People Making a Difference: Fighting the Good Fight in Australia Against Live Animal Exports

Australian animal rights activists are fighting a vital and urgent struggle against the export of live animals to foreign countries. Each year, Australia - the largest exporter of live animals in the world - sends millions of animals, mainly sheep and cattle, overseas. As the outstanding website Animals Australia notes:

Australia exports millions of cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, deer and camels around the world for slaughter and (to a lesser extent) breeding. The vast majority go by sea in journeys that last up to 3 weeks. These long haul journeys cause stress, injuries, illnesses and disease, and tens of thousands of animals (mainly sheep) die each year. After the stress of transportation, all the surviving animals face death on foreign soil, most in countries which have no animal welfare laws or, at best, inadequate laws. They will almost all be killed without pre-stunning and often without adequate restraint facilities. The result is inherent and on-going suffering. (Source)

Animals Australia is leading the struggle against this inhumane and barbaric treatment of animals. An Australian friend of mine on Facebook was kind enough to post photos of animals being exported alive and believe me, these images are absolutely heartbreaking. In 2008 alone, 35,000 sheep died en route to foreign countries. Those who live to reach their destinations often encounter the worst, most miserable conditions imaginable in countries throughout Asia and the Middle East. These countries have no laws to safeguard the animals from cruelty and horrible conditions.

Our Australian brothers and sisters in the global animal rights struggle are fighting to change this. They are circulating online petitions, engaged in letter-writing campaigns, meeting with MPs to register their disapproval, and staging demonstrations against companies that export animals.

Half of the struggle is making people aware of this barbarism. As I've said so many times in this Blog of mine, the human capacity for denial is our worst enemy. If the world sees these horrifying images, there might be some hope of bringing about change. Australians need our support in their brave efforts to stop this ghastly practice. I have posted a video (below) about the exporting of animals to the Middle East, including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, where the animals are treated in the worst ways imaginable. Please watch it if you get a chance, although I warn you: It is difficult to watch.

The live exporting of animals is yet another manifestation of the deplorable treatment of animals by human beings. I can't imagine a nobler crusade than the fight to end this massive crime against beings that feel so many of the same feelings that we humans feel.

Hallelujah! Decent Vegan Ice "Cream" Has Arrived!

Did you hear the latest on the vegan food front? There is a new vegan ice cream store in Los Angeles called Kind Cream. (Source) Apparently, they have a great selection of dairy-free vegan ice creams. An L.A. vegan Blogger reports: "I had the Mint Chocolate Chip with hot fudge and it was pretty yummy." Some vegans are up in arms because a few of the Kind Cream flavours are made with honey. Which prompted the aforementioned vegan Blogger to lament that "the vegan world is full of just as many whiney assholes as every other facet of society." That's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I'm just thrilled to hear that there's a decent kind of vegan ice cream out there. Most of the non-dairy ice creams I've tasted up till now suck. We can only hope that Kind Cream spreads across North America like wildfire.

The Hidden Toll of Euthanasia

I've used this Blog to comment countless times on euthanasia at animal shelters. I have also written a newspaper column in the Waterloo Region Record about the subject. It is a complex topic and I've celebrated the men and women who euthanize the animals as genuinely humane people who are doing the difficult work that much of the rest of society prefers to ignore.

These debates are raging at the Toronto Humane Society, where a shake-up of the leadership last year led to the ouster of the organization's president because of his steadfast resistance to euthanasia (as well as some financial problems that plagued the Toronto Humane Society under his leadership). Please read my column above if you wish to understand the controversy.

Recently, the Ontario SPCA quietly moved to euthanize about 350 animals - mostly dogs and cats. They euthanized about 99 before triggering heated anti-euthanasia protests. (Source) I almost always support nonviolent protests for animal rights, which the protests in Toronto have been. But on the issue of euthanasia and animals, it is also important to hold the public's feet to the fire. Too often, the public is let off the hook. We never want to castigate ordinary men and women; we prefer to look to higher places for sources of our social problems.

But much of the blame for the current crisis - and it isn't just in Toronto... animal euthanasia is a big issue in cities across North America - rests with mass public irresponsibility. Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Sa wrote an excellent column last week titled "People are the reason so many animals are in need." Check it out, if you get a chance. She says just what I'm saying.

Sa points out that people are doing a poor job of making sure their dogs and cats are properly spayed and neutered. And because we live in a throw-away society, too many people abandon their pets at local animal shelters with a "Somebody else will take care of the problem" attitude.

It doesn't help matters that most people are content to ignore the suffering in animal shelters that creates an Assembly Line Euthanasia situation. Just like most people don't want to know what goes on inside of a factory farm. They just want their pork, beef, chicken, etc., without knowing a single thing about the animals who undergo trauma, pain and ultimately violent death to furnish that meat. Just give us the meat - End of Story.

But it's not the end of the story for animals. Far from it. And until this dominant attitude changes - and believe me, it is dominant - animals will continue to suffer. Not just by the thousands. Not just by the millions. By the billions.

Denial, along with throw-away consumer culture, is the worst enemy of animals. And the ability of human beings to live in a state of denial, no matter how awful things get out there in the larger world, is profoundly unsettling.

Those of us who embrace a solidly Pro-Life Philosophy owe it to our nonhuman animal friends to shatter the veil of denial wherever it rears its ugly head. Once again, humans are failing animals. Once again, animals deserve much, much better.

Addendum: After posting the above Blog Post, a reader was kind enough to clarify that it was the Ontario SPCA, not the Toronto Humane Society, that pushed for the rapid euthanasia of animals. The Toronto Humane Society backed the protests against the rapid euthanasia. That section of the Blog Entry has been changed for the sake of accuracy, with my apologies for misstating the case. But the essence of the Blog Post, I think, remains correct. We humans need to take more responsibility for our animal companions.

Was Honest Abe an Animal Rights Advocate? I Don't Have Any Quarrel with Wesley Smith

Wesley Smith, one of the most astute critics of the animal rights movement - a man I respect, even if I don't see eye to eye with him on a number of issues - had an interesting Blog Entry today on Abraham Lincoln. Smith mentions a widely cited Lincoln quote that is featured on Yours Truly's Blog (on the right-hand side): "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of the whole human being."

Smith's conclusion? It is difficult - if not impossible - to find the quote in any of Lincoln's published speeches or correspondence.

I've seen the quote in numerous places, but I've never actually gone to the source to find it. Smith insists that Lincoln was not an animal rights advocate. His observations on Lincoln are worth quoting at length here:

Lincoln certainly had a soft heart for animals. He didn’t hunt big game and may not have hunted at all. He owned a dog named Fido in Springfield ... and a lapdog named Jip in the White House, as well as assorted cats. He saved a chick that had fallen out of its nest and once while riding with a friend, he doubled back to save a pig stuck in the mud, even though it meant he would be covered too. He gave what was probably the first presidential pardon to a turkey being fattened for Christmas dinner. But that wasn’t because he was worried about the life of the bird: His son Tad had named the turkey and made it his pet, and so Lincoln didn’t want to hurt his son.

But animal rights? No. He wore leather shoes and boots. He rode horses. He ate meat with relish. Besides, the core belief of “animal rights”–that humans and animals have equivalent moral worth–did not exist in the 19th Century in America, and indeed, would have been astounding and beyond the pale to Honest Abe–particularly given the difficulties of the time concerning the intrinsic equality of all humans.

I don't know of any trustworthy animal rights advocates who actually believe Lincoln was firmly in our camp. As a historian, I can vouch that Smith is right to point out that today's philosophy of animal rights - the insistence that nonhuman animal life deserves the same respect as human life - "did not exist in ... 19th Century America." In fact, the Animal Rights Movement as we know it today is largely a post-World War II phenomenon, even though it - like virtually all social movements - has historical antecedents.

We can point to pioneering animal rights activists and vegetarians (even borderline vegans) from earlier times in history - Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw - who embraced the vegetarian lifestyle and were amazingly pro-animal rights for their times.

Lincoln, as Smith points out, felt tremendous compassion toward animals, even if he didn't think they had rights similar to humans. I've read enough Lincoln to know that he often spoke of the welfare and well-being of animals, and there is a wonderful story toward the end of Jonathan Safran Foer's brilliant book Eating Animals about Lincoln stopping what he was doing to help some baby birds in trouble. Safran Foer, who for my money is the most brilliant critic out there of the factory farm system and the barbaric treatment of animals, points out in his book that Lincoln saw the birds needed help and could not ignore them.

I do not think - and never have thought - that Lincoln was an animal rights advocate, but I still incorporate his profound wisdom into my animal rights philosophy. As long as we're talking about people being the products of their times, Thomas Jefferson was not an advocate for racial equality, but no other political thinker has had a greater influence on me and his enlightenment humanism has helped me develop a position in support of racial equality. And Eleanor Roosevelt's views on human rights were sometimes narrow in scope and often shaped by the times in which she lived, but my love of human rights has always been directly inspired by her living example.

All of this is a way of saying that even important past figures whose political philosophies were shaped by the historical trends and dominant ways of thinking that existed during their lives can still be - and, in fact, often are - inspiring figures to those of us who are fighting the good fight today. To say Abraham Lincoln was not an animal rights advocate is to simply acknowledge the truth.

It is equally true to say that his integrity, goodness, homespun humor and unrelenting desire to do what was right, often against tremendous odds, remains a source of inspiration for those of us who are fighting for the rights of animals.

By the way, for what it's worth, I'm ordering Wesley Smith's A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, a book highly critical of the animal rights movement, because I am a firm believer that we should know the arguments of those who disagree with us. This helps us avoid dogma, transcend polarization, and create a dialogue between people with differing points of view. These - not shouting and polemics - are the foundations of a healthy democracy.

Kill One Pig and It's a Tragedy; Kill Millions and You're a Factory Farm Owner

Did you hear the one about the psychotic asshole who stabbed 29 pigs?

Earlier this month, 23-year-old Minnesotan Curtis Lee Adams (right) went on a drunken rampage through a pig farm and stabbed 29 of the unfortunate animals. The damage was severe enough that all of the victims had to be euthanized.

The police hauled Adams, who reeked of pig manure and urine, to jail, where he faced numerous charges, including one count of third-degree burglary, one count of first-degree damage to property, one count of cruelty to animals, two counts of driving while intoxicated and one count of illegally transporting a firearm in a vehicle.

The euthanized pigs were valued at $8,000. (Source)

There is a quote (actually, there are many, many variations of the quote) that is often attributed to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: "Kill one man and it's a tragedy; kill millions and it's a statistic." (I've also read it worded, "Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill millions and you're a conqueror.") I'm not sure which one Stalin actually said.

But when it comes to the treatment of pigs on factory farms, the sentiment certainly applies. Curtis Lee Adams will undoubtedly be hauled off for mental evaluations and no doubt the psychologists will wonder what horrors he is capable of if he could brutally stab 29 pigs.

Meantime, the factory farm owners will go on killing billions of animals per year, behind walls so the public can't see the horrors within. And the meat of these poor animals will be packaged in styrofoam and shrink wrap and sent to bright, sterile grocery stores that play easy listening music all the time.

Maybe one day Curtis Lee Adams will one day get his shit together and become a factory farm owner. He'd be good at it.

Mandatory Reading: "What's a Dog Worth?" in Los Angeles magazine - investigative journalism at its best

The recent issue of Los Angeles Magazine featured one of the best articles on life for dogs and cats inside of animal shelters that I've ever read. The article, called "What's a Dog Worth?" by Jesse Katz, was an amazing piece of investigative reporting. Warning: It is not for the squeamish of faint of heart. That's because the article takes you right into the middle of the packed Los Angeles animal shelters. A quote freak at the start of the article sets the tone: "Los Angeles kills more animals in its shelters than any other metropolitan area in the United States. For that to change, we will have to figure out what to do with the pets none of us want."

This article should be mandatory reading for every adult in North America. It is uncompromising. It is beautifully written. It is profoundly tragic. The author, Jesse Katz, introduces us a brave and kind-hearted Latino euthanasiast named Javier Lopez, who comes from a working-class East L.A. household. Lopez is the true hero of this story - a man who loves animals so much that he is willing to lovingly administer the substance that will take the life out of their bodies.

Lopez has his work cut out for him. Author Katz gives us a sense early in the story of what Lopez is up against:

The animal control agencies of L.A., including those of the city, the county, and two dozen smaller municipalities, put to death 104,841 animals last year, more than any other metropolitan area in the United States. About 35,000 of them were dogs, 55,000 were cats, and the rest a miscellany of rabbits, roosters, snakes, and guinea pigs. That is the good news. For decades the number has been so outlandish—250,000 a year in the 1970s, 150,000 a year in the ’80s, 125,000 in the ’90s—that even a decline this monumental somehow feels hollow. In 35 years Los Angeles has exterminated more than 5 million animals. The toll is at once appalling and abstract. “I call it every community’s dirty little secret,” says Ed Boks, the new chief of the city’s animal shelters.

It is a heartbreaking story - long, yet gripping and ultimately full of despair. I almost stopped reading it, for the same reason I almost couldn't watch the documentary Death on a Factory Farm. It upset me. It shook me up. It left me sad and hopeless. But you know what? That's a good thing. Because it is only by being shaken up in such a fashion that we come to terms with the tragedy of what is happening around us and then maybe - just maybe - we find the courage within ourselves to do what little we can (and believe me, it ain't much) to change the system for the better.

Please, please read this story. I can't say you'll be "glad" you did. But you will be enlightened and you'll have a better grasp of what, exactly, is at stake. There is a lot of work to be done. The animals are worth it, though.

Now Mike Tyson is on our side! Don't mess with Vegans!

Mike Tyson is now a vegan. You heard right! The Mike Tyson. A headline on the Vegetarian Star website pretty much said it all: "Mike Tyson Vegan - Won't Bite Human or Animal Ears." (Of course, that's a joking reference to when Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear in an infamous boxing match on June 28, 1997.)

In addition to being a vegan, Tyson insists he has "no drama" in his life at the moment. Tyson stars in a "reality" series on Animal Planet in which he races pigeons (!). (Source) I've never actually seen it, but maybe working with the pigeons had an influence on the boxing legend. Who knows? Tyson insists his first ever fight was in defense of birds when he was a young boy. (Source) Good for him! It's refreshing to know that we vegan/animal rights types have such a tough guy on our side.

Welcome to our side, Mike! We can use all the support we can get!

Words of Wisdom from Joan Jett

"If there's anything I love more than rock and roll, it's animals. And when I learned how animals on factory farms are treated, I gave beef the boot and stopped eating pigs, chickens, and fish too. Cutting meat out of your diet is the best thing you can do for animals and your own health."

Early Signs of the Devastation on the Gulf Coast

According to The Los Angeles Times, the carcasses of 23 sea turtles have been found along Mississippi's Gulf Coast. The heartbreaking picture on the right is one of those dead sea turtles.

The L.A. Times also cites an Associated Press report of dead turtles found along the beaches of Texas.

If there is a silver lining in this dark cloud, it is that the media are really doing their job. Some of the best investigative reporting I've seen in recent weeks has been coming from the Gulf Coast of the United States.

The right-wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh managed to piss of a lot of liberals when he suggested that environmentalists were behind this oil spill. (Source) It was dimwitted Limbaugh at his worst - or is it his best? Hard to say. His comments, as usual, are so inane that they defy any sane response. Best to let Nikki Gloudeman of one of my favorite websites, Change.org, have the last say:

He's been spouting anti-environment rhetoric for so long, the Environmental Defense Fund issued a report on errors in his eco-attacks back in 1994. More recently, he hyped coal and overconsumption on Earth Day and said he hoped New York Times environment reporter Andrew Revkin would "kill himself."

The question is: Do these attacks matter? Have they mattered?

In one way, it feels silly to turn Limbaugh's eco-outbursts into news. He says offensive things about different people all the time, so it's hardly shocking. But on a deeper level, his words reveal a sad truth about conservatism and environmentalism; that in some cases, the antagonistic relationship is reactionary rather than ideological.

Do Documentaries Violate the Privacy of Animals?

Dr. Brett Mills at the University of East Anglia in the UK makes an interesting argument. He insists that wildlife documentaries violate the privacy of animals. Mills, who is based in the university's Film and Television Department, believes that it is not "fair game" to film animals in their natural habitat. "We see it as unethical and wrong to secretly film people - we say it's not allowed," he says. The same rule, he thinks, should apply to animals. "The question constantly posed by wildlife documentaries is how animals should be filmed; they never ask whether animals should be filmed at all." (Source)

I have mixed feelings about Mills' position. I partially agree with him and partially don't. Animals should have the right to privacy, just as they should have a host of other rights that are systematically denied to them by human beings. He won't get much of an argument from me on that point. But wildlife documentaries serve an important function. To the degree that we empathize with animals, often it has to do with these wildlife films we've watched at various points in our lives that help us to understand the behavior and lives of animals. Moreover, with all the ghastly things being done to animals in the world today on a mass scale - within the walls of the factory farm system, by the fur and leather industries, by animal abusers, by large fish farming enterprises, etc. - the act of simply filming animals seems downright innocuous by comparison.

When the majority human beings reach a stage in their development that they empathize with all animals (not just dogs and cats) on a deeper level - or maybe I should say, if human beings reach that stage - then we can talk about whether we want to cease making these types of films and enact laws to protect the privacy of animals. But with all of the horrors being committed against animals in the world today, halting the filming of wildlife documentaries ought to be considered a low priority for animal advocates everywhere.