelter featured
in Gary's report, you can e-mail the Liberty County animal control at
animals@libertycountyga.com. That's animals@libertycountyga.com. Of
course, if you'd like to help rescue a dog or a cat near you, you can
always contact your local Humane Society or SPCA.
PASSAGE OF HOUSE HORSE SLAUGHTER BILL IN WASHINGTON POST AND BALTIMORE SUN 5/26/05 Here is an update on the wild horse situation, as covered in the Thursday, May 26, Washington Post and Baltimore Sun newspapers. The Post article is headed, "To Protect Mustangs, BLM Imposes New Rules on Animal Sales." (Pg A 25). The Baltimore Sun editorial is headed, "Horses at Risk." As background, we read in the Washington Post piece that five months ago, "President Bush signed a measure into law ordering the agency (Bureau of Land Management -- BLM) to sell some of the wild horses and burros roaming the West." The BLM estimates there are "31,000 out there, scattered across 10 states" (plus 22,000 already in government holding facilities) while the "land supports, at most, 28,000." We read that the estimates of what the land can support are based on considerations including the number of cattle: "Ranchers pay the government to allow their cattle to graze on federal lands. Some wild horse advocates say that the BLM's estimates are skewed toward the more politically influential livestock industry, contending that the bureau could leave more horses on the range if the much larger cattle population were reduced." Previously the BLM had been allowed to round up and offer "excess" horses for adoption but not sale. Sometimes the horses would slip through various loopholes and end up at the slaughterhouse, but the adoption fee and the requirement to keep the horses for a year offered protection. However, "a measure tucked into a massive congressional spending bill last year by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) directed the bureau to sell, without all those rules and restrictions, excess horses that are at least 10 years old or are unsuccessfully offered for adoption three times. The government estimates that 8,400 horses and burros are now eligible for sale....The law has been backed by many cattle ranchers, who say that their animals must compete with the horses for foliage....So far, the agency has sold about 2,000 horses. It has delivered about 1,000, of which, officials said, 41 have been killed." Last week the BLM announced that in order to keep horses away from slaughterhouses, "it has beefed up legal protections for the animals and will resume selling them as early as this week." Animal advocates are skeptical about the likely efficacy of those protections. But there is good news: We read, "There are measures in Congress that would reinstate the ban on selling the animals, including one passed last week by the House that would bar such sales for one year." The May 26 Baltimore Sun editorial, "Horses at Risk," told us that the vote was a landslide, 249-159. (You can find out how your representatives voted at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll196.xml ) But it reminded us that the bill will now go to the Senate where it will face Senator Burns, who was responsible for the measure that removed wild horse protection.
You can find out whether your senators are co-sponsors of the Senate bill, 576, at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00576:@@@P And you can get contact information for your senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm , so that you can put in a couple of calls and urge them to support the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, S.576. The Baltimore Sun editorial emphasized the impact of cattle ranching on the fate of America's wild horses: "Chiefly as a result of pressure from ranchers, so many wild horses have been removed from the range in recent years that it can be argued there aren't too many in the wild, but too few." You'll find the full Washington Post story on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501983.html You'll find the Baltimore Sun editorial at: They open the door for letters on a variety of issues regarding the way we treat members of other species, one obvious choice being the many costs of the government's support for the cattle ranching industry. The Washington Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com and advises "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers." The Baltimore Sun takes letters at: letters@baltsun.com
and asks for name and contact phone numbers.
ELEPHANT SANCTUARY ON CHICAGO FRONT PAGE, PLUS WASHINGTON POST COVERS HAWTHORN ELEPHANTS FATE 5/29-5/30 There was much about elephants in the US news over the Memorial Day holiday weekend. On Sunday, May 29, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story on The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, headed, "Where the elephants roam. At Tennessee facility, the land is their land." It is a long and detailed piece, well worth reading for anybody who would like to learn more about the wonderful sanctuary. It includes a touching description of the reunion, at the elephant sanctuary, of Jenny and Shirley who had suffered together at the same circus 22 years earlier. You'll find the article on line at: You can thank William Mullen for his beautiful article ( wmullen@tribune.com ), or write a letter to the editor in favor of getting elephants out of zoos and circuses and to sanctuaries. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform On Monday, May 30, the Washington Post published related disturbing news in an article by Marc Kaufman headed, "Illinois Elephants' Fate Remains Uncertain. Battle Over 'Hawthorn Herd' Pits Circus World Against Animal Rights Backers." (Page A06) It opens: "More than two years ago, federal officials concluded that 16 elephants owned by an Illinois circus-animal training business were being mistreated and had to be removed quickly. Facing the possible loss of his license to keep circus animals, the owner of Hawthorn Corp. formally agreed last year to give up his elephants as soon as a new home could be found. "Fourteen months after that unprecedented agreement, however, most of the animals remain in an enclosed barn in rural Illinois, their future still very much undecided. Animal rights activists are outraged by the delay, the circus owner has been fighting the order in an administrative-law court, and the Agriculture Department faces criticism from all sides for its handling of the emotionally charged issue. "And now it looks as if some of the animals will end up at another facility created by a circus and not -- as earlier believed -- at an animal sanctuary. The result is an increasingly bitter dispute about the 'Hawthorn herd,' and more generally about how well, or how poorly, the world's largest land animal is being treated in its North American diaspora. "The current battle is between circus owners, who see the animals as potentially valuable breeding stock, and the Elephant Sanctuary, a 2,700-acre preserve in Hohenwald, Tenn., that allows generally older and sick female elephants from zoos and circuses to live out their days largely undisturbed by people. "Hawthorn Corp. and Elephant Sanctuary officials nearly agreed earlier this year that all the elephants except one male would go to Tennessee, but the discussions broke down over issues including when the sanctuary could receive the animals and whether Hawthorn would contribute to their upkeep. "Eager to have the Hawthorn issue settled, the USDA recently concluded that another circus owner from Oklahoma was qualified to receive three of the younger female elephants. Hawthorn owner John Cuneo said that he will send the animals to Oklahoma as soon as he gets permission in writing, and that he plans to send another young female and young male in the near future. "But the prospect of having mistreated elephants 'freed' from the Hawthorn circus only to have them placed in another facility associated with a circus has inflamed animal rights advocates, and they have begun an aggressive campaign to convince elected officials and the public that all the animals should go to the verdant fields of Tennessee instead." Carol Buckley, of the Elephant sanctuary, expresses her dismay that the elephant herd will be broken up. And we learn that the "Endangered Ark Foundation" to which the three elephants are headed, is owned by the Carson and Barnes circus, which intends to breed them and subject their offspring to circus life. The article tells us: "The circus has been cited for several federal animal welfare violations and was the subject of an undercover sting by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which videotaped a company trainer using a bull hook and an electric prod with the elephants in what the group considered an aggressive way." You can view that revolting footage, in which a Carson and Barnes trainer tells his protégé to sink the bullhook in and make the elephants scream on line at www.Circuses.com We learn that Cuneo is avoiding sending his elephants to the sanctuary because it has been critical of circuses. The article ends with a quote from Carol Buckley: "We've made it clear to APHIS that we'll take the animals as soon as we possibly can, and that's only three months away. Shouldn't the government be looking to give these mistreated animals the very best home possible?" You can read the full article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900956.html And you can send a letter to the editor, perhaps giving your answer to
Buckley's question. The Post takes letters at letters@washpost.com and
advises, "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must
include the writer's home address and home and business telephone
numbers."
PETA SPY COMES OUT -- MAJOR WEB NEWS ON AOL, YAHOO AND MANY NEWSPAPER SITES 5/31/05 There is a fascinating 5/30-5/31 Associated Press story about a recently retired PETA spy. The story is on at least 70 websites, though I am not sure if it has appeared in hard copy. On the AOL news site, you can read the story and vote as to whether you think her work "serves a useful purpose": http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050530175709990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001 Please vote. PETA SPY LISA LEITTEN The results of Lisa Leitten's most recent investigation can be seen at www.CovanceCruelty.com . The Associated Press article tells us: "Leitten called her last assignment for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals her most wrenching: nine months in a Virginia lab owned by Princeton, N.J.-based biomedical firm Covance Co. There, she says, monkeys were denied medical care and abused by technicians. The company denies the claims, says it treats the animals properly and has accused Leitten of illegally working under cover.... Leitten's camera work, and the report issued by PETA, depict frightened monkeys being yanked from their cages and handled roughly by aggressive, often cursing technicians. She says she watched animals suffer with festering wounds, and that tubes were forced into their sinuses for research medicine to be administered, causing them to scream, bleed and vomit. Monkeys were housed alone in cages that were hosed down with the animals still inside, dripping and shivering, she said." The article also discusses some of Leitten's other undercover investigations. It ends: "For her part, Leitten says her time as a spy was spent worrying about the animals, not about being caught. She said she spent nights at home with her two dogs, weeping and writing up what she had seen during the day. "'That's why people only last in this job a couple of years,' said Leitten, who asked that her current residence not be revealed. 'I get migraines, a lot of anxiety. But if something can change for the animals, and their lives will be better in some way, then all those sleepless nights and crying at home will be worth it.''' Please take a look at the article and vote in the AOL poll, both linked above. AOL members can also post comments. The following link will take you to a page that links to about 70 postings of the article, including on the Newsday (New York), Guardian (London) Washington Post and Los Angeles Times websites : http://tinyurl.com/885el If it is on your local newspaper's website, please send a quick supportive letter to the editor. If you have any trouble finding the email address for a letter to your editor, don't hesitate to ask me for help. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be
published.
|
