The Veg Blog

Over the weekend, Stephanie over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression shared a video (embedded at the end of this post), which comes courtesy of the Tribe of Heart folks. In the video, James LaVeck discusses an event held by the Ohioans for Humane Farming, a “coalition of animal welfare, family farming, food safety, and environmental advocates advocating for more humane standards to prevent cruel factory farming practices in Ohio.” The fundraising event was promoted heavily as having “delicious food” and namechecked famous chefs involved. “Hey,” you might think, “I bet they were serving up some great vegan food!”

You’d be wrong.

In actuality, the event featured “grass-fed cheeseburgers with cheddar,” goat crostini, chicken confit, goat with pesto, and meatballs made of lambs. This, apparently, is the HSUS’s idea of “delicious food.”

LaVeck then points us to the Ohio group’s about page, which lists other members of the coalition, including several local humane societies, sanctuaries, and animal welfare groups alongside the Great American Lamb Company, cattle ranchers, and other farmers and organizations whose livelihoods depend on killing animals.

Listen. Enough is enough. Let’s cut the crap and get to the point: we don’t need national organizations that supposedly exist to help animals a.) forming coalitions with people who directly benefit from killing animals and b.) serving and promoting meat at their fund-raising events. I’m tired of hearing about incremental reform. I’m tired of hearing about reaching out to the family farmer. I’m tired of hearing about different approaches aiming for the same result. I’m not interested (and I don’t think the animals are, either) in approaches that actively promote the consumption of meat and other animal products.

The HSUS has some explaining to do. And if I were any of the animal organizations listed as part of the coalition, I’d be embarrassed and working to get my group’s name removed from that page pronto. All the good work that they do could get quickly tarnished by a coalition like this.

Keep in mind I’m not criticizing every person in these organizations. I know and have met dozens of people in HSUS, COK, Farm Sanctuiary, etc. and most are good people with good intentions. But when HSUS pulls something like this, they–as an organization–have to be held accountable. We need to call them out. We need to criticize tactics (without making it personal) and get an honest discussion happening. You don’t get people to stop eating meat by encouraging them to eat meat. (But you may get people eating meat again, churning out another one of those annoying vocal ex-vegans.)

Stephanie sums it up nicely (emphasis added):

Please, let’s hold each other accountable, even when that’s difficult to do (and yes, even when we know there are good, well-intentioned individuals inside groups). Please, let’s firmly stand together to say that this is not okay. Please, let’s change course. Please, let’s stop making excuses for what is inexcusable. Please, animal rights advocates, let’s fight for what we actually believe and stop supporting groups and campaigns that are less than honest, that do not reflect what we know to be right and just, and that give credibility and the “humane” label to the exploitation and killing of animals. Let’s show more loyalty to the nonhuman animals than to the groups that keep selling them out.

This Sunday I’m running the 7th annual Poplar Spring Run for the Animals 5k. It’s also my own seventh time I’ve run the race — the first one was just a couple of months after I started volunteering at the farm back in 2004.

As I did last year, this year I’m raising money through sponsorships. I hope that you’ll consider sponsoring me and supporting the farm for whatever you can afford using this big ol’ donate button:

This year I’m running in honor of two animals, both of whom are very close to my heart, reminding me often why I’m vegan and why I will never stop working toward educating others about animal rights.

First up is Amina. We adopted Amina, a bluetick coonhound, five years ago from Friends of Homeless Animals, a nearby no-kill shelter. She’d been found wandering in southwest Virginia seven months previous. She was probably a hunting dog (she has a small buckshot still under her skin on one of her hind legs) and was likely bred, as she has had a litter of puppies. After being picked up, Amina was taken to a shelter, and her time was almost up before a woman adopted her with the intention of finding a new home for her. After bouncing between foster homes and changing names a number of times, she wound up at FOHA, where we met her and instantly fell in love. After our first meeting with her, my wife and I talked it over and went to see her in her kennel run. We asked her through the cage door if she wanted to come home with us and she pawed at the door as if to say, “Of course!”

It’s been a great five years with Amina and all her goofy quirks. For a coonhound, she’s an unsually quiet dog, only barking four or five times in the entire time she’s been with us. She’s had a rough year this year, being diagnosed with very severe inflammatory bowel disease. She’s been on a steady dose of medications for the last month and as a side effect, her leg muscles have weakened quite a bit. It’s been touch-and-go trying to get her on the road to recovery fighting this severe intestinal disease and though she’s far from herself, we’re still hoping that she’ll recover and start to reverse some of these side effects that have set in. We love the girl deeply and have struggled watching her in various stages of discomfort during the onset of IBD (which took well over a year for the vets to successfully diagnose) and during the heavy medication that’s followed. Hopefully on Sunday she’ll be feeling good enough to join us at the race to meet some of the other dogs.

Secondly is Juniper, who I ran in honor of last year. I won’t recall Juniper’s entire story (read up in Poplar Spring’s newsletter or in Deb’s great post from last year), but in short: her family had to leave their farm and when they did, they simply left her behind. Juniper survived difficult weather on her own with only grass to eat for nine months before the neighbors finally called somebody about her. She’d developed a bad infection in her legs that forced her to walk on her front knees. Amazingly, when she came to the farm, she survived and showed quite an improvement in her health. Though she was never able to fully stretch her front legs out again because the muscles had atrophied, she was able to walk on them and loved her relaxed life at the farm.

She’s now 15 years old, making her the oldest goat or sheep ever at Poplar Spring, from what Terry tells me. She’s struggling with arthritis, but is still loving her treats and surprising everyone at the farm with her strength and amazing will to live.

Amina and Juniper are living reminders of how animals in dire straits can recover and live full lives. They’re perfect examples of distinct personalities that go against what everyone expects for their breed or species (have you ever heard of a silent coonhound? Or a goat that’s picky about food and won’t drink water if you’re looking at her?). They’re reminders that animals don’t exist for our use or taste. Let’s respect them and their lives.

Thanks for supporting Poplar Spring and the essential work they do.

Two events in the area I wanted to make sure everyone in the area knows about. First…

Vegan Bake Sale Benefit for Haiti (Falls Church)

After having to postpone two times because of, you know, blizzards and stuff, Gary his team will be offering up some great vegan goodies. Get there early! There’s a lot of buzz around this event, so I suspect the foodstuffs will disappear quickly. Benefits go to Food for Life Global.

(My wife and I made some mini-donuts. Try ‘em!)

The bake sale is being held outside of the Giant at 1230 W. Broad St. in Falls Church, VA tomorrow from 10:30am–2:30pm.

More info here.

and second…

DC Premiere of Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home (DC)

Though I won’t be at the showing, I cannot wait to catch the video release of this when it’s available. The original cut of this movie blew me away and I can only imagine what this refined and updated version will be like.

Catch the movie as part of the at the Environmental Film Festival. It shows tomorrow at 12:15pm at the Carnegie Institution, Elihu Root Auditorium (1530 P Street NW (Metro: Dupont Circle), Washington, DC) and is free. First come, first serve, so get there early!

More info here.

CDD. So many people have it. In fact, we all do to some degree, but as vegans, we tend to bump up against it in almost any conversation with have with someone about the way we live our lives.

CDD is Cognitive Dissonance Disorder, a completely made-up malady that serves as a good introduction to two encounters that my wife and I had with people this weekend.

The Monkey Torturer

My wife took our daughter to a birthday party in our neighborhood recently and chatted a bit with the girl’s parents while the kids were playing. She comes to find out that the husband does “research” on monkeys. What kind of research, you ask? Something amazing and potentially life-changing for the entire world, because that’s what medical research is all about?

No. Of course not.

The project he’s working on involves “testing the mother-child bond.” One group of monkeys have their children taken away from them right after giving birth. The second group of monkeys have their children taken away a week later. And, of course, all are kept in cages and, according to him, “don’t mind it.”

I don’t need to tell you this is torture. I don’t need to tell you this is stupid. And I don’t need to tell you that we would never even consider doing this to humans, but for some reason, it’s OK to some because it’s being done to monkeys. What is the possible justification for this type of research? I have no idea.

I wasn’t at this party, and it’s probably a good thing. I don’t think I could have held a civil conversation when justified monkey torture was the topic.

(Oh, and for added fun, the research lab is just minutes away in the same town as Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary.)

The Baffling Rescuer

Last weekend in our town there was a “Dog Days” event where a couple of blocks downtown were closed off and people were encouraged to bring their dogs down for a pet-friendly fair. It was a nice event overall and there were a number of interesting vendors and groups in attendance.

One was a greyhound rescue group. After looking through their literature, I asked one of the representatives whether they did any work lobbying against racing. She told me that the organization is officially “racing neutral.” She said that if they wanted to be able to continue getting the dogs from the tracks, they needed to remain neutral. That made sense to me.

As we continued our conversation, I proceeded with the assumption that even though the organization was racing neutral that the woman herself would be against racing. I mean, obviously, right?

She told me that she’d read that greyhound racing would likely be non-existent by 2015 because it was becoming less and less profitable each year. I said, “Well, that’s good.” She replied, “It would be a shame because we’d be losing a great, great breed…”

Those who know me know that I’m not a confrontational person. To a fault, actually. But at this point, we kind of got into it.

I explained that it’s not right to bring animals into existence just to treat them badly (at this point I didn’t even get into the “or for our use” thing, because, again I assumed she was against racing). She then asked me, “Have you ever actually been to a track and seen how they’re treated?” I told her I had not (and really wanted to use my favorite “and I don’t need to be hit in the face with a lead pipe to know it hurts” line, too, but I didn’t). She then assured me that most racers treated their dogs wonderfully.

Wait a second. Most racers treat their dogs wonderfully, but they’re discarded at a mere 3-4 years old? And if it wasn’t for your own organization, these dogs would die? I told her that, to me the treatment of an animal that you’re using for your own purposes is incidental. The use of an animal at all, I told her, is the problem. She acted like this was the stupidest thing she’d ever heard.

She then proceeded to throw goofy statements at me like, “Well, you can’t tell me you don’t get something out of having a dog? Isn’t that ‘using’ her?” (“Of course I get pleasure from having her in the family, but that’s not why she’s with us.”)

We both took a deep breath and paused a moment. I told her I appreciated the work her organization was doing and thanked her for being involved. I moved on, still baffled that someone could voice support for an industry that necessitated her rescue organization’s very existence.

When I got home, I tweeted about it and asked Mary Martin if this type of stance was common among greyhound rescuers and rescue organizations:

thevegblog: Got into it with a woman from a greyhound rescue organization today. She was defending greyhound racing. @mary_martin, is that normal?

mary_martin: They often say that their 501c3 status prevents them from having an opinion, but that’s BS. They get $ from the track & the $ they get makes them beholden to the industry. It’s a tough spot IF you want $ from the track.

thevegblog: The woman said the org was “racing neutral” in order to keep getting the animals, but she herself defended racing. Seems crazy.

mary_martin: Yeah, that’s a typical response. & from the adopter side, deciding 2 adopt from someone like that is difficult.

After a weekend of such encounters, I’m looking forward to working the farm this Saturday and going to a potluck with other vegan families on Sunday.

This morning, I was chatting with a neighbor and somehow the conversation turned to the time a police officer shot and killed a dog on our street a few years ago. As the conversation progressed, I found myself feeling agitated because even though she noted that she would “never forget the sound of the dog crying,” she defended the officer and blamed the dog’s guardians for the outcome. On the other hand, I told her that it was absolutely unnecessary and that the officer should never have pulled his pistol. And here’s the thing: I saw it happen. I know it didn’t have to be.

Here’s what I wrote the day it happened, just over two years ago:

Yesterday morning, when I was out walking the dog, we walked by a group of three dogs that were off leash, a Rottweiler, a black lab mix, and a smaller dog that I couldn’t identify.  I was a little curious, but they seemed to be sticking around one particular house, so I figured their guardian had just let them out.  They weren’t aggressive and didn’t even come over to sniff.

Last night, we were out again and we saw the dogs again, this time in the yard of a house on the opposite corner from ours.  They were running about, including out into the road, so obviously something was up.  I had my cell with me and called animal control (who I have stored in the phone because the need to call seems to come up every few months).  They were closed and their message seemed to indicate that if the dogs didn’t appear sick or dangerous, there wasn’t much else to do.

After we got back from our walk, I went across the road into another neighborhood where I remember seeing a sign about a lost black lab mix.  I called, but that family had already been reunited with their dog and just hadn’t removed the signs.

When I got back home, the pack was nowhere to be seen.  I went back inside, frustrated, and figured I’d call the next morning if I saw them again.

This morning, I ran an errand, talked to a neighbor about the dogs and thought about it all a bit more.  Something weird was going on.  Last night, they were hanging out in the front yard of the house near ours.  I saw them run towards a man walking past and bark at him, which seemed to shake him up a little, but they didn’t attack him.  It just seemed like they were defending their territory.  I think that these three dogs live in that house, which was just recently moved into by the new owners.  Usually there were some dogs in the backyard, but I hadn’t heard them bark recently.  Plus, the house’s front lawn was getting to be very overgrown.  It’s like they hadn’t been there in quite a while.  Had they left the dogs to fend for themselves?  Did they leave overnight and just forget to lock the gate?  It wasn’t clear.

When I got back from my errand, a cop car pulled up to the house.  The officer got out of the car, walked into the front yard towards the three dogs who were laying there.  They got up and came at him, barking like the did at the man the night before.  The cop got freaked out.  He reached in his holster, pulled out his pistol, and then POP.

The dogs (two of them or possible all three, I’m not sure) scurried around the house.  I could hear a loud, painful crying and whimpering that ended a minute or so later.  The cop stood in the front yard, looking a bit stunned, and then called in backup.

A kid across the street saw it happen and yelled out to a friend down the street, “I think a cop just popped a cap in that dog!”  I watched the whole thing unfold from my front porch, not being able to shake that sound of the dog crying.

A few minutes later, more police and animal control showed up.  The woman from animal control carried the limp body of what looked like the black lab to her van.  I didn’t see the other two dogs.

I held out a small bit of hope that maybe, just maybe, that wasn’t a pistol he had pulled.  Maybe it was a tranquilizer.  But as I left for work a few minutes later, I saw the cops in the overgrown front yard with a metal detector, trying to find the shell casing.

I’m really angry by the way things went down.  First of all, how come animal control isn’t on call after 5pm?  If they had been able to help when I called the night before, this wouldn’t have happened.  Secondly, where the heck are the owners of that house?  Why would a brand new family leave a yard to get completely overgrown and leave behind their three dogs?  Lastly, and most frustratingly, why did the cop shoot the dog?  It was absolutely unnecessary.  Of course they got up and barked at him, he approached them, infringing on their territory.  Why didn’t he just call over to them from a safe distance?  Or call in for backup?  It was three dogs he was dealing with, what made him think he could deal with it on his own, even if they were completely docile?  Should an officer that’s that skittish around dogs really be the one to go on that type of call?

I’m going to talk to another neighbor that I saw talking with the cops and try to find out the full story.  If everything turned out the way it appeared to, I’ll be writing a letter to the police department about the way it went down.

I keep replaying the situation in my head.  There’s no reason it had happen like that.

Later that day, I wrote this:

I talked to my neighbor tonight and she filled me in, letting me know that yes, indeed, the lab was killed by the bullet. In addition, the bullet went through the lab (the oldest of the three) and grazed the smallest dog. Thankfully, the small dog is back at home, recovering, after a visit to the emergency room. It may have been the small dog that I heard wimpering, but I don’t think so.

Apparently the dogs have been digging holes under the fence and have gotten out frequently over the last few weeks. Animal control’s been there a number of times. Everytime the family there fills the holes, the dogs dig them back out again.

After I talked with my neighbor and got some more information, I went over and talked to the man himself, who was out in front of his house. He told me that the police seargent told him that the two large dogs “lunged” at the officer and that the officer didn’t even have time to get the gun fully aimed after he pulled it out of the holster.

As a recap:

• From my vantage point, the officer made no attempt to call to the dogs. He walked directly at them, on their property.
• Though the dogs did get up and come at him (and may have been barking, I can’t remember), I saw no evidence that they were lunging. What I saw was the officer back up, get nervous, pull his gun, point, and shoot.
• Even if they did come at him agressively, he was approaching them on their property; shouldn’t he have been prepared to use non-lethal force, like his baton or mace? Aren’t police trained in this?

I’m also still confused why one cop was sent to handle three dogs and why he didn’t just wait for animal control to arrive since these dogs were doing nothing but laying in their own front yard.

This was the first time I’ve met this particular neighbor. While I’m downright angry at the way the situation went down, he seemed more stunned and saddened, just trying to make sense of it all. He told me about going to see his dog one last time and get his collar. He said he noticed that the bullet went in the dog’s side, near his rear leg, which seemed like a strange place if the dog was indeed lunging. He showed me the bloodstains on the ground and the spray paint marking where the bullet casing was found (the cops didn’t find it with their metal detector, he found it).

I gave him my name and number and let him know I’d be happy to help if he was going to file a complaint or press charges.

As I was walking Amina tonight and I thought about the pain this guy must be feeling at the loss of his friend, I thought that maybe there was a reason I locked myself out of my house today. Though nothing will bring his dog back, I hope he can get some sort of resolution to this.

Something I didn’t mention in the update is that when I was talking with the man in his front yard, I had Amina with me. As we were talking, I looked down and her tail was between her legs and she was shaking, something that doesn’t happen unless something’s spooked her. It was clear she could sense something bad had happened there — maybe she could smell the other dog’s blood on the ground — and she didn’t want to stick around.

The days following the shooting were very tense and stressful. I talked to a reporter from the local paper and spoke out (anonymously) about what happened. The feedback on the paper’s site was half “I can’t believe the cop did that!” the other half cheering the cop on and saying that I was full of crap despite the fact I witnessed it. A number of times, I looked out my front door and saw a cop car parked there, the officer staring at my house and taking notes. I spoke with an animal control officer, who was conducting an investigation for his office.

Eventually, the policeman who I saw outside my house on numerous occasions came to the door. I stepped out onto the porch and spoke with him. He was in charge of the police’s internal investigation and wanted to get my side of the story. I told him everything, as I did the newspaper and the animal control officer. The cop spent a lot of the time defending his fellow officer, almost like he was trying to convince me the shooting was justified. He showed me how much more difficult it is to pull the mace from a holster compared to the gun. He was friendly about it all and didn’t come off as intimidating, but I still came away from the conversation feeling pessimistic about how things would turn out.

Weeks passed, and nothing. No news in the paper, no calls from police or animal control. The neighbor decided not to press charges after he found out the most he’d be able to get out of it was $80 for the “value” of his dog and possibly reimbursement for cleaning blood off of his carpet. I eventually found out from speaking with another neighbor that the police had completed their internal investigation and found the officer was in the right. No action would be taken against the officer.

Big surprise.

Even though this happened over two years ago, the event still weighs on my mind. I’ve found myself scowling as police drive by and haven’t called animal control since then (rather, I’ve done a few catch-and-returns on my own). When I see an officer, I think to myself, “Is that the guy that shot the dog? Is he the one who fired a pistol with a kid only 20 feet away?” And I’ve lost a lot of faith in neighbors who feel that shooting a dog point blank is justified just because he’d escaped his yard and had been wandering the neighborhood.

I understand that police work is dangerous and I know that an aggressive dog, just like an aggressive human, may need to be subdued. But I sincerely hope that officers are receiving better training about how to deal with groups of animals (don’t try to handle them alone, don’t approach them on their property, use non-lethal force, etc.). Sadly, I suspect this is not the case.

(This is a guest post by the always charming Gary Loewenthal of Animal Writings and Compassion for Animals. He’s heading up the first Worldwide Vegan Bake Sale, which you’ve hopefully heard about by now. I asked Gary to write a guest post to talk a little bit about the bake sale, which has gathered an awful lot of steam since he first told me about the project a few months ago. It’s a great example of what one person with one good idea can do.)

It’s my honor and privilege to be taking up valuable bandwidth on the premier animal rights and vegan blog of the Internet. Many thanks to Ryan. (ed. note: No neet to butter me up, Gary, you’ve already got the guest post spot. :) )

My life lately has been gradually consumed by the Worldwide Vegan Bake Sale (WVBS), culminating next week, so hopefully I’ve learned a few lessons and have some impressions that may be of interest to a few readers or more.

In a nutshell… The WVBS concept is simple: Groups (or individuals) around the world hold vegan bake sales around the same time – June 20-28, to be exact. It’s not a strict requirement that participants have to have a bake sale during that time period, but having a bunch of vegan bake sales across the globe in the same week makes it feel more like a festive, impactful event.

The idea is very unoriginal. It’s based on similar projects such as the Great American Bake Sale. The main difference – besides being vegan – is that participants can do whatever they want with the proceeds. That’s turned out to be a great feature, but the original reason for that decentralization was to make the project easier to organize. Speaking of which, the coordinator of the event as a whole is Compassion for Animals, a small DC-area grassroots animal group that a few of us started last fall. (The website will be finished as soon as I get a break from the WVBS!)

I randomly hoped for 30 bake sales the first year. Right now we have 75. Participants include an LA City Councilmember’s office, a preschool, a radical left sci-fi convention, vegan businesses, vegan food bloggers, local veg*an groups, internationally known animal protection organizations such as Farm Sanctuary and Compassion Over Killing, and ad hoc collaborations of friends. Proceeds are going to a river cleanup effort, an anti-discrimination program, a children’s shelter, a free mobile spay/neuter service, humane societies, farmed animal sanctuaries, Food not Bombs, Food For Life, and animal-related groups ranging from the Sea shepherd Conservation Society to Vegan Outreach – and many more places. One bake sale is a fundraiser for a sanctuary employee who was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Lessons I’ve learned (or am learning) – which may be old hat to anyone who’s organized anything, or may just be common sense, but I’ll put them out there in case they’re useful to others who are thinking of embarking on an activism project:

“You can do it.” I’m not a great baker and I have almost no experience at bake sales or putting together events, yet I’m heading up a global vegan bake sale. I forget who said that the secret to writing a book is to start writing, but I think it’s the same thing with big projects: Just start doing the first steps, then the second steps, and so forth. Don’t worry that you’re not an expert or that you make mistakes along the way – we’ve made a ton. You learn from your mistakes and gather knowledge along the way.

If the project seems too big, scale it back. As mentioned before, we made the WVBS participation rules short and simple partly to save time on our end. You also might also be able to enlist help. I feel like I cashed in all my chips on this endeavor, but hopefully that’s ok – if we all help each other, it should come out even in the long run.

Prepare for success. The WVBS isn’t a household name, and it’s nowhere near the scale of, say, Meatout (shout-out to FARM, BTW, for their promotions of the WVBS), but compared to my low expectations, it’s a huge success – and the workload has expanded accordingly. In hindsight, I should have asked myself, “What kind of infrastructure and time commitment will we need if we get a lot more respondents than we’re expecting?”

Cupcake activism is powerful! I was slow to realize the power of introducing skeptics to the deliciousness and variety of vegan food. I may have been too vested for too long in trying to craft the perfect pro-vegan arguments to see that vegan chocolate chip cookies have their own persuasiveness which may go beyond words. I’m finding out that the positive, friendly atmosphere of vegan feed-ins and bake sales are somewhat disarming and conducive to productive conversations; non-vegans attending these events seem more open, more honest, less defensive, less inclined to play “stump the vegan.” Food is an amazing activism tool. And it tastes great!

Perhaps the most gratifying part of the WVBS is witnessing the enthusiasm and creativity of all the participants. They’re the ones doing the heavy lifting and are the reason that the project is a success; I can’t give them enough props or gratitude. Not only will the bake sales feature an assortment of cookies, cupcakes, pies, brownies, breads, and muffins; they’ll also include danishes, cinnamon rolls, scones, donuts, cheesecakes – you name it Some bake sales will be combined with jewelry and crafts, or music shows by national acts or local groups. And check out these amazing posters for Atlanta, Ithaca, and Auckland bake sales! The hard work and amazing output from the organizers and bakers for all the local bake sales has been nothing short of inspiring. If you get a chance over the next couple weeks, stop by one or more of these bake sales if they’re in your area. Take home some wonderful goodies and help out worthy causes in the process. And know that the offerings on the bake sale tables all over the world are not only produced with flour, sugar, nondairy milk, and other cruelty-free ingredients; they’re also made with love – which can be quite an effective outreach tool.

Mall security gone wild, tackling a peaceful protester outside of a mall pet store (Scamp’s) known to sell puppies from puppy mills:

You can voice your objection to the Lloyd Center Mall in Portland, OR at (503) 282-2511.

[via Food Fight]

On Saturday, I went to the Animal Rights 2008 Conference to attend a few sessions and catch up with a few people.  I bumped into, and chatted with, more people than I expected.  Among them: Josh from Herbivore, the folks from Cosmos Vegan Shoppe, Melanie Joy (who was manning the Lantern Books table), Terry (and volunteer Steve) from Poplar Spring, Eric from An Animal Friendly Life, Gary from Animal Writings, Deb from Invisible Voices, Jonathan Balcombe, Chad and Emiko from Food Fight, and surely others I’m forgetting.

I attended a handful of sessions and thought I’d comment briefly on each:

How to Deal with Despair/Guilt? (dealing with the enormity of our mission and the extent of animal suffering) – pattrice jones

In this workshop, pattrice jones from Eastern Shore Sanctuary (and author of the very good coping guide for activists, Aftershock) facilitated a discussion amongst activists about the inevitable feelings of hopelessness, despair, and guilt that arise when doing animal (or any other social justice) activism.  This is one workshop that would definitely be served well by being given a full morning three-hour timeslot.  Take note, AR 2009 organizers.

Abuse Abroad (animal abuse in other countries) – Gorski, Marr, Vigo

What really struck me in this talk came during Rattle the Cage’s Tim Gorski when he discussed the things he’d seen while undercover in Southeast Asia.  I attended this talk because I really don’t know too much about the animal abuse that goes on outside of the United States and Gorski certainly schooled me.  Things I learned:

• The Medan Zoo in Indonesia houses an exhibit with orangutans addicted to cigarettes.  Tourists flick butts into the cages at the animals.  At the same zoo, stones and slingshots are sold.
• In the Philippines, there is an orangutan whorehouse.  Read that sentence again.  And, yes, it’s exactly what you think.
• In Northern Burma, gall bladders are carved from live bear cubs, shells are ripped from live turtles, live owls and eagles have their eyes cut out, and bear paws are cooked while still on the live bear cub.

He also discussed elephant trafficking in Thailand, where there are 3000 enslaved elephants that “work” for the tourist industry.  There are only 500 wild elephants in the wild in the country.

Speaker Maru Vigo of Derechos de los Animales discussed the connection between the Catholic church and the bullfighting industry in some Central American countries and Anthony Marr of the HOPE-CARE Foundation discussed the Alberta Tar Sands, another subject which I was completely ignorant about.

Perceptions of Animals (public perception of animals as food, companions, laborers, victims; role of language) – Davis, Prescott, Thompson

Eric covered the topic of our perception of animals’ roles and how those perceptions are reflected in the language we use.  Karen Davis discussed our perceptions of chickens and how those perceptions are challenged when people visit sanctuaries.  Good stuff, but each speaker definitely needed more than 15 minutes.

Engaging Ethnic Minorities – (African-Americans, Latin Americans, Asian-Americans) – Chang, Dalal, Ornelas

Lauren Ornelas of the Food Empowerment Project really stood out in this talk.  Hopefully she’s written more on the topic.

Does Welfare Bring Abolition? (should AR activists advocate welfare reforms as a path to abolition?) – Davis

I was expecting some chair-throwing in this workshop moderated by UPC‘s Karen Davis, but things stayed relatively civil.  One thing that’s easy to forget when discussions like this happen is that no one is actively trying to do anything to hurt animals.  Welfarists aren’t trying to stunt the movement and abolitionists aren’t trying to put theory ahead of the immediate need for welfare improvements now.  However, it does seem to me that when these discussions get underway, those supporting the welfare stance tend to get defensive and take criticisms of methods personally.

Something else I noticed is that in defenses of welfare reform, it’s often taken for granted that these welfare changes are actually substantially beneficial for the animals.  According to people I know that have seen cage free egg facilities, they say that the differences are minimal or any improvements are offset by a new series of safety issues.  Critics of Prop 2 in California (a subject I am admittedly underinformed about) note that not only is the language of the initiative limp in terms of its timeline and actual protections for animals, but attempts to promote the proposition use misleading phrases like “prevent animal cruelty – vote yes on Prop 2.”  Can something that still allows the torture and death of food animals honestly be said to “prevent” cruelty?

Perhaps the most important point made during the entire discussion, though, came from someone who pointed out that there haven’t been any well-designed polls or studies that show the effect of welfare reforms on people’s attitudes towards animals and eating habits.  I, for one, would love to see some data on how many people avoid vegetarianism (or give it up) when so-called “humane” meat is available.  I suspect that a lot of people who aren’t involved in “the movement” look to groups like the HSUS when it comes to animal issues.  If the HSUS is supporting a certain welfare reform, many will assume without much critical thought that it’s good enough for the animals, so therefore, it’s still justifiable to use, kill, and eat the animals now that they’re being treated better.

I’m glad I took the time to attend some sessions this year.  Though I went to AR 2006 and TAFA 2007, in both cases I didn’t attend any talks (I just went to meet up with Josh and Isa for AR 2006 and to help out at the Herbivore table in 2007).  Animal rights supporters are an interesting bunch and getting more and more diverse every year.  It’s a good feeling to be around so many other people that are on the same page (or at least in the same book).

The Portland massive (Vegans for Animal Advocacy, No Compromise, Food Fight!, and Herbivore) will be putting on the Let Live Animal Rights Conference from June 27-29.  Even though I’m planning to attend AR 2008 this year because it’s nearby, the grassroots nature of the Let Live conference is much more appealing to me.  Why’s Portland have to be on the other coast?

Topics include Verbal Self Defense, Student Activism, Understanding Direct Action, Understanding Our Audience, Building Good Group Dynamics, and others, with presenters including Will Potter, Mark Hawthorne (I’m currently reading his new book, Striking at the Roots), and recent immigrant-to-Portland Isa Chandra Moskowitz (The Post Punk Kitchen).  Cost is a measly $10.  Here’s to hoping they make mp3s of the presentations available for purchase afterwards.

Downtime, part 2

The server the Veg Blog is hosted on hit some rough patches over the last few days. There was the 36 hour outage to start the weekend and then a disk failure to start this week. Fortunately, data was moved safely (with no loss, as far as I can tell) and things seem relatively stable now. Remind me to make a backup of things just in case, OK?

My presentation

Thanks to everyone who asked how my presentation at UMW went. While the crowd wasn’t enormous, about ten people, it was a decent enough size for me to start getting more comfortable talking about veganism and animal rights in front of a group. About half of the attendees were vegetarian or vegan and the other half were meat eaters, with one or two of them falling under the “considering vegetarianism” heading. I think the presentation itself went relatively well… I was a little nervous, probably went overboard with “um”s, and could stand to make more eye contact, but overall I think I hit a decent enough balance of information and humor.

Afterwards, there was a discussion amongst the veg*ns in the group about challenges faced with family, at school (like the cafeteria staff using “vegetarian” and “vegan” interchangeably when labeling food), and even a little talk about the welfare vs. abolition argument that was the fancy trend in 2007 and may rear its head again now that the AR and TAFA conferences are in sight. It took a little prodding to get an omni to talk, but eventually one did speak up and say while she respected vegans a lot, she “liked meat too much” (slide 3!) and wouldn’t ever give it up. While I didn’t get to delve into that any more deeply, she did say she thought that vegans needed to be more active than just being vegan. This sparked some good responses. Morgan, who organized the talk and heads up the AR group at UMW, said she thought that being vegan was the most active thing one could do because it’s taking a belief and living it every moment of your life. Another recently converted vegan spoke up and said she thought it was hypocritical for people that protested for animal rights to not be vegan.

All in all, it was a good talk and I hope everyone there enjoyed it. Thanks to the UMW crew for having me out. Let’s do it again.

I’d hoped to record my talk, but completely forgot until about 1/4 of the way through. Here are the slides if you want to take a look.

Lunch with Bazu

Today I had lunch at the always-excellent A Taste of Burma (their site is down as of this posting) with Bazu of Where’s the Revolution. Bazu’s been a long-time commenter on the Veg Blog, so I was happy she was able to take some time out of her visit with family to meet up for lunch. She’ll be posting pictures of our food over on her blog when she gets home.

A few minutes before she arrived, I had a chance to talk with the owner of A Taste of Burma, who’s possibly one of the nicest guys on the planet. I asked him a question that had been burning on my mind for the last couple of months. You may remember I wrote a while back about the amazing fermented tea leaf salad that they make using really hard-to-get leaves from Burma. I’d gotten addicted to it and eventually looked up the recipe only to be shocked to see that every recipe called for fish sauce and dried shrimp powder. I feared the worst, but was pleasantly surprised when he told me that while that’s the traditional way of making Lephet Thote, A Taste of Burma doesn’t use fish sauce or the dried shrimp. Phew. Crisis averted.

Guess what I ordered for lunch today.

You may remember a post I wrote last year titled “10 Ways to be a Kick-Ass Vegan.”  Number nine on that list was “Give a talk,” something about which I said: “Here’s one I’ve been meaning to work up the nerve to do for a while now.  Ideally, I’d like to find a group of young or beginning vegetarians to talk to about veganism, like a high school or college animal rights group.”  Well, I’m finally taking that step and doing my first AR-themed talk.

The talk will be titled, “Why Isn’t Everybody Vegan?” and will focus on the multitude of reasons that people use for not changing their diet and lifestyle, even if it may be completely in line with their ethical beliefs.  It’s part of Animal Rights Week at the University of Mary Washington (Fredericksburg, VA), which is an ambitious week of outreach by a new and small (but dedicated) Animal Rights Club at UMW.

It just so happens that UMW is my alma mater and being the talk will be in my major’s building, so this talk should be extra fun.  Here are the details:

Why Isn’t Everybody Vegan?

When you make the transition to veganism, it’s hard not to be
enthusiastic about it.  It all seems so right and obvious and you
begin to wonder why everyone else isn’t making the same connection.
This talk will look at the reasons people aren’t vegan (“It’s too
extreme,” “I love cheese too much,” etc.) and how to counter those arguments in others (or yourself).

Where: University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA (Trinkle Hall Monroe Hall, room TBA)

When: Wednesday April 9, 2008; 6pm

What else?: There’ll be food.  So come, eat something, and listen to me blabber on about why veganism is the greatest thing since sliced (vegan) bread.

More info: The event’s Facebook page

If you’re in the area, come on by and say hi.  I’ll be the nervous one at the front of the room.

This post deserves a lot more attention than I’m going to give it right now, but I did want to get the thought out there while it’s still fresh in my mind.

My friend Paul, who runs the fat acceptance web site Big Fat Blog, recently posted about the lack of men and people of color in the fat acceptance movement.  Another friend routinely blogs about homeschooling and how he’s always battling the common misconception of homeschooling as the sole domain of far right-wing religious zealots.

It occurred to me that all of these movements are facing some very similar issues, all based around either shattering misconceptions and fighting stereotypes or encouraging the involvement of groups that are not well represented.  In the AR movement, it’s always been disproportionately white, at least outwardly.  This issue is covered in-depth by long-time veg blog reader johanna (and others) over at Vegans of Color.  And while there are plenty of men involved in animal rights, caring about the welfare and rights of animals are still largely viewed by mainstream America as feminine.   I don’t even need to mention the stereotypes we deal with every day, do I?

It’d be nice if there were a larger movement–perhaps that grand “progressive movement” I hear so much about–that would let smaller groups work together to figure these types of issues out.  Activist activism.  Or something.  A place where groups with seemingly different agendas can use their common ground to work towards a greater overall activist involvement.  (I went to such a gathering in Portland last year and it was excellent.)

Any thoughts?

You may remember way back in August 2006 when I posted about vegan artist Veronica Ibarra’s “Receipt Project” in which she was collecting food receipts from around the world in order to show the prevalence of animal consumption. All non-vegan products on submitted receipts were to be underlined, the full collection of receipts covering an entire room.

Well, Veronica finished the project earlier this year and exhibited at the Ni Musculos Ni secreciones (Neither Muscles nor Secretions) show in Madrid. It looks great — check out the photos and the artist’s statement about the piece. Great job, Veronica! (Be sure to check out her other work, as well.)

Reader Jennifer passed me a link to a post she wrote on Animalblawg about a lunch held yesterday by her Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.  Two speakers from the HSUS were invited to speak about how meat production contributes to climate change.  Good stuff, maybe?

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case:

The speaker’s powerpoint presentation listed three methods of reducing the carbon footprint:
1. Refine
2. Reduce
3. Replace

The speaker didn’t discuss the “replace” prong at all. Instead, she advocated organic meat consumption, i.e., “refinement,” extolling its virtues of being less harmful to the environment and containing more nutrients.

The speaker’s powerpoint presentation offered several websites to help the audience find happy, clean meat:
www.eatwild.com
www.sustainabletable.com
www.localharvest.com

For the “reduce” prong, she suggested the Meatless Monday program as a way to give up meat one day a week, which is “more manageable than going completely vegan.”

And then, get this, they suggested giving subsidies to Brazilian beef producers.  What the hell is going on here?

You know, while I don’t necessarily agree with the process behind welfarist thought, I can at least understand that people working via those means honestly believe it’s the best route to ending animal exploitation (someday).  But when you have an organization–a supposedly animal-friendly one headed by a vegan–out there not only actively promoting organic meat consumption but perpetuating the myth of veganism as an unmanageable lifestyle change, there’s something seriously wrong.  I can’t imagine even the most staunch welfarist arguing that this is the most effective method of helping reduce animal suffering.  How does painting veganism as a difficult lifestyle change do anything to further people down the meatless path?

Thanks to Jennifer for writing about this.  We need to continually critique the methods those in the movement use so we can keep moving forward and not rely on these limp attempts at encouraging personal change.

The Meat-Eating Goat Rescuer

A few months ago, I was working with the pigs at Poplar Spring during the Montgomery County Farm Tour. The farm tour brings in a lot of people that not only aren’t vegetarian, but don’t have any concept of an animal sanctuary or why a farm with animals would exist if not to make money. That event is an interesting opportunity to interact with meat-eaters and tell them things about food production they never knew.

While in the pig area on that particular day, one woman came up with her completely bored-looking husband. After I talked a little bit about the pigs’ history and how they got to the farm, she mentioned that she did goat rescue and brought the newest goat to Poplar Spring a few weeks earlier. She went on to discuss the goat slaughter industry and how it was tied to consumption of goat milk. I figured, ah, good, a visitor who “gets it.” Then, she said, “I guess you’re vegetarian?”

I replied, “Yes, vegan. You?”

She replied, “No. I probably should be, but I like the taste of meat too much.”

I had to pick my jaw up off the ground.  Not only was I hearing the most annoying (but also the most truthful) reason, but I was hearing it from someone who should know better. It’s like hearing that someone that runs a farm sanctuary still eats meat: it just doesn’t add up.

She continued, “Plus, I could never get him to go for it,” pointing to her husband, who was leaning against a wall. A few seconds later, he asked, “Can we go yet?”

I decided to pretend I was Gary and turn this into an outreach opportunity. I told her, “There are so many great fake meats out there, it’s incredibly easy to transition to vegetarianism these days.”

She countered with, “Well, we know where our meat comes from. We had a cow that we raised for the meat, so when we look at our hamburger, we know where it’s from.”

At this point, I gave up. You see, it can be headache-inducing to deal with an omni that refuses to consider your position. But even worse, I think, is dealing with a person who announces that they “know where [their] meat comes from.” Like that’s some kind of good excuse for not being vegetarian despite knowing all the facts. I look at a person who “knows where [their] meat comes from” more critically than I do someone who buys the packaged stuff.

The “Pig Mother”

A couple of weeks ago, there was a frustrating article printed in my CSA’s newsletter. The brief piece was written by a woman on an “eco-friendly” farm that raises animals for meat. She starts the article off discussing how she was wished a “Happy mother’s day!” when a co-worker pointed out how her chickens and pigs were like her children.

The author also discusses her time at a farm where both meat animals and vegetables were raised. This, she explains, was where she became an “ex-vegetarian”…

… after spending a season helping raise animals from little ones, some from birth, to observing and some participating in the slaughtering, which took place on the farm, and with the knowledge of the good life they led and their importance in the farming system.

After discussing how she believes in naming the animals she raises and how she can tell them apart because of their individual personalities, she ends the article with an astoundingly heartless turn (emphasis mine):

I’m not a pig mother but a pig raiser who cares deeply for the pigs. It’s been an amazing and challenging experience from devising crazy tactics to get the pigs to stay out of their water trough or to get feed into their feed trough, worrying when a pig was not eating or acting a bit down, trying to stay standing as the pigs use me as a scratching post, and learning to always wear pants that can get dirty or are already dirty. I’ve loved raising them and will also love to eat them.

Here we have someone who names animals, recognizes their individuality, and was an ethical vegetarian, yet now feels just fine about killing an animal and eating it after it’s outlived its usefulness to the “farming system.” Pigs, to her, have become nothing more than edible cogs in a wheel.

To me, the cognitive dissonance here is even greater than with someone who buys their meat in styrofoam packages. To look into the eyes of an sentient being every day for months and then to have no qualms about killing her takes a special knack for rationalization. It’s a level of mental disconnect that I have a lot of trouble understanding.

Animals as Property

My CSA has also started a practice recently that really bothers me. For a while now, they’ve been selling the eggs from chickens that are kept on the farm. At the end of the season, these chickens were then sold off for meat. Now, though, they’re selling the chickens for meat throughout the season, increasing the number of chickens that are killed each year. The chickens are sold primarily to Vietnamese and Hispanic immigrant communities.

This really bothers me because I love my CSA and I love what it stands for. The people that run it are friendly and generous and the recipes they print in their newsletters are 98% vegetarian. But, there’s still this deeply ingrained view of animals as property to be bought, raised, sold, and killed for human use rather than as sentient beings with self-interest and a will to live. It’s frustrating, and I really don’t know the way around it. In one sense, they promote the eating of fresh, locally grown vegetables in such a way that probably reduces the amount of meat being eaten, yet they still benefit directly from the use and death of animals.

What to Do

I’m continually baffled by how to proceed with people who should understand (and generally do) about veganism and should logically embrace it, but don’t. Hearing phrases like “it’s all part of the natural cycle of things” ring in my ears as a giant cop-out and reading articles like the one mentioned above really dishearten me. It’s painful knowing that there are people that love spending time with the animals and appreciate their individuality, but still kill them. These are the people that should be our allies. But instead, they wear even thicker blinders than most.

I’d love to hear about your similar experiences and how you’ve dealt with them. What does it take to push someone that has all the information they need and exhibits the necessary level of compassion, yet still doesn’t take that simple, final step of actual action?

I really enjoy Paleo-Future, a blog that showcases “yesterday’s tomorrows,” visions from the past of the future (our present). One recent post highlighted a 1969 piece from the Jamaica Daily Gleaner envisioning what food would be like in the Year 2000:

Milk that never saw a cow, fruit that never grew on a tree or in the ground, and steak bearing no relation to a bullock — in other words, fabricated food. It sounds a little distasteful and perhaps unbelievable but, according to eminent scientists studying food science it is inevitable and will be soon on our tables.

Take the steak for instance. Soya beans can be woven to resemble a bullock’s muscle, the fat presents no problem nor do vitamins, colouring is simple and flavour can be injected to order. The stuff can be even made to suit the taste buds of an institutional canteen or those who like to see blood.

The development is not a new one – vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists have been eating this type of meat for the past forty years – but it is developing rapidly in recent years, and could hang a large question mark over the future of beef herds. Here in Jamaica it might solve the problem we have of having to import so much beef though I doubt if a patty would ever taste the same again.

This reminds me a bit of a discussion Gary told me he had with one of the “humane meat” presenters after the presentation at TAFA. Gary pressed the farmer, “Wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a world where we could have the taste and texture of meat without killing animals to do it?” That’s the vibe I get from this 1969 piece (aside from the last sentence and the “for those who like to see blood” part).

Of course, we do live in a world where you can get the taste and texture of most animal products without the suffering of animals. Buddhists have been mocking up meats for thousands of years, even earlier than the Seventh Day Adventists mentioned in the above article.

So, perhaps this the challenge we need to press meat-eaters with. Start by presenting how great a world it would be if we could have the things we like about meat (taste, texture, nutrition) without killing living beings. Few would be able to disagree with the concept. Why, then, aren’t more of us moving towards meat analogs? That’s a challenge that might really make people think.

Pass the wheat gluten-shaped bullock’s muscle, please.

I spent part of Sunday (and, yes, it’s taking me this long to blog about it) at the Taking Action for Animals conference in DC. I didn’t attend any sessions, as I was just there to help Josh out at the Herbivore table (did I meet any of you there?). Nevertheless, it was hard not to hear about the hubbub surrounding the presentation by humane farmers like Neiman Ranch who were brought in by the Animal Welfare Institute. Reportedly, these farmers showed slideshows that featured photos of cute animals that were all raised oh-so-well. Noticeably absent were photos of these animals meeting their demise. Needless to say, it angered a lot of people in attendance.

What surprised (and disheartened) me most, though, was that nearly half of the crowd at that presentation was ooh-ing and aah-ing at the pictures and stories of the animals, completely falling for the whole “humane meat” thing.

Should we be demonizing farmers who raise their animals in a more humane way than their factory farm counterparts? I’m not into demonizing. But should we be inviting them to speak, unchecked, at an animal rights conference? Should we give them a free pass by clapping and openly praising them? They make their money directly from the slaughter of animals, so I’d say, “Probably not.”

At the very least, we should be inviting these folks to be part of a panel discussion where they can be challenged. A short period of open questions after a presentation isn’t nearly enough.

The AWI argues that TAFA isn’t an animal rights conference and that we shouldn’t “close our minds” when it comes to hearing such presentations. The thing is, these farmers presumably were paid for their appearance. Since they were unchallenged aside from a few audience questions, it amounts to animal advocates paying someone who financially benefits from the slaughter of animals to come and do a marketing spiel.

That’s not too cool with me.

I’d love to hear some more about others who may have attended TAFA, particularly that presentation. After doing a quick blog search and checking in at a few vegan forums, I saw almost no post-discussion of the conference, which surprised me a bit. This is something we need to talk about.

I’ll close with a picture:

SCANDAL: Vegans standing in front of a seafood/chicken restaurant in DC.

Pictured: Gary (from Animal Writings), Deb (from Invisible Voices), and Josh (from Herbivore).

There’s another photo with me in it, but this one’s better.

My opinions on animal welfare campaigns have definitely changed over the last year or so and articles like this high-blood-pressure-inducing piece from Food and Wine illustrate the main reason my position has changed.

Let me start by stating what should be obvious: I’m not against better conditions for animals.  Welfare improvements are fine and dandy in theory because, hey, “less bad” is better.  But many times, as with “free range” eggs, the supposed welfare gains are nonexistent.  Instead, what we get is consumers feeling ethically better about their choice to eat eggs and an industry that can charge more money for their products.  You can bet the industry is making more profit, too, or they wouldn’t be making these changes.  We’re doing the industry’s marketing for them when we tout these supposed welfare improvements as “victories.”  The industry looks better for supposedly treating animals better, consumers feel less guilty about their consumption, and it does nothing to convince people to reduce or eliminate their consumption of eggs.  Yes, they may buy a few fewer because of the cost, but their fundamental thought process about animal products isn’t being challenged.

I used to think getting people to eat free range eggs, organic milk, etc. might be a “stepping stone” to veganism.  These days, though, I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re steps backwards as we see more and more former vegetarians going back to meat.

Even former vegetarian cookbook authors are jumping the grass-fed, free-range bandwagon:

Even chef Mollie Katzen, author of the vegetarian bible the Moosewood Cookbook, is experimenting with meat again. “For about 30 years I didn’t eat meat at all, just a bite of fish every once in a while, and always some dairy,” she says. “Lately, I’ve been eating a little meat. People say, ‘Ha, ha, Mollie Katzen is eating steak.’ But now that cleaner, naturally fed meat is available, it’s a great option for anyone who’s looking to complete his diet. Somehow, it got ascribed to me that I don’t want people to eat meat. I’ve just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.”

This is infuriating on so many levels.  For one, people are going to read this and think, “Wow.  Mollie Katzen, former vegetarian cookbook author, is eating meat again.  I guess vegetarianism isn’t that necessary of a goal after all.”  Trust me, Mollie, I’m not saying, “ha ha” at this.

Also frustrating is the implication that a vegan diet is “incomplete” when she says, “[N]aturally fed meat is… a great option for anyone who’s looking to complete his diet.”  We don’t need dead animal on our plate to be complete and as a vegetarian cookbook author, she should realize this.

It’s bad enough when people that are considering vegetarianism or veganism don’t go all the way because their moral sensibilities are sated by the promise of happy meat, but it’s even worse when we have former vegetarians (and vegetarian role models — even though it pains me to type that phrase) backsliding and speaking out about it.

The article’s author, Christine Lennon, closes with this: “Convincing those people that eating meat can improve the welfare of the entire livestock population is a tough sell.”  Allow me to close with a response:

It’s a “tough sell” because it’s cop-out reasoning that’s used to justify the consumption and commodification of animals for our tastes.

What is the solution?  Should we put an end to all welfare campaigns?  I don’t have the answers, but I know I won’t spend my own time or resources promoting such ideals.  I spend enough time already trying to counter the message that too many people are taking from these campaigns: that welfare alone is enough.  It’s not.

I’ve talked about this briefly before, but one of the things that most frustrates me about the animal rights movement is the continuing focus on fat and weight loss as reasons to go vegetarian. We mostly see this from the national organizations (though I’ve also seen it used in smaller scale activism, too), like in PETA’s abhorrent new campaign addressed to Michael Moore:

Michael Moore, for those of you not familiar with him, is a fat, bearded dude who makes political documentaries and occasionally angers conservatives.

…

PETA is challenging Michael Moore to reduce his risk of fat-related illnesses by taking PETA’s 30-day Veg Pledge. The idea is that if people didn’t make themselves unhealthy in the first place by eating meat products that are known to cause heart disease, high blood pressure, and strokes, the situation would easier for everyone.

Read Ingrid Newkirk’s full letter (PDF).

PETA has run similar anti-fat campaigns in the past. This angle is troubling because it represents a dangerous approach to vegan activism: insulting people to get them to give up animal products. Not only is it not going to work, it’s misguided.

You’ve probably heard the phrase “fat and fit” before. The idea is that fat is not necessarily an accurate indicator of overall health. There are plenty of people that are fat but who actually eat well and get proper exercise. And on the flip side, there are plenty of skinny couch potatoes. Kate Harding says it well when she notes that “no one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat any more than they know how to make a naturally fat person thin.”

But what about all that research that shows how the United States is in the middle of an obesity crisis of epidemic proportions? Similar to how we can often trace anti-soy research back to the dairy industry, much obesity research is somehow tied to diet companies.

But let’s put that aside for the moment. Even if fat always equaled unhealthy, what right does anyone have to criticize someone else for being fat or unhealthy? It requires making an awful lot of assumptions about someone you don’t know. Do we know why someone is fat? Do we know it’s not a genetic issue or because of a medication they’re taking? If someone eats an unhealthy diet, how do we know they’re not a junk food vegan? Really, it just amounts to shallow stereotyping. Shallow as those terrible stock news clips of faceless fat people walking around during a story about obesity.

I’m not saying we should back off the health arguments for veganism. Go ahead, advertise ‘em. But don’t attack people or physical traits. Attack diseases or conditions. “Reduce your risk of heart disease,” not “lose weight and look great!” Many of us already have enough of a complex about our appearance already, we don’t need to use it as a tactic in our activism.

Added: Over at the Big Fat Blog, user Kreeli has posted a great comment on the subject of being a fat vegan.

Preface

Before I get into this, let me preface by saying a few things.

I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues over the last nine months.  I’ve started two or three posts on the issue and have ended up abandoning them because I didn’t know which direction I was going to go with them.  In fact, I still don’t know.

While I consider myself an animal advocate, I don’t feel like I’ve delved very deeply into the animal rights “movement.”  That is to say, I don’t have a day job at one of the national organizations, I haven’t attended demonstrations, and I don’t spend a lot of time doing letter writing campaigns.  All of these are good things, but based on time constraints and other considerations, I have to choose different ways to advocate for animals (like this blog).  As a result, this means I can still view arguments between national groups and well-known activists with somewhat of an outsider’s eye.

It’s never ceased to surprise me that any group, no matter how small or how niche, will always break down into in-fighting at one point or another.  One cause that I’ve been involved with for years has split into a number of factions because of disagreements and personality conflicts, this despite the fact that the cause is a disease that only affects about 50 people in the entire world.  So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that a lot of people working together for the same core reason — the animals — will often disagree on the best way to help.

I’d like to think that every serious animal advocate is an abolitionist at their core: they want to see animal exploitation go away.  They’d like the world to be vegan and they want animal interests to be considered alongside human interests.  The differences start to arise when the methods to get there come up.

Welfare, Rights, and Abolition

Welfarists believe incremental steps are an important part of the animal rights strategy.  Encourage changes within the system to improve the lives of the animals that are slaughtered, educate people about the conditions at factory farms and hope that if these people move to organic/free range meat and eggs, it’s only the first of many steps they’ll make to ending animal cruelty in their lives.

Pure abolitionists believe that we shouldn’t spend time promoting or fighting for things like removal of gestation crates for sows or cage free eggs on college campuses.  They don’t view these as victories because any marginal gains for the animals are offset by the people that now feel content with eating their humanely-raised meat or cage-free eggs.

Should we spend our resources on welfare reforms?

The primary arguments for spending time and money on these reforms include:

1. They cost the industry money.
2. They reduce animal suffering.
3. They are effective in getting people to give up animal products (which is, presumably, the real end goal).

So, do these hold up?

The first question is the hardest for me to answer, even though it probably can be calculated and stated somewhat definitively.  Yes, the industry spends money to defend against welfare reforms.  Yes, implementing the reforms initially will probably cost them money.  But in literature from national organizations, one of the benefits touted to the industry is that the changes will be cost effective and will, presumably, increase profits.

We also see the industry taking credit for these changes, using them as a way to say, “Hey, look at us.  We care about the animals.  Buy from us, we’re not evil!”

I suspect that it may cost the industry a little money up front, but I have a tough time believing that incremental welfare reforms will cost them much money in the long-run.  The industry has proven itself as extremely adaptable.  If they are forced to comply with one new welfare regulation, they’ll find another loophole to exploit that will make up for it.

Next is the reduction in animal suffering.  Yes, it is better that a sow can turn around rather than being jammed in a gestation crate.  And yes, it may be better that a chicken doesn’t have to stand on wire.  However, from people I know that have been to “free range” or “cage free” farms, they describe these places as every bit as bad as a battery cage operation.  There’s still almost no room to move, the birds are still debeaked, there’s still an unbearable stench, and the birds don’t receive any extra medical care.  I haven’t been to either a battery cage facility or a free range facility, so I’m forced to go on what others have told me.

So, while there are (from my perspective) marginal welfare gains from adoption of cage free or free range eggs, I’m a bit concerned by lauding these as a “victory.”  It reminds me of Chris Rock’s bit about men that brag, “I take care of my children!”  Rock responds, “You’re supposed to take care of your children!  What do you want, a cookie?”  The industry should be treating these animals better.  Do we really want to give them a cookie just because they’re mistreating chickens slightly less?

Do I think pushing for animal welfare is a waste of time and money?  I don’t know.  I mean, in some sense, when there’s all this awful stuff going on, shouldn’t we try and make it better for the animals going through it right now?  On the other hand, would a wrongly trapped prisoner want groups to mobilize their writing campaigns to focus on getting him a bigger cell or would he a want campaign that worked to get him out of jail altogether and keep it from happening again to someone else?

I realize this isn’t the perfect metaphor, but it’s how I’ve thought through this issue thus far.  Take from it what you will.

Lastly, we need to think about whether or not these incremental steps will help encourage people to move to vegetarianism or veganism.  Several years ago, I might have said, “Yeah, going organic/free range is a good first step.”  However, as I’ve talked to more people and read more material, I’m not convinced of this anymore.  One great example: this past Christmas, I had a discussion with a family member who was fully convinced that eating free range eggs was fine because “the birds are treated so well.”  The way I see it, we have enough trouble convincing the average person that eggs aren’t OK even though they “don’t involve killing the chicken.”  People already have to be convinced to not eat eggs.  If we also have to convince them that, no, free range isn’t really OK, it adds an added layer of complexity for animal advocates.

An even more disturbing trend that I noted in an earlier post is that of long-time vegetarians returning to eating meat because now they can feel better about it.  I don’t know the de-conversation rate we’re talking about here, but the fact that anyone went from ethical vegetarianism back to consuming animal products scares the hell out of me.  I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but it’s happening, which means that this idea of “humanely raised meat” may not be having the results originally hoped for in terms of being a stepping stone to veg*nism.

Marcus v.s. Francione

This weekend, I listened to the lengthy debate between Erik Marcus and Gary Francione.  I was looking forward to this because both men are passionate about animal rights, have a lot of common ground, and state their positions well.  I’ve got to be honest, though… listening to this “debate” (not really a debate since there were no time restrictions or moderators) was difficult.  Uncomfortable, even.

Reading reaction to the debate, I wasn’t surprised to see a wide variety of responses.  Some felt that Erik came across as ill-prepared for Gary’s onslaught.  Others felt Gary was rude by frequently interrupting and dismissing what Erik had to say.  Still others thought that Erik was the rude one by calling Francione a “fundamentalist” without having read his books.

Part of the reason I felt very ill-at-ease while listening to the debate was that I really wanted this debate to go well.  I’m friends with Erik and he was a big influence on me throughout my veg* journey, but at the same time, I find Gary to be an engaging speaker with very solid ideals.  And man, he’s a freakin’ fireball.  I’d love to see him go up against someone like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.  Or someone from the CCF.

Nevertheless, I found myself getting frustrated by the interruptions, the flow of the discussion, and the general tone from both of them.  And I think both participants felt the same way, as they sounded completely exasperated with each other by the end.

That said, while it wasn’t easy to listen to the debate, I encourage everyone to do so (if you don’t have time for the whole thing, listen to the first part — the second part involves a lot of going around in circles).  I think that even though these discussions may be uncomfortable and bring up a lot of strong emotions, it’s crucial that we talk.

One thing that’s baffled me has been the fact we have two very similar AR conferences: Animal Rights and Taking Action for Animals.  In recent years, national organizations have refused to participate in one of the conferences because SHAC supporters were on the same agenda.  Not the same panel, necessarily, but just at the same conference.  They didn’t want to be associated with the “extremists.”

As far as I’m concerned, we need to mobilize all corners of the AR movement.  Of course there are going to be disagreements and arguments, but for heaven’s sake, let’s talk about it.  Let’s take a look at things from all angles and honestly consider tactics, techniques, and ways that we spend our money.  Long-time activists need to hear new ideas and newcomers need to pay attention and learn from those that have come before them.

I realize I’m saying this as a relative newcomer to the movement that is very much still an outsider.  I know I’ve got a lot to learn and that my perspectives will change with time, but I get this feeling that we’re at a very important crossroads in the movement.  We need to respectfully sit down and discuss things on a level that doesn’t get personal.  One side shouldn’t say (or even imply) that the other is wasting their time.  Or dismiss the other’s opinions out of hand because it’s different.  Or ignore another viewpoint because it may seem too extreme or fundamentalist on the surface.  If we can form a real, honest dialogue that leaves egos and personal conflicts at the door, perhaps we can figure out where we really go from here.  I suspect there isn’t a simple answer.

Elsewhere

Here’s some more stuff to read/listen to, primarily with regards to the debate.  I haven’t gone through all of these, so this is as much a list for me as it is for you:

• The Vegan Freak response (podcast)
• Response from the Vegan Freak forums
• Gary at Animal Writings weighs in
• “On Intellectual Honesty, and the Francione/Marcus Debate” -Animal Person (haven’t seen this blog before)
• Vegan Represent forums