After 50 Years of Animal Suffering at Marineland, People are Taking Notice. Will it Make a Difference?

Kandu, an orca at Marineland, was forced to live in isolation for years. He died in December, 2005

 “You can judge a nation, and it’s moral progress, by the way it treats its animals.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Ever since the St. Catharines Standard wrote a story about Baby Jane, a captive pilot whale with “suicidal tendencies” back in 1967, critics and animal rights advocates have been trying to dispel the myth that “Everyone Loves Marineland”.

Baby Jane would apparently charge head-on into the metal bars of her holding tank, and then smash into the walls of it, “with blood gushing from a gash in her head,” writhing “wildly about” and trying to throw herself out of the water.

The paper had also reported that she’d been inactive since she “arrived” at Marineland (read: forcibly captured and put on display) and performers who swam with her regularly would swear she was crying.

A sad story. What’s even sadder is that, almost 50 years later, we still have places that keep animals captive for our amusement.

If anything, the Inside Marineland expose by the Toronto Star shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. Every few years or so, some news outlet raises the issue about keeping wild animals in captivity - this isn’t the first time the public has been told that animals are suffering at Marineland - and they usually conclude that there should be regulations in place to make sure the animals don’t suffer needlessly during their incarceration, and that monitoring by some independent watchdog group could ensure that the animals’ basic needs are met.

A lot of talk, but then things go on as they always have and the whales, dolphins, sea lions, deer, bears and other animals suffer and waste away as they always have in places such as these. And this little song and dance routine between the media, animal welfare groups and politicians has been going on for nearly six decades.

Concerns vary year to year, from tuberculosis outbreaks to bear escapes, from deer attacks to an increase in marine mammal fatalities (over 40 whales have died at the Niagara Falls marine park since it first opened). Now it’s water quality.

But ask yourself this: What if the water quality was good? What if the seals’ eyes weren’t being burned out of their sockets by chemically-treated water? Would everything be okay then? Does clean water justify captivity?

captivity, n., the state or period of being held, imprisoned, enslaved, or confined; servitude or bondage; imprisonment. – Webster’s Dictionary

For some, myself included, the answer is no. And I think this is where the story fell flat with me. Exploitation, imprisonment and slavery of other animals can never be justified. We put criminals behind bars because they pose a danger to society and because they infringe on our rights and freedoms. We imprison them not only because they threaten our security, but because we feel they need to be punished for their crimes.

So what crimes exactly have these animals committed? What heinous acts are they guilty of? If anything, their crime is that they’re smart enough to be trained to do what we want them to do, but not smart enough to hide that fact. And so we take away THEIR freedom.

They’re captured – torn from their families and forcibly removed from their homes – or bred in captivity to live out the rest of their short lives (confinement significantly reduces both the quality and length of life in marine mammals) in artificial, sterile, featureless pools, made to perform for humans who get to be with their families, and go back to their homes when they tire of watching the animals “battle the Black Knight”, do water ballet or some other ridiculous and degrading circus trick.

The animals that don’t die during the capture or transportation to the marine park often go insane or become sick and die shortly after. Stress from captivity, as well as the young being separated from their mothers, leads to health problems, stereotypical behaviours, aggression towards other animals - including their human trainers - and death. 

Their echolocation – sound waves they use to navigate through the water - hits the walls of their tank and bounces back in a meaningless jumble of noise. A former dolphin trainer described “the concrete tanks to the acoustical dolphin are what a blinding house of mirrors would be to us.”

This isn’t new information. Animal activists, former trainers, ex-employees and marine biologists have been saying this for years. They’ve protested, they’ve petitioned, and they’ve tried to educate the public any way they can.

And what has the public’s response been? It’s been to go to Marineland, in droves, year after year after year, to see the whales, dolphins and other marine mammals splash about, jump through hoops and clown around. Sure, they might feed the sad-looking bears, deer and bison on the way out, because they feel so sorry for them, but they’re supporting cruelty and suffering nonetheless.  

So the blame cannot fall entirely on Marineland. A naïve and indifferent public (or worse, a willingness to be naïve) is what shysters like John Holer count on. And up until now anyway, he’s been laughing all the way to the bank, along with the blessings of city councilors and the support of the police department.

Are we that heartless, are we so uncaring about the suffering of other animals, that we can hide our collective heads in the sand for so long? Of the myriad ways that we can entertain ourselves, and the countless venues we can visit to be entertained, why do we still go to places like Marineland? Do we really need to suck the life out of these animals just to make our own lives more enjoyable? Are we vampires?

One of the most common retorts I used to hear from park visitors while I stood leafleting outside Marineland years ago, was that if this place was as bad as I said it was, the police, the government or the humane society would have shut it down years ago. Naïve indeed!

The truth is, the law only criminalizes “unnecessary” suffering, and one can always argue that any kind of suffering is necessary (torturing primates, cats or dogs to find a cure for cancer would qualify as necessary suffering for a lot of people, as well as the “necessity” to see a whale kiss a little girl under the guise of “education”) and since these animals can’t tell us they’re suffering (although they do show it), we tend to look the other way and comfort ourselves with the delusion that the animals are happy.

The other problem is that animals are still considered property under the law. That means we can do whatever we want with them, to them, as long as they aren’t someone else’s property. And even then, cruel and abusive treatment is only illegal if you do it to certain kinds of animals – think of what the cow goes through before her throat is slit – and emotional or mental suffering, like making a whale live his life in an oversized bathtub, or forcing solitary animals like bears to live with dozens of other ones, is rarely seen as abusive.

“All our facilities are legal,” John Holer was quoted as saying in The Star. And he’s right (although Marineland has been busted in the past for bringing animals into the country illegally, and pleaded guilty to 44 counts under the Environmental Protection Act for running an illegal garbage dump in 1984), what he’s doing is perfectly legal.

So the question needs to be: Should it be legal? Is it right? Places like Marineland, African Lion Safari and Zooz (!), make their money off the suffering, exploitation and enslavement of other animals. Because we (humans) think that we’re the masters of the universe, we figure it's our “right” to play god with the rest of creation (how has that worked out so far?). Whales, walruses and sea lions are no more suited to live in concrete tanks than deer and bears are suited to live in treeless paddocks. It’s unnatural, it’s cruel, and it needs to be abolished.

I applaud the Toronto Star for having the courage to tackle this issue, but will anything change because of this story? Will attendance take a nose-dive at Marineland? Will our politicians and lawmakers finally wake up? To quote David Suzuki - who once called Marineland a thug and would love to see it shut down once and for all - I’m hopeful, but not optimistic. As long as good people continue to let evil triumph, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, nothing will change.

Because next week or next month or next year, when little Johnny wants to go see the whales with his class, or when the company holds its summer picnic at the marine park, we’ll conveniently forget about all this, or convince ourselves that Marineland has cleaned up its act, along with its water, and that everything is okay.

 

Until we change the way we look at other animals, until we extend our circle of compassion to INCLUDE the animals, their suffering will continue.

An Open Letter to PeTA

Dear People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,

I’ve received a number of letters from you over the past year, asking for my financial support for one campaign or another, along with many pleas to renew my membership.

One particular letter asked me why I hadn’t renewed my membership thus far. In June, your boss, Ingrid Newkirk wrote:

“Is there something that I should know about why PETA hasn’t received your renewed support this year? If you have recently sent your 2009 renewal gift, please forgive me. If not, please let me know why.”

Well, my answer is in the form of another quote from your organization in a letter I received in September. This is from a petition you want me to sign and send to my local McDonald’s Franchise Owner:

“I urge you to make your voice heard and call on the executives at McDonald’s corporate headquarters to institute [Controlled-Atmosphere Killing] as quickly as possible. CAK would reduce suffering for the hundreds of millions of individual chickens slaughtered cruelly each year, and you’d once again be viewed as a leader in animal welfare reform – a win-win for animals and for McDonald’s.”

So you want me, a vegan, who is opposed to the exploitation and slaughter of animals for any reason, to send a letter to McDonald’s, asking them to continue killing hundreds of millions of chickens, but by using a less cruel method of slaughter?

I thought you were against the slaughter of animals, period? I even have a PeTA button that says ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS TO EAT, WEAR OR EXPERIMENT ON. When did you change from animal rights to animal welfare?

I’m not really interested in making McDonald’s look good or making them more profitable. And I’m not interested in making it easier for animal killers to do their jobs or making people feel good about eating animals because they’re “killed with kindness”.

I’m only interested in one thing: saving the animal’s lives, so I’ll continue to educate people about veganism and you can continue to make deals with the devil, but you’ll be doing it WITHOUT my financial support.

And that is why I can’t renew my PeTA membership.

Sincerely,

Daniel K. Wilson

Animal RIGHTS activist and vegan

Exotic animal owner busted for grow op

Chris Morabito may find out what it's like to be one of his animals if convicted of possession and drug production after his arrest on Sunday.

Police found over 385 marijuana plants, along with a number of exotic animals, at the site of his proposed animal refuge.

Full story:

Marijuana bust was walk on the wild side

Photo of Sharon Morabito and Oliver, Niagara This Week

Morabito, along with his wife Sharon and two daughters, sought the City of Thorold's approval in 2005 to open an "exotic animal sanctuary" under the name TEARS (The Exotic Animal Rescue Society) for "Canadian travelers, school groups, special interest groups, special need associations, senior tours as well as several charity fundraisers."

The Morabito's had been known to take their rescued animals, often dressed in costumes, to air shows, parades, birthday parties and local businesses to raise money for their zoo (registered as The Exotic Animal Refuge Sanctuary until they lost their charitable status in 2007).

The animals were also used for "TV commercials, movies and special promotions," according to documents distributed by the Morabitos at the council meeting. Prior to starting TEARS, the Morabitos owned an exotic animal pet shop called Kris' Reptiles, where they sold constrictors, prairie dogs and primates, among others.

In 2007, Thorold City council, after hearing deputations from Morabito's family and friends, and a number of animal protection groups (including myself), agreed with the recommendation of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Planning Department and rejected the Morabito's application.

It is not known what will happen to the animals.

Do small victories affect big picture in animal rights debate?

The Gazette - Sunday, May 10, 2009

By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service

It was a satisfying week for animal rights activists in Canada. The European Parliament endorsed a long-awaited ban on seal products, and one of Ottawa's most celebrated restaurateurs removed foie gras from his menu, after months of harassment by protesters.

"We're quite happy about the ban. I've been working for 40 years on the seal issue," says Paul Watson, the Canadian founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, one of the most vociferous opponents of the annual seal harvest.

Meanwhile, Jason Halvorson, a leader of the Ottawa Animal Defense League's campaign to rid the city's restaurants of the controversial culinary treat foie gras, said he was thrilled by the group's most recent victory.

Do such successes mean the animal rights movement is winning its long, controversial campaigns to gain the same legal protections for animals as those ascribed to humans?

Certainly the sealers of Newfoundland, or Ottawa businessman Stephen Beckta, might think so.

Beckta is the owner of two popular dining rooms, who succumbed to months of nasty, anonymous phone calls, insulting e-mails, and noisy demonstrations outside his restaurants by animal rights activists protesting the consumption of foie gras, a traditional French delicacy made from the enlarged livers of force-fed ducks or geese.

Beckta said he gave in to the group's demands not because of any moral choice over foie gras but because he couldn't take any more threats, intimidation or sleepless nights caused by the tactics.

And he's not alone. Last year in Nanaimo, B.C., specialty food store owner Eric McLean capitulated to animal rights activists protesting outside his business by removing cans of foie gras from his shelves.

Yet over the long history of animal rights activism in Canada, it's hard to find evidence that the larger aims of such protests are ever achieved. Notwithstanding their local tactical victories, are animal rights protesters really as effective as they appear?

Consider the Canadian seal hunt, one of the longest-running animal rights campaigns in the world. For nearly half a century, protesters from Watson to Brigitte Bardot, and more recently Paul McCartney, have been trying to shut down the hunt.

They came close in the 1970s when Europe banned the import of products from the youngest seals, known as whitecoats and bluebacks. The commercial hunt nearly collapsed, but 20 years later rebounded as worldwide demand emerged for the oil and the spotted fur of older seals. About 300,000 seals are now harvested in Canada every year.

David Barry, the seal network co-ordinator for the Fur Institute of Canada, says the latest EU ban, while problematic for the industry, doesn't mean it's over. For one thing Canada can still export seal products to China, Russia and other nations outside the EU; there are also exemptions in the ban that allow the culling of seals for conservation purposes.

"This won't bring sealing to an end," he says. "The activists could have had an influence on the manner in which sealing is conducted - and they still could - if they want to talk and work with the people in the industry. But if they continue to just take a fundamentalist position against people who live in the same ecosystem as the seals, then they'll never achieve an end to this activity, because these people rely on this for their living."

In other campaigns, foie gras may be off the shelf of Eric McLean's food store in B.C., and off the menu of Beckta's restaurants in Ottawa, but it remains in supermarkets and restaurants elsewhere in Canada and the around the world.

For decades animal rights activists have protested the use of animals in laboratory experiments. Most recently in California, a scientist at UCLA had his car firebombed for the same reason. Only a year after 9/11, the FBI even labelled animal-rights militants one of that country's most serious domestic terrorist threats. Yet in spite of such concerns, laboratory mice continue to be used by scientists at university campuses across North America.

In 1989, activists destroyed two meat markets in Vancouver to protest World Laboratory Animals Day. Two years later, animal rights protesters set fire to a fish-importing company in Edmonton - ironically killing many of the live lobsters and crabs inside - and causing $46,000 in damage. But Canadians didn't stop eating meat or fish as a result.

In one of their greatest achievements, animal rights groups succeeded in convincing the government of former prime minister Tony Blair to ban England's traditional fox hunts. But now, several years later, public opinion is changing on the subject, according to a recent BBC report, and the Conservative opposition is considering revoking the ban if it wins the next election.

Even the whaling campaigns waged by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and others have not produced a complete end to the whale harvest. Whalers from Japan and Norway each still harvest about 1,000 whales a year. That's a big change from the 20,000 whales killed annually during the 1970s, but also proof that eradicating even the most controversial animal industries is a tough, if not impossible, challenge.

"We are fighting an uphill battle," says Watson. "But we just have to keep pushing on."

Barry says one of the shortcomings of the animal rights movement is its propensity to extremism and fundamentalism. If anti-sealing groups were genuinely interested in the welfare of seals, they would have accepted invitations from the sealing industry and the federal government in 2005 to iron out a set of "best practices" for the harvest.

Instead they sought an outright end to seal markets in Europe and the ban there now includes the loophole allowing Canada to cull its seal population without any cruelty restrictions on how those animals are killed.

But Watson says principles are principles, and the ultimate goal of his campaigns is not negotiation, compromise, or even victory.

"We do what we can with the resources that are available to us," he says. "We don't focus on whether we're going to win or we're going to lose. We do what we think is right, because it's the right thing to do. If we don't succeed, well, then it's going to affect all of humanity.

"The goal is the protection of our oceans, and if the oceans die, we die. It's that simple."

Seal the deal and this annual hunt

The St. Catharines Standard - Thursday, May 7, 2009

Posted by GREG WESTON

While federal politicians are publicly turning the air blue over the European ban on Canadian seal products, it's a safe bet most would be just as happy if the boycott finally killed the controversial annual slaughter on the ice floes.

They may well get their wish.

While the 27 member countries of the European Union long ago ceased to be prime markets for Canadian sealskin, they are nonetheless home to the world's leading fashion houses.

If seal fur is taboo on the runways of Paris and Rome, you can bet it won't be in big demand elsewhere in the western world, either.

Even without the European ban, the two largest remaining international markets -- Russia and China - have been drying up to the point of threatening the viability of the entire industry.

Like virtually all federal politicians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to go to the wall to help the Newfoundland sealers, and fight the European ban.

Why bother? The issue certainly isn't to save the Newfoundland economy, which, last time we checked, is now awash in oil revenues.

Nor is to protect the livelihoods of the sealers, most of whom are fishermen trying to make a bit of spare cash in off-season. We are not talking the difference between prosperity and starvation here.

Various official reports on the industry indicate that at its peak, seal pelts were selling for around $100, up to 6,000 sealers were taking their quota, and total sales were over $15 million.

The St. John's Telegram reported this week that pelts are now selling for only $15, "the lowest it has been in years."

As a result, over 70% of all the usual sealing crews decided this year's seal slaughter wasn't worth the effort and stayed home.

Not surprisingly, the big winners have been thousands of young seals.

The Telegram reports that a full month into this year's hunt for a government-imposed quota of about 240,000 seals in the region, fewer than 40,000 have been killed.

Do the math, and ending the seal hunt altogether would cost a few thousand sealers roughly the equivalent of less than two weeks of unemployment insurance payments.

None of this is to dismiss the financial worth of the sealing industry to mainly low-income off-season fishermen. Every dollar is important.

Indeed, if the seal hunt were just another harvest, the Canadian government would be remiss if it didn't try to protect the industry from the European Union boycott.

But as every Canadian politician knows only too well, the annual carnage of cute on the ice floes off Newfoundland is hardly ordinary.

For over 100 years, the clubbing and gutting of seals has provoked raging debate in this country -- some of it factual; a lot of it emotional.

For instance, killing those cuddly white baby seals is already banned.

Yet, anti-sealing campaigns almost invariably feature white pups being clubbed to death and skinned, their carcasses dragged across the bloodied ice on the end of a pick.

Reality is, even if it could be proved conclusively that slaughtering seals of any age is perfectly humane and ecologically necessary to control their numbers, a picture of the kill will always be worth more than a thousand words of rationalization.

That's why the Harper government is wasting time and money fighting the European ban as an international trade issue.

Even if Canada wins, so what? Anti-sealing organizations are already using the Internet to promote an international boycott of Canadian seafood exports, and even tourism to this country.

With any luck, a dying market will kill sealing before it seriously bloodies the whole country.

Sanctuaries don't use their animals for profit

The St. Catharines Standard - Saturday, April 18, 2009

It has recently come to my attention that The Exotic Animal Rescue Society is back soliciting donations from the public at local Canadian Tire stores.

Be careful before you consider a donation. Sanctuaries do not breed animals, use animals in television/video, demand "public performance" for donations, nor do they keep animals housed in unnatural environments or displayed for public viewing.

This approach is an impediment to education about positive human and non-human relationships. These animals should be removed to recognized sanctuaries where they can live out the remainder of their lives free from exploitation.

Dylan Powell,
St. Catharines
______________________________________________

How You Can Help

Call or write Canadian Tire on Welland Avenue in St. Catharines and let them know that you won't shop there as long as they allow exotic animals to be kept on display in the store. You can also call Canadian Tire's Head Office and tell them how you feel too.

Canadian Tire:
459 Welland Avenue
St. Catharines, ON
L2M 5V2
(905) 688-0488

Canadian Tire Head Office:
1 800 387-8803

"How smart does a chimp have to be...?"

The Weston Town Crier - Thursday, January 15, 2009

By Elizabeth K. Daly

WESTON - You have the right, dear reader, to ignore this article, along with a lot of other rights you may never have thought about, like the right not to be held captive in a laboratory, not to be experimented on, not to have cosmetics and household cleaners tested on you, and not to be killed.

You never had to earn these rights; to enjoy them you never had to prove a thing. All you needed was the good fortune to be born a human being.

If you were, these rights were automatically yours, even if you were born disabled, handicapped, diseased or mentally deficient. In the midst of whatever complaints or grievances you may have in life, never cease to be grateful for those rights.

What are rights anyway, and how does anybody come by them? Whatever they are, they are deemed to be absolute and "inalienable," as Thomas Jefferson put it. But in fact they vary so much from one era to another and from one society to another that they have to be regarded as culturally agreed upon privileges.

The same Thomas Jefferson who asserted man’s "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was a slave owner, whose slaves were deemed to be mere property with no rights at all. From the inception of our country to the Emancipation Proclamation, that viewpoint was commonly held by well-bred ladies and gentlemen and ordinary citizens alike.

From today’s vantage point, it is clear that slaves were people, who in fact had rights, but whose rights were violated by the society of the day. We look similarly on the victims of the Holocaust, of Stalinist Russia, of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, of contemporary Africa’s genocidal wars, and of dictatorial regimes in general.

We don’t see those victims as people without rights, but rather, as people whose rights were violated and denied, and we see that violation and denial as a heinous crime. If and when the victims’ status changes and their rights are accorded, they are not granted new rights; rather, their society finally comes to recognize the rights that were theirs all along.

Cultural evolution of this kind does occur, and that is what gives hope for the future to those who can see, even now, that animals have rights. Why are animal rights at present so ubiquitously violated?

Two commonly cited rationales for that violation are 1) that animals are inferior to humans and 2) that animals are so different from humans as to be unable to experience acute suffering.

It is entirely unclear why humans, as the kingpins of evolution, have the moral right to abuse creatures presumed to be beneath them in the evolutionary scheme of things, but the very premise of human superiority could use some re-examination. Our superiority is far from total, as we smugly like to think.

Who’s superior to whom?

Think of how many types of animals are superior to humans in their ability to run, climb, swim, burrow, fly, or in some cases, to remember; in their agility, speed, strength, endurance, and capacity to circumnavigate the globe in the air, on land, or on and under the oceans; in their keen senses of sight, hearing, smell, or of echo-location; in their ability to survive and thrive in the harshest environments – deserts, rocky mountain slopes, jungles, the North and South poles, and the depths of the oceans.

In beauty, many are equal if not superior to humans; think of horses, zebras, the golden tamarin monkey, lions, tigers, leopards, ocelots, panda bears, gazelles, birds, butterflies, dragonflies, and many others.

What the animals lack is written language and advanced technology. But even here, much research has shown that they communicate clearly with one another (beyond our ability to comprehend) and with specificity, using not only a large subtle repertoire of vocal sounds, but also complex body language and variable body odors. Some of their constructions, unaided by computers or construction manuals, are marvels of engineering. Think of a birds’ nest, a beehive, a spider’s web, a beavers’ dam, a prairie dogs’ underground town.

Those that live in packs or herds have a social order and a system of hierarchies that rival human societies in their complexity. In some packs and herds, not only parents, but the whole herd, help nurture the young and teach their culture, perpetuating it from one generation to the next, as humans do. Some animal societies – elephants, for example – have rituals for celebrating birth and mourning death. And many have been shown to create and use simple tools.

These similarities to humans are highly significant, because they give the lie to the other commonly cited rationale for denying animal rights, namely that animals are so different from us that they are incapable of feeling pain in the same way or of experiencing true suffering.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Many studies have documented the anxiety, severe depression and terror of laboratory animals, especially primates. Indeed their capacity to suffer is one more of their marked similarities to humans. Some primates have been taught to "speak" a human language through sign language, and these primate "speakers" have been reported to express the full range of "human" emotions – joy, sadness, remorse, fear, anxiety, love, hate, even humor. Some have demonstrated feats of intelligence previously thought to be uniquely human – to count, to do rudimentary calculations, to practice deception, to learn human sign language solely from a primate parent proficient in it.

Thou shalt not kill

All the similarities between humans and animals, and especially between humans and primates, are a two-edged sword for the deniers and supporters of animal rights. For the deniers, the similarities are a supreme convenience, making animals a good stand-in for humans in experimentation. What they conveniently forget is that rights are deemed to be absolute and inalienable, and have nothing at all to do with convenience.

For the supporters of animal rights the similarities place animals, especially primates, under the protection of our own ethical taboo against killing. How can it not apply, they ask, to our own closest relatives, members of our own hominid family? Those of a religious bent might ask the question a little differently – are we not all God’s creatures, all entitled to His mercy?

Other civilized nations are more advanced than the U.S. in acknowledging this ethical taboo. Such "backward" nations as Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Japan have banned primate research in their countries, and Spain has gone one step further. In June 2008, the Spanish parliament explicitly acknowledged the rights of the great apes to life and freedom; legislation spelling out the practical implications of these rights is expected within a year.

The European Union as a whole is also ahead of us in banning safety testing of cosmetics on animals. The ban takes full effect in 2009, and it applies not only to testing, but also to the sale, within the European Union, of cosmetics tested on animals.

In the U.S. similar measures are pending, but support is needed to make them succeed. A bill before the House of Representatives, called the Great Apes Protection Act, or GAPA (H.R.5852), would ban most primate research in this country and would release primates currently in U.S. labs to sanctuaries.

There is also a petition before the Federal Drug Administration, called the Mandatory Alternatives Petition (MAP), that seeks compulsory non-animal testing for products, wherever non-animal alternatives are available. It was submitted in November 2007 by a coalition of organizations that advocate humane treatment of animals.

Anyone in Weston interested in speeding up these measures should write to Congressman Edward J. Markey, 2108 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, urging him to support GAPA, and to the commissioner of the FDA, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, MD, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville MD 20857, urging the FDA to comply with the MAP petition.

The title of this article, "How smart does a chimp have to be …?" is a truncated quotation from the famous scientist and writer Carl Sagan. The full question he asked was, "How smart does a chimp have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" While our country is pondering the question, the rights of chimpanzees and of countless other, even more "inferior" animals, are being excruciatingly violated every day. It happens not only in laboratories, but also on factory farms, in puppy mills, circuses, and other venues, too.

Animals are badly in need of our recognition of their rights. We are also in need of it, for the sake of our own consciences.

For a more thorough exposition of the legal concept of animal rights, see "Drawing the Line" and "Rattling the Cage," both by Steven M. Wise. For current news and information on this topic see the Web site of the Animal Legal Defense Fund at "www.aldf.org"

Elizabeth K. Daly is a longtime resident of Weston and an activist for animal rights.

Good deeds stained with animal blood

Countless worthy causes are based on the grilling and eating of animals

The St. Catharines Standard - Tuesday, December 23, 2008

By DAN WILSON

"So while you're home today eating your sweet, sweet holiday turkey, I hope you'll all choke ... just a little bit." - Kent Brockman, Channel 6 News

That charming little quote is from The Simpson's, and while I consider it to be one of the funniest shows on television, I honestly have no desire to see anyone suffer ... not even a little bit.

I would, however, like people to think about the choices they make and why they do the things they do, especially when it comes to the way we treat others in the pursuit of own individual interests.

Christmas easily comes to mind. It's a time of sharing, family gatherings and being thankful for what we have.

We spend the days and weeks leading up to Christmas looking for just the right gifts for family and friends, feeling all good inside about how nice and thoughtful we are.

Perhaps we even do some volunteer work to ease the suffering of those less fortunate.

Then on Christmas Day, after all the presents are exchanged and the smell of homecooking fills the house, we take our places at the dinner table, say a little prayer, and feast on the slaughtered remains of some defenceless turkey, goose or pig.

In the name of peace, love and goodwill towards others we cause or sanction the unnecessary suffering and violent deaths of other animals, and think nothing of it.

Either we don't consider the consequences of our actions or we simply don't care.

Maybe it's just that the taste of another animal's flesh is more important to us than the life of that animal.

Consider all the organizations that collect and distribute turkeys around Christmas (and Thanksgiving) to give to those in need.

Sure it's great to give food to those who can't afford it, but what's wrong with giving rice, pasta, potatoes or canned vegetables instead?

Why does a good deed have to be stained with the blood of an innocent animal?

But that's the way we are, and not just around the holidays. All year long, and for countless worthy causes, we'll cook up, barbecue or grill other animals to help our own kind -- your friendly community rib-fest, wing-fling, fish-fry or beef-on-a-bun.

This type of prejudice is called speciesism, meaning when one species (ours) puts its own interests above the interests of all other species so it can do whatever it wants to those other species.

We defend our discrimination in many ways, like saying animals aren't capable of complex thinking, using language or contemplating death the way we are, as if these reasons justify cruelty and exploitation.

Did you know that turkeys are clever, cunning and extremely friendly creatures? Did you know they blush? They also become extremely stressed just before slaughter, which apparently makes their "meat" tougher because of all the adrenaline that's released into their bodies.

And did you know that a few years ago a pig, someone's pet, saved the life of a woman who was having a heart attack? It's true. LuLu, sensing her owner was in trouble, risked her own life by leaving the house, running into the street and lying down in front of traffic until someone finally stopped, followed LuLu into the house and called 911.

Some eight million pigs and another three million turkeys are slaughtered for food each and every day around the world. Maybe if they were more like LuLu, we'd think twice about eating them.

And maybe if we got to know a few cows, chickens and turkeys the way we know cats or dogs, we'd treat them better, too.

It's as if we suffer from some sort of moral multiple personality disorder -- nice to some animals, even creating laws to protect them from abuse, and cruel and indifferent to the rest.

We need to start practising what we preach. If it's wrong to make one kind of animal suffer, it's wrong to make any animal suffer.

So in the spirit of Christmas and with a new year just around the corner, may I offer a suggestion: If you feel bad for the animals that are killed to be your food, or a little guilty for causing so much pain and suffering, then do something about it.

Make it your New Year's resolution to stop eating animals. It's not only good for your health; it's good for theirs too. If you truly want peace in the world, take the first step: go vegetarian.

Or as Bart might say, don't have a cow, man!

Dan Wilson is a vegan, environmentalist, animal rights activist and public education director for the Niagara Centre for Animal Rights Awareness. He is a member of The Standard's community editorial board. Contact him at dkw1@sympatico.ca.

Our laws are too lenient to deter cruelty to animals

The St. Catharines Standard - Wednesday December 17, 2008

Re: 'Who could do this?' The Standard, Dec. 10.

I am a cat lover and I was absolutely horrified and appalled when reading this article.

How someone could possibly dream up torture of this nature and then carry it out on a defenceless animal is beyond my comprehension.

This truly takes a very sick person. My heart goes out to Carrie Hawkes and her son, Devon. I know what it's like to lose an animal, after all, they become part of your family. My only hope is that they catch this person or persons and that justice will be carried out.

Unfortunately, our laws are far too lenient and don't really deter this type of behaviour.

It's about time that something was done to send a message out to the persons who carry out these horrendous acts -- maybe an eye-for-an-eye approach. A hand slap just isn't going to do it.

Roberta Librock
St. Catharines
__________________________________________________

Blogger's Note - What happened to this cat, as bad and sick as it was, is really no different than what happens to millions of other defenceless animals - cows, chickens, pigs, etc. - each and every day. Unfortunately, there are no laws preventing this. Indeed, it's an accepted, even honourable part of our culture. It's also big business (not to mention the killing of animals for fashion, scientific research and recreation) but not too many people are calling for an end to this. It's too bad all the self-proclaimed "animal lovers" don't speak up for these animals as well.

"If one person is unkind to an animal, it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people." - Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines, 1964

An Introduction to Bunny-hugging

We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others

The Standard - Thursday, October 30, 2008

BY DANIEL WILSON

“All the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” – Peter Singer

When little Claudio died in his mother’s arms a few months ago, his mother behaved like any mother would upon losing her baby: she grieved. For several days, Gana, a gorilla at Germany’s Muenster Zoo, carried and stroked her dead son, trying to revive him.

Dr. Bill Sellers, a primatologist at Manchester University, says gorillas can experience pain and loss similar to humans, “but of course it’s extremely difficult to prove scientifically.”

Still, a growing number of scientists are recognizing what pet owners have known all along, that animals have feelings - perhaps not exactly like us - but they have them nonetheless.

Some animals have demonstrated a wide range of emotions, including grief, guilt, revenge and even altruism. Elephants have risked their own lives to help other animals. People have witnessed buffaloes sliding across the ice, apparently for the sheer pleasure of it. Captive dolphins have been known to “get even” with abusive trainers and farmers tell of cows calling for days when their calves are taken away.

Dogs are even prescribed anti-depressants these days; further evidence that animals have emotions.

According to Marc Bekoff, a biology professor at the University of Colorado, “If we feel jealousy, then dogs and wolves and elephants and chimpanzees feel jealousy. Animal emotions are not necessarily identical to ours but there’s no reason to think they should be. Their hearts and stomachs and brains also differ from ours, but this doesn’t stop us from saying they have hearts, stomachs and brains. There’s dog joy and chimpanzee joy and pig joy, and dog grief, chimpanzee grief and pig grief.”

So why aren’t we nicer to animals? If they share many of the same feelings that we do, wouldn’t they want to avoid pain, suffering and death, like we do?

Of course most people will say they love animals. But our actions speak louder than our words. We’re really only kind to a select few, and unspeakably cruel towards others.

We hunt and kill animals for “sport”, lock them in cages for our amusement and torture them for scientific curiosity. We even consume their flesh and wear their skins.

If such atrocities were committed against our own kind, we would be repulsed and outraged, yet we have no problem doing these things to other sentient animals, provided we don’t have to think too much about it.

Enter the animal rights activists, those annoying bunny-huggers whose mission in life is to remind us of how barbaric and nasty we are to animals; always trying to make us feel guilty for enjoying our steaks, wearing our leather jackets and going to the circus.

As you may know I’m one of those bunny-huggers, but my goal is not to make anyone feel bad. It’s simply to try and end the suffering that we humans have created.

My hope is that by educating the public about how we treat animals, people will choose compassion over cruelty; that just because we can exploit and kill others doesn’t mean we should. Live and let live.

But discussing animal rights is a touchy subject. Some people get offended, even belligerent, when it’s suggested that the animals we use suffer as we do. Others argue that if you’re defending animals, you’ve turned your back on your own kind.

I don’t see why we can’t do both. A lot of animal rights people, including myself, support organizations aimed at reducing human suffering too. My circle of compassion is big enough to include humans AND animals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. A mother doesn’t tell her children, “Sorry kids, but I can only love one of you,” and neither should we.

And it’s not that I love animals more than people; I just don’t want to see anyone suffer. A parent who stops his child from kicking the family cat doesn’t love the cat more than the child, he just wants his child to grow up to be a kind, caring and compassionate human being.

That’s what I want too. I want us to be kinder than we currently are.

Gandhi said, “The greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, can be judged by the way it treats its animals.”

The advances we've made as a species don't mean much if we still enslave, exploit and murder those that are weaker than us. I know we are better than this. I believe we can, and should, extend our circle of compassion to include the animals.

Dan Wilson is a vegan, environmentalist, animal rights activist and public education director for the Niagara Centre for Animal Rights Awareness. He is a member of The Standard's community editorial board. Contact him at dkw1@sympatico.ca.

Missed the point

Niagara This Week - Friday, October 17, 2008

Re: The breast of intentions (Oct. 3).

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/209522

I'm afraid Mr. Williscraft missed the point PETA was trying to make with their latest publicity stunt, asking Ben and Jerry's to use human milk instead of cow's milk to make their ice cream.

Granted, PETA's campaigns can be wacky and confusing to some, but there's a method behind their madness and it's not about what's in cow's milk.

It's about how the cows are treated. Most dairy products in our grocery stores come from animals in intensive confinement facilities - factory farms.

These animals never see the light of day, feel grass beneath their feet or breathe fresh air.

In Canada alone, approximately one million cows are kept in enclosures so small they can barely lie down or turn around.

Their horns are cut off and their tails are "docked" without anesthetic and the calves are removed from their mothers days after birth - the females to replace older cows destined for slaughter, the males to be turned into veal.

That's why PETA is against dairy products. Perhaps they should've recommended soy, rice or almond milk to Ben and Jerry's, but then again PETA loves to be controversial.

If Mr. Williscraft had written about the reasons behind PETA's request to have Ben and Jerry's discontinue their use of cow's milk, his column might not have been as funny, but the misery and suffering the cows endure so people can have their ice cream is no laughing matter.

Daniel K. Wilson
Niagara Center for Animal Rights Awareness
St. David's

Help Stop Cruelty to Animals

The Huffington Post - Saturday, September 20, 2008

BY KATHY FRESTON

Maybe it's because I'm worn out by the political bickering and the worrisome news about the market being in a tailspin, but I just clicked on a link to a breaking story about pigs being tormented, raped, and beaten in an Iowa slaughterhouse. I normally protect myself from seeing such things, thinking that I don't need to watch graphic videos of animal abuse since I'm already vegetarian and the videos are too upsetting.

This video brought me to tears, but I'm glad I watched it. It reminded me that I should keep prodding myself to stay awake and aware of abuse and injustice. The truth hurts, but it can also heal - if we take it personally and take steps to make a difference.

Workers at the Iowa plant - which supplies pigs to Hormel and other companies - hit pigs with metal rods, kicked them, and ripped across their backs with clothespins. They sprayed paint up pigs' nostrils and in their eyes and slammed piglets onto the concrete floor. The undercover investigator saw a supervisor ram a cane into a pig's vagina and shove a metal rod up pigs' anuses. Workers bragged about hurting animals and urged the investigator to abuse pigs. One worker told the investigator, "You gotta beat on the bitch. Make her cry." The investigator was instructed to pretend that a pig scared off a willing, voluptuous 17- or 18-year-old girl, and to beat the pig for it.

No one wants to see and hear such vile things, but we can't ignore them either. This kind of cruelty is a reflection on our country, our sense of pride for being decent people. If you think the video is too disturbing to watch, you'll know why we must not support such abuse. Who are we as a country if we aren't acting - and eating - based on our most basic principles of decency? Who are we if we passively choose to eat bacon or pork chops rather than push ourselves just a little to try new, more humane, foods instead?

Businesses will not do the right thing on their own - they just won't. Profit will trump animal welfare in most every case. It is up to caring people to push for change, and to be the change we want to see in the world.

We can all bring about positive changes by not buying products that harm animals, by eating a more plant based diet. We can reject cruelty simply by eating veggie dogs rather than hot dogs, or substituting tempeh, or Fakin' Bacon, for bacon. If you live in California, you can vote in favor of Proposition 2, the statewide initiative that would make it illegal for farmers to cram pregnant pigs in small gestation crates and calves into veal crates, and to force six or seven hens to live in tiny cages where they can't do anything that is natural to them.

No matter where you are in the world, you can do something to make a difference for animals.

As Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Will Stand Trial

Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute (Born Free USA), along with three other animal protection organizations and a former Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (Ringling) employee, is suing Ringling for violating the Endangered Species Act by cruelly mistreating Asian elephants. The trial is set to commence on October 20, 2008.

The Asian elephant is currently listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), meaning that any acts that would “harm, wound, injure, harass, or kill” an Asian elephant in the wild or in captivity are prohibited. The lawsuit alleges that a number of routine practices by Ringling are in violation of the Endangered Species Act, including the forceful use of a bullhook and the chaining of elephants for most of the day and night. We have amassed a wealth of evidence to support these claims.

Bullhook Use

A bullhook, or ankus, is made of wood, metal, or other substantial material. It is approximately 2 to 3 feet long, and at one end is a sharp steel hook and poker. It is used to poke, prod, strike, and hit animals to “train” them - all for a few moments of human amusement.

We have video footage of Ringling employees repeatedly hitting elephants with bullhooks, as well as video footage of the daily hitting and “hooking” of the elephants to make them stay in line, move in a particular direction, or perform on cue.

In addition, we have Ringling’s own internal written documents that discuss the mistreatment of the elephants. For example, Ringling’s animal behaviorist reported “an elephant dripping blood all over the arena floor during the show from being hooked.” In an internal email, a Ringling veterinary assistant reported that “[a]fter this morning’s baths, at least 4 of the elephants came in with multiple abrasions and lacerations from the hooks.” After the release of this information to the public, Ringling moved to prohibit the release of any additional information to the public provided via discovery.

Chaining

Chaining is one of the most common methods used to confine elephants in captivity. It severely restricts an elephant’s movements, eliminating its ability to lie down, walk, or socialize with other elephants. The severity of these restrictions can result in neurotic psychological behavior, physical injury, and even the death of captive elephants.

Newly obtained evidence based on the circus’s own documents reveals that Ringling keeps elephants virtually immobilized in chains for the majority of their lives. Internal records show that the elephants are chained while confined in boxcars for an average of more than 26 hours at a time, and sometimes for as much as 60–100 hours, as the circus moves across the country.

In addition, former Ringling employees will be testifying about the mistreatment they witnessed while working for the circus, all of which corroborates the claims alleged in this case.

* The lawsuit is before the Honorable Emmet J. Sullivan in federal district court in the District of Columbia and is being handled by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, one of the country’s preeminent environmental law firms.

You Can Help

Please donate to the Elephant Defense Fund and help ensure that we win our lawsuit. With your support, we will do everything we can to end the mistreatment of elephants in circuses and traveling shows. We must not fail.

3 Ways to be the Revolution

Vegan Freak - Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World

Posted July 20, 2008

We’re a movement dominated by professional activists - paid by large organizations - to do the bidding of those organizations. This is fine if you think that dressing up in chicken costumes makes sense, or if you believe the latest animal gassing scheme is a good thing, or if you happen to agree that Wayne Pacelle actually deserves a compensation package worth more than $230,000 annually.

But if, like me, you have doubts about highly paid activists, about so-called “victories” that still leave animals as commodities and property, and forms of activism that use one form of exploitation (sexism) to combat another (speciesism), there’s only one solution: be your own activist.

For the full story, please go to:

http://blog.veganfreak.com/blog_entries/view/3_ways_to_be_the_revolution/#When:02:46:51Z

Activism should not be left as the mere province of paid, professional activists. If we are to have the effect that we’re hoping for, we need to make the movement for veganism a genuine, grassroots social movement, driven by everyday people like you and me, working in our communities and in our lives to help create a base of vegan education and outreach.

Only by working in our lives and in the spaces that we know best can we hope to affect real change and build a genuine movement built of people who genuinely wish to change the essential relationship of domination that humans have over animals. Without a genuine pool of social activists, without people who are willing to put their own talents and skills to use, we are going to be stuck with the so-called “victories” of PETA and HSUS, victories that celebrate killing more gently. Shouldn’t we be celebrating not killing at all? Shouldn’t we be celebrating veganism? In her book The Dispossessed, Ursula LeGuin has a quote that sums up my feelings perfectly about activism. She writes:

"You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere."

The revolution is in your spirit - I know it is. If you’re vegan, something got you to go vegan, to decide that you would not have a part in the human domination of animals. You knew it was wrong, and you decided to have no part of it. Find that original fire and use it! You must be the revolution if it is to mean anything or change anything in the long run. You have to do it; no one will do it for you. Considering that, here are three things that you can do to be the revolution:

1. Use your talents and skills to educate people about veganism We’ve talked about this at length various times on our podcast, but we’ll repeat it again: every single one of you has some kind of talent that you can use to support this cause. You are a unique and special snowflake! We’re so used to beating ourselves down and to accepting that we don’t have much to offer that we often forget how we can be of use. You may think you have no skills to offer, but that’s impossible. We need everyone. We need people who can write and speak and cook and organize. We need people who can hand out literature. We need people who can sew and sing and entertain. In short, we need everyone. Get creative: use your skills to raise awareness or in support of others who are raising awareness or educating others. Which brings me to point two:

2. Work in small, consensus-based affinity groups Find a group of people who share your vision, get together, and make some change. Leverage each other’s strengths to promote veganism and to be vegan educators. For example, one of you may be an excellent public speaker, one of you may be a quiet person but a fantastic cook, and one of you may have excellent organizational skills. Why not get together, get a room at your local library, give a talk on veganism or vegan cooking, and bring some food along to convince people that eating vegan isn’t as horrendously subpar as everyone imagines? There are a million different possibilities here and a million different talents. The point is to use your creativity and your understanding of the world to make the most impact.

3. Start asking questions Why would an organization ostensibly opposed to animal suffering give an award to a slaughterhouse designer? Why would the so-called “father” of the animal rights movement say it was okay to eat animal products? Seems to induce a bit of what the psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” doesn’t it? It is time that we all start asking questions and stop assuming that because PETA or HSUS or Peter Singer (or anyone, including me) says that something is good, it is. Think. Examine the issues. Ask hard questions. Consider the situation and the context, and think about the issues. I know that thinking is often scorned within this movement as a “luxury,” but you have to stop and think before you can act wisely. Don’t skimp on thinking: it is the most important thing you can do. Effecting change is never easy and is often inglorious, but it doesn’t have to be onerous; you can work little by little to educate others, and you can work with others to deepen your impact. We need to build a vital movement of people doing genuine, abolitionist vegan education. We don’t need another set of stupid stunts, sexist ads full of naked people, or overcompensated suits declaring yet another false victory.

PETA and KFC: “no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated”

Posted by Gary L. Francione

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has invoked Mead’s quotation to pat itself and its supporters on their welfarist backs for the agreement by the Canadian division of Kentucky Fried Chicken to “purchase 100 percent of its chickens - through a phase-in program - from suppliers that use ‘controlled-atmosphere killing’ (CAK), the least cruel method of bird slaughter available. CAK works by replacing birds’ oxygen with a mixture of nonpoisonous inert gasses to gently put them ‘to sleep.’”

In addition, KFC Canada has agreed to add what PETA characterizes as a “totally cruelty-free option” to its menu in 65% of its Canadian stores: a faux chicken sandwich that will come in a wrap with non-vegan mayonnaise. Moreover, KFC Canada has agreed to “[i]mprove its animal welfare audit criteria to reduce the number of broken bones and other injuries suffered by birds,” urge (but not require) its suppliers to make other welfare improvements, and to form an animal welfare advisory council. And PETA will be empowered: KFC will allow “PETA to review its animal welfare audit forms every six months.”

PETA, “thrilled to announce” what it characterizes as an “historic new animal welfare plan,” “enormous victory,” and “historic victory!” has officially ended its boycott of KFC Canada. But PETA warns that “the cruelty in other nations continues.”

Poor Margaret Mead must not merely be rolling over in her grave; she must be spinning at high speed.

The PETA/KFC agreement is a textbook example of the failure of animal welfare reform. Consider the following:

First, to call this a “victory” for animals is the height of irony. This agreement is most certainly a “victory.” But it is a victory for the Canadian poultry industry, which will actually enjoy greater production efficiency and profit.

In its its Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. Electric Immobilization from an Economic Standpoint, PETA argues for the gassing, or “controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)” of poultry, claiming that the electric stunning method of slaughter “lowers product quality and yield” because birds suffer broken bones and the process results in contamination dangerous to human health. The electric stunning method also “increases labor costs” in various ways. PETA argues that “CAK increases product quality and yield” because broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging are supposedly eliminated, contamination is reduced, “shelf-life of meat” is increased, and “‘more tender breast meat’” is produced. PETA also claims that “CAK lowers labor costs” by reducing the need for certain inspections, reducing accidents, and lowering employee turnover. CAK provides “other economic benefits” to the poultry industry by allowing producers to save money on energy costs, and by reducing by-product waste and the need to use water.

This analysis is consistent with that done by the Humane Society of the United States, which analyzed a considerable amount of data and concluded: CAK results in cost savings and increased revenues by decreasing carcass downgrades, contamination, and refrigeration costs; increasing meat yields, quality, and shelf life; and improving worker conditions. Without live shackling and electrical stunning, CAK results in fewer broken bones and less bruising and hemorrhaging. The reduction in carcass defects increases boning yield and deboned meat quality. CAK has been shown to reduce bruising by as much as 94 percent and bone fractures by as much as 80 percent. Conservatively assuming that CAK increases yield only 1 percent, a plant processing 1 million broilers per week with an average dressed carcass weight of 4.5 pounds and wholesale price of $0.80 per pound would increase annual revenue by $1.87 million after adopting CAK. (citations omitted)

And industry agrees. According to PETA’s Poultry Producer CAK Endorsements, the poultry industry widely recognizes that CAK means a better bottom line:

“Brandons haven’t just benefited from better meat quality and welfare improvements. The advantages have been seen right across the plant. … [There has been] a 50% reduction in hang-on-line employee costs. Line speed has increased [by 20%]. … [Y]ield has gone up by up to 1.5% ….” - Case study pertaining to Brandons Plc by Anglia Autoflow

“On the turkey line … each hanger places around 7.66 birds per minute in the shackles … compared to around 5.125 birds per minute in a U.S. plant. This gives a pounds-per-man-hour improvement of almost 50%, because the hangers do not have to remove the birds from the cages by hand, like they do in a traditional U.S. … live-hanging operation.” - Watt Poultry USA article concerning Amadori, February 2006

“Around 140,000 broilers per day are processed at the Flixton plant …. A company official said that the CAS was installed to improve bird welfare [and] worker ergonomics. As a side benefit, the plant now runs the line faster than before. Flixton processed only 110,000 birds per day prior to installing the CAS.” - Watt Poultry USA article, February 2006

“‘There’s less cutting and trimming on the line because there are many fewer … spots and other damage that can come from electrical stunning,’ says Henry Kuypers, production manager for the Pingo Poultry plant …. Gas stunning has allowed [the company] to produce a tender product [in] just three hours … [as opposed to] as long as 12 or even 24 hours. ‘This variable maturation period also affected product uniformity,’ Kuypers explains. - “CAS-ting Call,”Poultry magazine, October 2006

“We are starting to quantify the improvements in yield and labor, but visually we already see the benefits in wings, wing meat, and breast meat.” - Dale Hart, general manager of Cooper Farms

“[T]he CAS system improves the environment for the workers in the live receiving area, improves the ergonomics of hanging live turkeys, and reduces carcass damage.”—Watt Poultry USA article concerning Cooper Farms, November 2006
“Amadori was interested in CAS because the company wanted to improve ergonomics for the live hangers, animal welfare, labor efficiency, and meat quality. [T]he CAS has given them improvements in each of these areas ….” - Watt Poultry USA article, February 2006

“The installation of gas stunning markedly reduced downgrades due to hemorrhages and bone fractures and improved fillet color and texture compared to previous stunning with an AC water-bath unit. As in EU plants, MBA Poultry can justify gas stunning based on the contribution from incremental revenue, which more than offsets the additional capital and operating costs incurred.” - ”Future of Gas Stunning,” Watt Poultry USA, April 2005

“[M]eat quality has improved with use of the CAS, and there is less blood in the breast and thigh meat. [C]arcass bleed-out has not been affected by the switch from electrical stunning to CAS.” - Watt Poultry USA article concerning Le Clezio, February 2006

“[W]hile trying to maximize yield while processing 11,000 birds per hour, we also have to take a lot of care to ensure that the meat is unmarked. CAS has resulted in very high standards in this aspect. . . . There’s [also] better working conditions for the team.” - Richard Wenneker, of Emsland Frischgefluegel

“Meat quality has dramatically improved with no blood spots, and as a result, no trimming is required. This has seen notable benefits in an increase in yield. The cut-up operation now employs less people as a direct result of the benefits of … CAS.” -Case study pertaining to Prior Norge by Anglia Autoflow

So CAK reduces production costs and the slaughterhouses that supply KFC Canada would, in all likelihood, have switched to CAK on economic grounds anyway.

Indeed, this is the modus operandi of the modern animal movement: identify practices that are not economically efficient and that are in the process of being changed by industry anyway. Launch a campaign to bring about what would happen in the natural course of events, declare victory, and fundraise. That is exactly what is happening here.

Second, PETA has handed KFC Canada nothing short of a public relations coup. PETA has ended its boycott of KFC Canada, and is claiming to have won its KFC cruelty campaign in Canada, although “the cruelty in other nations continues,” thus signaling to the public that those concerned about animals can once again eat at KFC Canada with PETA’s blessings. Indeed, PETA and KFC are now engaged in a public love fest. PETA claims that KFC will now “gently put [the chickens] …’to sleep.’”

According to the Toronto Star article, KFC Canada president Steve Langford stated that once he sat down with the PETA people, “‘we found out that we had no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated.’” Matt Prescott of PETA stated he believed “‘that KFC in Canada is genuinely concerned about animal welfare.’” Prescott added that “‘[a]ll we want is for KFC worldwide to do what KFC Canada has done.’”

Langford is reported to be “delighted with the agreement.” I bet he is. If I were he, I would also be delighted. He has lost nothing and he has gained PETA as an unpaid public relations firm.

Third, KFC is expanding its product line, offering a new PETA-approved “totally cruelty-free” KFC faux-chicken sandwich, which will be handled along with KFC’s meat products and will be prepared with non-vegan mayonnaise (unless the customer asks that it be held). So KFC will have a non-vegan option supported by PETA.

People can now be “animal activists” by eating a non-vegan product at KFC and putting more money into the pockets of a corporation that sells death. But there is a tradition of such behavior. In a December 2006 article about Dan Mathews of PETA, Mathews and the writer went to McDonald’s to eat and the writer asked if it was okay to order a cheeseburger. Mathews is reported as saying “‘Order what you want,’. . . .’Half of our members are vegetarian and half think it’s a good idea.’”

Putting aside that Mathews eats at McDonald’s and tells the reporter to order what he wanted, and proclaims without apparent consternation that only half of the PETA membership is “vegetarian” (let alone vegan), Mathews himself ate a product - the “veggie burger” - which not even McDonald’s claims is vegetarian given that it is cooked on the same grill with meat products and handled along with animal products.

And the agreement is a victory for PETA, which long ago abandoned the animal rights approach in favor of pursuing its greater glory and the amount of its contributions. It’s all about PETA. The animals are just incidental.

The KFC/PETA “deal” demonstrates dramatically what is wrong with animal welfare. These campaigns perpetuate the confused idea that “animal rights” means putting a television in a torture chamber and do absolutely nothing to challenge the property paradigm. On the contrary, the welfarist approach reinforces the status of animals as nothing more than economic commodities. And it makes people feel better about animal exploitation. Moreover, these campaigns represent symbiotic relationships between industry and the animal advocacy movement.

To the extent that this situation illustrates the truth of Margaret Mead’s observation, it does so by reminding us that a small group of people can have a profoundly adverse impact on social progress. Many people are concerned about the ethics of animal use. But as long as the major so-called “animal rights” groups are telling them that they can satisfy their moral obligations by eating at KFC and other similar places (remember that PETA has had similar “deals” with McDonald’s and Burger King), the status quo will persist and the only progress that we will see is the increase in PETA’s bank accounts.

Gary L. Francione© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Donate

Changing the way our society views animals can be a time-consuming and sometimes costly process.

It involves preparing and printing brochures, reports and other educational materials to be distributed amongst the general population, including school boards and municipal councils.

The rental of billboards and other outdoor advertising can also be effective in reaching and motivating large numbers of people to become active. All these initiatives require money.

We need your help to bring these very important issues to the public. Your donation will go directly to raising awareness of both local and national animal protection issues.

However, the NCARA is NOT a registered charity and therefore cannot issue income tax receipts.

If you would like to help, please click the Make a Donation button located on the sidebar.

Thank you for supporting our work.

Say No to the Garden Bros. Animal Circus!

Unfortunately, the Canadian-based Garden Bros. Circus launched its 2008 season this week starting in the Toronto area.

It's no secret that circus animals endure years of physical and psychological pain and suffering to "entertain" audiences.

Animals in the circus are also unable to behave naturally and are forced to live in unnatural conditions. Elephants are chained up to 23 hours a day and while on the road they are forced to stand in their own waste while lions, tigers and primates are kept in cages so small the animals can barely move around.

Such conditions can cause the animals to develop abnormal behaviours, such as depression, aggression towards other animals (including humans) and other stress-related behaviours like swaying back and forth and bobbing their heads.

The Garden Bros. Circus has been repeatedly criticized by animal protection groups for failing to provide their animals with adequate shelter from the elements, confining their animals for great lengths of time, using harsh training methods on their animals and endangering human safety.

• In 2001, a 400-pound tiger bit the fingertip off a Garden Bros. worker while the circus was in Toronto.


• In 1998, Garden Bros. employees left a number of petting zoo animals in their cages by the side of a Virginia road. The temperatures inside the trucks had risen to more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to USDA citations, part of the problem was that Richard Garden routinely hired unqualified workers. A few days later, Maryland officials confiscated other abandoned animals, including a tiger, an elephant and a rhinoceros. Shortly after those incidents, the USDA suspended Garden's licence for 15 years and fined him $12,000.00.


• In 1992, Richard Garden, who also owned the Toby Tyler Circus and United Funding, was accused of cheating charities and deceiving donors across the country. United Funding was sued or banned in a dozen states for deceptive telephone pitches. The Toby Tyler Circus was cited for safety violations that resulted in bleacher collapses in Middletown Township, Pa., and Greenport, N.Y., where the 70 injured included an infant who suffered a skull fracture.

According to Clifford Bickford, a former animal welfare investigator with the USDA (the agency that regulates animal circuses in the United States): "Richard Garden has no business having any animals of any kind. His animals were as poorly kept as any I've seen."

How You Can Help

If you receive a phone call from any animal circus asking you to purchase tickets, tell them you won't support animal cruelty. Suggest they continue the shows without the animals.

If your child's school distributes circus tickets, tell the principal or school board you think it's wrong that the school supports animal exploitation and encourage them to stop.

For more information on animal circuses, please visit: Animal Circuses: Fun for Whom?

To view some interesting comments on the recent Torontoist article covering the Garden Bros. Circus, click onto: PhotoTO: The Circus Is In Town

Seal Killing Season Draws Near

Once again, defying international opposition and all standards of human decency, our government is sanctioning the mass killing of helpless baby harp seals.

In the weeks ahead, hundreds of thousands of these animals will be beaten and stabbed with sharp hooks and sometimes even skinned alive -all so someone can wear a coat, a collar, or cuffs made with real baby-seal fur.

Hundreds of thousands of harp seals will be killed in a matter of weeks. Most of them will be less than 3 months old, and many will still be in their first weeks of life. The animals are so young that they will lie on the ice as their attackers approach.

Even if they know that they should flee, their motor skills aren't yet developed enough to do so. They have no chance of escaping to the safety of the water.

The carnage begins as the seals have their heads bashed in with clubs. Still conscious, they will be dragged across the ice with boat hooks. Then these sensitive, intelligent animals will be skinned, sometimes while they are still alive. The sealers will take their fur but leave the seals' bodies on the ice to rot.

Someday soon, Canada will look back on its seal hunt with shame. But until that day comes, it is up to caring people like you to come to the defense of these gentle animals.

How You Can Help

Sign PETA's worldwide petition to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanding a permanent end to the annual slaughter of seals.

For more information about the seal slaughter, please check out: Canada's Seal Slaughter

KFC Demo in Niagara Falls

WHY: To raise public awareness of the horrific conditions KFC chickens live and die in.

WHERE: 6566 Lundy's Lane in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

WHEN: Saturday, March 1st, 2008 from 11:00am to noon.

KFC suppliers cram birds into huge waste-filled factories, breed and drug them to grow so large that they can’t even walk, and often break their wings and legs.

At slaughter, the birds’ throats are slit and they are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water—often while they are still conscious. It would be illegal for KFC or its suppliers to abuse dogs, cats, pigs, or cows in these ways.

More than 850 million chickens are killed each year for KFC’s buckets. The birds are crammed by the tens of thousands into excrement-filled sheds that stink of ammonia fumes.

Chickens’ throats are slit and the animals are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water to remove their feathers, often while they are still conscious and able to feel pain.

At a KFC "Supplier of the Year" slaughterhouse in West Virginia, workers were documented tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, and violently stomping on them.

A whistleblower at a Tyson slaughterhouse testified that birds intentionally were scalded to death, blown apart by makeshift firecrackers and had their legs broken by workers to fit them into slaughter-line shackles. Tyson is KFC’s number one supplier.

Here in Canada, two former employees of Brian’s Poultry Services, Ltd., based in Mildmay, Ontario, came forward with shocking eyewitness accounts of cruelty that took place during “catching” efforts on two farms where thousands of birds were violently gathered manually by workers and carried upside-down to the truck that would take them to the slaughterhouse.

The former chicken-catchers saw chickens crushed to death by heavy objects, bashed in the head, stepped on and kicked while others had their legs and wings broken and their joints dislocated. Many were left to suffer slow and agonizing deaths next to the truck.

For more information on the KFC Demo, please contact John at jsakars@yahoo.ca

Why have animal meat on fundraiser menu?

Letters to the Editor - Niagara This Week - February 22, 2008

I recently learned that the Welland and District Humane Society is holding a dinner and dance called "For The Love Of Animals" to raise funds to help renovate their cat facility.

While I certainly commend the organization for the important work they do to help many animals in the community, considering the role of the humane society and their work to protect and care for animals I was disappointed to learn that there will be animals on the dinner menu for the event.

The centre's website states: "We speak for those who cannot speak for themselves." Webster's dictionary defines the word humane as: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.

Why is it that the humane society's compassion, sympathy and consideration only extends to those animals we call pets? Why aren't they speaking for the animals who are raised on factory farms and are killed by the billions to become food?

Isn't it time that we all stop and think about the double standard we live with every day?

We love our companion animals, we love to teach our children about animals and we write countless books and movies about animals, but we completely detach ourselves when we pick up a fork.

I had occasion to attend another fundraising event in Welland in 2007, the "Party For The Paws" organized by Niagara Action For Animals.

On the buffet table, there was a sign that stated "Out of respect for all animals, no animals or animal by-products were used to prepare this meal." While it's likely that not many attending the event were vegetarian, I know that the food was enjoyed by all.

Perhaps the Welland and District Humane Society - and other organizations - will take this into consideration for future events and become a better example of what it truly means to be "humane."

Kim Ansell
St. Catharines