Emma loves her papa!
CC image via flickr user Vegan Flower (Molly!).
——————————

Hey there lovely people! I have a homework assignment for the dog people in the audience. Don’t worry, it’s short and kind of sweet and won’t distract from your holiday festivities. Dr. Frank McMillan at Best Friends Animal Society is studying human-nonhuman bonding and, as part of his background research, is soliciting stories of love and devotion from those who share their lives with dogs. How do you know that your dog friend loves you? The answer can be short or long-form, simple or multifaceted. Just TELL HIM STORIES! (Always quote His Dark Materials. ALWAYS!)

Here’s the call for submissions, which appeared in the November/December 2011 issue of Best Friends magazine:

BEST FRIENDS NEEDS YOUR HELP

If you have a dog who expresses love toward you, we would like to hear your story.

In a very special new study, we are looking in-depth at the emotions of bonding and affection – love – shown by dogs toward their human companions. For background research, we would like to collect stories of dogs’ expressions of love. The story could be about a single incident of your dog’s show of love and devotion, or the ways your dog demonstrates love within your overall relationship. It could simply be an answer to the question: How do you know your dog loves you? If you would like to share your story, please email it to Dr. Frank McMillan at dr.frank@bestfriends.org.

You may recall that I’ve written about Dr. McMillan’s research previously in this here space; see, e.g. Scientists, Poets, Changemakers and Heroes (Volunteer Opportunities & Action Alerts). (Wow, has it been two years already?) Participating in vegan-friendly research projects such as this is an awesome and fun way to contribute to science. And easy, too!

Dr. McMillan posts notices of current research opportunities in Best Friends magazine, which comes “free” with a $25 donation to Best Friends. (We made a donation in Ozzy’s name for their annual Blessing of the Animals ceremony.) In the future, I’ll try to relay new notices as quickly as possible, for those who don’t get the magazine. Forgetting is easy, since a) I tend to let my subscription lapse and b) the notices are somewhat inconspicuous and easy to miss! But I’ll do better, I promise. This stuff is important, yo!

While we’re doing the bulletin board thing, joyful vegan goddess Colleen Patrick-Goudreau recently posted this notice on her FB page:

Call for vegan experts: I’m building a directory of everything from vegan wellness practitioners (chiropractors, acupuncturists, dietitians, naturopaths, nutritionists, psychologists, nurse practitioners, massage therapists, veterinarians) to vegan cooking class instructor and chefs. Wherever you are, if you are vegan and fall into any of the first categories, please email lisa@compassionatecooks.com so we can include you. If you teach cooking classes or have a catering company or are a personal chef, please email colleendavis@compassionatecooks.com. We need the city and state your in, your name, and your website! PLEASE PASS IT ON!

Also, VegListings is a newish directory for vegetarian and vegan businesses; it might come in handy for shoppers as well as business owners, especially with the holidays fast approaching! In the past I’ve put together social justice-themed buying guides; this year, I briefly considered compiling a list of vegan shops on etsy (love me some etsy!) – and then I stumbled upon the Vegan Etsy Team page, making my idea seem redundant.

…and I hope you will too!

So go, browse, buy (if you can). If not, maybe you’ll be inspired to give gifts crafted by your own two hands this holiday season. It’s fun!

(Image via Herbivore, by way of Vegan Etsy.)

“The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.”

(Full disclosure: I received a free review copy of The Moral Lives of Animals through Library Thing’s Early Reviewer program.)

What is the nature of morality? Which behaviors do we consider “moral,” and why? Are humans the only animals to have developed a sense of morality and rules for moral living? Dale Peterson’s The Moral Lives of Animals (2011) attempts to answer these questions, with mixed results. While he presents ample evidence which suggests that nonhuman animals have literally evolved their own moralities, in so doing Peterson demonstrates how terribly disrespectful, cruel, and (dare I say!) immoral human treatment of other animals and the planet we all call home remains, even after thousands of years of evolution and revolution.

When you think of “morals” and “morality,” most likely terms such as “just,” “kind,” “compassionate,” and “fair” come to mind. And ideally, what is considered “moral” in any given society is that which is just, and kind, and fair. However, “morality” differs in time and space; morals are relative and context-specific. Morality (or what we consider “moral”) is not fixed, but changes over time and across cultures. Those behaviors and institutions that were thought “moral” in colonial America, for example, are quite different than what we consider moral today. So too does morality vary across species: elephants, bonobos, mice, chickadees – all have their own moral rules, codified not in language (as human moral codes often are), but written into the DNA of the species by evolution. Sometimes these moral principles resemble our own; other times they do not.* This is the crux of the author’s theory of animal morality.

Peterson looks at animal morality in seven areas of animal life: authority, violence, sex, possession, communication, cooperation and kindness. The first five he groups together to form a system of “rules morality” – i.e., something is moral if it follows the rules – while cooperation and kindness together form “attachments morality” – i.e., compassionate behaviors, or those that encourage attachments among social animals, are moral. He presents a wealth of evidence – anecdotal, laboratory studies, field research – attesting to morality in nonhumans. Since each of these seven areas could easily command its own book, the sections are necessarily brief – but compelling nonetheless. (Curiously, Peterson barely touches upon rape – even though it could fit into two different chapters.) Primates receive quite a bit of attention (gotta love those sexually liberated, matriarchal bonobos!), as do elephants, hyenas, lions, whales, wolves, various species of birds, dogs – and humans.

It’s this last group that many of my fellow LT reviewers takes issue with, and with good cause. Though I take the title of the book to mean “the moral lives of nonhuman animals” (the omission of “nonhuman” when referring to animals being a nice/nasty linguistic trick that separates “us” from “them”), examples of human morality are introduced quite frequently, usually as a point of reference against which to consider nonhuman morality. Along these lines, Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick serves as a framework on which Peterson weaves his own discussion, and passages from the Bible – used to illustrate written human moral codes – abound. As an atheist who Cliff Noted Moby-Dick in high school, I wasn’t thrilled with either device. That said, by the end of the book, I’d come to see the usefulness of Moby-Dick for shaping the structure of Peterson’s book; and, while the endless Biblical excerpts essentially excluded other religions from the text, I suspect that Peterson used them because he expected that Christianity would be the religion with which most of his audience would be most familiar. (Certainly, this seemed true of the author himself.) So I guess you could say that I came around on both points.

But back to the moral lives of nonhuman animals. While human morality isn’t the main focus of the book, Peterson does return to humans time and again – and it’s here that he drops the ball. For instance, while Peterson primarily relies on observational field research to make his case, laboratory research – including vivisection – is also a common element in The Moral Lives of Animals. Peterson describes horrific acts of animal torture in gruesome detail, without so much as hinting at their moral implications. In the chapter on “kindness,” Peterson un-ironically describes an experiment in which “lab” mice were observed physically reacting to another mouse’s pain – deliberately caused by an injection of acetic acid by a human researcher – in an example of “contagious empathy.” (Would that humans would come down with a case of it!) In another study, captive rhesus monkeys chose to forgo food rather than electrically shock a compatriot housed in another “compartment” of their cage. (Here, the scientists could stand to learn a thing or two about compassion from their subjects!) The ethics of such research are never touched, even though the very subject of the book seems to demand it.

On the contrary, Peterson sometimes takes the opposite tack, waxing nostalgic about animal abuse and exploitation. Early on (fittingly, in the chapter on “authority”), he describes how loggers in Myanmar capture and train free-living elephants to use in their industry. The process involves corralling a “wild” herd; isolating the baby (or babies, as the case may be), kicking and screaming, from her family; lashing her to a “cradle,” which is essentially a giant tripod constructed to immobilize her completely; and then withholding food and water until she “breaks.” The aim, says Peterson, is to “demonstrat[e] a radically new power relationship.” In other words, torture the elephant physically and psychologically until she submits completely. Or commits suicide. (Some elephants have stepped on their own trunks, thus cutting off all air flow, rather than comply with their captors.) Of this horrific practice, Peterson writes “It is certainly possible to overromanticize this relationship between a mahout and his elephant.” That such torture can be romanticized at all is a testament to the depths of human cruelty.

And speciesism, which Peterson introduces and dismisses in just two pages.** He cites the species boundary – the heeding of which is part and parcel of “human nature” – as the difference between speciesism and other isms, such as sexism and racism. In Peterson’s view, there’s something fundamentally unique about the human/animal divide that makes it more difficult – impossible, even – to bridge than differences based on gender and race.

But as abolitionists and anti-speciesists argue, the species boundary is no less arbitrary than those based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, dis/ability, or the like. What truly matters is sentience: The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but rather, “Can they suffer?” If another being is capable of suffering, and suffering is a bad thing, then isn’t it wrong to cause unnecessary suffering?

To use Peterson’s own example: yes, if she must, a human mother will place the life of her baby above that of a laboratory rat – but she’d also place it above that of another human baby. So too will nonhuman mothers. And I know many people who, if pressed, would choose to rescue their own dog and cat friends over a human who they do not know (and particularly a human they do know and do not like. Heck, I’d save a venomous snake over blowhard bigot Rush Limbaugh every day of the week!) But as Peterson himself demonstrates, this preference for one’s own offspring does not negate the ability to feel empathy and exhibit compassion across myriad us/other boundaries. Add in the fact that most animal exploitation – in the Western world, anyhow – is a matter of convenience vs. survival, and Peterson’s argument (for which he offers not a whit of evidence, just conjecture) becomes rather simplistic: the stuff of Defensive Omnivore Bingo.

When asked, most people – and not just vegans and animal rights activists, but also hunters, and ranchers, and your everyday, run of the mill omnivores and pet owners and circus-goers, too – profess to “love animals.” Even as we use them up and spit them out, enslave and exploit them by the billions, we consider ourselves a nation of “animal lovers.” On some level – one founded on nature or nature, it matters not to me – we recognize that it’s a good thing to care about beings other than ourselves … no matter how “other” they may be. And yet, Peterson’s call for “peace” in the parting chapter betrays this value, and in so doing betrays the very animals he himself claims to “love” – humans and nonhumans alike. Rather than calling for the large-scale revolution that the situation demands, Peterson weakly asks that his readers perform small, random, occasional acts of kindness toward the animals with whom we share this planet – you know, when it’s convenient for us.

We might not always seem it, but humans are capable of so much than this.

* This variance in morals – along with ignorance and speciesism – is one reason why it’s difficult for humans to recognize morality in other animals: if a given quality doesn’t match our anthropocentric definition of that quality to a T, then it doesn’t exist. Thus you see humans finding intelligence, emotions and the like only in other humans – and increasingly, primates (our closest ancestors). We simply cannot fathom intelligence that doesn’t look overtly human.

** Incidentally, Peterson also engages in some pernicious, drive-by gender essentialism. As with his lazy dismissal of speciesism, he does his readers no favor by introducing them to a weighty, controversial topic, only to wave it away with a flick of his wrist. I hope his audience researches each subject more fully on their own!

(Crossposted on Amazon and Library Thing.)

Two geese, swimming in the pond, waddling through the pastures. I’ve been watching them all week. At least one week, possible two. Watching, wondering, revering, daydreaming. Could it possibly be the same pair from last year? The same mother and father who built a home within a stone’s throw of our own, nesting and laying and incubating, eventually welcoming their children into this cruel and beautiful and remarkable world in the relative safety of our pond and its shores, teaching them to fly, swim, graze and live?

Have the birds I fell so in love with last year returned?

Ducks Unlimited (ugh, I know, it was the first useful result to come up!) suggests yes:

When do they breed?

Generally speaking, Canada geese do not breed until they are two or three years of age. Breeding takes place earlier in the year than it does for most birds so that their young hatch right when the plant food they need is in its prime.

When it comes time to choose a nesting site to lay the eggs, the female always returns to the same area where her parents nested. While there are exceptions, females will usually return to the same nesting area every year.

Do Canada geese form families?

The Canada goose is a very family-oriented bird. Usually in their second year of life, Canada geese find a mate and stay together for life. However, if one mate dies, the other will re-mate.

Breeding takes place earlier in the year, with nesting usually happening from late March to early May. Once the eggs are laid, the female incubates them until they hatch around 28 days later.

During the nesting and incubation period, the male stays near the nest and keeps a close eye on the female and the eggs. If a predator should threaten them, the male will attempt to protect the nest by luring the predator away.

Wherever they are, I hope they’ve survived. The babies, too. And maybe I’ll be lucky enough to witness the birth of another generation again this spring. ‘Twas by far the highlight of the season.

Via the Huffington Post, which led with the following commentary:

When it comes down it, we all want to be like this tortoise. The kind of person that goes around saving lives and doing good deeds just for the hell of it. But the unfortunate reality is that we can’t all be heroes. And that’s what this tortoise is.

Oh, my darling grasshopper! Of course you can be a hero – every day! You can start by going vegan; vegans spare the lives of about 100 nonhuman animals every year.

And that’s just on your plate! Look around, open your eyes, and you’ll find plenty of opportunities to do good deeds. Yesterday, for example, I saved six worms – who would have otherwise died of dehydration on my patio, after the recent rain evaporated – simply by relocating them ten feet to a nearby dirt-filled planter.

Six worms may not seem like much, but I’m sure it meant the world to them. And it took me all of three minutes.

(In case you can’t view the 99-second video, here’s the rundown: as one tortoise lays struggling on his back, a second tortoise comes to his aid; she pushes and “head-butts” the side of his shell until he’s flipped back upright. The two then proceed to walk away from the videographer together, the second tortoise following the first, as if to ensure that he really is alright after the harrowing incident.)

If you are lucky enough to find yourself in Deer Trail, Colorado this Sunday, stop by Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary for a Vegan Valentine’s Day Brunch. In a delightful re-imagining of an otherwise blasé day, filled with tired gender roles and patriarchal mores, the Peaceful Prairie celebration will include a commemoration of animal love – that shared by chickens Libby and Louie – told over a plate of cruelty-free waffles, quiche, tofu scramble, fruit and coffee cake, of course!

A lame, silent hen and a handsome, fire-red rooster, respectively, these rescued birds have sought solace in one another’s presence – and one another’s presence alone – for the past five years and counting. If anything, their story serves as a gentle reminder that human animals do not have a monopoly on love – nor on kindness, compassion, selflessness, sacrifice, devotion, and family.

In Libby and Louie, A Love Story, Joanna Lucas writes of a love so pure and so true, undying and never-ending, such that any human would count herself lucky to be caught in its bonds.

And there they were. Just the two of them in the world. A monogamous couple in a species where monogamy is the exception. Determined to stay together even though their union created more problems than it solved, increased their burdens more than it eased them, and thwarted their instincts more than it fulfilled them.

It would have been easier and more “natural” for Louie to be in charge of a group of hens, like all the other roosters, but he ignored everyone except Libby. He paid no attention to the fluffy gray hen, the fiery blonde hen, the dreamy red hen, the sweet black hen dawdling in her downy pantaloons, or any of the 100 snow-white hens who, to our dim perceptions, looked exactly like Libby. Louie, the most resplendently bedecked and befeathered rooster of the sanctuary, remained devoted only to Libby – scrawny body, scraggly feathers, missing foot, hobbled gait and all. It’s true that, with our dull senses, we couldn’t grasp a fraction of what he saw in her because we can’t see, smell, hear, touch, taste, sense a scintilla of the sights, scents, sounds, textures, and tastes he does. But, even if we could see Libby in all her glory, it would still be clear that it wasn’t her physical attributes that enraptured Louie. If he sought her as his one and only companion, if he protected that union from all intrusions, it wasn’t because of her physique but because of her presence.

It would have been easier for Libby too – so vulnerable in her stunted, lame body – to join an existing chicken family and enjoy the added comfort, cover and protection of a larger group, but she never did. She stayed with Louie, and followed him on his daily treks in the open fields, limping and gimping behind him, exhausting herself only to be near him.

What bonded them was not about practical necessities or instinctual urges – if anything, it thwarted both. Their union was about something else, a rich inner abundance that seemed to flourish in each other’s presence, and that Libby nurtured in her silence and that Louie voiced, sang out loud, celebrated, noted, catalogued, documented, expressed, praised every day of their 1,800 days together.

Should we all – humans and nonhumans alike – be so blessed.

If, like me, you cannot attend the celebration, set aside an hour or two over the weekend (along with the big ole box of tissues), and read through just a few of the achingly beautiful sanctuary stories on the Peaceful Prairie blog. And then pledge to go vegan, if you haven’t already.

Peaceful Prairie has also put together a stunning, nonhuman animal-themed eCard for Valentine’s Day; the photo of Libby and Louie at the top of this post is a screenshot of their panel in the presentation. Share it with everyone you love, particularly those who eat “meat,” eggs and dairy – because everyone they eat has someone who loves them, too.

(And don’t forget your animal friends this Valentine’s Day, either!)

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alert events valentine’s day v-day colorado peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary animal sanctuary libby louie libby and louie a love story ecard chickens rooster hen love love is animal intelligence animal behavior animal emotions vegan veganism go vegan vegan brunch factory farming farmed animals flickr photos

There are several “actionable items” – not quite action alerts, but rather opportunities for participation, if that makes sense – I’ve been meaning to share, but just haven’t had the time to blog about in depth. Rather than neglect these projects altogether, here’s a handy-dandy roundup. Please scan through each item and help out where you can; these virtual volunteer opportunities are perfect for activists who have more extra time than they do money!

1. Science

It really chaps my rotund hide when speciesists claim that animal advocates are “anti-science.” Being all diverse and stuff, I’m sure the animal rights and welfare movements are home to a fair share of science-averse humans, but for the most part, we’re hardly anti-science. On the contrary: many of us harness the power of scientific research to demonstrate that veganism is a healthier alternative to “meat” and dairy consumption; that nonhuman animals can experience complex thoughts and emotions; that our exploitation of nonhumans animals is both unnecessary and harmful; etc., etc., etc. (you get the idea). On the whole, I don’t think we’re any more anti-science than our omni counterparts.

Personally, I love science; once upon a time, I wanted to be a clinical psychologist, specializing in anthrozoology and world vegan (then vegetarian, but wev) domination. I still peruse research articles and scientific journals (of a social nature) on occasion, just for the fun of it. No, it’s not science per se that I take issue with. Rather, I object to the imprisonment, torture, killing and exploitation of sentient, non-consenting animals, usually for redundant and frivolous research.

So I’ve become increasingly interested in “vegan” science, particularly in supporting such endeavors whenever possible. For example, I would love to donate my body to science when I die. The thought of spending my “afterlife” rotting away on a body farm somewhere brings a smile to my face; doubly so if my remains can save a nonhuman animal from being birthed, tortured and killed in the name of science. Oooh, Dr. Brennan, pick me, pick me!

Anyhow, when I saw an ad for research volunteers in the latest issue of Best Friends magazine, I immediately fired off an email to Dr. Frank McMillan to see how I might help. He pointed me to five open surveys, all of which are related to studies he’s conducting at Best Friends (as described here):

Dr. Franklin McMillan has been the director of well-being studies at Best Friends since October 2007. As director of well-being studies, Dr. Frank assesses and studies the mental health and emotional well-being of animals who have endured hardship, adversity and psychological trauma. Through these studies, he hopes to learn what the effects of trauma are – the psychological injuries and scars – and how best to treat them in order to restore to these animals a life of enjoyment rather than one of fear and emotional distress.

He is currently conducting such studies on cats from the Great Kitty Rescue in Pahrump, Nevada – an institutionalized hoarding situation – and the fighting dogs taken from the estate of former NFL quarterback Michael Vick.

The ad in Best Friends (September/October 2009, p. 66) offers additional details on the research:

Best Friends needs your help in our mental health studies of traumatized animals.

First, be assured that all the studies we conduct here at Best Friends involve observational methods that do not harm animals.

Many of our studies require a large number of animals for the study to be valid. For this, we rely on volunteer participation by individuals with certain types of animals. All studies involve nothing more than filling out an online questionnaire about your pet.

If you are a guardian to a cat or a dog, you’re eligible to participate in at least one (if not several) of the following surveys:

Dogs: Suspicion of Abuse Survey – for guardians who suspect that one or more of their dog-kids were abused, mistreated or neglected (the definition of abuse is left open for interpretation).

Dogs: Canine Fear Survey – for all dog guardians.

Dogs: Physical-Emotional Interaction Assessment for Dogs – a mind/body study that’s open to all canine guardians.

Cats: Physical-Emotional Interaction Assessment for Cats – a mind/body study that’s open to all feline guardians.

Dogs: Best Friends Canine Attachment Survey – A bonding/attachment study for dog guardians.

If you are a guardian to multiple cats and/or dogs, you can fill out one survey for each of the eligible animals. That is to say, if you have three dog-kids and suspect that two were abused, fill out two separate “Suspicion of Abuse” surveys, one for each dog.

Since I live with five dogs and a cat, I completed a grand total of 18 surveys over several weeks. Each survey takes about 15 minutes to complete, depending on how much you elaborate on the open-ended questions.

Additionally, Mia Cobb of Monash University in Australia is looking for people aged 18 years and older to complete an online questionnaire about

your attitudes towards the welfare of dogs and kennel facilities, as well as a few general questions about yourself.

The questionnaire is not restricted to Australian participants and you do not need to have had any direct experience with a kennel facility to take part. You don’t even need to ‘like’ dogs.

Public opinion is often a driving force in the provision of care for animals housed in captivity. Therefore, a survey is important to accurately establish the views of the general public as well as dog trainers and primary care givers (such as kennel attendant staff) who are generally directly responsible for decisions regarding the care provided to dogs housed in kennel facilities.

You can access the “Attitudes regarding the welfare of dogs housed in kennel facilities questionnaire” at Monash University here.

Finally, speaking of surveys, Breeze Harper of Sistah Vegan and Vegans of Color concluded her “Vegans by Race/Ethnicity in the USA” poll and has made the results available as an ebook, available for purchase and download on Lulu. Also of interest is her Masters thesis, “Cyber-Territories of Whiteness, Sistah Vegan Consciousness.”

2. Poetry

Author/activist Mickey Z. is soliciting poetry for his latest project, The Big Book of Revolutionary Poetry:

From: “Mickey Z.” mzx2 [at] earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:25:50 -0400
Subject: Call for poems

Calling all feminists, wizards, Queer theorists, ex-Black Panthers, Christians, Green activists, avant-gardists, Kabbalists, vegans, Hawaiian nationalists, kickboxers, Punks, Hip Hop evangelists, New New Leftists, pink-haired emo warriors, organic gardeners — submit your work for “The Big Book of Revolutionary Poetry,” edited by Sparrow and Mickey Z. Send up to 3 poems to: sparrow44 [at] juno.com or info [at] mickeyz.net

Also, please forward this announcement far and wide, post it on your website or blog or Facebook page, and tweet it if you must. Thanks…

P.S. Please don’t reply to find out what we mean by “revolutionary.” As they say, if you have to ask…

Creative vegan feminist types, I’m looking at you!

3. Change (.org)

Change.org recently launched a new feature on its website. Heavy on audience participation, Changemakers invites readers to nominate and vote for activists, advocates, agitators – you know, changemakers – in 23 categories, including animal rights. Because the feature is user-driven with little quality control (that, and there’s no dedicated animal welfare category to highlight the distinction), some of the nominations are, shall we say, puzzling. (Since when is Leonardo DiCaprio an animal rights activist?) Rather than shun Changemakers, though, this is precisely why actual vegans and animal rights advocates should get involved and make their voices heard, particularly as Change.org will invite Changemakers

to periodically write on an issue they’re passionate about and have their content featured on Change.org and pushed throughout our network of 500,000 activists, 4000 organizational partners, and 20,000 affiliated bloggers.

Each user has ten votes that she can spread across all 23 categories, so vote wisely. I’m not 100% sure what the nomination policy is – how many activists one user can nominate, whether the nomination automatically counts as a vote, whether that vote is unchangeable, etc. – so please contact Change.org directly with any questions you may have.

So far I’ve only voted for Gene Bauer, but plan to nominate between three and six women as soon as I have a free moment. Care to guess who my choices are?

Stephanie recently blogged about Changemakers, so see her post (or Change.org‘s FAQ) for more details.

4. Heroism, CNN

Last but not least, CNN Heroes is open for audience voting. Now in its third year, CNN invites viewers to nominate their own personal Heroes for the contest. From there, a panel of judges selects ten finalists, and then through online voting, viewers choose a winner, who wins a grand prize of $100,000. All ten finalists are featured on CNN throughout the final phase of the contest – October through November – and all nominees are profiled on CNN’s website.

Obviously, CNN Heroes is a great opportunity to put animal advocacy issues front and center. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see an animal advocate make the final cut – and this year is no different. Again, the only way we can remedy the situation is by getting involved: if you know an animal advocate, please think about nominating her in 2010. Judging from when last I posted about Heroes, nominations open rather early in the year – as in, January or February. I can’t seem to find the nomination form online (probably it’s no longer available), but as I recall, it was somewhat comprehensive, and included questions personal enough to imply that one must be familiar (i.e., in the real world sense) with one’s nominee. In other words, now’s the time to start thinking about next year’s nominations.

I’ll post a notice when the 2010 nominations open up, but for now, hop on over to CNN and vote for a Hero.

———————

Hard-at-work doggy via Flickr user stretchdog.

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alerts science poetry research cnn heroes cnn change.org changemakers survey dog canine cat feline pet companion animal animal companion best friends vegan veganism animal advocacy activists activism flickr photos humane research cruelty-free research vegan science ethology animal behavior animal rescue

Though the “rancher” neglected to inform Gentle Barn of the situation, the estranged mother did not:

While we were rescuing Thanksgiving turkeys from a local ranch in 2008, we couldn’t help but notice the horrific conditions in which the other animals were living. Unable to stomach what we were witnessing, we came home with two of the ten cows who were in the worst shape and were pregnant.

When they got home to The Gentle Barn, one of the cows seemed inconsolably distraught. She was trying to get out of the pen, pacing, sweating, and mooing as though screaming for someone. Throughout the first night, she kept crying out, barely pausing to take a breath.

At first, we thought her stress was from missing all of the animals she had left behind, or from feeling unsure of her new surroundings. But by morning, when her cries had not stopped, we realized something more serious was going on. We also noticed that her utter was full now and she was expressing milk. When we called back to the place we rescued her from, our fears were confirmed. She had been separated from her calf, and we were informed that her baby was being sold that day to someone else for slaughter. We demanded that they release the baby to us, knowing that this cow would die of heartbreak otherwise, and they agreed, especially because their truck had broken down and they couldn’t deliver the calf to the other people and we had a trailer…small miracles!

When we arrived at The Gentle Barn with the calf, his mom heard his voice, she jumped up and practically broke through the pasture fencing to get to her calf. When we lead her tiny baby to reunite with her, the calf collapsed on the ground in front of her. As she licked him and nuzzled him with the gentlest touch, he got up. As the baby nursed, for the first time in twelve hours, the mom let out a long moo, like the biggest sigh of relief. Now that her baby is with her, she has not made a single sound. She is happy and at peace, and the two will never be separated again.

Once they were reunited, we went back and rescued the rest of the cows. So now, all ten cows are safe and sound at The Gentle Barn.

The reunion of mother Karma and baby Mr. Rojas is documented in Karma’s Reunion. Embedding is disabled, so please head on over to YouTube and watch the video. It clocks in at just under five minutes, and is a real tear-jerker. While the images are moving enough on their own, Gentle Barn further emphasizes the themes of nonhuman intelligence, family and love through the addition of captions.

Karma’s story is beautiful and moving – but it doesn’t end with the birth of Mr. Rojas. In a recent newsletter, Gentle Barn updates us on “Karma’s Surprise”:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: The Gentle Barn – info [at] gentlebarn.org
Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Karma and Her Big Surprise!

Karma’s Surprise

As you might remember, we rescued a cow named Karma last year. The man we rescued her from did not let us know she had a baby, until she cried for 12 hours straight. We then realized that the only thing that could cause her so much distress is being separated from a baby. So, we went back to the cruelty site we rescued her from and sure enough there was her baby about to be sent to slaughter. We rescued her tiny baby boy and brought him home to the safety of The Gentle Barn. Karma and her son, Mr. Rojas, have been together ever since.

This past Sunday one of our animal caregivers mentioned to us that Karma’s udder looked swollen. We asked if he thought Karma had an infection and he replied, “no, I think she is going to have a baby.” We thought he must be mistaken because we rescued her with a tiny baby, that she was still nursing. Surely, they would not have bred her again so soon, and all the male cows at our place are neutered…

In the evening, we always go down to the barnyard to take off fly masks and give everyone a goodnight treat. We walked casually over to Karma to check her out and see what our animal caregiver was talking about. When we saw her, she had a tiny foot coming out of her. She was having a baby! Holy cow/calf!

We ran upstairs to grab our boots and cameras and rushed back down to the barn just in time to see the baby’s tiny face come out along with the feet. Then, moments later she pushed him out and there at our feet lay a beautiful, strong, healthy surprise.

Karma gave birth to a baby boy who, within minutes, was already trying to stand. We watched in amazement as Karma gently cleaned him off, as he stood and walked, as he took his first steps, nursed for his first time, and then fell asleep next to his exhausted but very happy mommy.

When we took Karma from her prison last November filled with dead animals and filth, with no food or water, we not only saved her life and the life of her tiny baby, but unaware we saved the life of her unborn child as well. Now all three of them will live together in health, safety, and love for the rest of their lives at The Gentle Barn.

The Gentle Barn is closed for the rest of August (as we do every year) but will be open the first Sunday in September from 10-2, and for each Sunday afterwards ready for your visit. Come play with our baby surprise as well as our other barnyard family members. We look forward to seeing you soon!

Warmly,
Ellie and Jay

The Gentle Barn | 26910 Sierra Highway D-8 #318 | Mailing address only! | Santa Clarita | CA | 91321

—————–

The love between a mother and child is no less wondrous or powerful when shared between “beasts” rather than humans. Without the fateful (karmic?) intervention of Gentle Barn, Karma’s life – and those of her children – would have met a premature end, after much suffering, pain and anguish. Karma’s tale offers an alternative to the horror stories endured by the 9 million “dairy” cows imprisoned in U.S. dairy operations and 35 million “beef” cattle and 1 million “veal” calves slaughtered in the United States annually.

Every time you consume a meal, you write a story – a tale of nonfiction, imposed on a fellow sentient being:

life, love and freedom -

or exploitation, torture and murder.

Which will it be?

—————–

Gentle Barn is one of many farmed animal sanctuaries, rescuing, rehabbing and providing lifelong care to “food” animals. As with all such organizations, they’re always in need of donations of money and time – so many billions of animals, so little resources. Please help if and when you can (and starting with your plate).

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights gentle barn animal rescue cow bovine karma mother child intersectionality intersections speciesism farmed animals factory farming dairy cow veal calf animals and women ageism misogyny feminism vegan veganism animal behavior maternal instinct flickr photos love family mother-child bond

Back in June, I raved about Green Porno, a subversive (and delightfully cheesy!) documentary series starring Isabella Rossellini (whom I’ve had a massive girl-crush on ever since her turn as Katya Derevko in Alias). Green Porno examines the sex lives of nonhuman animals – which, oftentimes, are far from “conventional.” To this end, the show has great potential to change how humans view “others”: women, homosexuals, transgendered persons, gender nonconformists – and even nonhuman animals.

To this, I’d like to add that, in addition to their anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, anti-anti-sex thrust (pun most definitely intended), these shows are anti-speciesist as well.

While [the] disavowal of animal homosexuality and sexual variety serves to justify and reinforce “isms” directed at humans (homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc.), it at also functions at another level. In denying non-human animals the full range of their behavioral, emotional and sexual expression, we rob them of their complexity, their personality – for lack of a better term, their humanity.

Like us, non-human animals can be complicated creatures, driven by a range of goals and desires. Animals, humans included, aren’t just about reproduction; our sole purpose in life isn’t simply to spread our DNA and produce as much offspring as possible. Sometimes we have sex, mate and form bonds because it’s fulfilling in other ways. Nor do we only nurture and protect our own genetic material: sometimes we act with altruism and compassion rather than selfishness and narcissism.

By insisting that animals only copulate in order to introduce sperm to egg, we simplify trillions of sentient beings, taking from them characteristics which make them seem that much more human.

Ironically, in so doing, we also reduce the human species to a caricature, a boring, two-dimensional model which scarcely resembles h. spaiens, in all its diverse, eccentric, animalistic magnificence.

Watching animal sex play out amidst kindergarten construction paper cutouts and human-sized bodysuits, the viewer (hopefully) comes to see nonhumans as the unique individuals they really are. When one ceases to regard a group of beings as a single, undifferentiated mass of “stuff,” othering them – based on species, sex, sexuality, race, breed or whatnot – becomes a difficult, twisted task indeed.

Season 1 focused on bugs (spiders, flies, earthworms), Season 2 on ocean dwellers (barnacles, whales, starfish). Both Wiki and I had thought Season 3 would shift focus to farmed animals such as pigs and cows, but it looks Season 3 will continue to examine marine animals. In a subtle shift from Season 2, however, Rossellini’s attention turns to ocean dwellers whom we commonly kill and eat (and oftentimes “farm” as well).

While the show is far from an animal rights treatise, it’s certainly taken a turn towards animal welfare issues in its third season. Unsurprisingly, some audiences seem less-than-enthused at this evolution:

Helping her discuss the ins and outs of the lives of seafood (pun intended, pervs) is Dr. Claudio Campagna, a conservationist with two affiliations, the Wildlife Conservation Society, with headquarters in New York, and the National Research Council of Argentina. At the end of each short episode, Campagna explains a bit about the industry behind each delicacy, usually coming to the conclusion that we should stop chowing down on them. As a huge seafood lover, this bummed me out. That, however, was most likely the point, so I suppose it’s a success on that front.

Anti-sea-creatures-as-snacks message aside, Green Porno 3 is sexy, fun, educational, and features Isabella Rossellini wearing tentacles.

Whereas Bitch‘s Kelsey Wallace sees the “anti-sea-creatures-as-snacks message” as an impediment, you and I are likely to view Season 3′s anti- (or less-) speciesist bent as a welcome improvement. Let’s hope the show eventually turns its lens on U.S. “food” animals – chickens, turkeys, cows, pigs, ducks, lambs – and urges viewers towards a similarly compassionate diet, free of sentient animals, whether they fornicate in oceans or on land.

If, like me, you don’t have the Sundance Channel, fear not! You can view the first four installments of Season 3 (squid, anchovy, shrimp, elephant seals) on Green Porno‘s website at www.sundancechannel.com/greenporno/

———————–

Videos in this post:

Green Porno 3: Bon Appetit Promo
Promo for all new GREEN PORNO 3: Bon Appetit by Isabella Rossellini. (:20)

———————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare intersections intersectionality parallel oppressions homosexuality homosexual homophobia transsexual transphobia transphobic transsexual gay marriage green porno Isabella Rossellini Dr. Tatiana Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation sundance sundance channel sex sexuality ethology animal behavior videos video blogging speciesism misogyny sexism animals and women feminism feminist green porno bitch bitch magazine the buzz issue bug sex seafood anchovies shrimp squid farmed animals ocean farming factory farming vegetarian vegetarianism

I’ve heard mention of Isabella Rossellini’s latest project, Green Porno, here and there – ecorazzi, The Colbert Report, CNN even – but never bothered to follow up, seeing as I don’t get the Sundance Channel and all. But an article in Bitch magazine’s Spring ’09 issue (No. 43, appropriately titled “the buzz issue”) made me take a second look.

In “Wings of Desire: Bug sex as a gender revolution,” Katura Reynolds examines the subversive nature of Green Porno (as well as British evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson’s alter ego, Dr. Tatiana): by depicting (non-human) animal sex in all its kinky, decidedly non-vanilla glory, these projects challenge our traditional views of what “natural” sexuality and gender expression look like in the animal kingdom.

“Bug sex” is so much more then heterosexual, missionary style pairings: bugs may be male, female, or hermaphrodites; heterosexual, homosexual or asexual; reproduce through sexual activity, parthenogenesis, or an alternative combination thereof; etc. (Some, like the preying mantis, even engage in sexual cannibalism, consuming their partners during coitus.) The same holds true for many animal species, humans included; for example, in his 1999 book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (which I highly recommend, by the way), Bruce Bagemihl reviewed existing evidence which points to observed homosexual behavior in nearly 1500 animal species.

Green Porno, which is currently in its second season and airs on the Sundance Channel Tuesdays at 9 PM ET, is a bit cheesier and cheekier than its British cousin, – which is so raunchy that it’s not even available on Region 1 DVDs, let alone running on U.S. television. (You can, however, view a few clips of the show on You Tube.)

Writes Reynolds,

The eight short films in [season 1 of] Green Porno were written by Rossellini and codirected with Jody Shapiro. They feature Rossellini acting out the sex lives of flies, praying mantises, earthworms, dragonflies, gees, fireflies, snails and spiders. The films are simultaneously hilarious, scientifically accurate, unrepentantly corny, compellingly sexy, and completely bizarre. [...]

Rossellini strives for a simple, childlike atmosphere in the films. She starts each in a bodysuit, saying, “If I were a [type of bug],” and then her costumes gradually build as the film progresses: extra arms, compound eyes, snail shells, you name it. The props and supporting characters are made from giant cut-paper sculptures, like she’s wandered into a kindergarten classroom plastered in giant paper flowers.

The schoolroom setting is chosen very deliberately – it’s a foil for overtly sexual content. Rossellini gets it on with huge paper models of flies, mantises, and bees; she gasps and moans in orgasmic ecstasy as a firefly and a snail; she runs around waving hands covered in paper cutouts of sperm as a spider. As stated in the press release, “If human, these acts would not be allowed to air on television. [Indeed, Dr. Tatiana's human reenactments and live non-human animal footage is not.] They would be considered filthy and obscene.” But the silly costumes and absurd props distract audiences from the flagrantly, graphically sexual content. Comedy often serves as a harbor for the unspeakable. By laughing at the silliness of it all, we can disarm the taboo.

Additionally,

Through genderbending, Rossellini also disarms the viewer. In six of the films, she plays the male sex partner, which makes her panting and moaning funny, rather than smutty. [...]

Two Green Porno episodes go beyond the cross-dressing motif. In “Snail” and “Earthworm,” Rossellini play hermaphrodites.

Whereas Season 1 focuses strictly on bugs, Season 2 examines the sex lives of marine animals, including barnacles, whales, limpets, anglerfish and starfish (with three more animals to come, I assume). Season 3 promises to be even more interesting (and relevant to animal advocates), as Rossellini and crew turn the spotlight on “farm” animals.

If you hop on over to Green Porno‘s website, you can view (clips of?) all the episodes that have aired thus far. They’re quite short, coming in at just a few minutes each, and well worth a watch. (Perfect for killing five minutes here and there.) Or, you can take a quiz to find out what kind of green porno star you are, and also play “What’s your green porno name?” (Mine’s Tomato Hornworm, which sounds about right.)

There’s also a wealth of behind-the-scenes video and photos, my favorite of which is the making of the whale (sumo) suit.

The whale episode, which begins with a discussion of “penis drag” (and snag – ouch!) is a must-see:
 

Be still my beating heart! You had me at “vagina.”

While I could oooooh and aaaaah over every clip, there are way too many to embed. When you have a few spare minutes, go check ‘em out yourself; you won’t regret it, promise.

Anyhow, returning to the original discussion of Green Porno and company’s potential to influence how we see human sexuality, Katura Reynolds concludes “Wings of Desire” with the following observation:

And here we get to the quiet revolution that hides under all the costumed shenanigans. Our society is caught in a dramatic struggle over whether to define issues like homosexuality, sex changes and same-sex marriages as “unnatural” acts. Clearly the target audience of Green Porno and Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation is not the conservative legions of the religious right. But the fact that Rossellini and Judson have both turned their cameras on the subjects of gender roles, homosexuality, and various flavors of kink through the venue of scientific bug-sex cabaret is nonetheless a cause for hope. These campy comedies are making two important points: first, that humans are themselves part of nature [and the animal kingdom, to boot]; and second, that the natural world is so full of “perversions” that it’s well worth reassessing our standards. [...]

By playfully redefining “unnatural” sex acts as common, healthy, and practical, they are building a fascinating blend of queer/feminist/scientific animal symbolism.

To this, I’d like to add that, in addition to their anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, anti-anti-sex thrust (pun most definitely intended), these shows are anti-speciesist as well.

Conservative insistence that (human) homosexuality and the like are deviant and unnatural oftentimes rests, as Reynolds notes, on the willful misunderstanding and outright misrepresentation of sexuality in the (non-human) animal world. “Gay marriage is wrong because sex evolved for reproductive purposes only, as reflected in the absence of homosexual acts among animals” – or so the conservative argument goes. When evidence of homosexuality in non-human animals is uncovered, the denial is swift and violent. (Recall, for example, the religious right’s backlash against Roy and Silo, a homosexual pair of Chinstrap Penguins currently residing imprisoned at the Central Park Zoo in NYC.)

While this disavowal of animal homosexuality and sexual variety serves to justify and reinforce “isms” directed at humans (homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc.), it at also functions at another level. In denying non-human animals the full range of their behavioral, emotional and sexual expression, we rob them of their complexity, their personality – for lack of a better term, their humanity.

Like us, non-human animals can be complicated creatures, driven by a range of goals and desires. Animals, humans included, aren’t just about reproduction; our sole purpose in life isn’t simply to spread our DNA and produce as much offspring as possible. Sometimes we have sex, mate and form bonds because it’s fulfilling in other ways. Nor do we only nurture and protect our own genetic material: sometimes we act with altruism and compassion rather than selfishness and narcissism.

By insisting that animals only copulate in order to introduce sperm to egg, we simplify trillions of sentient beings, taking from them characteristics which make them seem that much more human.

Ironically, in so doing, we also reduce the human species to a caricature, a boring, two-dimensional model which scarcely resembles h. spaiens, in all its diverse, eccentric, animalistic magnificence.

Also ironic: humans’ tendency to measure morality in our species by looking to the behavior of non-human animals in order to judge what is and isn’t “natural” – while simultaneously justifying our exploitation of non-humans animals by exaggerating our dissimilarities to other animals species. There’s “Us” and the “Other,” except when there’s not.

—————

* Okay, so this same reasoning has been distorted by religious conservatives to defend the subjugation of women and girls – for their own good, of course – but I doubt that’s what the feminist Rossellini had in mind.

—————

Videos in this post:

Green Porno 2: Whale
Isabella Rossellini explores the mating habits of whales.

Green Porno 2: Why Vaginas
Isabella Rossellini explores the wonder of compatible penises and vaginas.

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare intersections intersectionality parallel oppressions homosexuality homosexual homophobia transsexual transphobia transphobic transsexual gay marriage green porno Isabella Rossellini Dr. Tatiana Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation sundance sundance channel sex sexuality ethology animal behavior videos video blogging speciesism misogyny sexism animals and women feminism feminist green porno bitch bitch magazine the buzz issue bug sex Katura Reynolds

The reporters also point out that Lilly’s isn’t an unusual case; in domesticity and the wild, non-human animals of many species step in to care for the young of other species, some who might normally be their rivals: “For most mothers, it’s just what they do. An instinct so deeply wired into them, that often, all they know is to love and care for life.”

A little cheesy and oversimplified, sure – and, in humans, this sort of essentialism can lead to gender stereotyping and misogyny – but, in many animals, human and non, those sentimental cliches about “a mother’s love” ring true. And the fact of the matter is, when you consume eggs or milk or “meat” (as I’m sure the oooh-ing and ahhh-ing reporters do), you’re exploiting a mother’s love, perverting and severing a relationship so vital to individual and species survival, that many mothers would die protecting their children, need be.

It’s what they do.

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare video you tube video blogging mother child intersections parallel oppressions dog canine cat feline cbs mother’s day milk eggs exploitation evolution mother-child bond