NEWSLIVING WITH ANIMALS

I don't always agree with Nathan Winograd, well-known No Kill advocate and author of Redemption; that is, I don't universally agree with every conclusion he comes to or with his assessments of people's motives. But I often do agree with his observations, and his arguments are as worthy of considerations as anyone else's. That said, Winograd's messages don't receive circulation as widespread as the messages of his detractors and those he challenges, in no small part because his powerful counterparts in these conversations have larger platforms, greater resources, and the ability to just refuse to directly answer his (and others') most challenging arguments.

So this is my small contribution toward (and only "toward" because this platform doesn't have nearly the reach of those over whom Winograd is competing to be heard either) leveling the playing field. I will not say much. I will let Winograd's posts speak for themselves. What I will say is this: We don't bestow sainthood on corporations, and putting blind faith in large nonprofits that more or less function as corporations, complete with some of the tactics and self-interest that make us so wary of corporations and their "truths" and intentions, is dangerous. Assuming that those in positions of power and influence are always honest and open and selfless in their intentions is unwise -- and a disservice to our fellow animals.

When we realize that situations, organizations, and people aren't entirely what we thought, that can be not only troubling but even devastating -- I've been there -- but hearing and considering all sides of the argument, even those that challenge what we support, is vital if our loyalty is to our fellow animals. And our loyalty should be to our fellow animals, not to organizations or prominent figures or what-we-want-to-believe. Seeing the good in organizations does not mean (or excuse) ignoring or burying the bad.

Finally, to Winograd, who in these posts covers some issues that deserve to be covered and that have angered me and many others as much as they have infuriated Winograd, even if most people are hesitant to speak out and say that. Winograd is not hesitant to say it.

Betrayal & Deceit at the Humane Society of the United States

Going Rogue

First, we had the oh-so-funny remarks from Chris Rock and Jay Leno dismissing the torture and killing of pit bulls as not so bad because they're not, according to Rock, "real dogs." And now we have "killer pit bull" obnoxiousness from David Letterman.

Actress Kyra Sedgwick was on Letterman's program Friday night and brought up the pit bull puppy she and husband Kevin Bacon have adopted -- "She was left outside Yankee Stadium - really, she was left for dead," Sedgwick said. And Letterman used the opportunity to perpetuate the hurtful and totally incorrect notion of pit bulls as bloodthirsty timebombs. While Sedgwick kept good-naturedly interjecting that this is a myth, and they're actually very sweet dogs who've gotten an undeserved bad rap, Letterman continued, in seemingly only half-joking fashion, with his insistence that they're inherently dangerous creatures who daily chew people's faces off.

Alternate title: Government Gives Finger to Prairie Dogs, High-Fives Animal Ag

Winter holidays are upon us, so what gift is the government willing to give the dwindling population of prairie dogs? Plenty of poisons that ravage their bodies and cause them horrible deaths, but no endangered species protections, officials ruled yesterday. And why the barbaric killing and the refusal of protections? People's demand for flesh, dairy, leather, and wool. If your initial reaction to this is confusion, don't worry -- it gets worse.

When I first went vegan, I experienced the same revelations that a number of people experience once they begin investigating animal rights issues in depth. I was blown away to learn just how much everything is tied together -- and just how much the vast majority of us simply don't know about the far-reaching effects (and influence) of animal agriculture, all animal agriculture, not just so-called factory farming. And one of the many areas where animal agriculture -- for meat, dairy, wool, leather, and so on -- is the bully asserting its power and causing destruction is the habitat and very lives of wildlife, or free-living animals.

I'm sending you elsewhere this afternoon. First, to my friend over at For the Pit Bulls. She has written a post that is in part a response to the TIME article that I recently read as well, which asks, "Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?" Regardless of whether you read that article, do at least read my pal's response. It choked me up. But I am glad I read it. And it deserves to be read. (One point I'd add relates to the flaws in the TIME article, one of which was the writer's insistence on referring to individual dogs as "it" rather than "he" or "she." That's a topic that's long deserved a post all of its own.)

Then, mosey on over to Green Is the New Red. Will has a post up about yet another laughable-if-it-weren't-so-scary development in the government's and industries' infuriating characterization of (and efforts to intimidate and criminalize) the animal rights movement. Are you ready? PETA has now been listed by the USDA as a "terrorist" threat. Whatever you think of PETA, its tactics, and its positions, the idea of it as "terrorist" group is off-the-charts ridiculous. Read more from Will here. Seems we just can't get enough Green Scare- and AETA-related news these days.

---
Photo (mine) shows Mabel the pit bull looking back at me with her break-my-heart "I want to plaaaay" expression as she watches the dogs next door play with each other -- and with the toy she wants.

Last night, CBS aired the Hallmark holiday special A Dog Named Christmas. I wasn't holding out naive hope for a vegan message, but I was crossing my fingers that the movie would be more consistently pro-animal than most and at least wouldn't include some of what it did. It was a dog-friendly film, absolutely. A film with wildlife-friendly moments, sure. But the movie's dialogue pushed inaccurate notions of farmed animals and a view of them as lesser animals. The film doesn't just advocate for dogs; it advocates for dogs by elevating them above other animals, by categorizing other animals as less special than dogs.

The movie is just one more example of the frustrating way animal issues tend to play out in mainstream conversations. Too often, when a venue or vehicle has the potential to be positive for all animals, it falls far short and often reinforces the very perspectives that hurt our society's most exploited animals. Advocacy for the animals with whom we already feel kinship is easy and sometimes even profitable; real advocacy for -- or even honesty about -- animals most would rather eat than advocate for is still something that consistent animal advocates have a difficult time getting mainstream media, traditional and new, to support or even pay significant attention to.

But let's move back to this movie specifically:

As you may have heard by now, the operators of Dairyland Greyhound Park in Wisconsin recently announced that the year's end will also bring the end of racing at the track, the last greyhound racing track in that state. The exploitative practice just isn't profitable anymore, as state after state is discovering.

Many of the greyhounds, unfortunately, will be shipped off to other tracks in other states -- reportedly, 25 to 30 percent of the 850-900 dogs will continue to be used and endangered elsewhere -- but the others will head for adoptive homes, via rescues across the country (including the local Greyhound Pets of America - Wisconsin).

It should be noted that greyhound racing isn't being banned in Wisconsin -- it's just being effectively ended. But whether individual states outright ban racing or tracks in those states disappear because they can't turn a profit, it's good news every time another state gets out of the business of breeding, confining, endangering, and killing greyhounds. As always, to stay up-to-date on campaigns to help greyhounds and end greyhound racing, sign up for alerts from GREY2K USA.

---
Photo (mine) is of Ella the rescued racer, playing with her beloved stuffed frog.

One dog, one cat, three chickens -- all were found beheaded in Philadelphia late last week. The AP's brief account of the discovery mentioned only the dog and cat in its intro, the chickens coming up only a few sentences later as having been found "along with" the more important victims. But it's not just the media establishing who the important victims were. The director of investigations for the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals noted that animal sacrifices often increase around this time of year because of religious holidays, but he didn't stop there.

Most sacrifices involve goats or chickens, he noted, and here's the kicker, courtesy of the Philadelphia Daily News:

I somehow didn't know the story of Oreo, the 1-year-old pit bull or pit bull mix who was repeatedly abused before being thrown off the roof of a 6-story building this summer, until today -- when I read about what happened to her yesterday: though she survived the traumatic fall that broke her two front legs and more and was physically recovering, she was killed yesterday by the ASPCA, which insisted that she was too aggressive to be adopted. The ASPCA told reporters that as she began healing from her injuries, she simultaneously began showing aggression -- "growling, lunging and trying to bite people who came too close." To her reactions, I say, big surprise. And to how long the ASPCA gave her to recover, I say, meet Mabel.

This morning, I learned for the first time of the Service Dogs for Veterans Act, a bill cosponsored by Senator Al Franken and described by OpenCongress.org as "a bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, and for other purposes." A related provision was recently passed as part of the Defense Authorization Bill.

The details aren't terribly clear -- I've seen variations from place to place -- but a Minnesota Public Radio report summarized it thus: "The Veterans Administration would develop partnerships with organizations that provide disabled veterans with service dogs." Other sources have indicated that the "effectiveness" of the program will be studied, with possible expansion to come. One dog blog post, published a couple months before the legislation passed, indicated that "half the service dogs will be for veterans with mental health disabilities and the other half will help those with physical disabilities," but I haven't been able to determine yet whether those specifics and others made it into the final legislation.

The issue of nonhuman animals, dogs in most cases, as "service" animals for humans is not a black-and-white one in the animal rights community. On one hand, it can be argued that using animals in this way is just that -- using them and further building on our view of them as tools. On the other hand is the common argument that the dogs can benefit from the relationship as well and can be well loved and cared for, just as they would be in a home in which they're not also service-providers.

I've got good news -- at least if you're a domestic cat in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and some other California cities, that is. But there's no shortage of bad (and baffling) news too, on the very same front. First, the good: last night, San Francisco's proposed ban on declawing cats won 9 out of 11 votes from the city's supervisors; on Monday, the Public Safety Committee of the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ask City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to draft an ordinance banning the practice; and in late October, the Santa Monica City Council passed a ban.

But the United States and Canada overall are still embarrasingly behind other countries in this area, and despite progress in California, a veterinary "welfare" organization in the state just managed to pass a law that will make it illegal for municipalities to pass any further such bans as of January 2010. The people behind the bans? Actual advocates for cats. The people behind the law to stop the bans? The California Veterinary Medical Association, a chip off the good ol' un-animal-friendly American Veterinary Medical Association block.