A Friend of a Friend of Mine was Killed Today

Haudenosaunee hunters in Short Hills. Note the deer in the back of the truck

Let’s say you’ve noticed that a stray cat has been hanging around your backyard. You love animals – who doesn’t? – and you want to help him out if you can. Maybe he’s a feral cat and you’ve tried getting close to him but he’s just too clever for that.

Still, over time, and because you’re putting out food for him, he’s become used to your presence. He tolerates you. You’re kind of like his guardian angel, and naturally you look forward to seeing him out there every day. Regardless of what he thinks about you, you’re his friend.

So how would you feel to learn, upon coming home one night, that your friend, this stray cat who calls your backyard home, was shot through the head, killed by a neighbour who perhaps didn’t share your love of cats, or just enjoyed killing animals?

This happened today to a friend of mine. Only the victim wasn’t a cat. It was a whitetail deer. He was killed in Short Hills Provincial Park during the first day of the now semi-annual First Nations deer hunt. My friend, protesting at the gates of the park, instantly recognized the antlers sticking out of the back of one of the hunter’s trucks as it left the park tonight.

The buck, with his incredibly massive and unusual looking rack, was a frequent visitor to my friend’s backyard, which borders the park in the south end.  In fact, my friend had showed me pictures of this magnificent animal only a few days earlier. Now he was dead, because someone else saw him as a THING to eat.

Had this been a cat or dog, the public would be up in arms and demanding the killer be charged with animal cruelty. But because it’s a deer, the law says it’s okay. How is this okay? How is a deer any different than a cat or dog? Aren’t they all mammals and, given the choice, would rather live than die?

What kind of world do we live in where someone can kill someone else’s friend and get away with it? Why is it someone’s “right” to end another’s life?

A friend of a friend of mine was killed today. The killers are celebrating the death of this animal even as I write these words but as far as I’m concerned, this is a sad day for humanity.

P.S. To my friend, I’m sorry for your loss.

Cultures of Violence

MNR and Haudenosaunee representatives at White Meadows

So it appears we’re going to have another native deer hunt in Short Hills. That will be the second one this year, only this time the park will be closed for all four weekends in November, up from two weekends back in January. 

The announcement came from the Ministry of Natural Resources on September 19 at White Meadows Farms in Pelham, where the MNR staged an impromptu open house to answer the public’s questions.

A few representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy also attended, to clear up any misconceptions people might have about the “harvest” and why we (anyone not native to Canada) need to respect the natives’ culture.

Nearly every viewpoint was heard that night. Farmers who want the deer culled because they’re eating the crops, residents who want to protect the deer, local hunters angry that only natives can hunt in the park, people against treaty rights, tree huggers, animal rights activists, NIMBY’s and more.

Now I sympathize with the Haudenosaunee and what the “white man” did to their ancestors, how they were driven off their lands and how they’re struggling to keep their traditions alive today.

It was our culture of violence that was responsible for almost wiping them off the map. Our progenitors saw themselves as “superior” to the so-called savages and this arrogance justified the near-annihilation of them. It was a terrible time in our history and I hope it is never repeated.

But the natives also perpetuate this culture of violence. They see the deer as resources, things to be "harvested", as if these animals were fruits and vegetables. They see themselves as "superior" to other forms of life, as if all the earth were here for them to do as they please.

Just as we do. We exterminate, slaughter, hunt and “harvest” any and every species that gets in our way, has a pleasing taste or gives a good chase. I can’t look at a native hunter as the “bad guy” while my own people commit even worse atrocities to other sentient beings.

When asked why the natives have to kill deer that are so habituated to human beings it’s like shooting fish in a barrel (according to the MNR, Short Hills is the first provincial park to allow hunting since the late 1970’s) the Haudenosaunee ambassador replied, “Don’t you eat chickens?”

He makes a good point. With the exception of a few vegetarians and vegans in the audience, everyone there that night eats animals of one kind or another. Why are we so appalled at the killing of a few doe-eyed ungulates but don’t think twice about the animals we eat three times a day?

The cows, pigs, chickens and other animals we breed, raise and butcher for food are just as vulnerable, just as cute and just as worthy of our compassion as those whitetail deer. We chastise one culture of violence but fail to acknowledge our own.

If you really care about animals and want to reduce the amount of suffering and violence in the world, go vegan.

Final Thoughts on the Short Hills Deer Hunt

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Rights are bullshit - there, I said it. They’re an illusion, a pie-in-the-sky ideal. More like “wouldn’t it be nice if things were this way” rather than the way things actually are. They’re principles, propositions and beliefs, not carved-in-stone laws. Sometimes they’re called natural rights and sometimes they’re called inalienable rights, like the right to life. But they’re still all bullshit.

If we all have the right to an education and clean water, why are so many of us without either? And doesn’t a child have the right to go to school without being murdered by a gun-wielding maniac? But it happens. Without respect for another person’s life, what good are rights?

Aerial shot of protest and blockade at Pelham Road entrance

And then there are those whose rights seem to carry more weight than the rights of others. Take the First Nations deer hunt in Short Hills Provincial Park a few weeks ago. According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the native deer hunt in Short Hills was “a traditional hunt by First Nations exercising their treaty rights.”

Because the First Nations wanted to exercise their treaty rights, my rights – including the right to enjoy a public park I help maintain – were not only secondary to the natives’ treaty rights, but for the first two weekends in January, were actually taken away.

Why didn’t I have the right to enter a provincial park funded in part by my tax dollars? My “right” to hike through a provincial park was suspended so a group of natives who don’t even live in the area could exercise their treaty rights. Their “rights” trumped mine.

And why were the native hunters allowed to drive their trucks and suburban assault vehicles into the heart of a provincial park when non-native hunters, during their hunting season, are not?

On the second Saturday and Sunday of the hunt, Niagara Regional Police shut down Pelham Road, stopping any vehicular traffic from driving past the Pelham Road entrance to Short Hills where the protesters were set up.

Niagara Regional Police shut down Pelham Road

This effectively killed any chance the protesters had to educate passersby about the deer hunt at Short Hills. Sure, the protesters still had the “right” to assemble peacefully, and they still had the “right” to exercise their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the only ones around to listen to their message were a couple of pigeons sitting on the telephone line across the street.

The police said they shut down the road because they were concerned about public safety (somebody being hit by a car because they might stand too close to the road was the reason given). Then why wasn’t the deer hunt shut down when the police learned that several groups of protesters were inside the park? So much for public safety…

Because of the political tension surrounding the hunt and out of a fear of being labeled racists, the police ignored the rights of one group of citizens to accommodate the rights of another.

And what about the rights of the animals not to be hunted down and killed? What gives anyone the right to take the life of another? Whether you’re native or non-native, if you kill other animals when you don’t have to (meaning the human body doesn't require animal flesh to maintain good health or nutrition), saying you respect those animals is just more bullshit.

When killing becomes a “right”, perhaps it’s time to say that certain “rights” are wrong. Instead of the Idle No More movement, I’d like to see a Killing No More movement. Extending our circle of compassion to include the animals is the first step.

Thoughts on the Short Hills Deer Hunt

Some of my earliest encounters with “wildlife” took place in Short Hills Provincial Park. My grandparents used to be the caretakers at Camp Wetaskiwin, also known as the Boy Scout Camp, on Pelham Road outside St. Catharines.

As kids, my sister, my cousins and me would explore the trails, and my dad would take us winter camping (we built our own lean-to) or into the bush to identify the various edible (and poisonous) plants. We also spent a lot of time discovering and befriending many of the creatures that lived within the park.

I still spend a lot of time in Short Hills. Whether I’m hiking or doing my waterfall photography, I’m amazed and delighted when I spot a group of deer resting underneath the hydro towers, a lone coyote walking along the Bruce Trail or a new kind of beetle.

A few winters ago I sat patiently by Terrace Creek Falls, watching and waiting for a raccoon to stir from her sleep in the hole of a tree. All I could see was her bum! I must’ve waited an hour or so in the snow before she roused herself, stared at me long enough so I could snap a few photos, and climbed further up inside the tree, away from prying eyes.

No Hunting sign at Short Hills Provincial Park

Sometimes I see deer on my hikes, sometimes I don’t. But I know they’re there. They’re always there. When I do see them it’s like reliving my childhood, and anyone who hikes with me knows the joy I get from seeing my forest friends. Sometimes the deer hang around a bit and I get the feeling that they know I’m not going to hurt them. I think they can sense it. When I’m in Short Hills I feel like I’m home.

Chief Seattle once said, “We are part of the Earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters, the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man, all belong to the same family.”

So when I heard about the First Nations deer hunt that took place last weekend and that’s taking place again this weekend in Short Hills, I was angry and I was sad, because I knew my friends were going to be killed. These animals have never been hunted here, at least not in the last 40 or 50 years.

They’re not starving to death and according to all the reports there is NOT an overpopulation problem in Short Hills, despite what some pumpkin farmers might say. The deer are familiar with, if not habituated to, people in the park all year long. A hunt would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I agree with Chief Seattle. These animals ARE our brothers. They’re also our sisters. And they’re my friends. So what I did last weekend – the details aren’t important – was what anyone would do for their friends or family members. If someone were trying to hurt your brother, sister or friend, would you stand idly by?

First Nations hunters inside Short Hills Saturday

I respect the indigenous peoples, and I sympathize with what has happened to them and what they have lost. I also respect the treaties, contracts and agreements our government has made with them (even if I don’t agree with all of them). But the one thing I can’t respect is the unnecessary slaughter of innocent animals. I sympathize with the animals more on this issue.

The indigenous, like the rest of us, have a choice. If they want food they can go to a grocery store like everyone else. They don’t need to kill the deer to nourish themselves. This is the 21^st century. Why are any of us still killing animals for food?

I hope this isn’t coming off as racist, because it’s not meant to be. I usually respect the law but only to a point. When a law says that it’s okay to kill, then in my opinion it’s a bad law.

And I believe there is a higher law that we should be living by, or at least a rule that I live my own life by and I suspect that most of you do too. It’s called the Golden Rule: Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you. If you wouldn’t like somebody driving an arrow into your chest, don’t do it to someone else.

The other rule I live by is this: Be kind to others and do as little harm as possible. Just because they’re not human doesn’t mean they should be excluded from our circle of compassion. 

For me, opposing the First Nations deer hunt has nothing to do with the indigenous people or treaty rights. For me, it’s about a group of people trying to kill my friends.

Protesters outside Short Hills

Three deer were killed Saturday and one was killed Sunday. The hunt continues this weekend, January 12^th and 13^th at Short Hills Provincial Park. And so will the protests.

Different than Other Animals?

We remind ourselves every day how different we are from other animals. We believe we’re smarter than the rest of creation and that we are the more advanced species. 

We profess that we are the only ones capable of contemplating life and death, and that we alone possess morals, ethics and a conscience.

Yet every day we support the killing, torture and exploitation of other animals, or sometimes we do it ourselves, just for fun. We justify these actions by saying other animals kill as well. This of course is true. For some animals to live, others must die. It’s all part of nature, red in tooth and claw, and aren’t we also a part of nature?

Yes we are. But just because something is natural doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good or desirable. There are many animals that rape (spiders, ducks, water beetles), enslave (ants, wasps, dolphins) and kill and eat (chimpanzees, bears, lions) members of their own species. Is this something we want to mimic as well? *

We’re a different kind of animal. We don’t live in jungles anymore and we don’t live by the law of the jungle. We live by a set of rules, laws and codes of right behaviour for the benefit of all. It’s no longer a matter of kill or be killed, or survival of the fittest. We take care of our elderly, our young and our sick. We help those less fortunate and those in trouble. In a word, we’re civilized.

But despite the fact (or claim) that we’re different, better and so much more evolved than the “lower” animals, in many horrible ways we act just like them. Why aren’t we behaving better? Why aren’t we acting more evolved? We don’t condone the slaughter, enslavement and exploitation of other human animals, so why do we think it’s okay to kill, torture and enslave non-human animals?

Other animals can’t pick and choose what they eat. Flesh eaters need flesh. We don’t. We can survive and stay healthy eating all the other foods this wonderful planet has to offer. But we choose to eat other animals because they taste good and because we’ve always done it. These are pretty lame reasons for ending someone else’s life, and we end more than 50 billion animals’ lives every year because of our preferences.

We can’t have it both ways. Either we’re just like the animals or we’re not. Isn’t it about time we put our money where our mouths are?  Isn’t it time we started acting better? If you really think you are different, better and more highly evolved than the other animals, prove it - go vegan.

* On the flipside, there are a number of animals that have been observed helping others, including those of different species, even putting their own lives at risk to do so. If we want to imitate other animals, let’s imitate these ones!

Rodeos – A Celebration of Humanity’s Ruthlessness?

Photo credit: Calgary Sun

Two recent news stories affirm the callousness and cruelty that is humankind. 

Both involve the exploitation, maiming and killing of animals by their owners, and sadly, both incidents are perfectly legal, considered part of our cultural heritage and supported by most people in our society.

The first story is about the practice of tripping horses for human entertainment at rodeos south of the border.

A video by SHARK (Showing Animals Respect and Kindness) was posted online depicting horses at the Jordan Valley Big Loop Rodeo in Oregon being lassoed and then tripped to show off the cowboys’ roping skills. Here’s the link:

http://eugeneweekly.com/blog/oregon-rodeo-horse-abuse

Did you watch the video? If not, please watch it right now:

Did it sicken you? Yet people in attendance are heard cheering and applauding. I don’t know how anyone could think this is fun to watch, but apparently lots of people – normal people by society’s standards – do. And it’s not just the Americans that are suffering from a major brain malfunction.

Lots of Canadians also find it entertaining to watch animals being mistreated and forced to do things against their will as long as it’s exciting (for the spectators anyways) or as long as it’s good for the economy.   

The second story involves the accidental yet inevitable killing of horses for the Calgary Stampede, now celebrating its 100^th year of animal abuse and exploitation.

As the Vancouver Sun reported, three horses were killed last Thursday during one of the chuckwagon races. According to the Vancouver Humane Society, over 50 horses have died in chuckwagon events since 1986. Here’s that story:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Three+horses+Calgary+Stampede+after+crash+chuckwagon+event/6926687/story.html

What really kills me about these stories is that the owners, the staff, the care providers, and of course the organizers, are always really, really, really saddened by the death, or deaths, of these animals, yet year after year after year they keep forcing these animals to risk their lives and year after year after year they keep getting killed.

According to Doug Fraser, a spokesperson for the Calgary Stampede,

"Nobody wants to see this happen. But I think the emotion really showed with [driver] Chad Harden. The driver is devastated and even our chief veterinarian ... felt emotional about this. We've had absolutely phenomenal success this year, up until tonight."

Well Doug, I’m really, really, really sorry that the deaths of these three animals (and I’m sure there will be more) got in the way of your Stampede’s success. I really, really, really feel your pain. That’s sarcasm by the way.

But you know what folks, if I was responsible for an animal’s well-being, and there was a chance that making him do stupid tricks, or racing him was going to put his life in danger, I wouldn’t make him do it!

And what’s worse is that people by the hundreds and thousands, and in the case of the Calgary Stampede an average of 100,000 each day (and the Calgary Stampede runs for 10 days!) go and pay money to watch this crap. 

So are all cowboys – on both sides of the border - cruel and insensitive monsters, or just western cowboys (along with all those cowboy wannabes in attendance)? Does stupidity breed stupidity, and callousness breed callousness, or is it nurtured?

Or perhaps it’s in our DNA to be cruel; a part of what makes Homo sapiens the most powerful - and destructive - force on the planet. Are these events really about celebrating our ruthlessness as a species?

All I know is that as long as we view other animals as products, disposable commodities and slaves, and as long as we continue to be indifferent to their suffering, this type of abuse will continue.

We may be human, but until we change our worldview, we will never be truly kind.

Victory for Some, for Now. Not So Much for Others

"Part of our history is also whaling, for example, and the day came when the whaling industry stopped," he said. "Now, is that day coming with the seal hunt? It just may be." – Ryan Cleary, MP, St. John's South-Mount Pearl in a statement to the CBC last week

This was all it took for some animal rights groups to declare a “victory” for the animals.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) praised Cleary’s remarks on their website (their last "victory" for the animals was negotiating with KFC Canada to gas their chickens to death rather than slit their throats and boil their bodies while still alive), and Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society wrote that the Canadian seal hunt is dead: 

“The Canadian seal slaughter is commercially dead and it will have no place in the 21^st Century. This anachronistic, barbaric enterprise is being tossed into the dustbin of history where it belongs. Finally after a lifetime of struggle to end it, this obscene embarrassment is for all intents and purposes – dead.”

Don’t get me wrong. I think butchering animals because you think their skin looks better on you than on the animals is akin to raping someone because it makes you feel sexy, but for animal protection groups to say the slaughter is over, or dead, is simply not true.

For the record, the Canadian government has made no official announcement that the seal slaughter – it shouldn’t really be called a hunt as all the victims are just lying around waiting to be bludgeoned to death – has been shelved, and Cleary has stated emphatically that he and his party, the NDP, support the killing of seals for commercial purposes, with Clearly sporting a seal-skin vest recently to prove it.

According to Cleary, last year’s “hunt” generated only a million dollars in revenue, with approximately 38,000 seals being killed (the quota set by Fisheries Minister Gail Shea was actually 400,000) leading the MP to wonder aloud if it was economically viable to continue it.

But let’s pretend for a moment that the seal hunt has actually been nixed. Would this really be a victory for the animals? Of course, for the actual seals not having their brains bashed in, it’s certainly much better than the alternative. But for the 53 billion other animals (not including sea life) being slaughtered for food each year because we like the way they taste, the victory would at best be bittersweet.

And because the “victory” was the result of a declining economy, rather than an increase in awareness and respect for the animals’ feelings, interests and the simple right to life, all could change overnight if it suddenly became propitious to do so again.

As long as we view other animals as commodities, grocery store items and things to serve our own ends, or things to be eliminated because they get in our way, there will be no victory for any of them.

Hunters: No Respect for Life

Far be it for me to stereotype people, make sweeping generalizations or paint everyone with the same brush, but hunters are a despicable lot (despicable, adj. deserving to be despised; contemptible; morally reprehensible; vile).*

Case in point: I’m hiking out at Rockway Conservation Area last Sunday and I notice these two guys in the parking lot of the Rockway Community Centre doing something out of the back of one of their trucks. I didn’t think too much about it as I figured they were getting ready to go for hike as well.

When I returned a few hours later, they were still there, getting ready to leave. I also noticed something in the grass directly behind their trucks so I went over to investigate. Turns out it was a deer carcass, freshly killed and cleaned. The head was severed, the flesh removed and the innards stuffed into two garbage bags along with a rolled up sheet of plastic dripping blood.

The two guys jumped in their vehicles and took off as I went over to take pictures of the gruesome scene (and snapped a couple license plates in the process). One of the men drove slowly, smiled and gave me a little wave before pulling out of the parking lot.

I called the police when I got home, who suggested I contact the Ministry of Natural Resources. A very nice girl up in Sault Ste. Marie (who handles all hunting violation issues for Ontario) explained that although what these two men did was “unethical” and “not smart”, they did not violate any laws (providing they have a tag to hunt deer).

If anything they are guilty of littering, which, I was told, will be addressed by the local municipal bylaw office. However, killing a deer, stripping the flesh off his body and tossing his remains in a parking lot where people go hiking, walk their dogs and take their children to experience nature, is perfectly legal, if not “smart”.

According to the MNR, if these two Bungalow Bills had littered on Crown property, like a provincial park, then charges would be laid, but only for the garbage bags and the sheet of plastic. The nice girl on the phone explained that if a hunter dumps the bones or body of a deer back in the woods it’s a good thing, because he’s returning the animal to nature where other animals can benefit from it.

I wanted to ask her what was so natural about two weekend warriors, armed with high-powered weapons and driving a Hummer and an SUV, going in the forest (not exactly man’s natural habitat anymore) and taking down a healthy young buck when natural predators take down the sick and old, but fought the urge, knowing I would be wasting my time and hers.

The day before this happened I had taken a number of people to Short Hills Provincial Park - just down the road from Rockway - to do some nature photography. While we were on the trail, we spotted half-a-dozen deer, almost completely camouflaged in the tall grasses. We tried to get closer to take some pictures but they bolted across the field, their white tails flapping as they ran away.

No wonder they’re so afraid of us. Some people respect life, and feel lucky if they just get a glimpse of these beautiful and graceful animals in their natural environment. Others get their rocks off by destroying life. It makes them feel big and powerful to take down a helpless, innocent animal and kill it. I’m told it’s the way of the world. Maybe it is. But does it have to be?

* My apologies to all you despicable hunters who slaughter animals “responsibly” and “sustainably” and other such garbage like that, as if that makes it okay or means anything to the animal being killed. My advice? Get a life, instead of taking someone else’s.

Veganish: It's Okay to Hurt Animals Once in a While

There’s a new fad strutting its stuff these days. It’s called veganishism. It’s also known as half-assed veganism, lazy veganism or veganism-for-people-who-think-it’s-cool-to-say-they’re-vegan-when-they-really-aren’t. It refers to people who are “mostly” vegan but still eat animal products now and then.

The Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com) defines it as “An eating practice for people who kinda want to be vegan, but sometimes just need to eat some cheese or chicken.” It is also described as “guilt free veganism”.

Surprisingly, a number of vegans are promoting the idea of “veganish” so as to, if I understand correctly, make people who care about animal suffering and exploitation, but can’t quite adhere to a 100% vegan diet* feel less guilty if they “fall off the wagon” from time to time.

Other advocates of occasional veganism are motivated by personal health or a cleaner, more sustainable environment, rather than violence to other animals. As noted above, many, if not most advocates for “veganishism” only focus on food issues and don’t address the other aspects of veganism, such as clothing, animal experimentation, hunting and fishing, and all other areas of animal oppression.

CarpeVegan.com explains veganish this way:

“If someone smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, they’re clearly a smoker; but if, once or twice a year, they get drunk at a party and smoke a cigar, then they’re a non-smoker who smokes every once in a while. We propose a similar way of thinking for veganism: if 95%’ish of the time you’re vegan, you’re vegan or veganish.”

Advocates for veganishism argue that as long as people are trying to be vegan, they should be referred to as vegans, or veganishes (?) because in spirit, if not actually in practice, they are vegans. They also contend that more people would be willing to try veganism if they didn’t have to be 100% vegan at the get-go, and if they weren’t attacked for not living up to some vegans’ perfect, yet “impossible” standards.

From an animal rights point of view, promoters of veganishism believe fewer “food” animals would suffer and die because given the choice between vegan and veganish, more people would choose the latter because it’s easier.

Now to me, veganish is no different from occasional vegetarianism or occasional carnism. I have no problem with the word vegan, its definition or adhering to its principles. But the bastardization or watering down of the word to make it more appealing to people troubles me.

To be vegan is to eliminate, as much as possible, ALL forms of cruelty towards other animals. And, I might add, ALL the time. Not whenever you feel like and not whenever it’s convenient. It’s a moral position (and a stand against violence), not one that you can ignore when it suits you and not one that changes day to day.

I have some friends who consider themselves "vegetarians in principle" because they say they love animals and they feel bad for them when they’re killed for food - but they still eat them. I think veganish is the same thing: you don't have to be vegan in practice, just in principle, kinda like Mark Bittman's Vegan Until Six program or the Conscientious Carnivores. If you cause suffering to animals once in a while, that's okay, because you're not really vegan - you're veganish!

Let’s look at it another way. If I reduced the amount of beatings I inflicted on my child by 95% I would still be a child abuser. If I was pulled over for speeding I could argue that since I go the speed limit 95%-ish of the time I really wasn’t speeding at all. The police officer would then tear up the ticket, tell me to have a nice day and let me go own my way - yeah right!

My point is that if you reduce your cruelty to animals, even by 80, 90 or 95%, but intentionally cause their suffering and death once in a while, you’re still causing their suffering and death. This is not something to celebrate.

Would we applaud the person who goes 364 days a year without sexually molesting a child or murdering another human being but “falls off the wagon” and destroys someone else’s life just that one time? How is this any different from “veganishism”? I’ll tell you: it’s no different because it still causes someone else to suffer.

And if you’re saying to yourself, “But he can’t compare the murder of a human being with the use of animals,” then you aren’t really an animal rights activist. That’s because equal consideration is at the heart of the animal rights movement. If you wouldn’t want someone to use, imprison, torture or slaughter you, then you don’t do it to someone else, whether that someone has two legs, four legs, wings or gills.

It’s easy to fall off the wagon if you’re vegetarian or vegan for health reasons or to reduce your carbon footprint. You can always assure yourself that, if you slip up, cheat or cave in one day, you can just make up for it the next day. What’s the harm?

We all consume things that aren’t 100% healthy for us, but we believe that “anything in moderation” is okay, or if we eat something bad “once in a while” it’s not going to kill us. After all, we’re not perfect and we all impact the planet negatively, to some degree, each and every day. In this context, falling off the wagon occasionally is no big deal.

But if you’re vegan for ethical reasons, because you believe that using and slaughtering animals are forms of violence and morally WRONG, then falling off the wagon occasionally becomes a BIG DEAL, because every time you consume animal products, you’re contributing to the suffering, exploitation and killing of other animals.

The whole idea of “veganish” seems to want to pat people on the back who aren’t fully committed to a lifestyle of compassion, and to make people feel good when they do eat animals. I think this is a mistake (and imagine how confusing it is to non-vegans!).

None of us are perfect and there's no such thing as a 100% consciously or unconsciously aware vegan - your car alone most likely contains animal by-products of one kind or another and we all support animal exploitation to a degree, even if it's buying vegan food at a grocery store that sells animal products - but the goal is to eliminate, as much as humanly possible, those products from your life.

If you want to cut down on your animal consumption for health, the environment or the animals, great! But making up a word to make people feel good about the occasional suffering and death they’re causing doesn’t change the fact that unless you’re vegan, you’re still part of the problem, just as you’re part of the problem if you murder, rape and steal (even if it’s only 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1% of the time).

I don't think anyone should be shamed or ridiculed because they're trying to be vegan, but stumble once in a while. If you’re vegan in every other aspect of your life but just can’t give up cheese, then you’re definitely reducing the amount of suffering in the world.

My advice to them is to do your best to be vegan. Don’t beat yourself up if you slip up once in a while, just get back on the wagon and move forward. Seek out vegan organizations to help you find cruelty-free alternatives and to reassure you that you’re doing the right thing when you’re feeling weak. You’ll find that other vegans will be more than happy to share their experiences and expertise with you!

But if you're “okay” with causing the suffering, exploitation and slaughter of other sentient beings, even once in a while, you're NOT vegan, and all the variations in the world (veganish, veganesque, etc.) won’t change the fact that until you DO go vegan, you’re still part of the problem, not the solution.

Does the individual cow, chicken or pig suffer any less if someone is veganish? As long as there is a demand for animal products - any amount of animal products - animals will continue to suffer and die. There’s no such thing as slaughter-lite, death-free death or exploitation-ish. The idea of veganish is just as absurd.

*According to Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society and creator of the word, veganism “denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."

A Bridge Too Far

"No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned." – Yoda to Luke, The Empire Strikes Back

I have this friend. He’s a great guy, concerned about the environment, social justice issues, local and international politics, sustainable living, heritage preservation and so on. He has so much integrity, passion and commitment that he started an online newspaper, devoting most of his free time and energy to inform and educate the masses (and he doesn’t even get paid for it!).

He’s also a huge animal lover. For as long as I can remember he’s written about issues concerning animals. He’s always condemned local and national acts of animal cruelty. He’s called for stronger laws to protect animals we call pets from abuse. He’s written against the insidious past-time known as sport hunting. And he’s been a relentless pain in the butt towards those who keep whales in captivity.

He supports local animal rights groups when they hold their protests and vigils, advertises and covers various lectures and symposiums to enlighten the public on animal issues, and even features animal adoptions on his website.

Yet despite all his concern and compassion for other living beings, he still supports the exploitation, suffering and slaughter of animals for food. He still EATS animals and animal products.

We’ve talked about it a lot, and I’ve even offered to take him out and treat him to a delicious vegan meal at a restaurant just down the street from his house. So far he hasn’t taken me up on it.

In a recent email, my friend wrote:

“please don't ask me if I am vegan yet .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not eating an egg is a bridge too far.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this. Many people I’ve spoken with over the years have expressed the same sentiments. But does this make my friend a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical to condemn those who exploit and kill animals for commercial gain or personal satisfaction, only to support other forms of violence towards animals?

What’s the difference between stealing whales from the wild (or breeding them in captivity) to live as slaves for human entertainment, and breeding cows, pigs and chickens to live as slaves destined for slaughter (yes, cows and chickens are slaughtered when they can’t produce any more milk or eggs) because people enjoy the taste of their flesh and secretions?

And what’s the difference between the family who buys a season’s pass to the marine park and the family who buys a ham for Easter?

I can picture my friend interviewing someone who kills animals for their fur. “Isn’t it cruel to kill an animal just to make someone else look good?” he asks. The fur trapper then replies:

“please don't ask me if I am going to give up killing animals for the fur industry .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not trapping animals is a bridge too far.”

Or how about the person who keeps whales in tiny concrete tanks?

“please don't ask me if I am going to stop displaying whales .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not displaying whales (and jeopardizing the success of my business) is a bridge too far.”

Cruelty is cruelty, and suffering is suffering. It is no less so just because it’s being done to a different kind of animal. That doesn’t mean I think my friend is a cold-blooded killer or cruel animal collector, but in regards to reducing animal suffering and ultimately the amount of unnecessary violence in the world, if you’re not part of the solution…

So what IS the solution for my friend? Put your money where your mouth is. Like Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world. If you’re against animal exploitation, slavery and cruelty, go vegan. Can’t give up eggs yet? Then give up everything except eggs. A little bit is better than nothing at all. But don’t write it all off because you’re too old or too set in your ways.

Or as Yoda would say, only in your mind is the bridge too far…

Who Made Your Eggs Today?

It never ceases to amaze me how companies that exploit and slaughter other animals twist and bury the truth in order to sell their “products” or boost their public image. And they always get away with it.

Why is that? Oh right, because we let them. Otherwise, we’d be complaining and writing letters to those who regulate and guarantee truth in advertising.

If a billboard went up today advertising that cigarettes are good for you, or make you look cool, people would go ballistic. In fact, the ad would never get approved in the first place.

But when it comes to animal agriculture, we turn a blind eye. We allow false advertising, even encourage it, so we’re not reminded of how our meat and other animal products get to our table.

That’s why Ribfest uses a smiling pig in a chef’s hat (or coveralls) for its logo. That’s why milk and dairy products come in packages bearing pictures of happy heifers in idyllic fields. And that’s why the egg industry lies to its customers.

The question is: “Who Made Your Eggs Today?” And we have a picture of an egg farmer for the answer. Well my friends, the egg farmer didn’t make the eggs. He’s a man, a mammal, incapable of producing eggs. Chickens produce eggs, not humans.

If this billboard (one of many around the peninsula right now) was accurate, it would show a picture of six or seven birds, crammed into a battery cage, struggling to move around.

Their beaks would be cut off with a hot blade (and no pain-killers) so they can’t peck each other – a stress-induced behaviour – and risk damaging the production units (the industry’s term for chickens). And they might even be covered in fecal matter dripping down from the cages above them. Not a pretty picture.

So instead of the truth, we have a lie: a smiling farmer instead of a tortured little bird.

The truth is, the animals who make your eggs are sentient. That means they can feel pain, experience stress and terror, and suffer, just like your pet cat or dog. We shut down puppy mills that treat dogs in this manner, but support factory farms that treat chickens in this manner. Why?

I’d like to see some real truth in animal agriculture advertising. Maybe then people would consider going vegan.

Violent vegans

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Isaac Asimov

This guy has a piece of celery in one ear, a carrot in the other ear and a zucchini up his nose. He goes to the doctor and asks him what’s wrong. The doctor tells him, “Well, for one thing, you're not eating right.”

Okay, maybe not the funniest joke in the world but I just wanted to show you that I do have a sense of humour. But what I read last week wasn’t funny to me at all. In fact, I thought it was quite appalling.

The incident I’m referring to is the pie-ing of Lierre Keith, former vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth, by three hooded vegan extremists.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the assault took place at an anarchist book fair, where Keith was promoting her book, and the pies thrown at her were reportedly laced with chili peppers. For the complete story, click here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGI1CGM1H.DTL

A similar occurrence happened here in Canada a few months ago, when a pie-wielding PETA member attacked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because she supported the annual east coast seal slaughter. PETA claimed responsibility for the pie assault and the woman, an American from New York City, was charged. Here’s the link to that story:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/755483--anti-sealing-peta-protester-smacks-minister-with-tofu-pie

Now there are a lot of things that people say and do that I disagree with, but I don’t go around throwing pies at them. It’s not only childish; it’s an act of violence. Veganism is supposed to be about NON-violence.

And while a number of people have applauded the pie-throwing episode in San Francisco, some vegans don’t even consider it an act of violence. According to a person who witnessed the assault:

“I was there and perhaps I should have snickered in silence, and I am the first one to condemn ‘violence’, but I firmly feel that this was not a violent act, but a clever and effective direct action. The only thing the pie throwing ninjas bruised was her ego. Lierre Keith's book is very dangerous to the vegan movement.”

For the record, hitting someone in the face with a pie IS a violent act. It’s a display of force meant to embarrass or humiliate someone else, and it’s doing something to someone else against their will - a violation. It doesn't matter that Keith wasn’t physically or seriously injured.

So what are these people trying to prove? Do they think they’re going to win the public over or be taken seriously by hitting people in the face with pies? What message do they hope to impart on society, other than if you support acts of violence against animals (or even write against vegetarianism/veganism), you will become the target of violence?

Some animal activists used to do the same thing to people who wore fur, but instead of throwing pies, they threw red paint (and apparently still do on occasion). But the tactics, and the message, are still the same: the use of violence to raise awareness of violence. It’s all pretty stupid if you ask me.

And it’s counter-productive. Throwing pies at people doesn’t make them think about animal suffering or animal rights. It will however, make them think that animal activists are a bunch of crazy idiots.

Since 99% of the population doesn’t see anything wrong with using or eating animals, a lot of people will use this stunt (and others like it) to denounce veganism, and label us all as angry, militant and irrational hypocrites, even though it's not true.

If these violent outbursts continue, the progress we’ve made as agents for peaceful change will suffer. We’ll be branded extremists and terrorists. Never mind Lierre Keith’s book; it’s the pie-throwings and other senseless acts of violence that could do the vegan movement the most harm.

In defense of James Cameron and Avatar (sort of)

Stephanie Ernst over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression recently wrote that James Cameron’s new film Avatar, despite what the critics, or even some of the big animal rights organizations say, does NOT show respect for animals.

She takes particular offence to a scene in which the lead character forces himself onto (and into) another creature in order to control him. For Jake to become a full warrior, he must overpower and subdue an ikran, one of Pandora’s flying beasts. Stephanie writes:

“It is Jake’s duty, while the animal fights him off, to “bond” with the animal by overpowering him, tying him up, climbing on top of him, and inserting a part of his body into the body of the animal while his victim desperately fights him off.”

Click here for the full story:

http://challengeoppression.com/2010/02/16/domination-and-rape-in-avatar-this-is-respect-for-animals/

Stephanie also has a problem with the film’s message that as long as you pray or pay your respects to other animals, it’s alright to kill them (although we don’t actually know why Jake kills the animal and we never see the Na’vi eat animal flesh).

I saw Avatar twice and I personally thought it was an amazing movie. I loved the computer graphics, the music and the way the film brought attention to the environment, capitalism, the use of the military and the way we’ve treated (and continue to treat) indigenous peoples.

Nevertheless, I too was bothered by the “rape” scenes. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it at the time but something about it made me uncomfortable. I was reminded of the way wild stallions or elephants are “broken” but I think I saw it more as some kind of mind control than rape. I’m grateful to Stephanie for making me see what it really was.

I also found it disturbing that PETA would honour a film that promotes the exploitation of other animals, awarding James Cameron with a Proggy (PETA’s progress award) because of the film’s compassion and understanding towards animals.

According to PETA Senior Vice-President Lisa Lange, “We hope viewers will come away from Avatar with a new way of looking at the world around them and the way we treat our fellow earthlings. For helping animals with the positive message of this film, James Cameron is PETA’s ‘King of the World.’”

What? Okay, whatever. I learned long ago that PETA will do or say just about anything (or ride on anybody’s coattails) to get a headline. Remember CloFu (George Clooney sweat-flavoured tofu)?

But I don’t blame Cameron for making a film that promotes the slaughter, subjugation and rape of other animals. After all, Cameron isn’t a vegan or an animal rights activist. If he was, then I’d take issue with him exploiting animals in his films. But he’s not.

A friend of mine was also concerned that the use of violence towards the creatures in Avatar was going to send a message to the public that it’s okay to exploit and kill animals.

I had to remind my friend that the public ALREADY thinks that it’s okay to exploit and kill animals. We live in a society where it’s commonplace and acceptable to use animals for any reason whatsoever.

We kill them for fun, we kill them for food, we kill them for scientific curiosity and we kill them because we think we look good wrapped in their skins. We rape cows, we torture primates, we drown rats and we grind baby chicks alive.

We bash in the heads of turtles with hammers to study their heart rates and drill holes into the heads of hamsters to analyze their sex drives! We even cook and eat animals while they’re still alive. I could go on and on.

Aside from vegans, who make up a whole 1% of the population, everybody else eats and uses and kills animals.

So Cameron wrote and produced a film that depicts animal exploitation. Why are people surprised? Why would he write anything else?

We are not lions

In an attempt to defend meat-eating, there are those who say it’s perfectly natural for us to kill and consume other animals, and since we’re at the top of the food chain, everything and anything (or anyone) is on the menu.

These people often cite lions, tigers and bears (oh my) to back up their beliefs that humans are supposed to eat flesh, because other animals eat flesh. I can see where they’re coming from because I thought the very same thing when I was very young.

“Bears are omnivores and so are we,” I once told my then vegetarian sister. “Get the bears to stop eating meat and I’ll stop eating meat.” I thought I was so clever!

Lions kill antelopes, wolves kill deer and bears kill fish. They’re animals and we’re animals. So what’s the big deal? What’s the difference?

The difference is we are not lions, wolves or bears. We’re human beings: a different kind of animal; a MORAL animal. Lions and other carnivores don’t have morals, nor do they have a choice. If they don’t kill other animals they’ll die. They can’t survive on fruits, grains and vegetables. It’s the same for omnivores. But we can. We have other options.

Maybe once, a long time ago, we had to eat animals to survive (humans also ate other humans NOT so long ago) but we’ve learned so much since then. Today we work with lasers, communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet and send robots to other planets. We’re in the 21st century now, not the Stone Age. We don’t need to eat animals anymore.

Some readers might say: “Yes, but we’re omnivores too!” Are we? I’m not so sure. Our physiology seems to indicate we are not, and the health implications (not to mention the environmental consequences) of consuming animal products suggest it would be wiser for all of us if we gave up meat.

And just because we can do something, like eating someone else’s flesh, doesn’t mean we should. Our bodies can also handle cocaine, heroine and crystal meth in moderate amounts, but I don’t know anyone promoting widespread psychoactive drug use.

So meat advocates can use predators to try and make their meat-eating arguments if they like but I’m more inspired by the gorillas, elephants and rhinoceroses. These amazing animals are just as strong as lions (if not stronger) and they’re all vegans. They manage to survive without killing and eating the bodies of other animals and they do just fine.

But I don’t object to predatory animals killing other animals (even though I feel bad for the victims) because, as I wrote earlier, they have no choice; it’s either do or die. Humans on the other hand do have a choice. And that’s what it all comes down to: a moral choice.

We know that killing, unless absolutely necessary, is wrong. We also know that causing unnecessary suffering to others is cruel. That’s why we have laws. If we didn’t, society couldn’t function. So we’re taught from an early age about right and wrong, do unto others, and so on for the betterment of society and the good of its members.

We’re praised when we perform acts of kindness and punished when we commit acts of violence. We’re also encouraged to work together to strengthen our communities, protect the weak and vulnerable, and help the sick and elderly. We don’t live by the law of the jungle because we don’t live in the jungle.

We can’t be part of a moral community, and reap the benefits of that community on one hand, and then justify killing and eating animals “because other animals do it.” There are no rules in nature; it’s survival of the fittest. But WE don’t live like that. If we did, there would be no law enforcement agencies, no hospitals, no charitable organizations, no social services, no mercy and no compassion.

If you want to reject civilized society and all its rules, living “red in claw and tooth” and killing what you eat go right ahead. But leave behind all the protections and benefits that come from living in a civilized society, including all those fancy gadgets. Wild animals don’t have cars, kerosene generators or high-powered rifles and neither should you.

Either we live like human beings, and accept all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, or we live like animals. It’s one or the other. We can’t have it both ways.

The sanctity of life

I’m reading the newspaper the other day when I come across the following headlines:

Innocent bystander shot in the head and killed while pumping gas.

12-year-old girl found raped, murdered.

I mention them to a number of people and their responses are typical:

What a shame. How could somebody do such a thing? What a waste of a life!

They all feel bad for the victims whose lives have ended so abruptly, brutally and needlessly, and their hearts go out to the grieving families, unable to imagine the suffering they’re going through.

They try their best to make sense out of such senseless violence. Some get angry. One person wonders how some people can have so little respect for another’s life. Another asks, “What’s wrong with this world?”

However, the one thing that nobody says, not even one of them, is, “Well, at least they had a good life up until then.” Could you imagine if someone did? What would the others think of that person? At best, he or she would be accused of being some kind of cold-blooded monster!

“How could you say such a horrible thing?” they’d ask. They’d be shocked, disgusted and angered. They’d probably find such a remark repugnant, offensive and insensitive. And rightly so.

That’s because most of us have a reverence for life; we believe it to be sacred. We also believe that everyone should have a chance to live out his or her life; to grow up into adulthood, get married, have children and pursue a career; whatever they want to do. To have that life cut short by an unnecessary act of violence is both terrible and tragic.

Yet people say this all the time when it comes to the animals, don’t they? “Well, at least they had a good life up until then,” as if a couple of months (or for cows, a couple of years) of not being tortured justifies a violent and horrific end.

But that’s the whole idea behind “free-range” and “certified humane” animal products; that it’s okay to butcher animals as long as they’ve had a good life (and it’s us humans, not the animals, who determines what a good life is and when it should end).

Thanks to the countless undercover investigations and You Tube videos, the public is now more aware than ever before of what happens in today’s factory farms. Still, most people see nothing wrong with eating other farmed animals as long as they’re treated “okay” (up until the time their throats are slit anyways). And this is exactly what the industry wants you to think.

“Free-range” and “certified humane” labels were invented for one reason: to sell animal flesh, eggs and milk products to so-called “conscientious” consumers. But make no mistake: this new breed of animal exploiter is no more concerned with animal welfare than the animal exploiters over at the factory farm.

They do understand one thing though. People care about animals, even if they won’t stop eating them (and of course, no animal farmer wants you to stop eating them), so they’ve come up with an innovative marketing strategy to relieve the customer’s guilt: free range and certified humane animal products.

The customer feels good because he thinks the animals aren’t suffering (or not suffering as much). The exploiters feel good because they’re able to sell their flesh, milk and eggs at a higher price. The only ones who aren’t feeling so good are the animals because, well, they’re dead!

These so-called “happy” animals (how else do you get happy meat?) are still mutilated, abused and slaughtered. Chickens still have their beaks burned off; cows still have their horns cut off and pigs still have their… well, they’re still castrated. All of this is done without anesthetic and in the end they are all mercilessly, painfully and brutally killed.

They’re still treated like machines (the industry prefers “production units”) instead of sentient beings who have interests of their own. These “happy” animals are slaves, plain and simple. Since when is slavery humane? Who ever heard of a happy slave?

Well, here’s a newsflash for you: there’s no such thing as happy meat and there’s no such thing as humane slaughter. If you wouldn’t do it to another human being, it’s not humane.

Approximately 145 million animals are slaughtered on a daily basis (that’s over 50 BILLION a year) because we like the taste of them. That’s the only reason. So we try to justify our eating habits and ease our guilt by convincing ourselves, or letting the exploiters do it for us, that certain kinds of slaughter are acceptable; even desirable. They are not.

Whether these animals are “humanely-raised” or reared in an intensive confinement facility, they are ALL OF THEM slaughtered. They don’t retire; they aren’t sent out to pasture; no old folks home for them. The only place they go to is the slaughterhouse.

Over 50 billion lives every year. What a waste of life. No wonder there’s so much violence in the world. Isn’t it about time we made the connection, that as long as we engage in any act of violence, we will never be free of violence?

The French poet, Alphonse Lamartine, said, “Do not raise your hand against your brother, and do not spill the blood of any living creatures who live on the earth, neither human beings nor pets nor wild animals nor birds. In the depth of your soul some divine voice stops you from spilling this blood. There is life in it. You cannot return this life.”

And that’s what we’re talking about here: life. Someone else’s life. In fact, 50 billion someone elses each and every year. Their lives are not ours to take. These animals, given the choice, would rather live than die. Their life has value to them just as yours does to you.

We need to start practicing what we preach. We need to start respecting the sanctity of life. We need to go vegan.