Popes, Pigeons, Paper bias, meat standards, beagle test bans +more 5/12/25

We have a new pope. On the Mark Thompson show last week, I discussed the loss of a voice for animals we suffered when Pope Francis died. Pope Leo at least seems to wish to follow his lead on environmentalism. I’ll discuss that, plus New York Times coverage of the trade wars, with an important note about animal welfare, plus a disturbing New York Times story about pigeon-napping. Meanwhile the news on the animal testing front gets better and better.

Before discussing those stories, let me thank all of you who wrote to the New York Times in response to the sadly slanted coverage of university research funding, which moves me to discuss a challenging media situation:

The New York Times printed one letter in response, from PETA. Unsurprisingly PETA ‘s letter was excellent. Two decades ago, when DawnWatch was brand new, PETA employees were instructed to sign up for DawnWatch, but PETA now has its own wonderfully active letter-writing department.

For decades, when media coverage for animal issues was hard to procure, PETA relied on outrageous stunts to get attention, which came at a price. PETA, far more visible than any other group, became synonymous in the media with animal rights, but the outrageous style of activism (which PETA understandably deemed necessary) deprived the cause of gravitas. Last week, when the New York Times chose to print only PETA’s letter in response to the paper’s worrisome animal testing coverage, despite having received numerous letters, I suspected that the paper was giving the animal cause a nod, without giving it the attention it deserved and had received from readers.

A recent experience with the Washington Post informed my impression:

Back in March I was pleased to hear from the paper that they intended to print my letter in response to Jane Goodall and Mark Bekoff’s plea to end experimentation on dogs, but I was shocked by their edit of it. A new young letters editor had changed my reference to “torture,” as detailed by Goodall and Bekoff, to “unacceptable treatment” and when I reminded readers that animals other than dogs who are used in tests are also sentient, she inserted, “and deserve proper conditions.” That entirely changed the aim of my letter, which was calling for an end to all animal testing, not for nicer treatment in laboratories. I pushed back and we agreed on a version I could live with, but I was profoundly dispirited when my brief letter was printed under two lengthy diatribes from pro vivisection groups, under the headline, “The cost of cutting canine testing.”

Lest you think that the printed letters column accurately represented readers’ responses to Goodall and Bekoff’s piece, let me share the AI summary of the 622 comments left on the website:

“The comments overwhelmingly express outrage and condemnation of the use of dogs, particularly beagles, in research and experimentation. Many commenters highlight the cruelty and inhumanity of these practices, emphasizing that beagles are chosen for their gentle nature, which makes them more compliant. There is a strong call for action to end animal testing, with suggestions to boycott products from companies involved in such practices and to support legislation that protects animals. Some comments also mention the availability of alternative methods, such as computer modeling and AI, which could replace the need for live animal testing.”

I wrote to the letters department, raising my concern of editorial bias as politely as I could, and copying people who I thought might best respond if the paper was open to continuing the discussion. That’s how I learned that Stacy Lopresti-Goodman had endured a similar attempted rewrite a few weeks earlier, with the same editor having inserted into the initial edit of her letter, “Dogs are used in experiments when they are necessary for scientific research.” (!!!) A version Stacy could accept was agreed on, but was run without Stacy’s impressive credentials, (Professor of Psychology, Honors Program Director, Marymount University) while those of others on that letters page were included.

The Washington Post holds that no bias was intended in either scenario — suggesting some powerful unintentional bias!

Animal rights has traditionally been seen as an issue of the left, though largely ignored by both parties. Thanks to the extraordinary advocacy of groups such as the White Coat Waste Project, which specifically targets Republicans, and the Beagle Freedom Project, which has attracted the support of well-known right leaning pundits such as Lara Trump and Tucker Carlson, the right, including President Trump, is passionately discussing the issue while the left has ceded the ground. I am concerned that because the anti-vivisection stance is being increasingly associated with right wing politicians, such as Nancy Mace and Rand Paul, it is a stand that members of the establishment left-wing media are coming to distrust. And so we see are seeing pro animal testing messages in New York Times and Washington Post headlines.

Given how tepid the mainstream media had previously been in its support of our cause, as compared to the passion with which right-wing media now supports it, the situation can’t be seen as all bad. But pro animal passion from both sides would be better. And so I ask animal advocates who lean left to please do everything you can to keep left-leaning media onside animals. Your comments and letters matter.

—

The New York Times contributor Margaret Renkl is a welcome example of a passionate anti-Trump voice who is also a passionate voice for animals. Her latest essay was printed last Wednesday under the title, “I break for Robins.” Here’s a gift link so that you can read and share the beautiful piece, and in case you are inclined to respond.

I discussed her piece on the Mark Thompson show last week, as we talked about the loss of a pope who had railed against “tyrannical anthropocentricism.” We also discussed Matthew Scully’s book Dominion, and DXE ‘s efforts to fundamentally change the way society views animals – rather than trying to make more vegans. Let me note here that I misspoke during that segment when I said that the proportion of vegans in society had been holding firm at about 3 percent for decades – that’s more like the proportion of strict vegetarians, with vegans at less than one percent.

I hope some of you will check out the segment. If you enjoy it, please remember to give it a thumbs up, and please know that leaving comments strongly affects YouTube’s algorithms, helping animal friendly segments get shared more widely.

That segment aired a few days before Pope Leo was elected. I am pleased to note that various news sources, including Newsweek, tell us that he has a similar stance to Pope Francis with regard to our need to have a reciprocal rather than “tyrannical” relationship with nature.

—

Animal welfare got a brief mention as part of Sunday’s front page New York Times front-page story, “U.S. and Europe, in Trade Battle, Play Game of Chicken, and Beef.” We learn from that article that Europe has stricter food regulations, including a ban on hormones, but  “The Trump administration argues that American meat, produced without similar regulations, is better — and wants Europe to buy more of it, and other American farm products.” But “In a 2020 poll fielded in-person across the bloc, nearly 90 percent of Europeans agreed with the idea that agricultural imports ‘should only enter the E.U. if their production has complied with the E.U.’s environmental and animal welfare standards.’”

Here’s a gift link to that article, in case you are inclined to weigh in.

—

The same paper included an article in the Metro Section, page MB6, titled, “ ‘Mother Pigeon’ Unfurls Her Wings to Protect Flocks.” It tells us that somebody is stealing pigeons off New York City streets, likely for “flyer shooting,” which is legal in Pennsylvania.

We read:

“In flyer shooting, a bird is tossed by a ‘columbaire’; once the bird flaps to a certain height, the shooter may take aim.”

WTF.

Here’s a gift link to that one.

—-

At least there’s that good news on the animal testing front! NewsMax, a relatively new conservative network that seems less partisan than Fox, has given much good coverage to developments at the National Institutes of Health. On Rob Schmitt’s May 6 show, the new NIH director, Dr Jay Bhattacharya, told the host that all beagle experimentation was gone from the agency, and the agency is pushing the country away from all animal testing, towards kinder and more useful medical research. I recorded that segment and posted it on Facebook for those who do not get NewsMax. You should be able to view it regardless of having a Facebook account. Enjoy!

—

Independent reporter Glen Greenwald also did a beautiful extended segment on the issue, interviewing Justin Goodman from the White Coat Waste Project. Thanks go to Tracey DiMartini for making sure we saw that one.

—

In other mainstream media animal news, which I’ve posted to the DawnWatch X Feed, and/or DawnWatch Facebook page over the last week:

• The San Francisco Chronicle front page featured DxE’s Zoe Rosenberg’s upcoming trial for theft/rescue of a chicken. Here’s a gift link to that and one to a beautiful letter in response by Toronto activist Sara Crane.

• The Times of India reported, “India-born Democrat Representative Shri Thanedar is facing renewed backlash over a 2010 animal cruelty controversy tied to his former pharmaceutical testing company.”

• TMZ gave us good animal friendly coverage of a horrendous TikTok video in which a woman air fried live two live crabs.

• Today’s Euronews gives us similar strong coverage of the shocking event.

• And the Hartford Courant put a call to ban leghold or foothold traps on its front page. Folks in Connecticut, or who have a special connection to that topic, should weigh in.

Yours and all animals’,
Karen Dawn of DawnWatch