About.com Animal Rights

Dairy Industry Silences Vegan Cookbook Author

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:04:56 +0000

Vegan cookbook author, Sharon Valencik.

My friend and vegan cookbook author, Sharon Valencik, was invited to appear on a TV show earlier this month, but the invitation was revoked when one of the advertisers - the dairy industry - objected.

I was livid. I was angry that the producers allowed their content to be manipulated by an advertiser. I was angry that the dairy industry felt so threatened, they had to try to silence a cookbook author. Of course, their actions were part of their larger efforts to continue to use and oppress animals in any manner they wish, without criticism.

In an exclusive interview, Sharon talks about her experience, and gives a free vegan dessert recipe!

Read the interview, then show Sharon some love by buying her book!

Photo by Milan Valencik

Suggested Reading:

Purchase Sweet Utopia online
Sweet Utopia official site for Sharon's book
What's Wrong with Drinking Milk?
If You've Got Milk, You've Got Veal

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Dairy Industry Silences Vegan Cookbook Author originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 14:04:56.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

BLM Removes Thousands of Wild Horses to Make Room for Millions of Cattle

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:42:34 +0000

Wild horses rounded up by BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management's latest proposal to round up wild horses says they are trying to prevent "further range deterioration." If they're worried about range deterioration, shouldn't they ban the grazing of tens of millions of cattle and other domestic livestock on public lands?

These are not theoretical livestock, hundreds of miles away from the horses. If you look at the map of the "capture area" (outlined in yellow), these cattle grazing allotments (outlined in green) are inside the Calico Complex area where the BLM proposes to remove the horses because they claim to be concerned about range deterioration.

Not only are the livestock in the horses' territory, but they are inside a National Conservation Area. Animal advocates are well-aware that the word "conservation" does not mean that animals will be protected. But the word conjures up images of saving wildlife. Not displacing wildlife in favor of private livestock interests.

What you can do: First, go vegan. The horses are being removed from their natural habitat because they compete with domestic livestock grazing on public lands. Second, submit comments on the BLM's proposal for the removal of wild horses from the Calico Mountain Complex. The comment period was just extended to November 22, 2009. Send comments to:

Dave Hays, Field Manager
Black Rock Field Office
BLM Winnemucca District Office
5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd.
Winnemucca, NV 89445-2921
Email: wfoweb@nv.blm.gov

Oh, and the BLM's plan to put wild horses on "preserves" is similarly offensive. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is a hunter and a rancher, stated in an October 7, 2009 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

[A]rid western lands and watersheds cannot support a population this large without significant damage to the environment. To prevent starvation of animals and to protect the lands from over-grazing, the BLM each year moves thousands of wild horses to short-term corrals and long-term pastures.

Salazar's letter somehow fails to mention that while there are 37,000 wild horses eating vegetation on BLM's public lands, tens of millions of cattle and sheep are allowed to graze on that same land. Hmmm. Must've slipped Salazar's mind.

Jeff T. Green / Getty Images

Addendum: The Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Calico Complex wild horse capture plan makes it plain that the horses are being removed because they compete with cattle. After determining that the cattle and horses cannot coexist for much longer (p. 34), the BLM considered several options, but not one of them included reducing the number of cattle allowed to graze in the area. Every option focuses on removal, sterilization and/or killing of the horses. Page 19 of the Preliminary EA shows that 2,498 cattle currently graze in the area, and according to page 22, about 3,095 wild horses live there.

Suggested Reading:

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

BLM Removes Thousands of Wild Horses to Make Room for Millions of Cattle originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 04:42:34.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Cat Declawing Banned in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:59:02 +0000

The Los Angeles and Bevery Hills City Councils both unanimously passed ordinances last night to ban cat declawing. Both ordinances will take effect before January 1, 2010, when the state of California will prohibit counties and municipalities from regulating the practice of veterinary medicine.

Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz stated:

We need to ban declawing, which is one of the most cruel practices . . . The obvious truth is that declawing does nothing good for cats. It is not clipping nails. It is actually amputation, sometimes leaving cats crippled and in pain for the rest of the lives.

In 2003, West Hollywood, CA, passed the first declaw ban in North America. Santa Monica and San Francisco are considering similar bans.

The California Veterinary Medical Association opposed the bans. Instead of arguing that declawing is not harmful to cats, which would be a difficult argument to make, the CVMA argued that the decision to declaw should be made by individual pet owners. I think it's sad that veterinarians cannot be counted on as animal advocates. But then again, advocates for human patients are not always on the same side as the medical establishment when it comes to some issues.

The Guide to Cats, Franny Syufy, has some excellent articles on alternatives to declawing and why cats should not be declawed:

American Images Inc. / Getty Images

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Cat Declawing Banned in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 at 23:59:02.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Bob Barker Donates $1 Million for Animal Rights, Again

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:47:43 +0000

Bob Barker accepts an award from Madeline Bernstien, Los Angeles President of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in 2007.

Bob Barker has donated $1 million to Drury University, to establish the Dorothy Jo Barker Endowed Professorship of Animal Rights. Dorothy Jo was Barker's late wife, whom Barker credits with introducing him to animal rights. And this was not his first million-dollar donation to Drury. In 2008, his donation went to establish an Animal Ethics course.

The former game show host is a long-time animal rights supporter. Learn more about Bob Barker's animal activism.

Toby Canham / Getty Images

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Bob Barker Donates $1 Million for Animal Rights, Again originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 02:47:43.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Chimp Attack Victim Appears on Oprah

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:03:14 +0000

Charla Nash wears her veil during the first part of her interview on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

Charla Nash, the victim of a chimpanzee attack in Stamford, CT in February, appeared in public for the first time yesterday, on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Nash lost both hands and parts of her face. The chimp, Travis, was killed by local police immediately after the attack.

Nash has been recovering at the Cleveland Clinic, a facility famous for performing the first face transplant in the United States. Although she usually wears a veil to cover her face, Nash reveals her face during the interview. She is hopeful that she will one day receive a face transplant as well as a hand transplant. A summary of the interview is available online, as well as still photographs from the interview. Warning: The images of Nash's facial injuries are disturbing.

Of course the other victim in this tragedy was Travis. Baby chimpanzees are cute and cooperative, which is why some people try to keep them as pets. But adult chimps can be aggressive, and will fight humans for dominance. As the Jane Goodall Institute explains:

Many owners, to delay the inevitable day that the chimp will have to be removed from the house, will pull the chimp's teeth, put on shock collars -- even remove thumbs in the mistaken notion that this will make it impossible for the chimp to climb the drapes . . . Sadly, they cannot be sent back to Africa. Most zoos will not take ex-pets because human-reared chimpanzees do not know chimp etiquette and tend not to fit into established groups. Tragically, many pet chimps end up in medical research laboratories.

Keeping a chimpanzee as a pet is still legal in some states. The Captive Primate Safety Act (H.R.80/S.462), introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), would prohibit the interstate and foreign trade in non-human primates as pets. The bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but has yet to pass the Senate. Your senators' contact information can be found on the official Senate website. A personal communication is always best, but if you're short on time, you can use the webform from The Humane Society of the US.

� Doris Lin 2009, licensed to About.com, Inc.

Chimp Attack Victim Appears on Oprah originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 01:03:14.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Another One Bites the Dust

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:04:53 +0000

MorningStar Farms Recipe Crumbles are no longer vegan, and now contain eggs and milk.

When I first got an email from a friend about this, I checked the package in my freezer - it appeared to still be vegan. But when I visited the MorningStar Farms site, eggs and milk appeared in the list of ingredients. Just a few days ago, I found that the packages in my supermarket now show the new, non-vegan list of ingredients.

This is very disappointing from a company that caters to vegans and vegetarians. Several of their products are vegan, and at least one has the word "vegan" in the name of the product.

MorningStar Farms is taking a big step backwards, and away from their target audience. What are they expecting to gain by losing vegan customers? It's also disappointing to see that the change in their recipe is not obvious from the front of the package. I'm sure some vegans will continue to buy them, unaware of the change in ingredients. The spokesperson for Kelloggs (which owns Morningstar Farms) was not immediately available for comment. But see addendum below.

What are the alternatives? Of course vegans do not need foods that mimic meat, and with all of the processing and sodium, they're not very healthy. But they can be a fun addition to a meal, and they are tasty. That said, Yves Meatless Ground Round is vegan. Boca Ground Crumbles are also vegan, and Boca has vowed to make all of their products egg-free by the end of 2009, thanks to a campaign by Compassion Over Killing.

MorningStar Farms Recipe Crumbles now goes into the formerly-vegan graveyard, alongside Hershey's Special Dark chocolate bars (now contain dairy), Nestle's Sno-Caps (now contain dairy) and Burger King's BK Veggie Burger (now contains eggs and dairy).

� Doris Lin 2009, licensed to About.com, Inc.

Addendum: After this blog post was published, I received the following response from a spokesperson for MorningStar Farms:

The change in classification for the MorningStar Farms Crumbles to vegetarian was the result of a change in our manufacturing process. We apologize to anyone who might be inconvenienced by this change. As you noted in your article, we still offer several vegan products, and information about them can be found here.

Suggested Reading:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Another One Bites the Dust originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 13:04:53.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Nine Year Old Boy Kills Whale

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:08:08 +0000

I learned from fellow About.com Guide Pierre Tristam's blog that in October, a nine year old boy killed a bowhead whale as part of a hunt by Alaska natives, and is believed to be the youngest whaler ever credited with a kill. Bowhead whales are protected under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but both laws have exceptions for hunting by Alaska natives. The International Whaling Commission estimated in 2001 that only 10,500 bowhead whales existed in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

The Anchorage Daily News reported that along with local acclaim for the child, of course, came criticism from around the world on the internet.

There are several angles from which this killing can be criticized. From an animal rights standpoint, the death of this whale is no more or less a tragedy than the killing of a cow, a chicken or a fish. The killing of this whale was wrong, just as eating cows, chicken or fish is wrong.

From an environmental standpoint, some people are angry that an endangered bowhead whale was killed, thus decreasing the species' chances of recovery. This is a legitimate environmental concern.

Another angle is the belief that whales are special creatures, endangered or not, and that Alaska natives should now buy their meat in supermarkets. But there is no reason to hold a whale above a cow, morally. I also hear people argue that tradition is not a good enough reason for whaling. While I totally agree that tradition is not a good reason for animal cruelty, many of the people I see making this argument continue to eat meat because it is what they are familiar with. They think it tastes good and they were raised on it. A ham on Easter, a barbecue on the 4th of July and a roasted turkey on Thanksgiving are, they believe, important parts of their lives. Traditions. Like whale hunts in Alaska. I'm not saying that tradition is a good argument for killing whales. I'm saying it's not a good argument for eating animals. Any animals.

And what about people defending this killing? The captain of the whaling crew, who also happened to be the boy's uncle, argued, "The Inupiat people have lived off this animal for thousands and thousands of years, and there's no way you can just put a stop to that just right away." Again, tradition is not a good argument.

The article pointed out that opinions on this issue tended to divide geographically, with most of the criticism coming from outside of Alaska. But one of the great things about progress and technology is the freer exchange of ideas, and hopefully, more compassion for other sentient beings.

Suggested Reading:

What is the Marine Mammal Protection Act?
What is the Endangered Species Act?
What's Wrong with Eating Fish?
Middle East Issues from About.com Guide Pierre Tristam

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Nine Year Old Boy Kills Whale originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 23:08:08.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Critical Habitat for Polar Bears Proposed

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:33:12 +0000

Over 200,000 square miles of land, water and ice may become a designated critical habitat for polar bears in Alaska if a proposal by the Interior Department is adopted. The proposal is the result of a partial settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace under the Endangered Species Act, against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But don't celebrate yet - the proposal has nothing with climate change and would still allow for oil and gas drilling.

Although threats to habitat are usually considered under the ESA, a special rule for polar bears means that the ESA cannot be used to restrict activities that contribute to global warming, even though global warming is a major threat to polar bears.

Oil and gas drilling are also a threat. The proposal itself states that "the chance of a large spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels occurring and entering offshore waters is within a range of 33 to 51 percent." Also, "the release of oil trapped under the ice from an underwater spill during the winter could be catastrophic during spring break-up if bears were present." The proposal came the same week that the Shell oil company was granted permission to drill in the proposed critical habitat.

As Melanie Duchin, a Greenpeace campaigner, explains:

Designating polar bear critical habitat is a good first step toward protecting this species . . . However, as long as the secretary of the interior maintains that he can do nothing about greenhouse emissions and global warming, protections for the polar bear will ultimately be ineffective.

You can submit a comment online or via mail at:

Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R7-ES-2009-0042
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

Keep in mind that your public comments are public - your information as well as your comment will be made available online, but you can leave a field blank if you'd rather not divulge your name, address or phone number. The deadline for submitting comments is December 28, 2009.

Tom Brakefield / Getty Images

Suggested Reading:

What is the Endangered Species Act?
Polar Bears Won't be Protected from Global Warming
Sarah Palin Covered Up Polar Bear Info
U.S. Proposes Plan to Protect Critical Polar Bear Habitat in Alaska from the Guide to Environmental Issues

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Critical Habitat for Polar Bears Proposed originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 05:33:12.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Celebrity Photo Calendar to Benefit Animal Charity

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:41:12 +0000

John Lennon, Michael Jackson and Pete Townshend are just a few of the musicians who appear in a new calendar to benefit Rational Animal, a New York City-based charity that raises awareness about homeless animal issues. Each page of the 13-month calendar features a different vintage photograph of a famous musician with an animal. The calendar is the result of a collaboration between the photographers and Morrison Hotel Gallery.

The calendar is $24.95 and can be purchased online.

Photo by Henry Diltz, courtesy of Rational Animal.

Suggested Reading:

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Celebrity Photo Calendar to Benefit Animal Charity originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 23:41:12.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Bear in Mind Conference at Rutgers

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:41:58 +0000

On Saturday, I attended and spoke at "Bear in Mind," a one-day conference about bears and bear protection at Rutgers University, in New Jersey.

My talk, titled, "Why the 2005 New Jersey Bear Hunt Was Illegal," was about the New Jersey bear hunt lawsuit that I handled on behalf of New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance (n.k.a. Animal Protection League of NJ) and the Bear Education and Resource Group. In a unanimous decision by the NJ Appellate Division, the court held that the NJ Fish and Game Council's 2005 bear management policy was invalid and that the 2005 New Jersey bear hunt was illegal because of ten violations of the state Administrative Procedure Act. Although the court based its decision on the procedural flaws in the adoption of the policy, the policy also contained many substantive flaws and outright fabrications. In NJ, as in many (if not all) states, wildlife is managed by hunters, for hunters. In their zeal to hold a bear hunt, the Council fabricated scientific information, because the facts did not support their pro-hunt position.

Another speaker on Saturday was Alice Ng, from Animals Asia Foundation, a group that rescues bears from bile farms in Asia and raises public awareness about the issue. Ng's presentation included horrific photos of bears in cages barely larger than their bodies, with catheters inserted into their abdomens to drain the bile. The bile has medicinal properties, but there are now herbal and synthetic substitutes for ursodeoxycholic acid, and some pharmacies in Asia now proudly display stickers that proclaim that they do not sell bear bile or bear parts.

I was especially intrigued by the talk by Dr. Edward Tavss, a chemistry lecturer at Rutgers University who authored a report titled, "Synopsis of National Research on Effective Bear Management." The report showed that over and over again, in the U.S. and Canada, non-lethal black bear management was effective for reducing human/bear conflicts, while hunting was not. Tavss is neither a hunter nor an animal rights activist, but the conflicting information from the two sides inspired him to look deeper into the issue. Although I'd read the report and used information from it in my brief for the bear hunt lawsuit, I didn't realize until Saturday that Tavss had begun his research with the opposite hypothesis: that hunting would be more effective for reducing conflicts. But being a true scientist, Tavss kept an open mind when he analyzed the data, and found the opposite to be true.

My sincere thanks to bear advocate and conference organizer, Prof. Carole Allamand!

Don Farrall / Getty Images

Suggested Reading:

Living with Black Bears
Black Bears Looking for Fast Food Choose Minivans from the Guide to Environmental Issues
What is Deer Overabundance?

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter

Bear in Mind Conference at Rutgers originally appeared on About.com Animal Rights on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 22:41:58.

Permalink | Comment | Email this