Professional advocacy now congratulates itself for its hands-on manipulation of animal fertility. It’s a false anti-cruelty position that strives to replace guns, arrows and traps with high-tech animal removal. What gives anyone the right to impose birth control on untamed animals? What gives career advocates that right?
A young crocodile who utters a distress call will bring immediate help from completely unrelated adult crocodiles, even if it means risking their lives…Obviously this altruism does not extend to us. Saltwater crocodiles kill approximately one person every year in Australia. The same is true, more or less, in North America, where between 2000 and 2010, the American alligator killed thirteen people. In sub-Saharan Africa, however, it is believed that the Nile crocodile kills hundreds (possibly thousands) of people each year.
We are not prey for most supreme predators, but we are for crocodiles it would seem. They happily consume us.
Read the full post and wish Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson a happy birthday here! (Birthday is the 28th; post timed to catch it in the New Zealand time zone.)
Banner photo from:
Veganism is about, primarily, non-exploitation. Making it about the animals is like making feminism about the females. Not only does it maintain and enforce the separation and hierarchy of us and them – it creates a victim group, leaving little room for a perception of the true nature of anyone involved.
– Meg Graney
Thank you, Meg, for that thought for today, and…happy birthday!
Wayne Pacelle, CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, explained: “It’s part of my commitment, and that of The HSUS, to integrate – or to reintegrate – other voices and perspectives within the humane movement.”
This is the same Barrett Duke who warned Baptist Press readers:
“If the radical homosexual agenda is codified into law our own government will be arrayed against us and our struggle to protect our religious freedom. We can fight this battle now or we can fight it later, but we are going to fight this battle.”
The full article, including historical commentary by editor Merritt Clifton on notable animal-protection proponents whose social lives would not win Duke’s approval, appears here.
Banner image: detail from photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
An Abolitionist View of Pets
By guest blogger Chris Kelly
For decades we’ve heard slogans such as “Animals are not ours to use…” We hear proclamations of anti-fur, labs, meat, zoos, etc. We rarely hear those individuals and advocacy groups proclaim opposition to pets…
Not just to puppy mills and abuse, but to the Frankensteinish manipulation of animals for the most frivolous of human-benefit reasons. I believe the large AR organizations have very specific reasons for avoiding this subject, and it has to do with donations – pet ownership is the “third rail” when it comes to fundraising. Forget animal humane-use/husbandry organizations (operating under the general term of welfare), as they are deeply entrenched in the pet status quo, some large ones even connected with breed activities.
People spend an incalculable amount of time and money fostering and rescuing pets in an attempt to alleviate suffering. Celebrities spend lifetimes begging people to neuter pets, we build bigger shelters, and we throw money at the horrors created by the pet mentality.
It’s easy to understand why many of us have large nonhuman animal families in our homes – we need to do something, if only by opening our arms and homes.
I think the vegan community needs to shine a light on the basic wrongness of the pet mentality. We need to acknowledge human responsibility to care for the animals we made dependent, while providing a path for phasing out pets. Webster defines respect (noun) as follows: “a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way.” Pet keeping means total control over other beings, from conception to death – no room for respect there.
And, users are very adept at justifying their own practices citing regulations governing other users (example: Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), allowing religious animal sacrifice after comparing it with allowed slaughter practices, pest control, and pound deaths). I doubt we will ever see any changes in line with abolitionist principles in labs, meat, and other user areas until pet fanciers realize their own complicity in the suffering which is domestication, starting in their own back yards. Perhaps we need to start a nonprofit focused on changing “animal lovers” into animal respecters.
Chris Kelly has worked with numerous shelters and sanctuaries, including in the processes of writing by-laws and hiring, and as a media spokesperson. Chris has served on animal-rights discussion panels and managed online discussion groups, and organized protests. Vegan for 31 years, Chris self-identifies as an abolitionist.
The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus just announced plans to phase out elephant acts from its performances by 2018. The Associated Press broke the news.
Don’t miss the bottom paragraph. The people in charge of the largest group of elephants in North America say the 43 will be “retired” near Orlando’s tourist attractions, so the elephants, in addition to being available for elephant researchers, are slated ultimately for public display. Swapping the circus for a zoo is no bargain.
I hope the elephants are indeed let out of these degrading shows. I have been moved to protest — alone, when I could find no companions — by the sight of elephants paraded through downtown Baltimore, right past the law school. And while I’m sure it’ll come as a relief to the elephants to be spared the street parades, the amplifiers and the acrobatics under the stage lights, that relief does not address the fundamental fairness issue. On whose terms will the elephants live — ours or theirs? Other questions are all details springing from the root injustice, which involves a group of officious primates maintaining supremacy over their lives, bodies, histories, and all of their daily affairs.
Last month, I read the news that Ringling Bros. introduced its “Xtreme Camel Act” with Mongolian camel stunt riders. That tells us, loud and clear, how little this business comprehends or cares about the harm it does.
Industry groups such as the American Pit Bull Foundation are out to vaunt the public image of these dogs, and “promote responsible breed ownership through providing owner and public education.” Why should animal advocates buttress their exploitive, deadly position?
Full article at CounterPunch today.