COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING PROJECT: CATS

(The final community-based learning project took place in the Student Center and focused on raising awareness about feral cats in our community.)

COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING PROJECT: EXOTIC ANIMALS AND FARMED ANIMALS

(Students tabled at Temple's "Green Block Party" to raise awareness about human-animal relations issues in our community, including the exotic pets trade and the impact of animal agriculture on our environment.)

COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING PROJECT: DOGS

(In conjunction with Temple's Promoters of Animal Welfare, the Pennsylvania SPCA, and PAWS, students focused on pit bull awareness and an "adopt don't shop" message.)

What to eat! By Jason Schwartzman

http://www.platetoplanet.org/

INTERESTED IN VEGANISM?

I meant to post this a while ago: A list of recommended websites and literature for anyone interested in becoming vegan or any curious cats out there:


LITERATURE!

Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating, Revised Edition
Erik Marcus
One of the first books I read about veganism- explains the vegan lifestyle from all angles, answers almost EVERY question you can have.

Animal Liberation
Peter Singer
What can I say- The dude roooolz. He started this movement in the '70s and like Zeppelin, it still rocks (we read him in class, some of you have mixed opinions about him, but to each his/her own).

The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets
Messina, Mark, and Virginia Messina
Everything you need to know from the health and wellness standpoint. Also probably the book your parents will be most interested in.

Fast Food Nation
Eric Schlosser
Basically "What goes on before they call your number." The icky, sticky truth.

Living Among Meat Eaters
Carol Adams
Let's face it- they've got us surrounded!



INTERWEBZ!

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/ Subscribing to the magazine is not a bad idea. I have a lot of fun and have learned much from reading it.

http://www.theppk.com POST PUNK KITCHEN! You can see I'm excited. It's at the top of my bookmarks list; the chick who runs the site have also written many of my favorite cookbooks (Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World, Vegan Cookies Invade Your Cookie Jar, Veganomicon, Vegan with a Vengence, etc.) To put it plainly, I would give up peanut butter for a week to hang out with Isa Chandra Moskowitz for a little while- and that's saying a lot.

http://www.vegan.org/Vegan Action's campaigns have made life a lot smoother for many vegans- also a great site for more resources! Check it out.

http://human-animal-liberation.blogspot.com/ A pretty good answer to "Why are you worrying about chickens when there are suffering humans out there?"


There are so many more great resources, but these are just the first ones I took a look at and were explanatory and interesting enough to get me pumped on veganism.
Good luck/Have fun
Again, I would love to talk to anyone who is down to in person about veganism or any related topics =) (ashtryba@gmail.com)

Fear the Pitt Bull

I was searching pictures of pit bulls and came across this blog entry:

http://hubpages.com/hub/pit-bull

The blog itself and many of the comments show a common mindset towards pit bulls. I just thought it was an example of breed discrimination and showed how important it is to inform people.

SPAY AND NEUTER

Claire Tillman

After listening to Claire Tillman and her experiences with humane education i began thinking about the possibility of myself becoming a humane educator. As she said in class she sometimes has a hard time reaching the kids in class due to racial, ethnic, and class differences. I can not imagine how frustrating it must be to try and get these kids to understand the message she is giving, or to expose them to things such as animal cruelty, and have them laugh at her because they just do not understand do to cultural differences. Her presentation reminded me of another encounter i had at the Pit Bull Placebo discussion earlier in the semester. At this discussion i met the director of a Humane Society of America program geared towards ending dog fighting. We discussed her role in preventing dog fighting through education. During our conversation Mick Vick came up, he is part of the same campaign she directs. His role is to go out to inner city schools in Philadelphia and talk to the students about the negative impact dog fighting has in many facets of life. Though she admitted to disliking him strongly, the director i spoke with said that she does respect him. He is reaching out to the community, sincerely trying to end dog fighting, and is reaching an audience that she, as a white middle class woman would be unable to reach. I found it interesting that Vick, a former dog fighter, is having an effective role in fighting to end dog fighting, while people like Claire Tillman and possibly me one day will struggle to have our message heard.

Claire Tillman and Humane Education - Grace Spring

I was very fortunate to grow up in an animal-loving household. I have always been surrounded by dogs and cats and other critters in my home, so not only have I been able to spend time with and learn to relate to animals, but I also have been able to develop a profound love and respect for them. In many areas, for example race and culture, the less you know about something or someone, the more misconceptions and misunderstanding you will typically have. I believe this holds true for animal-human relations as well. People who have had little contact with companion animals may not understand how to properly care for them or how they should be treated. Furthermore, people, especially children, who have been exposed to animals in a negative way, whether it be through dog-fighting, backyard breeding, or other negative experiences, typically do not interact with animals in a healthy, mutually beneficial way. I believe humane education and awareness is the answer.

After listening to Claire Tillman speak, I feel even more strongly about the positive changes associated with simply educating people, mainly children, on correct animal relations. Especially in Philadelphia where many children see animals on the street or being abused in households, it is essential that passionate people like Claire provide accurate information on caring for and interacting with companion animals.

When I ran my guinea pig rescue in high school, I would first hold a one-on-one education meeting with potential adopters on proper guinea pig care, so that they could then buy the correct supplies and prepare for their new pet. I would frequently be shocked by the misconceptions people had about proper care, some of which came for seemingly legitimate websites! No, guinea pigs can not live in cages the size of a shoebox. Yes, guinea pigs need fresh vegetables. No, you can not file their teeth down with a nail filer. I realized the need for accurate care information early on, but I continually had doubts as to how much was 'sinking in' and how much people remember a few weeks or months later.

Claire had the same problem, which she touched on in her presentation. She mentioned the need to give supplementary presentations and frequently returned to schools multiple times to reinforce what she had taught. I am also thinking about how to best get through to people in terms of my CBL project for Pitbull Awareness Day. How am I going to be able to influence people in the few moments they stop by my booth? I want to impart on them the importance of avoiding petstores at all costs and saving the lives of homeless animals instead, but how to best accomplish that is not an easily answered question. I am hoping that through concise explanations, mildly graphic pictures, and flyers to take with them, the word will get spread . . . at least throughout Temple :)

Reaction to Claire - Mary Penxa

I found Claire's presentation moving on a lot of accounts. First and foremost I thought it was awesome that she does her presentations for children so young. I think that the younger we start educating the youth on these important issues, the more likely they are to have a positive impact.

As a future educator myself, I was eager to see how Claire approaches these different topics and issues with kids as young as eight and nine years old. I loved how interactive the presentation was, it was really engaging and I think this is most likely extremely successful for kids who may not always have the longest attention span. I found the images rather rough for children so young to see, but commend Claire for taking the initiative and really branching out and not sugar coating the issues for these young students.

This point in particular really made me think a lot about how people are shielded from these things and it often times has a way of breeding ignorance on this and many other topics. When I was volunteering at the PSPCA a mother and a child were waiting outside of the dog room, the little girl commented that she wanted to go in and look at the dogs.

"No, I don't want you to see that. You're too young." told the mother to the confused daughter, and truth be told it really made me sad.

When people are kept from seeing what is happening, it almost allows them to believe the problem isn't that bad. I know many people personally that say they could never volunteer at an animal shelter because it would be too hard for them to have to see the animals like that. I do admit it is very hard, but it's easy to see that if people distance themselves from these problems how they can almost forget about them in a sense.

This is why I believe Claire's presentation was particularly effective. She didn't shy away from the real heart of the problem she was addressing and quite honestly her presentation will probably stick with those kids much longer than it would have if she hadn't shown them any images at all.

All in all the presentation was great and it really did show that a big part of the solution to the problem of animal mistreatment comes in our youth, because they are the future.

-Mary Penxa

The fight for power

So after listening to Claire Tillman's talk on Friday, and thinking about our discussion on the dogfighting essay today, I was stuck thinking about male stereotypes and what it means to "be a man".

Claire mentioned on Friday that one version of animal abuse comes from young boys not knowing any better. In my opinion, it's the same mentality boys get when they feel the need to destroy stuff. Just the fact that they can be destructive and hurtful makes them feel powerful. They may not grasp the full extent and meaning behind what they're doing, but I think there is a definite subconscious issue of men needing to have power. Boys see it from an early age and want power too, and continue to have that thirst throughout their life. In turn, they become an example to other little boys, creating a vicious cycle.

I think this idea of trying to grasp power also connects to dogfighting. As stated in essay 1 of the anthology, there is a clear stigma attached to having a prize fighting dog. There is a sense of honor, which in essence is respect, which in essence is power. This idea of dogfighting as a way of life, is really just men looking for a way to have power, yet again. It's amazing to me the lengths to which men will go to feel or seem "manly". Granted, I'm making a large overgeneralization here, but I think even on a small scale, there is a thirst for power in the mob mentality of men. Whether they are demonstrating it through their prize fighting dog, or by claiming use of the remote control, there is a desire for power and control.

Let me clarify my statement there. I'm not saying the urge for power is necessarily bad on the whole. As long as kept in check, a healthy thirst for power can be good. It feeds determination, ambition, perseverance, etc. But power is also at the root of the alpha male mentality, and the impetus for early on animal abuse by children as well as dogfighting by adults.

Is Our Children Learnin’?

I’ll start with the famous quote from our distinguished former president. After all, it highlights an important question. Remember folks, in this new world order, there’s no child left behind! Readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, we’ve got it all covered. Now, people keep talking about this “empathy” thing; empathy for other “living things.” But does that score well on tests? No sir! See, we need to cut things like “empathy” and “respect” from the curriculum. Life skills, emotional competency, love of fellow creatures? These are all secondary to the product of test scores. And let’s face it, the budget doesn’t allow for “secondary” learning. And animals? Do we truly even NEED empathy towards animals? I mean, when all of the children in a 3rd grade class have witnessed a dog fight, that’s pretty much a lost cause.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the literature. Dogs are status symbols in communities. They’re objectified creatures that bestow social power on their owners through some sort of manly osmosis. Children don’t need to care about status symbols as living creatures. They just need to know how to use them to become properly gendered within society. Is that not enough to convince you that education on animal welfare is useless? Fine. Let’s look at the general public perception of pit bulls. People view them as nothing more than evil, vicious menaces to society. People don’t trust pits around their children. They don’t believe there’s any good in the breed. Now really, can some basic education prevent such a widespread public belief? You can’t force people to change their minds after the media gets through with them.

I’ve laid out all the facts. The answer should be pretty clear - There’s no point in educating children in animal welfare. Society teaches them two things: Animals are tools and objects to be used for human gain, and animals can easily be stereotyped and classified into simple categories. We should not education children in animal empathy. We should not show them the consequences of using animals as tools. After all, there is no way that teaching them simple facts they may have been unaware of will lead them to make better choices regarding humane actions. There’s absolutely no possibility that learning compassion towards animals will teach children compassion towards other human beings. Most of all, teaching children to care about the non-human animals in the world around them will never enable them to see the world from a broader and more enlightened perspective.

No, the choice is clear. Educating children about animal welfare is a waste of time. After all, test scores can be measured for progress. Kindness and compassion is immeasurable in its rewards.

Insights after Claire's Presentation

I found Claire’s presentation on Friday extremely insightful. I was very impressed by the impact her humane education classes had on Philly students and the community. What I found most shocking was that every third grader in one of the classes had attended a dogfight. It really put into perspective for me the prevalence of dog fighting in the city. It has made me think more critically about the reasons why the dogs I see at the PSPCA are there. On Saturday I noticed the fact sheet on one of the pit bulls read, “reason for intake: Abuse/cruelty.” Another dog’s skin was growing back after a case of mange. I wonder if these dogs could have been involved in dog fighting and how many of the dogs at the PSPCA are rescued from dog fighting rings.

Also, Claire’s presentation furthered my understanding of the connection between animal cruelty and child abuse. This is something I have been thinking about since viewing Earthlings. The documentary shows film of workers at factory farms in charge of shooting animals unconscious with air guns. Some of the workers taunted the animals while doing this. Others went out their way to hurt animals unnecessarily. I wondered if the constant exposure to violence against animals incited this cruel behavior and what effect it had on their personal lives. If they could hurt a squealing pig, which was obviously in pain, could that transfer to abusing another human being? There certainly seems to be a link between cruelty to companion animals and cruelty to humans. Could there also be a connection in the factory farming industry? I was reminded of novel I read recently, Butcher Boy by Pat McCabe, in which a young teen becomes a butcher’s assistant and shoots pigs with an air gun. Later, he kills a woman using that gun. Granted, the character showed strong signs of mental instability throughout the book and it is a fictional story. But could this story hint at reality?

Also, Claire’s presentation showed me that humane education is worthwhile and necessary. I am a secondary education major at Temple. Within a year or two I may be a teacher in a junior high or high school, possibly in the Philadelphia area. At the secondary level, many teachers and administrators resist activities which take away from content area instruction. As a future educator, I can advocate for the inclusion of humane education, invite people like Claire to work with my class, or incorporate elements of humane education into my content area. As I teacher I have a duty to help my students become responsible adults and citizens. Humane education is an important strategy to meet this goal.

Claire Tillman's Presentation

First, Claire Tillman's method and motive of her humane education movement is excellent. It is so important for young people to learn about how to treat/care for an animal and what behavior is unacceptable. This all goes back to the original questions of the class: How should we treat animals, like people or lower than people. Are animals moral patients (some yes and some no, some non-human animals give more to their "owners" then owners to animal) or are they individuals (yes) or are "objects" (no)? Of course, parents teach children how to play with other children and not to hit, but when it comes to animals parents don't really sit down and say don't harm an animal because you think it is fun/funny. Claire is changing this, she is going into schools and telling children how to and not to interact with animals. While this may seem like something small and isolated, I believe Claire's statement that these session with her about animal cruelty can change a class room and the kids. I also agree that kids have a lot of power in a household, and can say we aren't caring for this animal the right way, let's make it better. This is going to start changing children's minds about animals and when they have children they will automatically pass along this message and the cruelty and abuse cases will go down. Maybe the children can't get their mom or dad to stop dog fighting, but he or she when they are older will not dog fight, and will have overall a more compassionate view of animals and will slowly change the view of animals. Maybe in five generations of this process, animal cruelty will be such an issue and have so much support that animal law can cover ALL animals and farm animals will start to be protected and respected. Claire also taught me some new things, I never really thought of animal hoarding as cruelty, but it most definitely is. When I thought of cruelty I thought of abuse and hurting not hoarding, but one person can help a lot of animals but there becomes a point when taking in more animals will be bad for all animals. So some animals do suffer as the cost of some getting better treatment, because it becomes bad for all if there are too many cats or dogs in one house. Claire is making a difference, and I hope someone can walk away from any of our tables at Pit bull Awareness Day or Earth Day and feel that they have been some how enlightened or changed.

Claire Tillman's Presentation

I really enjoyed Claire’s presentation. What I was really affected by in her talk was her choice to devote her animal welfare efforts on education for children. I have thought about it before, but her discussion really made me see the importance of teaching children about the proper treatment of animals at an early age. I was surprised and saddened when she said many of the children she teaches have witnessed abuse in their own homes. I can imagine how difficult it must be to incite change in these children when they see this type of animal mistreatment every day. It must be very confusing for them to be told in the classroom that what their family members or neighbors are doing is wrong. The presentation led me to see the need for these children to have people to look to for an example of how to treat animals.

Another point Claire brought up which upset me was the connection between how a person treats animals and they way they treat people. If an adult figure in a child’s life abuses animals, how do they treat the child? When an adult brings a child to a dogfight, what are they instilling in that child and how will it affect him or her in the future.

Overall, the presentation has inspired me to potentially seek out humane education opportunities in the future. It is vital to start while children are young, teaching them why abuse is wrong so they do not continue the trend when they become adults. It makes me wish that I would have considered the CBL project as an opportunity to reach out to the children of the community who deserve to learn the truth about how to treat animals.

Humane Education for Children

I loved Claire Tillman’s presentation on humane education. Her approach to it was very cool because she treated us as though we were one of her elementary school classes so we could get a feel for how she actually goes about humane education for children. After seeing the images she shows them, I can imagine how much her presentations might affect them because I’m 21 years old and two days later I’m still haunted by those pictures and stories. The part that really haunts me the most though is when she told us that every single serial killer has started off by abusing animals. Obviously not all people who abuse animals become serial killers, but it can definitely be said that people who abuse animals are walking down a dangerous path. The dogfighting article we had to read for class from Anthology 1 talks about how men get involved in dogfighting and why. It says that in American, qualities that men consider a part of masculinity are assertiveness, aggressiveness, strength, and competitiveness. Men partake in dogfighting because it is a way to show off how competitive and aggressive they can be through using a dog to represent them. Teenage boys, or even adults, think lighting cats on fire and throwing rocks at dogs is cool because it shows their assertive power over the animal and the aggression they can put out. This makes me wonder, if society didn’t consider these qualities so admirable, would there be less abuse in the world? If manliness meant showing respect, having wisdom, setting a good example, what reason would they have to harm animals? I guess that’s why it’s so important to teach children about this stuff because they’re the future society; they’re the only way to change what’s cool and what’s not.

Animal rights as Human rights

I really agreed with Claire's approach to humane education, which she came to as she realized that transporting animals and helping out in shelters was really only putting band-aid on the problem, as she described it. Educating the young has great possibilities as a form of activism because it can change an entire generation and generally addresses the root causes of the problem instead of the just the symptoms (which is a big problem for most groups I feel). The way she talks with kids whose families are directly involved with dogfighting and sometimes animal abuse really undscored for me the necessity of education. The other things I like about education is that it places the responsibility on those who commit crimes, not on the abstract concept of "society." What Claire said about the connection between those who abuse animals and those who abuse their families and serial killers really resonated with me. I thought of domestic violence and rape prevention programs. The rape programs often place all the responsibility and focus on the woman and don't educate men, thus not addressing the root causes. Domestic violence too, I feel, do not always address the root causes and having shelters for battered women is great and very important, but so is addressing WHY so many women are being abused (and this starts by telling men not to abuse their wives, girlfriends, children, etc.). It seems to me that animal rights are not this separate, different box from human rights, but really intrinsically tied to it. Those who care about animals (or, I should say non-human animals, because there is a tendency to forget that we are all animals) should also care about humans, and vice versa.

Too Precious Not to Post

This is me being a cat couch, apparently. One of the many reasons why volunteering at the PSPCA is the best thing in the world.

Patrick's Law

I thought you guess might be interested to see this. There is a campaign to change the current laws in place that protect animals for abuse. These people are looking to increase the severity of violating these crimes. This was one of the reasons i was frustrated with animal law, but they are trying to change it!
http://www.patrickslaw.com/index.html

MAJOR ECOLOGICAL DISRUPTION: OUTDOOR CATS & THE ENVIRONMENT

We've talked in class about the impact of domesticate/companion animals on our environment. One example that affects our local communities is the outdoor cat. Over the years, a number of studies have linked both feral and free-ranging domesticate cats to ecological disruption, including bird predation that in turn impacts the rest of the ecosystem. Here's a recent article that appeared in the "Science" section of The New York Times:

Tweety Was Right: Cats Are a Bird’s No. 1 Enemy

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

While public attention has focused on wind turbines as a menace to birds, a new study shows that a far greater threat may be posed by a more familiar antagonist: the pet house cat.

A new study in The Journal of Ornithology on the mortality of baby gray catbirds in the Washington suburbs found that cats were the No. 1 killer in the area, by a large margin.

Nearly 80 percent of the birds were killed by predators, and cats were responsible for 47 percent of those deaths, according to the researchers, from the Smithsonian Institution and Towson University in Maryland. Death rates were particularly high in neighborhoods with large cat populations.

Predation was so serious in some areas that the catbirds could not replace their numbers for the next generation, according to the researchers, who affixed tiny radio transmitters to the birds to follow them. It is the first scientific study to calculate what fraction of bird deaths during the vulnerable fledgling stage can be attributed to cats.

“Cats are way up there in terms of threats to birds — they are a formidable force in driving out native species,” said Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, one of the authors of the study.

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that up to 500 million birds are killed each year by cats — about half by pets and half by feral felines. “I hope we can now stop minimizing and trivializing the impacts that outdoor cats have on the environment and start addressing the serious problem of cat predation,” said Darin Schroeder, the group’s vice president for conservation advocacy.

By contrast, 440,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, although that number is expected to exceed one million by 2030 as the number of wind farms grows to meet increased demand.

The American Bird Conservancy generally supports the development of wind energy, but it argues that wind farms should be “bird smart” — for example, positioned so that they do not interfere with major migration paths or disturb breeding grounds, with their power lines buried to prevent collisions.

“I’m excited about wind; we just have to be careful where and how we put the turbines,” said Dr. Marra, who studies threats to birds, including from climate change and habitat loss. He said the leading cause of bird deaths over all, as opposed to the catbird fledglings in the study, remained collisions with buildings, windows and towers, followed by predators.

Yet wind turbines often provoke greater outrage than cats do, said Gavin Shire, vice president of the Bird Conservancy. “The idea of a man-made machine chopping a bird in half creates a visceral reaction,” he said, “while the idea of a predator with its prey in its mouth — well we’ve seen that on the Nature Channel. People’s reaction is that it is normal for cats to kill birds.”

Household cats were introduced in North America by European colonists; they are regarded as an invasive species and have few natural enemies to check their numbers. “They are like gypsy moths and kudzu — they cause major ecological disruption,” Dr. Marra said.

***

Read the original New York Times article here.

***

The American Bird Conservancy is anti-TNR and pro-euthanasia of feral/free-roaming cats, which doesn't seem to be an ethical solution, especially when we consider that the root of the problem is not cats but humans. At the same time, feral and free-ranging cats continue to be a problem not only for the ecosystem, but also for the cats. The following is a good list of reasons for keeping companion-animal cats indoors:

Why Should You Keep Your Cat Indoors?

Cats may love to go outside, but for their own good, keep them in. Although cats are smart, alert and adroit, they are no matches for the many perils that await them outside. That's why the average indoor-only cat lives up to three times longer than the cat that goes outside. Consider these threats:

Disease: Feline leukemia and feline immunodeficiency virus are only two of the diseases that are passed from cat to cat and, once contracted, result in the eventual death of the pet. And outside cats are even more likely than dogs to come into contact with rabid wild animals.

Parasites: Outdoor cats suffer from fleas, ticks, ear mites and worms that indoor cats are generally not exposed to.

Poisoning: Poisons can be found in lawn chemicals, bait left out to kill rodents, auto antifreeze and other sources.

Other Animals: Fights with other cats, dogs and wildlife often leave cats maimed or injured. And it's not just tomcats. Female cats also get into fights because the very nature of cats is territorial.

Cruel People: Cats are often the victims of burning, tarring and feathering, and other tortures. Animal dealers may collect outside cats for sale to research facilities. Outside pets are at the mercy of the people they encounter.

Traps: It is estimated that over 100,000 cats are caught in traps each year. Those who aren't killed may suffer for days before being released and often lose limbs fro the injuries.

Traffic: Most outdoor cats die prematurely from auto accidents. It is a myth that cats are "streetwise" about cars. No matter how alert a cat is, it is no match for a fast moving vehicle.

Pet Overpopulation: Unaltered cats allowed to roam and mate at will account for millions of the cats that must be euthanized each year because there aren't enough homes for them. Allowing unaltered animals outside is irresponsible and at the root of the terrible pet overpopulation problem.

Cats can be completely happy inside if you provide them with toys, good care and most importantly, lots of love and attention. If you have a kitten, start it out right by never letting him or her outside. Older cats that are used to the "great outdoors" can make the transition to being indoor cats with time and attention. Spaying and neutering cats will also help you keep them indoors.

Humane Society of the United States

LIVESTOCK AND CLIMATE CHANGE

LIVESTOCK AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang

The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change."

A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry.

But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.

Read the full report here.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT . . .

SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

By MARK BITTMAN (New York Times, 3/15/2011)

It’s time to take a look at the line between “pet” and “animal.” When the ASPCA sends an agent to the home of a Brooklyn family to arrest one of its members for allegedly killing a hamster, something is wrong.

That “something” is this: we protect “companion animals” like hamsters while largely ignoring what amounts to the torture of chickens and cows and pigs. In short, if I keep a pig as a pet, I can’t kick it. If I keep a pig I intend to sell for food, I can pretty much torture it. State laws known as “Common Farming Exemptions” allow industry — rather than lawmakers — to make any practice legal as long as it’s common. “In other words,” as Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of “Eating Animals,” wrote me via e-mail, “the industry has the power to define cruelty. It’s every bit as crazy as giving burglars the power to define trespassing.”

Meanwhile, there are pet police. So when 19-year-old Monique Smith slammed her sibling’s hamster on the floor and killed it, as she may have done in a fit of rage last week, an ASPCA agent — there are 18 of them, busily responding to animal cruelty calls in the five boroughs and occasionally beyond — arrested her. (The charges were later dropped, though Ms. Smith spent a night in jail at Rikers Island.)

In light of the way most animals are treated in this country, I’m pretty sure that ASPCA agents don’t need to spend their time in Brooklyn defending rodents.

In fact, there’s no rationality to be found here. Just a few blocks from Ms. Smith’s home, along the M subway line, the city routinely is poisoning rodents as quickly and futilely as it possibly can, though rats can be pets also. But that’s hardly the point. This is: we “process” (that means kill) nearly 10 billion animals annually in this country, approximately one-sixth of the world’s total.

Many if not most of these animals are raised (or not, since probably a couple of hundred million are killed at birth) industrially, in conditions that the philosopher Peter Singer and others have compared to concentration camps. Might we more usefully police those who keep egg-laying hens in cages so small the birds can’t open their wings, for example, than anger-management-challenged young people accused of hamstercide?

Yet Ms. Smith was charged as a felon, because in New York (and there are similar laws in other states) if you kick a dog or cat or hamster or, I suppose, a guppy, enough to “cause extreme physical pain” or do so “in an especially depraved or sadistic manner” you may be guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals, as long as you do this “with no justifiable purpose.”

But thanks to Common Farming Exemptions, as long as I “raise” animals for food and it’s done by my fellow “farmers” (in this case, manufacturers might be a better word), I can put around 200 million male chicks a year through grinders (graphic video here), castrate — mostly without anesthetic — 65 million calves and piglets a year, breed sick animals (don’t forget: more than half a billion eggs were recalled last summer, from just two Iowa farms) who in turn breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, allow those sick animals to die without individual veterinary care, imprison animals in cages so small they cannot turn around, skin live animals, or kill animals en masse to stem disease outbreaks.

All of this is legal, because we will eat them.

We have “justifiable purposes”: pleasure (or, at this point, habit, because eating is hardly a pleasure if you do it in your car, or in 10 minutes), convenience — there are few things more filling per dollar than a cheeseburger — and of course corporate profits. We should be treating animals better and raising fewer of them; this would naturally reduce our consumption. All in all, a better situation for us, the animals, the world.

Arguing for the freedom to eat as much meat as you want is equivalent to arguing for treating farm animals as if they could not feel pain. Yet no one would defend Ms. Smith’s cruel action because it was a pet and therefore not born to be put through living hell.

Is it really that bad? After all, a new video from Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, makes industrial pig-raising seem like a little bit of heaven. But undercover videos from the Humane Society of the United States tell quite a different story, and a repulsive one. It also explains why we saw laws proposed by friends of agribusiness in both Iowa and Florida in recent weeks that would ban making such videos: the truth hurts, especially if you support the status quo.

Our fantasy is that until the industrial era domesticated animals were treated decently. Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t; but certainly they weren’t turned out by the tens of thousands as if they were widgets.

We’re finally seeing some laws that take the first steps toward generally ameliorating cruelty to farm animals, and it’s safe to say that most of today’s small farmers and even some larger ones raise animals humanely. These few, at least, are treated with as much respect as the law believes we should treat a hamster.

For the majority of non-pets, though, it’s tough luck.

***

Thanks to Audrey for pointing out this piece in class.

Incremental Approach to Ending Animal Exploitation

Dara Lovitz’s talk confirmed for me that movement towards humane treatment of animals will only come in small increments. Our country is very entrenched in its current ideology that animals, especially farm animals, are meant for human use. The majority of Americans have ingrained views and customs concerning the consumption of meat. I do as well, although this class has led me to reconsider my actions and beliefs. Given the majority opinion radical change will not likely take place. Small changes which are more humane, but not completely humane and far from ideal, must take place first before humane treatment is reached for all animals. Dara’s discussion of Prop 2 which removed some inhumane conditions for calves and hens still left these animals in only minimally more humane conditions. Still, this is a small victory for advocates of animal rights law. However, it is a small increment in the right direction and next hopefully another small increment of success will build off of it. Eventually, I think these increments will build up until all animals are treated humanely in the United States.

The idea of incremental success reminded me of our readings on animal law. Tom Regan points out the difference between immediatists and gradualists. Gradualists believe in, “making the lives of some animals better today and in ending all animal exploitation in the future” (617). I agree with this stance. While it would be better to erase animal exploitation, it does not seem like a realistic goal in the short term. However, over the long term with small victories it does seem possible. Also, Peter Singer’s approach based off of Henry Spira’s ideas towards creating change in the treatment of animals makes sense to me as well. He advocates making changes that the public is ready for, which means choosing the goals which are the most likely to be met. By picking goals which few people would agree with are going to hit a brick wall. Goals which people outside the animal rights community could be persuaded to support will be met faster and gain momentum for the movement. For instance, I think persuading people to support changes in animal welfare laws to include pet stores may be a reasonable short term goal, however it does not solve the problem of persuading people to adopt shelter animals rather than buying an animal at pet store. Inhumane activities would continue, but the lives of some animals would be made better. This makes me think that small increments are worth fighting for.

Animal law's contradictions

Dara Lovitz raised some really important issues in her presentation on animal law on Wednesday. I have always been frustrated by the loopholes in animal law. It's great that some legislators have good intentions toward animals, but good intention is not enough. What animals need is action. Because it is so difficult for any type of wide-scale change to happen in today's society, governments figure they will make small changes bit by bit in order to accustom industries to new rules and regulations (not to mention the fact that these industries are trying to fight changes in regulations and such). And although there is no easy way to create a sudden and seamless rule change, politicians aren't acting quickly enough to end the mistreatment of animals that happens every day. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a solution to this problem. The most important thing to do is raise awareness of the problem. I would like to focus for a moment on the factory farming industry.

Factory farming, as one of the biggest polluters in the US and biggest industry/trade that employs animals, is a huge deal. And yet, the industry lobbies so hard in Congress that the issue has really only 'leaked' to the public through animal rescue organizations. I am a firm believer in the idea that the government doesn't always tell us what's up, and this is a great example of that issue. What the American public needs is education. If the US could be educated on a large scale about where exactly their food comes from, we'd be set--so many people would be outraged and the industry would fall into a deep slump, and, hopefully, completely fail. Of course, it's not as easy as that, but that is the general idea. The same goes for pet abuse and adoption: so many people choose not to adopt because they don't "trust" shelter pets. But people who say this are really being ignorant.

So the main idea I'm trying to get out is just one word: educate. It starts on an individual scale, so we should take advantage of every opportunity we have to educate, inform, and hopefully succeed.

Dara Lovitz Presentation - Mary Penxa

I found Dara's presentation moving on several accounts. First and foremost I felt the way she set up her powerpoint was highly successful in getting across the message. Since I am studying to be in the education field, I always like to see how other people structure their presentations. I felt her positive vs negative approach to the same issues really helped to show how even though strides are being made in a positive direction, there is certainly a long long way to go.

Some of the pictures were hard to look at, but I feel that ignorance is what a lot of people try to hide behind when it comes to the "it's not my animal - it's not my problem" type of view. I believe if more people saw some of the horrible things that animals actually go through in these cruel situations, they would be far less likely to just pass off the issues as "no big deal".

Her presentation really made me think about how working for animal justice is such a hard thing to do. While you are working for such a wonderful thing, it sometimes always feels like no matter what you do, there are still obstacles. I can really relate to that in my experience in volunteering at the SPCA. I love volunteering there and it really gives me so much joy helping these dogs out. But I can't lie a lot of times it makes me feel extremely sad to. Like no matter how many dogs I walk, there are still some who haven't been able to get outside all day. And no matter how hard I try wonderful dogs are still being put down.

Her presentation really reiterated the fact that we sometimes can feel helpless in these matters. But it also showed that when people ban together that changes can be made. That's what keeps me coming back to the shelter every time. Knowing there is a dog who maybe had just a little better of a day because of me.

While it's easy to feel helpless and like the problem is outside of us, Dara's presentation really hit home that the only way it even begins to get better, is if we keep trying despite this.

-Mary Penxa

Animal law's ups and mostly downs

Having seen Dara Lovitz speak earlier this year at Grindcore House, and having read some of Muzzling a Movement, it was really special to have her come to our very own intimate classroom setting and speak directly to us about her opinions regarding animal law. When I saw her at Grindcore, I came a bit late and it was sort of hard to put where the discussion was in context or emerge myself into the conversation. I wish our class had more time at the end of her presentation to discuss what the food and pet industries do to animals and how animal activists are restricted and oppressed by the government. BUT, within our limited class time, I still felt she covered a lot of good bases.

For example, I was happy she mentioned "Prop 2" as it is quite an advancement for animal rights, yet very contradictory because despite how much "more humane" the slaughter system is made- until animals are no longer produced in factories for human purposes. Furthermore, "Prop 2" still denies animals the right to socialize or live out their lives naturally. Violence and suffering surrounds most domesticated animals at at least one point during their often short lives. So therefore, Animal Law is not successful in "protecting animals" which is it's inherent purpose.

I am also glad that Dara discussed how guardianship and vetrinary malpractice is different because animals are still considered objects, not individuals nor family members. I feel like issues in which monetary value is relayed to the owners of pets, (such as in cases of tainted pet food recalls, malpractice, etc), animals are only further objectivied, which sends me into a nihilistic bad mood- similar to how "GOOD" organizations such as the SPCA makes me feel.

For now, we will have to be patient as Animal law slowly advances and we hopefully head towards a less violent and more open-minded society.

The inevitability of utilitarianism

I was really interested in Dara Lovitz's discussion with us on Animal Law. I've always had an interest in politics and government, and I enjoyed hearing about animal issues from a legal point of view.

Wednesday's talk reminded me of the insanely slow and difficult process of government. It is always a uphill battle to voice your opinion and a struggle to make any kinds of serious reform. The fact that Prop 2 had finally passed is a great achievement in and of itself, though of course, the terms were not as stringent as most activists would have liked.

Reflecting on these issues of concern reminded me of the conflict between rights activists and utilitarian activists.

When I read the articles out of our Animal Ethics book, there are many times when it's easy for me to say, "we have to focus on the individual animals and not group them all together and assume the same details for each and every one." In an idealistic way, I completely understand rights activists and support them. But listening to Dara speak reminded me of how inevitable utilitarianism is. In government, there are rarely individuals. Each member of congress, every judge, every mayor... they all speak for more than themselves. They represent our country, and make our decisions for us. While we know our president by name, his actions do more than represent himself, they represent our country.

So it stands to reason that since it is impossible to have individual human animals represented in government, that is it impossible to have individual nonhuman animals represented in government as well. While this makes it harder for rights activists to get their points across, it is the only way our country can function without becoming a collective anarchy.

I am not saying this to dishearten or look down on rights activists. They believe strongly in what they do and hold to their values, which is highly commendable. But I do think that understanding the intricacies and inevitabilities our of government could strongly help them in finding a louder voice.