No one knows what the exact “ideal” diet for humans is, or if there is any single diet that fits that definition. I talk with my colleagues frequently about new research and whether we need to reassess some of our recommendations or advice based on the latest findings – because ideas about the best way to eat are forever changing. Who knows what the research will be showing 40 years from now? But an ethic of justice doesn’t change. The argument in favor of animal rights today will be the same in 40 years. So why not stick with the argument that is 100 percent unassailable, the one that we never have to scramble to defend in light of new findings?

In addition, I think there is a real problem in shifting the focus of veganism away from an ethic of justice for animals toward more anthropocentric concerns. It actually reinforces the idea that our food and lifestyle choices should be all about us – a belief that lies at the center of animal exploitation.

I used to feel that people that came to veganism solely through a desire to eat healthier couldn’t be counted on to be in it for the long-haul. Natala proved me wrong. However, I do still think that at some point during a person’s transition to veganism, the ethical side of it should come into play to help reinforce one’s resolve.

(ETA the link to the interview. Oops.)

The 12 cows are part of the “Teat Tweet” project, tweeting “about their lactation cycle and robotic milking activities.”

I say this is a good opportunity for some activism. I dropped a note to Freeride Speedy:

@FreerideSpeedy It must suck to keep giving birth and then having your babies and milk stolen. Don’t worry: some of us out here respect you.

How about we all adopt one of the dairy cows and tweet words of encouragement? Here are direct links to their twitter accounts. And let’s use the hashtag #dairysucks.

• Attention Please
• Charge Cindy
• Charge Gina
• Charge Mabel
• Contrast Amanda
• Freeride Speedy
• Frosty Lace
• Goldwyn Windy
• Jerry J Lo
• Kurt Appeal
• Montgomery Mae
• Morty Fy

But the second photo is the one that really struck me. It’s a photo of three lambs looking in a doorway at three skinned sheep hanging from by their legs. It reminded me a lot of the Corridor of Death video that Gary Francione pointed to last year. The image of animals witnessing what will be their ultimate fate is a sobering one. Put yourself in their place and imagine the terror and despair. And now imagine that happening every second of every day, whether the animals come from a factory farm or whether they come from a “humane” meat operation.

Keep fighting the fight. For them.

Just to get it out of the way: yes, the story has the expected issue of focusing on abuse rather than use, but I’m going to focus on the positive effect a piece like this could have. Here’s why I think that, obvious problems aside, the airing of this piece will be positive in the long run:

1. It aired on a mainstream news program (actually, programs)

This piece aired on ABC during prime time on World News Tonight and later in the evening on Nightline. The former is a news broadcast my dad watches (he’s not one for overtly political leaning newscasts in either direction). That’s mainstream. And they’re showing footage from Mercy for Animals. That’s pretty impressive. Sure, it’s happened before, but when this sort of footage gets in front of a mainstream audience, the idea of veganism seems a little more normal to these same people.

2. A dairy farmer dug his own hole

Did you catch the dairy farmer they interviewed? He started off by giving the standard “it’s in our best interest to treat them well” line and shortly thereafter was stumbling all over himself defending tail docking and horn clipping as “standard industry practice” (which it is) and saying, “Of course I wish we didn’t have to do it…” It was enough to make you feel sorry for the guy. Almost. Except for the whole exploiting animals for personal gain thing.

I don’t think too many people can get behind docking cow’s tails or cutting their horns. (Except for those who convince themselves it’s not a standard practice.)

3. The artificial insemination footage

It was only about two or three seconds long and it only aired on the Nightline version of the story, but I think the very brief shot they showed of a farmhand elbow deep, artificially inseminating a dairy cow could be the most important piece of footage. I think the majority of people still kid themselves with visions of happy bovines humping in meadows of green grass. I’m also pretty sure the sentiment that “well, the cows have to be milked” is still prevalent. This very short piece of footage, though, is like a slap in the face: no, these dairy cows are not naturally pregnant and happily giving their milk to us. We’re raping them, confining them, and then stealing the milk meant for their offspring, all so we can have our next hit of cheese.

I’m hoping that short bit of video replays in people’s minds when they sit down with a glass of milk or a bowl of ice cream.

And, yes, there are some problems…

While the majority of the piece focuses on these cruel practices that are going on every second of every day, there’s just enough of the welfare message that I can certainly imagine someone coming away with the idea that, “Hey, that’s awful, but at least they’re starting to phase out those practices. Now I can feel OK about consuming milk.” And that’s the big downside of championing welfare legislation as a victory: a marginal welfare improvement becomes marketing fodder for the dairy industry.

And in case there’s any doubt that this is the message that people are getting, one need look no further than the comment section on the web version of the story (or a blog entry from before the story aired). Skip past all of the “gee, thanks for only showing one side of the story!” comments and you get to ones like this:

“I pledge to drink water and hope everyone that reads this will do the same. We can live without milk, until the humane society can get this straightened out.”

It’s a shame, because if that quote ended after “We can live without milk,” it’d be perfectly fine. But I’m sorry to say: if you wait for the Humane Society to “straighten it out,” there’s a problem. Everyone has to stop waiting for someone else to fix the problem. You can help fix the problem right now, this instant. Stop drinking milk, stop eating cheese, stop eating ice cream, stop consuming dairy. There’s no magic welfare wand that can be waved that will make it all OK. I hope that soon people will start coming away from stories like this thinking, “That’s terrible and I’m not going to be a part of it” rather than “That’s terrible and, boy oh boy, someone should do something about it!”

(If you haven’t seen the story, here’s the shorter version that aired on World News Tonight. A longer version appeared on Nightline, but doesn’t appear to be archived online.)

• Covered two pigs head to tail in spray paint and tagged a third on his nose,
• Marked two heifers on their sides and rears, and
• Marked a cow’s genitalia.

But here’s the thing: the animals are being used “for show” and eventually are sold for meat. Of course the commenters on the story are saying things along the lines of “Show some respect for the animals!” Newsflash: if those animals weren’t being contained in cages at a school and used like objects, they wouldn’t be getting spray painted.

This is not to say, of course, that the kids that did it shouldn’t be caught and punished, but let’s save the holier-than-thou attitude. The confinement, use, and eventual murder of the animals is much worse abuse than the vandalism, yet the program is viewed as noble and worthy of praise and defense.

Sigh.

This is a local story about a horse that suffered a fatal heart attack just strides after winning a race. The account of his final moments is sad:

At the March 21 Piedmont Foxhounds Point-to-Point in Upperville, a fatal heart attack at the finish wire sent Quick Line, the winner, careening into the homestretch tailgate parking area.

Rider Noel Ryan, huntsman with Loudoun Hunt, was smiling as the 13-year-old gelding crossed the wire, ears pricked, easily in hand and clearly not distressed.

All that changed a stride later.

Attending veterinarian Ian Harrison of Harrison Equine in Berryville was standing near the finish line, watching Quick Line as he crossed the line.

“The horse finished well,” Harrison said. “I’d say he suffered a heart attack in the next stride,” lurching to the right, while Ryan struggled to keep his mount from veering into the course’s outer rail.

The gelding crashed through the plastic snow fence marking the course, landing between two parked cars. Ryan was thrown clear and — but for a cut on his cheek and a sore hand — was uninjured. The force of the falling horse toppled several spectators who had an instant before been cheering the runners.

According to several people involved, the horse was fit and suffered a heart abnormality that no one knew about.

“There is no blame to be placed on a horse that dies that way. The rider is not to blame, nor the course, nor the race. This just happens. It is terribly rare, but it happens to fox hunters, it happens to pleasure horses, it happens to backyard horses. It happens in people, and it can happen in racehorses. It is very sad, but there was certainly nothing anyone did wrong, and there was nothing that could have prevented it.”

Perhaps it’s true that the horse would have suffered a heart attack at some point in his life whether he was racing or not, but I find it hard to believe that one can claim that “there was nothing that could have prevented it” when he died a stride after finishing a race. My thought, obviously: they shouldn’t have been racing the horse and that would have prevented the horse from dying on that day, at that time. Or am I just talking crazy talk?

And, again, I ask why we want to to teach kids that this kind of thing is fun:

"It was hard, but very fun," said Dustin Schreibman, 12. "I kept slipping and everything."

See also:
Hog Wrestling in Wisconsin
Video of a “family” hog wrestling event (I challenge anyone to defend this as “humane”)

Aerial hunting was outlawed by the federal government in 1972 in the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, but Alaska has been wiggling through loopholes to allow this sort of thing.  Governor Palin “actively opposed a ballot measure campaign seeking to end the aerial hunting of wolves by private hunters and approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign aimed at swaying people’s votes on the issue,” according to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.  If you haven’t seen it yet, be sure to read up over at the Defenders’ page about Governor Palin’s record on this and other wildlife issues.

The thing is, I can guarantee that a question about this will never come up in any of the vice presidential debates.  In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that no question related to animal use or even animal welfare will come up during any debate or be prominently mentioned by either campaign.  Sure, Obama’s got the Animal Rights Advocates for Obama on my.barackobama.com.  The group has, after all, raised $12 for Obama’s campaign!  Wonder if they did that selling lemonade on the corner.

And, sure, Obama’s been quoted as saying, “I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”  Which is good.  Really.  But it’s kind of a blow-off statement, especially considering his seemingly lackluster voting record on animal welfare.

What I’m getting at is a point that a fellow Poplar Spring volunteer made to me the other day at lunch.  He told me how, as a vegan and animal rights advocate, he felt completely distanced from either candidate.  He said that he had to pretend other issues were more important to him than animal issues for the sole fact that politicians never talk about animals when campaigning.  I had to agree.  This issue that is so important to us, one that we see tied so closely to the mainstreamed issues of human rights and the environment, is completely ignored during the campaign season.  It’s unbelievably frustrating.

I realize it’s likely the candidates ignore the issue because they would alienate much of their base if they were to discuss the rights of animals.  So, until the base changes, the issue won’t be raised.

I think all we can do is continue to work our best to advocate on the individual level, making people aware of the issues and getting people to go vegan.  We have to tie animal rights and veganism to the rights of the human workers in slaughterhouses and the environmental affects of meat, dairy, and egg production.  Once more people are protesting the use of animals in their everyday lives and can see how it’s not just “an animal issue,” then maybe politicians will start talking about the rights of all sentient beings.  Maybe then people like Sarah Palin will be questioned about her support of illegal, barbaric hunting practices.  And maybe then we can start to make some real progress for the animals.

The other day, Chad posted a link to this slideshow over at the Food Fight Blog.  It’s from a “hog wrestling” event in Wisconsin.  The following image is the first one displayed in the slideshow.  I’m showing it here in its original size to be sure it sinks in.

(Justin Connaher, Sheboyganpress.com) 

This picture’s been on my mind since I first saw it.  To me, it illustrates how far so many people are from the reality of animal suffering.

The event has its own web site at eldoradohogwrestle.org.  It’s sponsored by the Eldorado (Wisconsin) Fire Department/Lions Club and is “a timed competition where four person teams enter the “watery/mud” arena and try to catch-a-pig.”  Each pig is “used” one time and “treated humanely,” ensured by three people in the arena that “guarantee that no harm will come to the pig.”

The site then snarkily adds, “(At least not until it is taken to “market” on Monday morning.)”  Because as long as you treat them humanely while wrestling them for sport on Sunday, it’s OK to slit their throats come Monday.

Really, it’s pretty amazing how they go out of their way to describe how well the animals are treated during the event:

Hog wrestling is a timed competition where four person teams enter the “watery/mud” arena and try to catch-a-pig.  The goal is to catch, control and then carry the pig to the center of the ring, and then lifted up onto a padded barrel in 60 seconds or less.  Each hog is only used once!  Sixty teams try to “ham it up” in one way or another; but it is the slippery pigs that are the center of attention.  The porkers are clearly in the element, the competitors clearly are not.  The pigs are treated humanely; otherwise the entire team will get disqualified! We have two officials and a “hose man” in the arena with each team to guarantee that no harm will come to the pig.  (At least not until it is taken to “market” on Monday morning.)  The hogs immediately get hosed down with water, walked back to a shaded area to rest, which is more than our contestants get!  The whole thing ends up being a tremendous amount of fun as thousands of people look on under the blazing sun and temperatures (and beer) that make most people sweat like er, well..like pigs!

I don’t know about you, but to me, the picture above doesn’t depict a “humane” event.

Is it humane to drag these animals into an “event” that they obviously didn’t agree to?  Is it humane to confuse, scare, and hurt the pig by letting him be attacked and wrestled to the ground by groups of four (with names like “Team Deliverance” (pictured above), “P.E.T.A.” (how much you wanna bet that’s short for the oh-so-clever “People Eating Tasty Animals”), and “Bringing Home the Bacon”).

The picture above depicts a scared animal being tackled violently to the ground with what looks to be a bruised or bloodied leg.  Children and their families look on, smiling at this “silly” event.  To them, it might as well be a “kiss-the-pig” contest because, hey, the pigs are “in their element.” Yet, I doubt a single one of them could provide any reason why an event like this is either OK or necessary.

This is not a victimless event.  This is not fun for all.  This is not entertainment.

(Since my entry on hog-dog rodeos several years ago drew a slew of idiots, I’ll state right now that when the hog wrestling defenders arrive, any comments I deem trollish will be deleted.  Period.)

"The Sentimental Man" was written in 1957 by Evelyn E. Smith and originally appeared in the August edition of Fantastic Universe that same year.  The story begins with the main character, a man named Johnson, seeing off the last ship of passengers from Earth headed to their new home.  Earth has become uninhabitable, but Johnson has chosen to remain behind and live out his final days on the planet he grew up on.

What’s interesting about Johnson’s character is the way in which he seems to be considering the rights of the animals or "lesser" beings.  During a discussion with a particularly annoying young officer on the ship, Johnson criticizes the concept of man’s right to conquer that which is less intelligent:

"Sounds charming," said Johnson.  "I too have read the Colonial Office handouts… I wonder what the people who wrote them’ll do now that there’s no longer any necessity for attracting colonists–everybody’s already up in Alpha Centauri.  Oh well, there’ll be other systems to conquer and colonize."

"The word conquer is hardly correct," the commander said stiffly, "since not one of the three planets had any indigenous life forms that was intelligent."

"Or life forms that you recognize as intelligent," Johnson suggested gently.  Although why should there be such a premium placed on intelligence? he wondered.  Was intelligence the sole criterion on which the right to life and to freedom should be based?

When I read that piece, I immediately thought of the reasoning we often use when justifying our use of animals for food, clothing, testing, or entertainment.  We use this idea of them being "stupid" animals to make ourselves feel better for the conditions we put them in and the way we treat them so that we can make them useful.  But, like Jonathon Balcombe pointed out in Pleasurable Kingdom, we tend to judge animals intelligence against a human standard, which is ridiculous.  Of course a cow looks stupid when compared to a human–it’s not good at being a human.  However, we’d make pretty crappy cows.  And pigs.  And chickens.  But those respective animals do a mighty impressive job at doing what they’re made to do.

Of course, this short passage doesn’t necessarily mean that Smith was trying to allude to animals’ rights.  Perhaps she was making some other social commentary about US foreign policy or maybe it was all just part of her vision of this fictional apocalyptic future.  But later in the story, after the ship has left and Johnson is left to start the remainder of his life alone on Earth, he describes the cats he sees around the city:

The streets were empty, except for the cats sunning themselves on long-abandoned doorsteps or padding about on obscure errands of their own.  Perhaps their numbers had not increased since humanity had left the city to them, but there certainly seemed to be more–striped and solid, black and gray and white and tawny–accepting their citizenship with equanimity.  They paid no attention to Johnson–they had long since dissociated themselves from a humanity that had not concerned itself greatly over their welfare.  On the other hand, neither he nor the surface car appeared to startle them; the old ones had seen such before, and to kittens the very fact of existence is the ultimate surprise.

Later, he starts pondering his food situation:

He had even provided himself with a heat-ray gun and a substantial supply of ammunition, although he couldn’t imagine himself ever killing an animal for food.  It was squeamishness that stood in his way rather than any ethical considerations, although he did indeed believe that every creature had the right to live.  Nonetheless, there was the possibility that a craving for fresh meat might change his mind for him.  Besides, although hostile animals had long been gone from this part of the world–the only animals would be birds and squirrels and, further up the Hudson, rabbits and chipmunks and deer… perhaps an occasional bear in the mountains–who knew what harmless life form might become a threat now that its development would be left unchecked?

Sure, he’s not exactly vegan, but let’s cut the guy a break: it’s the future as of 1957 and he’s the last person on the planet.  The fact he’s still thinking about other creatures’ right to live when his own survival is at hand shows that there is indeed some ethical consideration going on, despite what he thinks.

The story’s final line a page later refers back to this paragraph:

There was plenty of room for the bears too.

It struck me that Smith devoted this much time talking about the animals left on earth after everyone had left even though the story itself is only a few short pages.  We may wonder whether earth and its non-human inhabitants would be better off without us; Smith seems to thing they would be.

I was unable to find very much information on Smith (aka Delphine C. Lyons), who died in 2000, and certainly nothing linking her explicitly to vegetarianism or animal rights, but I am curious to check out some of her other work to see if this theme repeated itself in any of her other short stories or books.

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.

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.

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

I echo Chris’ sentiment of “WTF?”  Who the heck puts their dog on the roof of their car?  And we’re supposed to be all “Wow, he’s so caring about his dog!” when he builds a windshield for the carrier?

Here’s some news for Romney: dude, your dog isn’t a piece of luggage.  If the family were to get into a car accident, the dog wouldn’t stand a chance.  At least inside the car he has the protection of the vehicle’s frame.  What if the carrier came loose and fell off the car?  Again, the dog has no chance.

This is just another example of “animals as property” that so pervades our lives.  To Romney, the family dog isn’t worth space in the car.  Having him dangerously perched on the roof as they fly down the roads at 65mph is a risk that’s reasonable to him.  Would he consider that same risk with his kids?  Of course not.

Want another example of how Seamus gets treated as property?  OK.

A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

Animals rarely get much respect from the oval office.  Sure, President Bush’s dog Barney gets a nicer home page than most people have, but he’s also used to create stupid White House promotional videos.  Then, of course, there’s the debacle that is the presidential turkey pardon at Thanksgiving.  But if Romney were to become president, Seamus would be the worst-treated First Dog since Warren G. Harding’s lab named Seat Cushion.  (That last sentence was said in a manner imitating Jon Stewart.  Imagine me looking coyly at the camera.)

How you treat animals is usually a good indicator of how you treat people.  Perhaps we should keep that in mind when looking at presidential candidates.

“See those really large fish?  They get that big because they don’t let people fish in this lake.  So the fish just eat and eat and eat because there’s no one there to catch them.”

I was a little taken aback by this.  The tone he said this in wasn’t one of, “See how happy fish are when you aren’t screwing with them?”  It was more of, “Fish need us to catch them and eat them so they don’t get so huge.”

This sense of entitlement is pervasive among omnivores defending their meat eating.  From the brutish “If we’re able to kill them, we should be able to eat them” to the awfully assuming “God put them here for us” to the it-stopped-being-clever-when-it-became-a-bumper-sticker “God wouldn’t have made animals so tasty if He didn’t want us to eat them,” the underlying theme is that it’s our right as The Mighty Humans to eat what we want, when we want.  We see it when there’s a backlash against a foie gras ban when restaurants that fight against these bans are looked at as freedom fighting heroes rather than purveyors of the most obvious of cruelties.  It’s a very different case from being entitled to use animals because we need them to live: we don’t.  We just want to eat what we think is exotic or what tastes good.

I think that feelings of entitlement are also behind the “they need us to [hunt/milk/catch] them or else they’ll [overpopulate/burst/get huge]” arguments that frequently come up.  In a sense, those arguments are saying, “We’re doing them a favor, so we should be able to eat them.”

I wanted to say to that guy, “Trust me.  Fish definitely don’t need us to catch them.  Just like cows don’t need to be milked and deer don’t need to be sniped.”  Alas, I think my comment would have fallen on deaf ears.  And it might have gotten me thrown in the lake.