Animals are in the news every week, and indeed, not a day goes by when a Google News search for the term “animal” does not bring up multiple hits: dog fighting rings busted, another hoarder found with dozens or hundreds of animals, a handful of animal abuse or neglect cases making their slow way through the court system, and happier stories of animal heroes, events benefiting animals, and people who have dedicated their lives to saving animals.
But non-human animals can also be found hidden in the margins of the rest of the news. Even when they’re not included in the news stories, they often have a stake in the news, are impacted by the news, or play a hidden role in the news.
For example, many news items appear daily regarding the continuing problems in the US economy, and how states and cities are struggling to balance their budgets in the face of declining tax revenue and a loss of federal support. We hear about the tough choices that governors, mayors and legislators are having to make, and the potential impact of those choices on people. Wages and benefits are being cut, as are social services, making it hard for many citizens already struggling to keep their heads above the poverty level.
But animals are also impacted by these budgetary cuts. As animal control agencies find their budgets slashed, they must make difficult choices too. Some agencies are electing to cut important services, such as picking up stray animals, or providing low-cost spay/neuter services, which will cause more animal suffering. And at the same time that these agencies are facing a loss of needed income, they have a greater burden on their hands, as more people abandon their animals because they can no longer afford to care for them. Each new foreclosure and layoff potentially can mean another animal ends up at the shelter.
In other news, the world has been watching the events unfold in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Iran with a mixture of wonder, concern and excitement. For many Westerners, the revolutions and unrest in these countries is a positive sign that the dictatorships that have long run many Middle Eastern countries may be coming to an end, hopefully to be replaced by democracies and human rights. Others are worried that with the end of these regimes, we may see more instability in this region, and possibly a rise in Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment.
But these political changes have impacted non-human animals as well. In Egypt, for example, animals like camels, donkeys and horses are starving to death, as the tourist industry has dried up and the animals’ owners could no longer feed them. Many other Egyptians have abandoned their companion animals, leading to greater numbers of dogs and cats on the streets, fending for themselves in the chaos. Even Egypt’s famed cats, so much a symbol of both ancient and modern Egypt, are suffering.
In Christchurch New Zealand, which was recently hit by a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, hundreds of people have died and the city is reeling; a week later, rescue crews are still locating survivors and finding dead bodies amidst the rubble. But while it is not covered in the international news, we know that wherever humans suffer, animals tend to suffer as well. So what of the missing and dead animals? Or the animals who are separated from their human loved ones, who are not allowed to return to the devastation of their homes until authorities declare the areas safe? Luckily, New Zealand has a well-developed network of animal charities working to save animals and reunite animals and humans after the disaster.
In my state of New Mexico, we were recently slammed by a record-breaking cold front which devastated the state and resulted in the loss of gas—and heat—to thousands of New Mexicans during the coldest week in decades. Luckily, no people died during this crisis. The news has not reported on whether any animals suffered from the cold, but given how many animals in New Mexico live outdoors—from horses and goats and cows to dogs and cats and rabbits—it is most likely the case that at least some animals froze to death. That was certainly the case with 35 animals who died in the cold at a zoo in northern Mexico in early February.
But my point is that our lives are intertwined, human and non-human, and our fates, good and bad, are similarly interconnected. Sometimes you have to read between the lines in the daily news, but if the news impacts more than a few people, it probably impacts more than a few animals as well.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Another holiday, another throw away animal
Another holiday, another excuse for throw-away animals.
For rabbit lovers, it was bad enough that Easter is the time of the year when uninformed families purchase pet rabbits to give to their children. Because of Easter’s long association with rabbits (which itself derives from the rabbit’s connection to the moon and association with rebirth and regeneration), the rabbit is the go-to animal to not only symbolize the holiday, but to purchase, in live form, as a gift for it.
Baby bunnies, as well as chicks and ducklings, are purchased at pet stores and feed stores every year as gifts, and every year, many of those same rabbits find themselves abandoned at animal shelters, or worse, in the wild. Those that aren’t often don’t survive because the purchasers were not planning to commit to these animals for their lifetimes.
February 3 marks the beginning of the Year of the Rabbit, which occurs once every twelve years in the Chinese Lunar Calendar, and is celebrated throughout Asia and among Asian communities everywhere. Communities around the world will hold festive celebrations, ushering out the Tiger and in the Rabbit.
The bad news is that because rabbits are considered especially auspicious during its special year, many people want to get rabbits to keep in the house during the year. Unfortunately, this will result (as it did in the last Year of the Rabbit, 1999) in countless rabbits being abandoned after the year is over.
Why are animals such intractable symbols for holidays such as this? I suppose on one level, rabbits should consider themselves lucky that they’re not turkeys. Turkeys famously represent Thanksgiving to Americans, commemorating a harvest feast held by American colonists in 1621. This symbolic association results in some forty-five million turkeys being raised and slaughtered every November.
But even without that wholesale slaughter, rabbits still do not fare well at Easter, and nor, evidently, do they fare well during the Year of the Rabbit. House Rabbit Society Singapore points out that during the last Year of the Rabbit, in 1999, over twice as many rabbits were abandoned at that nation’s shelters than in 1998. This year looks to be no different.
In addition, many Chinese restaurants are now offering rabbit-meat dishes to commemorate the New Year, leading to yet more suffering. In the United States, rabbits are not covered under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, so killing them is not regulated at all, and they are not stunned prior to death.
Going back to the ancient belief that a severed rabbit’s foot is “lucky,” rabbits who are considered to bring luck to people end up suffering in a myriad of ways.
It would be wonderful if one day we could create holidays with animals at their center where the animal was truly celebrated, rather than intensively bred, abandoned, or slaughtered.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Animal Sacrifice
In the United States, October is known for Halloween. Millions of kids and adults will dress up as their favorite monster or celebrity and go to parties and trick or treat.
But in India, Bangladesh and Nepal, October is known for festivals involving animal sacrifices on a massive scale. In Bangladesh and some parts of India, the festival of Dussehra involves the ritual slaughter of thousands of animals at temples in honor of the Hindu goddess Sati. During the festival of Durga Puja, in order to honor the goddess Durga, animals are also slaughtered at temples throughout India and Bangladesh. In most of India, animal sacrifice is illegal and authorities and animal welfare organizations have been working to convince locals to replace the animal sacrifice, known as bali, with other offerings like pumpkins, cucumbers and other foods.
But no festival in South Asia demands more animal lives be lost than Nepal’s festival of Dashain, which began on October 15 and runs for fifteen days. Each year, hundreds of thousands of animals are sacrificed for the goddess Durga. In temples around the country, thousands of water buffaloes, pigs, goats, chickens and ducks are killed in order to please the goddess and protect against evil. So many animals are needed that they need to be trucked in from India and Tibet; one news report said that 20 truckloads of buffaloes are arriving daily. In 2009, over a million animals lost their lives in this two week period. Another Nepalese event is the month-long Gadhimai festival, which occurs every five years in November and likewise involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of animals to the goddess Gadhimai, in order to end evil and bring prosperity. Gadhimai draws millions of attendees from both Nepal and India, who come because animal sacrifice is legal here.
In recent years, Nepalese animal rights organizations like Animal Welfare Network Nepal (AWNN) have been attempting to stop the sacrifices and substitute new activities for the celebrations, but have thus far been unable to sway public opinion. AWNN argues that animal sacrifice is not consistent with Hindu values, and that goddesses like Durga, who is a symbol of both power and motherly love, would not want animals to be slaughtered in their name.
Proponents of animal sacrifice in South Asia note that not only are these practices cultural traditions that date back thousands of years, but that the animals live better lives than the billions of animals who are raised and killed for food every year in Western factory farms. We could also add that Westerners’ distaste at practices like this stem in part from the very public, and very bloody, way in which the animals are killed. In the United States, animals are killed in slaughterhouses which very few of us will ever see, in conditions which are, for all intents and purposes, invisible. Their suffering is thus invisible, allowing us to conveniently ignore it. The killing of animals in India, Bangladesh and Nepal is, for sure, brutal (many of the animals are hacked to death and beheaded), but comparatively speaking, even a few hundred thousand animals who lose their lives this way (in countries where meat consumption is quite low) is relatively minor compared to the billions of animals who lose their lives every year in the US.
On the other hand, if local activists are ultimately successful in ending, or even minimizing, the slaughter in Nepal, as they appear to be in India, hundreds of thousands of animals per year will be saved. Then the spotlight will be even brighter on Americans, who so often take the moral high ground when it comes to the practices of other cultures, but whose own behaviors are hardly morally pure.
But in India, Bangladesh and Nepal, October is known for festivals involving animal sacrifices on a massive scale. In Bangladesh and some parts of India, the festival of Dussehra involves the ritual slaughter of thousands of animals at temples in honor of the Hindu goddess Sati. During the festival of Durga Puja, in order to honor the goddess Durga, animals are also slaughtered at temples throughout India and Bangladesh. In most of India, animal sacrifice is illegal and authorities and animal welfare organizations have been working to convince locals to replace the animal sacrifice, known as bali, with other offerings like pumpkins, cucumbers and other foods.
But no festival in South Asia demands more animal lives be lost than Nepal’s festival of Dashain, which began on October 15 and runs for fifteen days. Each year, hundreds of thousands of animals are sacrificed for the goddess Durga. In temples around the country, thousands of water buffaloes, pigs, goats, chickens and ducks are killed in order to please the goddess and protect against evil. So many animals are needed that they need to be trucked in from India and Tibet; one news report said that 20 truckloads of buffaloes are arriving daily. In 2009, over a million animals lost their lives in this two week period. Another Nepalese event is the month-long Gadhimai festival, which occurs every five years in November and likewise involves the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of animals to the goddess Gadhimai, in order to end evil and bring prosperity. Gadhimai draws millions of attendees from both Nepal and India, who come because animal sacrifice is legal here.
In recent years, Nepalese animal rights organizations like Animal Welfare Network Nepal (AWNN) have been attempting to stop the sacrifices and substitute new activities for the celebrations, but have thus far been unable to sway public opinion. AWNN argues that animal sacrifice is not consistent with Hindu values, and that goddesses like Durga, who is a symbol of both power and motherly love, would not want animals to be slaughtered in their name.
Proponents of animal sacrifice in South Asia note that not only are these practices cultural traditions that date back thousands of years, but that the animals live better lives than the billions of animals who are raised and killed for food every year in Western factory farms. We could also add that Westerners’ distaste at practices like this stem in part from the very public, and very bloody, way in which the animals are killed. In the United States, animals are killed in slaughterhouses which very few of us will ever see, in conditions which are, for all intents and purposes, invisible. Their suffering is thus invisible, allowing us to conveniently ignore it. The killing of animals in India, Bangladesh and Nepal is, for sure, brutal (many of the animals are hacked to death and beheaded), but comparatively speaking, even a few hundred thousand animals who lose their lives this way (in countries where meat consumption is quite low) is relatively minor compared to the billions of animals who lose their lives every year in the US.
On the other hand, if local activists are ultimately successful in ending, or even minimizing, the slaughter in Nepal, as they appear to be in India, hundreds of thousands of animals per year will be saved. Then the spotlight will be even brighter on Americans, who so often take the moral high ground when it comes to the practices of other cultures, but whose own behaviors are hardly morally pure.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Getting animals out of War Zones
In my Animals & Society class this semester, one of my students is a dog.
Actually, one of my students is a veteran of the Iraq war with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) who brings his psychiatric service dog, Rock, with him to class. Service dogs who assist veterans are able to help these men and women cope with problems like depression, anger, social isolation, nightmares, and panic attacks. Dogs like this protect the veteran from crowds and situations that might make them anxious. They provide a loving, calming presence to these people, can act as a social lubricant in social situations, allowing them to re-enter society, and turn on lights and check rooms to help their person feel safe.
This particular student has shared with me that his wife, also a veteran, has been fighting to bring her service dog home with her from the war. Many Americans don’t realize that dogs have long served with the American military—as guard dogs, to retrieve injured soldiers from the battlefield, as messengers, as scouts, as trackers, and, in recent wars, to detect mines.
Actually, one of my students is a veteran of the Iraq war with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) who brings his psychiatric service dog, Rock, with him to class. Service dogs who assist veterans are able to help these men and women cope with problems like depression, anger, social isolation, nightmares, and panic attacks. Dogs like this protect the veteran from crowds and situations that might make them anxious. They provide a loving, calming presence to these people, can act as a social lubricant in social situations, allowing them to re-enter society, and turn on lights and check rooms to help their person feel safe.
This particular student has shared with me that his wife, also a veteran, has been fighting to bring her service dog home with her from the war. Many Americans don’t realize that dogs have long served with the American military—as guard dogs, to retrieve injured soldiers from the battlefield, as messengers, as scouts, as trackers, and, in recent wars, to detect mines.
The life of a military dog is, as one might guess, very dangerous. There are no estimates for how many dogs have been killed or injured during war, but thousands have died in the Vietnam war alone. War is not only dangerous for dogs, but as for people, it is stressful. It is only in recent years that scientists recognize that dogs can be afflicted with post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).
Another very sad reality for military dogs is that since World War II, when surviving military dogs were able to return home after the end of the war, it has been American military policy to not allow war dogs to return to the United States. Instead, the dogs who served their countries, and saved the lives of American soldiers, have either been left on the battlefield or killed outright. At the end of the Vietnam War, most of the American military dogs were either killed or left for the South Vietnamese Army; many of those dogs were no doubt eaten. After years of public outrage, in 2000 legislation was passed to allow retired military dogs to return home, where they either live with the soldiers with whom they served, or can be adopted into new families.
Even with the new law, it is difficult for many soldiers to bring the dogs who they served with home with them. Many remain at war to serve with a new soldier after their previous handler has been discharged. For those that are allowed to retire, they are carefully evaluated for aggression or other temperament issues that would make the dogs dangerous at home, and are only placed with families (or law enforcement agencies) who understand the responsibilities of owning such unusual dogs. Adopters must also sign an agreement that absolves the US government of liability for damage or injury the dog may cause.
Many other soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan have befriended local dogs and cats, and on discharge from the military, have sought to bring those dogs home. Historically, this was impossible as the US military did not allow soldiers to bring home animals adopted from other countries, and in fact, often killed animals found wandering around US bases overseas. In recent years, though, animal protection organizations have rallied support and resources to allow soldiers to bring home animals that they’ve befriended.
The ASPCA International has a project called Operation Baghdad Pups which helps soldiers to bring animals home from Iraq, and a British-based organization, founded by a former soldier, Nowdaz, brings back dogs from Afghanistan and Iraq. (Nowzad also offers resources to help dogs, cats, horses and donkeys receive better treatment in Afghanistan.) These animals have provided comfort to soldiers during war, and most people agree that they should be allowed to come to the United States with their adopted soldiers. In addition, they often risk death or starvation if left behind, as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq currently has a culture that is very dog or cat friendly—especially when it comes to stray dogs or cats. Unfortunately, even with the US government permits the animals to come home, soldiers must fill out mountains of paperwork and must arrange for the dogs to be vaccinated and transported out of a war zone—which can cost thousands of dollars.
Projects like Operation Baghdad Pups and Nowzad recognize that the dogs and cats that the soldiers have found while at war not only helped them to cope with the traumas and anxieties of serving at war, but also can help the soldiers to reintegrate back into society when back home. And perhaps more importantly, they recognize that the soldier’s motto, “leave no one behind,” should extend to non-human animals as well.
To help get animals out of war zones, and into the families of the soldiers who love them, visit http://www.nowzad.com/ and www.spcai.org/baghdad-pups
Another very sad reality for military dogs is that since World War II, when surviving military dogs were able to return home after the end of the war, it has been American military policy to not allow war dogs to return to the United States. Instead, the dogs who served their countries, and saved the lives of American soldiers, have either been left on the battlefield or killed outright. At the end of the Vietnam War, most of the American military dogs were either killed or left for the South Vietnamese Army; many of those dogs were no doubt eaten. After years of public outrage, in 2000 legislation was passed to allow retired military dogs to return home, where they either live with the soldiers with whom they served, or can be adopted into new families.
Even with the new law, it is difficult for many soldiers to bring the dogs who they served with home with them. Many remain at war to serve with a new soldier after their previous handler has been discharged. For those that are allowed to retire, they are carefully evaluated for aggression or other temperament issues that would make the dogs dangerous at home, and are only placed with families (or law enforcement agencies) who understand the responsibilities of owning such unusual dogs. Adopters must also sign an agreement that absolves the US government of liability for damage or injury the dog may cause.
Many other soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan have befriended local dogs and cats, and on discharge from the military, have sought to bring those dogs home. Historically, this was impossible as the US military did not allow soldiers to bring home animals adopted from other countries, and in fact, often killed animals found wandering around US bases overseas. In recent years, though, animal protection organizations have rallied support and resources to allow soldiers to bring home animals that they’ve befriended.
The ASPCA International has a project called Operation Baghdad Pups which helps soldiers to bring animals home from Iraq, and a British-based organization, founded by a former soldier, Nowdaz, brings back dogs from Afghanistan and Iraq. (Nowzad also offers resources to help dogs, cats, horses and donkeys receive better treatment in Afghanistan.) These animals have provided comfort to soldiers during war, and most people agree that they should be allowed to come to the United States with their adopted soldiers. In addition, they often risk death or starvation if left behind, as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq currently has a culture that is very dog or cat friendly—especially when it comes to stray dogs or cats. Unfortunately, even with the US government permits the animals to come home, soldiers must fill out mountains of paperwork and must arrange for the dogs to be vaccinated and transported out of a war zone—which can cost thousands of dollars.
Projects like Operation Baghdad Pups and Nowzad recognize that the dogs and cats that the soldiers have found while at war not only helped them to cope with the traumas and anxieties of serving at war, but also can help the soldiers to reintegrate back into society when back home. And perhaps more importantly, they recognize that the soldier’s motto, “leave no one behind,” should extend to non-human animals as well.
To help get animals out of war zones, and into the families of the soldiers who love them, visit http://www.nowzad.com/ and www.spcai.org/baghdad-pups
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
New semester brings new promise
Yesterday was the first day of classes at my college, Central New Mexico Community College. For me, this was a more exciting day than usual because I am now teaching, only for the second time at this school, a sociology course I created called Animals & Society. From my syllabus:
“This course is designed to bring into the realm of sociological inquiry the relationships that exist between humans and other animals. A major focus will be on the social construction of animals in American culture and the way in which these social meanings are used to perpetuate hierarchical human/human relationships such as racism, sexism, and class privilege. Animal/human interaction in several major social institutions will be studied. We will also examine how different human groups construct a range of identities for themselves and for others through animals. Finally, we will examine several of the major philosophical positions about human social policy regarding the future of animal/human relations. What are the ethical, ecological and societal consequences of continuing our current patterns into the 21st century?”
As readers of this blog most likely know, courses like mine are relatively new in American colleges and universities, but thanks to the work of human-animal studies scholars, and the efforts of ASI, they are becoming more prevalent every year. The ASI website lists 245 HAS courses in North America alone (not counting law school courses), with an additional 38 in Australia and New Zealand, and 12 in Europe, plus a number of online courses and degree programs. Students today with an interest in human-animal studies have more places to go and more courses and programs to take than ever before.
In the case of my new students, I took a brief survey yesterday to find out why the students took the class. While many just took it because it fulfills an elective requirement and “sounds interesting,” a number of students registered because they have a strong interest in (or love of) animals and want to pursue that interest more deeply. One student is planning to become a veterinarian and another is working on her prerequisites for the CNM Veterinary Tech program (in which I also teach a section).
Realistically, I know that of the 25 students who showed up for class yesterday, about a third will drop out before the end of the semester. That seems to happen in all my classes. But of the students who remain, I feel confident that all will be challenged by the end of the semester to think about animals in a different way, and that, in turn, will most likely affect how they will treat animals.
“This course is designed to bring into the realm of sociological inquiry the relationships that exist between humans and other animals. A major focus will be on the social construction of animals in American culture and the way in which these social meanings are used to perpetuate hierarchical human/human relationships such as racism, sexism, and class privilege. Animal/human interaction in several major social institutions will be studied. We will also examine how different human groups construct a range of identities for themselves and for others through animals. Finally, we will examine several of the major philosophical positions about human social policy regarding the future of animal/human relations. What are the ethical, ecological and societal consequences of continuing our current patterns into the 21st century?”
As readers of this blog most likely know, courses like mine are relatively new in American colleges and universities, but thanks to the work of human-animal studies scholars, and the efforts of ASI, they are becoming more prevalent every year. The ASI website lists 245 HAS courses in North America alone (not counting law school courses), with an additional 38 in Australia and New Zealand, and 12 in Europe, plus a number of online courses and degree programs. Students today with an interest in human-animal studies have more places to go and more courses and programs to take than ever before.
In the case of my new students, I took a brief survey yesterday to find out why the students took the class. While many just took it because it fulfills an elective requirement and “sounds interesting,” a number of students registered because they have a strong interest in (or love of) animals and want to pursue that interest more deeply. One student is planning to become a veterinarian and another is working on her prerequisites for the CNM Veterinary Tech program (in which I also teach a section).
Realistically, I know that of the 25 students who showed up for class yesterday, about a third will drop out before the end of the semester. That seems to happen in all my classes. But of the students who remain, I feel confident that all will be challenged by the end of the semester to think about animals in a different way, and that, in turn, will most likely affect how they will treat animals.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Banning the Sale of Pets
Here are some headlines from this week’s news sites: “San Francisco’s War on Pets” (AOL News); “Put Down the Hamster and Slowly Walk Away” (NPR); “Squashing Children’s Dreams: San Francisco Considers a Ban on Pets” (Examiner.com).
It would appear from these stories that San Francisco, well-known for its controversial, “only-in-San Francisco” policies on everything from gay marriage to plastic grocery bags to cell phones, is planning on banning the keeping of pets within city limits.
As an animal lover, I would be indeed shocked by such a proposal. Why would San Francisco, named after St. Francis, patron saint of animals, suggest banning companion animals?
In fact, San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Animal Welfare had proposed asking the Board of Supervisors to ban selling animals in the city, to cut down on the number of animals sold, abandoned, and then euthanized at the city’s shelter. Yet the commission’s meeting last Thursday night was so contentious, and the subsequent news reports so antagonistic, that the Commission ended up tabling the proposal.
Why was what seems to this writer to be such an eminently simple and straightforward proposal mocked and opposed so vehemently? Predictably, the pet store owners (and animal breeders who supply them) would be opposed to any proposed law which would cut into their profits. But why was the public—and the media—so overwhelmingly opposed to it?
I have to say, I am confused. Everyone knows the numbers—every year, between 3 and 4 million dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals are euthanized in this country’s public and private shelters. While San Francisco Animal Care and Control’s numbers are not publically available, Oakland, which is just across the bay, euthanizes close to 40% of all animals surrendered to the city’s shelter every year. That comes out to be 2631 animals in 2009. Oakland is just one of over two dozen such shelters in the bay area, all with their own euthanasia numbers. Nationwide, the numbers are even higher, with an average of 50% of all animals surrendered to animal shelters being euthanized due to behavioral or health problems, overcrowding, and lack of a good home.
The loss of life and the suffering that this entails is enormous. The cost to taxpayers is also substantial. It costs taxpayers about $105 for an animal control officer to pick up a stray dog or cat, transport the animal to the shelter, provide food and water for the animal, euthanize the animal if not adopted or reunited with his family, and send the body to the landfill. Animal control programs in this country alone cost $2 billion per year, and this does not count the millions that private animal rescue groups spend to rescue and re-home animals.
Sure, there are all kinds of complicated and simple reasons why people abandon or relinquish their companion animals: the owners were not educated as to the needs of the animal; the animal’s care was more than they expected; the family’s situation—finances, housing, marriage—has changed; the animal did not get along with other family pets or family members, etc. etc. But ultimately, the problem comes down to one thing: the breeding and sale of companion animals when there are not enough homes for them.
San Francisco’s Animal Welfare Commission simply decided that, on top of all of the other programs that the city is engaged in (promoting low cost spay/neuter; increasing foster homes; providing low cost behavior training; humane education, and the like), prohibiting the sale of animals within the city would discourage people from impulse purchases and encourage folks who would like a pet to visit one of the city’s shelters or rescue groups.
Sadly, this simple proposal was shelved, because not only do the pet stores need to safeguard their profits, but because much of the public apparently feels that it would infringe upon their rights—to buy a purebred animal, to buy a young animal, to buy an animal without any sort of adoption screening, to buy an animal at the neighborhood pet store rather than adopting from the local shelter, and to buy an animal without having to be educated on their care first.
But what about the right of animals to not be bred so that they can be sold into a family, abandoned when no longer convenient, and then put to death by the very same animal care staff whose jobs it is to care for them?
It would appear from these stories that San Francisco, well-known for its controversial, “only-in-San Francisco” policies on everything from gay marriage to plastic grocery bags to cell phones, is planning on banning the keeping of pets within city limits.
As an animal lover, I would be indeed shocked by such a proposal. Why would San Francisco, named after St. Francis, patron saint of animals, suggest banning companion animals?
In fact, San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Animal Welfare had proposed asking the Board of Supervisors to ban selling animals in the city, to cut down on the number of animals sold, abandoned, and then euthanized at the city’s shelter. Yet the commission’s meeting last Thursday night was so contentious, and the subsequent news reports so antagonistic, that the Commission ended up tabling the proposal.
Why was what seems to this writer to be such an eminently simple and straightforward proposal mocked and opposed so vehemently? Predictably, the pet store owners (and animal breeders who supply them) would be opposed to any proposed law which would cut into their profits. But why was the public—and the media—so overwhelmingly opposed to it?
I have to say, I am confused. Everyone knows the numbers—every year, between 3 and 4 million dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals are euthanized in this country’s public and private shelters. While San Francisco Animal Care and Control’s numbers are not publically available, Oakland, which is just across the bay, euthanizes close to 40% of all animals surrendered to the city’s shelter every year. That comes out to be 2631 animals in 2009. Oakland is just one of over two dozen such shelters in the bay area, all with their own euthanasia numbers. Nationwide, the numbers are even higher, with an average of 50% of all animals surrendered to animal shelters being euthanized due to behavioral or health problems, overcrowding, and lack of a good home.
The loss of life and the suffering that this entails is enormous. The cost to taxpayers is also substantial. It costs taxpayers about $105 for an animal control officer to pick up a stray dog or cat, transport the animal to the shelter, provide food and water for the animal, euthanize the animal if not adopted or reunited with his family, and send the body to the landfill. Animal control programs in this country alone cost $2 billion per year, and this does not count the millions that private animal rescue groups spend to rescue and re-home animals.
Sure, there are all kinds of complicated and simple reasons why people abandon or relinquish their companion animals: the owners were not educated as to the needs of the animal; the animal’s care was more than they expected; the family’s situation—finances, housing, marriage—has changed; the animal did not get along with other family pets or family members, etc. etc. But ultimately, the problem comes down to one thing: the breeding and sale of companion animals when there are not enough homes for them.
San Francisco’s Animal Welfare Commission simply decided that, on top of all of the other programs that the city is engaged in (promoting low cost spay/neuter; increasing foster homes; providing low cost behavior training; humane education, and the like), prohibiting the sale of animals within the city would discourage people from impulse purchases and encourage folks who would like a pet to visit one of the city’s shelters or rescue groups.
Sadly, this simple proposal was shelved, because not only do the pet stores need to safeguard their profits, but because much of the public apparently feels that it would infringe upon their rights—to buy a purebred animal, to buy a young animal, to buy an animal without any sort of adoption screening, to buy an animal at the neighborhood pet store rather than adopting from the local shelter, and to buy an animal without having to be educated on their care first.
But what about the right of animals to not be bred so that they can be sold into a family, abandoned when no longer convenient, and then put to death by the very same animal care staff whose jobs it is to care for them?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Profits before Lives
This week, the Chicago animal rights group Mercy for Animals released a chilling undercover video showing workers at Conklin Dairy Farms in Plain City, Ohio kicking, stomping, stabbing and beating dairy cows and their calves. This video, and the countless other videos, reports, and materials about the lives of dairy cattle (and their infant sons, who become veal calves), is vivid proof of the brutalities of the dairy industry.
Yet for industry apologists, that's not the case at all. If anything, Mercy for Animals' investigation only demonstrates that there are a few "bad apples" in every industry or workplace, and that the actions of these few workers do not reflect on the industry as a whole. In Conklin's case, the employee featured in the video was fired by the company, and remaining employees will be retrained, according to a company statement.
This response, which follows undercover investigations conducted at slaughterhouses, biomedical labs, circuses, zoos, pig, poultry, egg, and dairy farms, and even pet stores, is typical of industries trying to protect their image and maintain their profits.
But it's not just the animal exploitation industries which offer such automatic, predictable responses when they are caught engaged in such abuse. Whether it's British Petroleum after the recent (and ongoing) massive oil spill in the Gulf or Massey Energy after the April mine explosion, companies routinely take the position that "mistakes were made" which led to these deadly disasters, and that those mistakes should not reflect negatively on the companies.
Only in the left wing media is serious attention paid to the ways that companies like Massey, BP, or dairy, poultry or pig farms routinely engage in practices which put humans, animals, or the environment at risk. While mine explosions or oil rig explosions may be accidental, in the sense that no one intended for those tragedies to occur, and while the employee manuals at poultry or dairy farms may not require employees to beat animals, these occurrences are not aberrations; they are standard and expected occurrences for industries which put profits above worker or animal safety.
Just this week, documents surfaced that showed that British Petroleum used a cost benefit analysis in 2002 in order to help them decide what kind of housing to build for its workers at a Texas refinery-inexpensive trailer homes which would have no chance of surviving a refinery blast, or concrete and steel housing which would cost ten times as much, but could withstand such a blast. The document, which used the "three little pigs" fairy tale (and was even illustrated with drawings of three pigs) as an analogy, recommended the cheaper housing. Another BP document put a ten million dollar value on the workers' lives (based on estimated costs incurred in possible lawsuits) and even with that figure, the cost of cheaper housing combined with the potential lawsuits was still recommended over the more expensive housing. Three years later, the refinery caught fire and 15 workers (most of whom were in the trailers) were killed and 170 others injured.
This week, BP responded to these documents by assuring the public that BP takes worker safety seriously, and that "those documents are several years old." Just a few bad apples, and not at all indicative of the cost-control measures that BP takes on a daily basis. Yet it appears that BP is continuing to put cost-savings (and profits) above safety. The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion may well have been prevented had BP installed a $50,000 acoustic trigger which would have shut off the well when the explosion occurred. A $50,000 savings in exchange for 11 worker lives, and an oil spill that is still, five weeks out, gushing millions of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf, threatening the lives of marine plants and animals for decades-or centuries-to come.
Animal industries too, maximize profits by cutting costs, and usually those costs are borne by the animals themselves, who endure living conditions which are unceasingly brutal. Activities that could provide pleasure--like a soft bed, fresh air, grass, the ability to run and play, the ability to nurse and raise one's offspring--are disallowed because they don't add to the company's bottom line. Even beating and stabbing animals at farms and slaughterhouses makes economic sense--when workers are under pressure to meet unreasonable quotas, they often respond by beating the animals to make them move faster.
Ultimately, the worker at the center of the Conklin Dairy Farm abuse scandal will be arrested and will face prosecution for his actions. Whether he will pay a penalty of any kind is questionable, given the scanty legal protection for farm animals in this country. But regardless of the price paid by this one man, this one "bad apple," and regardless of his motivations, dairy farms like Conklin will continue to put profits above animal welfare. Because it just makes economic sense.
Yet for industry apologists, that's not the case at all. If anything, Mercy for Animals' investigation only demonstrates that there are a few "bad apples" in every industry or workplace, and that the actions of these few workers do not reflect on the industry as a whole. In Conklin's case, the employee featured in the video was fired by the company, and remaining employees will be retrained, according to a company statement.
This response, which follows undercover investigations conducted at slaughterhouses, biomedical labs, circuses, zoos, pig, poultry, egg, and dairy farms, and even pet stores, is typical of industries trying to protect their image and maintain their profits.
But it's not just the animal exploitation industries which offer such automatic, predictable responses when they are caught engaged in such abuse. Whether it's British Petroleum after the recent (and ongoing) massive oil spill in the Gulf or Massey Energy after the April mine explosion, companies routinely take the position that "mistakes were made" which led to these deadly disasters, and that those mistakes should not reflect negatively on the companies.
Only in the left wing media is serious attention paid to the ways that companies like Massey, BP, or dairy, poultry or pig farms routinely engage in practices which put humans, animals, or the environment at risk. While mine explosions or oil rig explosions may be accidental, in the sense that no one intended for those tragedies to occur, and while the employee manuals at poultry or dairy farms may not require employees to beat animals, these occurrences are not aberrations; they are standard and expected occurrences for industries which put profits above worker or animal safety.
Just this week, documents surfaced that showed that British Petroleum used a cost benefit analysis in 2002 in order to help them decide what kind of housing to build for its workers at a Texas refinery-inexpensive trailer homes which would have no chance of surviving a refinery blast, or concrete and steel housing which would cost ten times as much, but could withstand such a blast. The document, which used the "three little pigs" fairy tale (and was even illustrated with drawings of three pigs) as an analogy, recommended the cheaper housing. Another BP document put a ten million dollar value on the workers' lives (based on estimated costs incurred in possible lawsuits) and even with that figure, the cost of cheaper housing combined with the potential lawsuits was still recommended over the more expensive housing. Three years later, the refinery caught fire and 15 workers (most of whom were in the trailers) were killed and 170 others injured.
This week, BP responded to these documents by assuring the public that BP takes worker safety seriously, and that "those documents are several years old." Just a few bad apples, and not at all indicative of the cost-control measures that BP takes on a daily basis. Yet it appears that BP is continuing to put cost-savings (and profits) above safety. The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion may well have been prevented had BP installed a $50,000 acoustic trigger which would have shut off the well when the explosion occurred. A $50,000 savings in exchange for 11 worker lives, and an oil spill that is still, five weeks out, gushing millions of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf, threatening the lives of marine plants and animals for decades-or centuries-to come.
Animal industries too, maximize profits by cutting costs, and usually those costs are borne by the animals themselves, who endure living conditions which are unceasingly brutal. Activities that could provide pleasure--like a soft bed, fresh air, grass, the ability to run and play, the ability to nurse and raise one's offspring--are disallowed because they don't add to the company's bottom line. Even beating and stabbing animals at farms and slaughterhouses makes economic sense--when workers are under pressure to meet unreasonable quotas, they often respond by beating the animals to make them move faster.
Ultimately, the worker at the center of the Conklin Dairy Farm abuse scandal will be arrested and will face prosecution for his actions. Whether he will pay a penalty of any kind is questionable, given the scanty legal protection for farm animals in this country. But regardless of the price paid by this one man, this one "bad apple," and regardless of his motivations, dairy farms like Conklin will continue to put profits above animal welfare. Because it just makes economic sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
