Circle of Compassion

Circus animals need your help!

There is only 2 weeks left before the public hearing on the Animal Protection Amendment. At the Sept 12, 1 p.m. meeting, another circus amendment - that directly threatens the protection of animals from inhumane treatment and conditions - has been proposed by Councilmembers Paul Ostrow and Betsy Hodges. These two "public servants" are extremely opposed to humane circus reform, and would like to circumvent procedure and the wishes of their constituents, by holding a hearing on their amendment the same day as the hearing for the Animal Protection Amendment. CLICK HERE to learn more about the proposed Animal Protection Amendment.

The Ostrow-Hodges Amendment is essentially a nightmare for the animals and anyone who cares about them. Their amendment is a list of regulation meant to look good, but makes no real changes for the animals (ha! sounds kind of like the Animal Welfare Act!). Their amendment is overly broad and vague. Here is what is realy means:

1. Elephants will continue to be chained up to 20 hours a day in Minneapolis - chained one front leg and one back leg, unable to do anything except sway back nd forth

2. Trainers will still carry whips and hooks and use them as painful reminders to the animals that they'd better not step out of line

3. The city of Minneapolis will make MORE MONEY from the circus permit fees - but the animals are the ones who will pay the price!

Committee Chair Don Samuels has tremendous power to decide when the Ostrow-Hodges amendment is heard. Call Committee Chair Samuels today: 612-673-2205.  Let him know you support the Animal Protection Amendment, which will prohibit wild animal circuses in Minneapolis. Ask him to give the Animal Protection Amendment itw OWN fair hearing on Sept. 12. Tell him the Ostrow-Hodges Amendment is unacceptable for anyone who cares about humane treatement of animals. You can also e-mail him and tell him the same thing: don.samuels@ci.minneapolis.mn.us.

Tell Ostrow and Hodges what you think of their anti-protection amendment, too!

Ostrow: paul.ostrow@ci.minneapolis.mn.us, 612-673-2201

Hodges: www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/contact/email-form-hodges.asp

Thank you for all you do for animals!

Abolition!

I've very much been on a philosophical animal rights journey as of late. Being relatively new to the animal rights movement (only a few short years), I was, of course, first enraptured by well-known groups like PETA, and HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States). Two years ago, I attended a PETA Helping Animals 101 seminar, and I was on board! At the seminar I bought a t-shirt (which I proudly wore) and several other items. I visited their website daily. Not too long after, I attended a workshop on "lobbying for animals," hosted by HSUS. Then, I was waving the HSUS banner.

In the past year, however, I've started to think a lot more about the philosophy of animal rights. What does it all mean? What does it mean to me?? When I sat down and thought about it, I realized I was bothered that PETA was praising Burger King and Wolfgang Puck and a laundry list of other huge corporate giants, for making very small changes in the way animals are treated in agri-business (cage-free eggs, larger crates for veal calfs, gestation crate-free pork, etc.). I mean, let's face it, a corporation like Burger King slaughters and serves up MILLIONS of animals a year, so to agree to serve 2% of its pork from crate-free hogs is, in my opinion, hardly a victory for the animals! They are still being snuffed out and eaten by the billions!

I also realized, as I tried to talk with and educate family and friends about animal rights, people were very confused about these issues. I mean, if they were eating "humane, grass fed beef," and "cage-free eggs," weren't they making a compassionate decision? If popular - and very visible  - animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS were saying that this is good, then it must be, right?!

STTTTTTTTTTTTOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are we making these concessions? Don't we - in the animal rights movement - believe that animals are not ours to eat, or wear, or use for entertainment, or to experiment upon, or to use and abuse in any way? Didn't we become vegans because we want the abuse to end? If so, then why aren't we insisting on that? Had I worked as an Abolitionist for the Underground Railroad in the 1800s, I cannot imagine having considered the movement I was a part of "victorious," if, for example, as a way to reduce suffering, I was spending my time trying to convince slave owners to beat their slaves only once a day instead of twice. Were I working tirelessly to end child pornography, I cannot imagine claiming victory if the porn industry agreed to stop, for example, selling these videos on Tuesdays. You get the picture here. So, why are we doing this in the animal rights community? Why are we compromising our beliefs? Why are we agreeing that in order to bring about change, we have to accept these necessary evils? Why are we agreeing to - and so boistrously celebrating - these so-called "animal welfare reforms?"

Recently, I read what I consider to be a brilliant article - by James LaVeck - addressing this welfare reform issue (thank you Satya magazine!). I will now paraphrase from the article.

In the United States, wealthy industries pay PR (public relations) firms millions and millions of dollars to remove obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on this list of obstacles are grassroots social justice movements (animal rights, for example!). Fifteen years ago, one such PR firm, who was hired by the cattleman's industry no less, came up with a method to dismantle any and all citizen movements. Here it is in basic form:

1. Isolate the radicals. Identify the "radicals," those who are unwilling to compromise, who hold true to their belief, and who demand fundamental change to redress the problem at hand (Think of me, or perhaps even yourself, as an example here).

2. "Cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into becoming "realists." Identify "realists" - these are typically organizations with rather large budgets and staff who are working in the same area of public concern as the radicals (let's think about PETA and HSUS in this context). Approach these "realists," start a dialouge, and cut a deal, a win-win "solution" that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their demands.

3. Co-opt the opportunists into agreeing with industry. Go with the "realists" and convince idealists that a 'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a whole. Once this has been done, the "radicals" are shut out of the equation as "extremists." The whole 'win-win' deal can be sold to the media to make the industry/corporation and its "realist," non-profit partners look heroic for solving the problem. "Result: industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the 'radicals' are swept aside." (So now we have things like the widespread adoption of "cage-free" eggs, uncrated pork, and "humane, grass-fed beef," and on and on). Of note: part of this PR philosophy is an understanding that the key to dealing with the opportunists is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory.

This whole scenario is quite scary and unpleasant to think about, but sadly, I believe this is what's happening in the animal rights movement. I also believe the "welfarists" are well-meaning and well-intentioned. They are doing this because they want to reduce suffering, as do I. The reality, however, is that inadvertently, we are - as LaVeck points out - calling off our own boycott of vegan advocacy. "When we switch from asking people to eliminate or reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly endorsing "humane" animal products (which is an oxymoron!), are we not, in effect, calling off our own boycott? Think about it. A boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on."

(According to a newspaper report, nine days after the launch of a 'Good Veal' campaign, veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45 percent. Notably, the campaign's website features the endorsement and logo of a large, well-respected European animal advocacy organization whose name begins with the word "compassion.")

CLICK HERE to read the James LaVeck article in full. It is so well written and well worth the read!

So, I'm happy to report that I have finally landed on my journey. I'm firmly standing on abolitionist ground. I'm excited to learn and discuss new thoughts and ideas, but fundamentally, I know that there is no morally justifiable reason to use or abuse an animal, and I won't support or advocate for any belief or organization that compromises on this issue. That train of thought is not radical or extreme. It is simply calling a spade a spade.

I've very much been on a philosophical animal rights journey as of late. Being relatively new to the animal rights movement (only a few short years), I was, of course, first enraptured by well-known groups like PETA, and HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States). Two years ago, I attended a PETA Helping Animals 101 seminar, and I was on board! At the seminar I bought a t-shirt (which I proudly wore) and several other items. I visited their website daily. Not too long after, I attended a workshop on "lobbying for animals," hosted by HSUS. Then, I was waving the HSUS banner.

In the past year, however, I've started to think a lot more about the philosophy of animal rights. What does it all mean? What does it mean to me?? When I sat down and thought about it, I realized I was bothered that PETA was praising Burger King and Wolfgang Puck and a laundry list of other huge corporate giants, for making very small changes in the way animals are treated in agri-business (cage-free eggs, larger crates for veal calfs, gestation crate-free pork, etc.). I mean, let's face it, a corporation like Burger King slaughters and serves up MILLIONS of animals a year, so to agree to serve 2% of its pork from crate-free hogs is, in my opinion, hardly a victory for the animals! They are still being snuffed out and eaten by the billions!

I also realized, as I tried to talk with and educate family and friends about animal rights, people were very confused about these issues. I mean, if they were eating "humane, grass fed beef," and "cage-free eggs," weren't they making a compassionate decision? If popular - and very visible  - animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS were saying that this is good, then it must be, right?!

STTTTTTTTTTTTOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are we making these concessions? Don't we - in the animal rights movement - believe that animals are not ours to eat, or wear, or use for entertainment, or to experiment upon, or to use and abuse in any way? Didn't we become vegans because we want the abuse to end? If so, then why aren't we insisting on that? Had I worked as an Abolitionist for the Underground Railroad in the 1800s, I cannot imagine having considered the movement I was a part of "victorious," if, for example, as a way to reduce suffering, I was spending my time trying to convince slave owners to beat their slaves only once a day instead of twice. Were I working tirelessly to end child pornography, I cannot imagine claiming victory if the porn industry agreed to stop, for example, selling these videos on Tuesdays. You get the picture here. So, why are we doing this in the animal rights community? Why are we compromising our beliefs? Why are we agreeing that in order to bring about change, we have to accept these necessary evils? Why are we agreeing to - and so boistrously celebrating - these so-called "animal welfare reforms?"

Recently, I read what I consider to be a brilliant article - by James LaVeck - addressing this welfare reform issue (thank you Satya magazine!). I will now paraphrase from the article.

In the United States, wealthy industries pay PR (public relations) firms millions and millions of dollars to remove obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on this list of obstacles are grassroots social justice movements (animal rights, for example!). Fifteen years ago, one such PR firm, who was hired by the cattleman's industry no less, came up with a method to dismantle any and all citizen movements. Here it is in basic form:

1. Isolate the radicals. Identify the "radicals," those who are unwilling to compromise, who hold true to their belief, and who demand fundamental change to redress the problem at hand (Think of me, or perhaps even yourself, as an example here).

2. "Cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into becoming "realists." Identify "realists" - these are typically organizations with rather large budgets and staff who are working in the same area of public concern as the radicals (let's think about PETA and HSUS in this context). Approach these "realists," start a dialouge, and cut a deal, a win-win "solution" that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their demands.

3. Co-opt the opportunists into agreeing with industry. Go with the "realists" and convince idealists that a 'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a whole. Once this has been done, the "radicals" are shut out of the equation as "extremists." The whole 'win-win' deal can be sold to the media to make the industry/corporation and its "realist," non-profit partners look heroic for solving the problem. "Result: industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the 'radicals' are swept aside." (So now we have things like the widespread adoption of "cage-free" eggs, uncrated pork, and "humane, grass-fed beef," and on and on). Of note: part of this PR philosophy is an understanding that the key to dealing with the opportunists is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory.

This whole scenario is quite scary and unpleasant to think about, but sadly, I believe this is what's happening in the animal rights movement. I also believe the "welfarists" are well-meaning and well-intentioned. They are doing this because they want to reduce suffering, as do I. The reality, however, is that inadvertently, we are - as LaVeck points out - calling off our own boycott of vegan advocacy. "When we switch from asking people to eliminate or reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly endorsing "humane" animal products (which is an oxymoron!), are we not, in effect, calling off our own boycott? Think about it. A boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on."

(According to a newspaper report, nine days after the launch of a 'Good Veal' campaign, veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45 percent. Notably, the campaign's website features the endorsement and logo of a large, well-respected European animal advocacy organization whose name begins with the word "compassion.")

CLICK HERE to read the James LaVeck article in full. It is so well written and well worth the read!

So, I'm happy to report that I have finally landed on my journey. I'm firmly standing on abolitionist ground. I'm excited to learn and discuss new thoughts and ideas, but fundamentally, I know that there is no morally justifiable reason to use or abuse an animal, and I won't support or advocate for any belief or organization that compromises on this issue. That train of thought is not radical or extreme. It is simply calling a spade a spade.

We are all Michael Vick

(The below editorial appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News. You gotta love Professor Francione!!)

MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him.

Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges.

The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.

Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.

That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.

There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.

There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows.

In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement.

But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it.

According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it.

Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?

We are all Simon.

We are all Michael Vick. *

Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. His latest book on animal ethics, "Animals as Persons," will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.

Attend meeting to help stop MN dog breed ban

Folks from all different communities and walks of life are getting together this Saturday, Aug. 25, to discuss ways to address the public regarding the breed ban proposed by Rep. John Lesch. Please click here to read more about the ban.

If you or anyone you know is interested in attending this meeting (hosted by Pet Haven MN), please come to the DoubleTree Hotel in St. Louis Park at 12:30 on Saturday, right off of Highway 100 and 394. Please come if you can, and help spread the word!!! It is so vitally important that this legislation does not get passed.

National Disaster Search Dog Foundation

Retired teacher Wilma Melville rescues dogs so the dogs can resuce humans. This is a touching and amazing story.

Melville founded and created the National Disaster Search Dog Foundation. The mission of the Search Dog Foundation is to produce the most highly trained canine disaster search teams in the nation.  The job of these teams is to find people buried alive in the wreckage of natural disasters and terrorist attacks. 

To create these teams, SDF recruits rescued dogs from shelters and breed rescue groups, gives them professional training, and partners them with firefighters and other first responders at no cost to their departments.  SDF ensures lifetime care for every dog in the program: once rescued, these dogs will never need to be rescued again.The mission of the Search Dog Foundation is to produce the most highly trained canine disaster search teams in the nation.  The job of these teams is to find people buried alive in the wreckage of natural disasters and terrorist attacks. 

CLICK HERE to see the story.

Thank you for all you do for animals!

The witness

If you've never seen the Tribe of Heart documentary "The Witness," run out and do so. "The Witness" is the incredible story of Eddie Lama - a construction worker from Brooklyn, New York - whose amazing journey to becoming an animal rights advocate starts with a kitten. A beautiful story. Truly, truly inspirational. Click here to read more about Eddie.

"In my lifetime I have been both the oppressor and the oppressed, both the fomenter of discord and the advocate for peace, both the perpetrator and the victim. But most significantly, I have been both the silence and the voice. It is the human voice that is the primary tool for change."

—Eddie Lama