Trump & animals, turkey pardon chide , primate freedom push, and feedback power 11/24/24

Today’s Sunday, November 24, New York Times, includes an article discussing what we might expect for animals under a second Trump administration, and an op-ed recommending that Biden dispenses with the turkey pardon. Saturday’s Los Angeles Times included an op-ed looking at the danger of rewarding huge dairy farms for capturing methane for use as natural gas. The Washington Post brings us a column championing the monkeys who escaped from the breeding facility.  And the Christian Science Monitor, which ran a wonderful cover story on animal minds on Friday, today includes a piece that notes the importance of reader feedback for shaping writer’s thoughts!

————

“What Trump’s Return Could Mean for Animals,” by Emily Anthes and Catrin Einhorn, appears on page A18 of the New York Times. It talks in general terms about the first Trump administration having been bad for animals, and what a danger his dismissive attitude towards climate change poses for them. It gets particularly interesting in the last segment, “Lab Animals,” which includes quotes from Sara Amundson, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, and Ann Linder, an associate director at Harvard University’s animal law and policy program. We read:

“During Mr. Trump’s first term, the Environmental Protection Agency, which typically required that potentially toxic chemicals be tested in animals before being used in the environment, announced that it would reduce testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and all but eliminate it by 2035.

“Animal rights groups heralded the announcement, noting that animals are not always good models for humans and that new technologies, such as “organs on a chip,” were becoming increasingly good alternatives to animal testing.

“’It was forward thinking on the part of the Trump administration,’

“Some scientists and environmental groups argued that animal testing was still the best way to collect critical safety data and that phasing it out would effectively weaken regulation of the chemical industry, putting public health at risk.

“Although the Biden administration took steps to reduce animal testing, it backed away from the E.P.A. deadline. Animal rights groups hoped the incoming administration would restore those bench marks and make further commitments to phasing out animal experiments.

“Cuts in federal spending could also reduce funding for scientific research, including invasive animal studies. That might have short-term benefits for lab animals, but it could undermine research into conservation, climate change and animal health.

“’On the whole,’ Ms. Linder said, ‘I would say any decrease in funding for science generally would work against animal issues.’

I sure wouldn’t say that.

I can provide this gift link to the article from DawnWatch.

————————————————————-

The op-ed, “What a Lame-Duck President Could Do for Lame Turkeys,” on page 6 of the New York Times Sunday Review section, is by Peter Singer. Singer suggests that the current “lame duck president” could “become a lame turkey president — that is, a president who takes a stand on behalf of lame turkeys, by refusing to take part in the silly tradition of pardoning them.”

DawnWatch can provide this gift link to that piece for those who wish to respond to it or the one I shared above.

I thank Dolores Varga for making sure we didn’t miss the piece.

————–

Singer’s small Thanksgiving themed book, “Consider the Turkey,” also inspired a negative piece in the Chicago Sun Times, penned by columnist Neil Steinberg, who dislikes Singer’s views on other issues. It was published on Saturday November 23, and titled, “Is this the Thanksgiving to Consider the Turkey?”

I would especially urge Illinois activists to respond to that one as we have the best chance of being published in our local papers. And please remember that papers are far more likely to publish letters that are laudatory rather than critical, so if we can point out errors without slamming the paper, and speak for animals without speaking against anybody in the media, that is the best tack to take for our cause.

The paper takes letters at letters@suntimes.com . Always include your full name, address and phone number when sending a letter to the editor, for verification purposes. Only your name and town will be published with our letter.

—————————————————–

Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times included an op-ed titled, “California is trading health and safety for limited climate gains,” penned by Dean Florez and Diane Takvorian.

It discusses the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or LCFS, and notes:

“Under this program, entities earn and sell credits for cutting emissions, and dairies profit by converting methane into renewable natural gas…

“The promise of renewable natural gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ is fundamentally flawed. Instead of transitioning toward sustainable decarbonization, the LCFS now encourages the expansion of large-scale dairies to maximize methane generation. Dairies are rewarded not for reducing methane emissions but for capturing what they generate, perpetuating pollution-heavy practices. More waste generated means more profit….

“While capturing methane contributes to California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, the collateral damage is undeniable. Mega-dairies are among the largest ammonia emitters, contributing to fine particulate matter pollution that causes respiratory illnesses and premature death. The Central Valley, already burdened with some of the worst air quality in the nation, cannot withstand additional harm. Moreover, nitrate runoff from manure continues to contaminate drinking water, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities reliant on domestic wells.”

Here’s a Yahoo link for those who hit a paywall on the Los Angeles Times site.

It is an excellent, important piece, which, however, does not even mention animal suffering. As the Los Angeles Times has shown itself so open to that discussion, we would be remiss if we did not address it with letters to the editor.

As always I send thanks to Elaine Livesey-Fassel for making sure we don’t miss a beat from the animal beat at the Los Angeles Times.

————————

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has penned a piece titled, “Escaped monkeys might be trying to send us a message.”

She notes:

“No one likes to think about the 70,000 monkeys per year that wind up in U.S. research laboratories for drug and other experiments.”

Her piece relates to the “Lab Animals” section of the New York Times piece I shared above, telling us:

“Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), a dedicated animal-welfare advocate, has promised to uncover what happened. At her disposal are AGI internal documents cataloguing ‘incidents’ at the research center that were leaked to Stop Animal Exploitation Now, an animal-rights group, by a whistleblower….

“Suffice to say, there’s big money in monkeys, which sold for around $2,000 before the pandemic and often much higher since. With demand greater than supplies these days, it would seem imperative that alternative research measures be pursued with greater urgency. Economic considerations aside, sparing monkeys, dogs and other animals from the tortures of experimentation would be good for the human soul.

“To this end, Congress two years ago passed legislation to end the mandatory use of animals in research — the FDA Modernization Act 2.0.   Apparently, the Food and Drug Administration failed to implement or enforce the new law, so Mace and one of her Republican colleagues from Georgia, Rep. Buddy Carter, are co-sponsoring another bill — this time 3.0 — which is basically a directive for FDA to do what it was told to do.”

Here’s a gift link to Parker’s piece, which calls for letters that speak for animals.

—————————————-

On Friday, November 22, the Christian Science Monitor ran a wonderful cover story on the “rich inner lives of animals” which I shared on X and Facebook, noting that some of the animals discussed were Farm Sanctuary residents! Today, a follow-up piece by the author, Stephanie Hanes, is titled, “Do cows think? How readers broadened my view of animals.” Online that piece is titled, “Should we care what cows think? How readers broadened my view of animals. Good journalism opens minds and invites readers to see things differently. Sometimes, readers can have a similar effect on journalists.”

It is well worth reading, and both the original story from Friday, and today’s are well worth responding to with a letter to the editor!

———————-

In other animal news in the mainstream media, which I’ve shared over the last week to the DawnWatch X Feed and DawnWatch Facebook Page.

–The Montreal Gazette published another superb letter , this one on Friday in response to its front page story on primate imports for vivisection, which I share with more thanks to all of you who responded.

— The San Diego Union Tribune has covered efforts to ban rodeo,  including an article, written after Thursday’s hearing, suggesting a ban looked unlikely.

— NPR covered the monkey escape from a primate breeding lab, including calls from Stop Animal Exploitation Now, and from Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) for an immediate inspection of the breeding center, Alpha Genesis, which receives taxpayer dollars.

And I shared a superb piece from Vox titled, “Most ‘humane’ farms are lying to you — and the government isn’t stopping them. A new investigation finds false advertising continues to dupe consumers.”

Yours and all animals’,
Karen Dawn of DawnWatch