Recently in Daily Category

Just wanted to bring attention to the plight of the BLM Mustangs. I know, there she goes about horses again, but I can't help it. For those of you who don't know, the Bureau of Land Management is in charge of rounding up 'excess' wild horses, called Mustangs, and doing something with them. The problem is that we're running out of somethings to do. The horses lost a major battle several years ago when the BLM decided to allow the outright sale of 'undersiable' horses, who could not be adopted out. The adoption program is stringent, requiring the horse to remain in the adopter's home for one year before the deed of ownership can be transferred over. An outright sale, however, can mean the horse ends up sold for slaughter. Despite the well-meaning regulations in place to prevent this, it can and does happen. Even with outright sales allowed, the BLM can no longer maintain the herds of horses captured from the range. Their new plan? To murder them. Oh wait, I mean euthanize. 

I understand that the captive and free roaming herds alike are overcrowded, and that adoptions have decreased, but isn't there a way to reduce the free herds, thus removing the need for the round ups and holding? Something like feral cats - trap, neuter (or spay) and release? The senior horses, and other 'undesirables' have been moved to sanctuaries - a step in the right direction, provided they are run properly and provide adequate care. These two in tandem with the continued adoption and education of the public could provide for the Mustang's future - if they're begun now. 

What really angers me are the responses of those people who are supposedly protecting these horses, like Dawn Lappin of Wild Horse Organized Assistance. Apparently she shares the sentiments of one Fred Burke, an Arizona rancher quoted in a Salt Lake Tribune article as saying "The best thing we could do for that horse is put him down. We can't afford to send him to an old-timers rest home to die." Lappin was quoted in the same article as saying, "How these horses ended up on a refuge when they should have been destroyed is beyond me." And Matthew Mackay Smith, veterinarian and medical editor of an equine magazine? According to him "..death is meaningless to a horse. It only understands the moment." I challenge that one, on the mere grounds that if death was truly meaningless to any sentient being, food and water would probably be as well. With an attitude like that, how could we NOT euthanize them?

How can animals win when those who are supposed to be protecting them believe that their engineered deaths are an appropriate end? Obviously leaving the horses to starve and die on overgrazed ranges is not appropriate either, but perhaps if other 'animal agriculture' weren't continually moving in on the horse's territory, or if predators hadn't been driven off, it wouldn't be such a problem. 

None other than my hero and personal savior, Heather B. Armstrong of Dooce.com fame. Until this point the only thing Heather and I have ever disagreed about was bacon, and so for the next 21 days, I guess I can safely say she rocks times about 20. 20 million. 

For those of you who don't know, Heather is one of the country's most well known bloggers. I think she actually got rated in the top 10 most powerful blogs this year, right behind the Huffington Post. She's a kick-ass amazing woman, and I've been addicted to her blog for the past two years. I actually got to 'meet' her about two weeks ago at a book signing and I'm still completely twitter-pated, and now this? My week just got awesome. 

Since she's obviously not just doing this for health reasons (if you read her post, linked above, you'll see where she notes she's thinking of being a veggie permanently) it'd be great if everyone could go and leave her comments for support - there are a couple people who have left quasi-moron comments about how asparagus feels pain and how small-time cattlemen are actually really nice to the animals whose lives they remove. Think of how nice it'd be to see hundreds of vegans supporting her and providing accurate information. 

65% of the participants in the experiment continued to shock the subject until the maximum voltage had been reached, at the request of the experimenter. They pumped up to 450 volts of electricity into another being, an obviously sentient being, merely because they were told to do so: they wouldn't be held responsible, and they were told that they should continue. And continue they did, even though it is noted that many appeared uncomfortable. Probably because they thought they killed someone. 

Not a single participant refused to administer shocks before the voltage reached 300. Maybe not deadly, but not pleasant either. 

Not a single participant who refused to administer the final shocks left the room to check on the individual without first asking permission or insisted that the experiment be stopped. 

If you ever take a psychology class, you'll probably hear about this study. It's very famous, and I think I've had it in every class I've ever taken. There's a tendency to gloss it over, but when you step away from it and think of the actual meaning, it become very frightening indeed. If we take this study at face value:

• 65% of people would kill you if ordered to. 
• 100% of people would cause you pain if ordered to. 

If we consider this study in the context of animals, it makes even more sense. Very few people, relatively, stop to think about just what they're doing when they order a hamburger. We are told by society that our relationship to animals is okay, natural. If we protest, we are called zealots, terrorists, morons and kooks. In short, we are discredited for refusing to simply accept the instructions given to us by the libretto we call society. 

We all know what the 'right' action would be in the case above. If you were shocking someone for no reason and they complained of heart pains or screamed in pain, you'd understand that to continue to cause them harm is not the correct action for various reasons. In many cases with animals, it is the same. We know that 'cruelty' to animals is wrong. But when the time comes, why are we still engaging in it? 

Fredrick Nietzsche theorized that there was an essential cruelty inherent in human nature. Perhaps this experiment doesn't document our willingness to follow the leader, but our willingness to unveil the desire for viscous behavior in all of us. Personally, I don't believe it, but perhaps we should simply give up and, as a species, admit defeat on the compassion front. So what do we think? Are we simply guilty of the herd mentality we so callously mock, or are we apt to secretly revel in our own cruelty? 

Some other interesting (and applicable in this context) caveats of the Milgram experiments:

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox. 

What I hear you saying is that you wish you weren't bothered by it, but really, you are. This tells me that despite the fact that you'd dearly love not to care, on some deep level you know that this is wrong. That's not a bad thing at all, but it helps if you don't ignore it. 

It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's your subconscious telling you to pull your head out of your ass. Give it a try, I'm sure you'll enjoy the new view. 

The bothering is stressing me out a little, but nothing compared to my mother. I love my mother very much, but her attitude towards me/veganism/animals is confusing at times and downright anxiety-attack producing at others. I'm completely unable to talk to her because she merely shuts down and tells me to be quiet, because it makes her sad. There are times when I'm not even on the subject and she gets upset at me and accuses me of trying to "force my views on others." She's willing to buy me vegan food, and even try some, but she simply shuts down whenever I mention anything that has to do with animals. She's an intelligent, caring, loving woman who just doesn't, for some reason, make the connection between the love for animals I know she feels, and what she's putting in her mouth and on her body. 

It's the hardest thing I've had to deal with in a long time, and I'm struggling not to come to the conclusion that my mom just doesn't care. I love her so much and I always thought she was a truly good person. In all my years as a vegetarian I never brought up the subject to her, but now that I have, I feel a little lost.  I wish I could explain to her just how much this means, but I feel completely incapable. It's not that I want to force my views on anyone, it's that I genuinely believe that if people understood the how and the why, they'd readily accept. Especially my mom. But I can't explain if they just shut down. It's been bringing me down to the point where I feel absolutely useless, hence the lack of writing.  

 

Any advice? 

His illness was sudden, severe, and devastating.  I came home to a shadow of my once healthy, lovely, energetic companion. The dog who once wagged his tail so hard his whole back half shook could barely manage to raise his head and wag five times when I came home. 

But he did. 

I spent the night next to him on the floor, talking and petting and thinking. Around five, Sirius, one of the other dogs, crawled over to lay down next to Magic on his bed, and Magic in turn raised his head to lay it on Sirius' back. After dawn he whined to us to signal he'd like to go outside, where he was always happiest during the early summer. He could no longer walk on his own, so we carried him out and used a blanket sling to support his rear legs while he guided us. He didn't go far, just far enough to lay down in the grass. Occasionally, he'd raise his head to sniff the wind. At 7:50 my mom, my brother and I loaded him and some comfort items into the car and drove to our vet's. Magic always liked Katie, his vet, and her staff, and after being carried in and arranged on the floor he managed to lift his head one last time to say a polite hello to her. 

Then he dropped his head into my hands and let it rest, for the first and last time in his whole life. He went peacefully, more peacefully than I have ever seen a euthanasia go. 

I have often thought about how incredibly devastated I will be when Rivet dies, but never did I come to consider how I would feel when Magic died, because I really never thought about the fact that he would indeed die someday. That day always seemed far away and incoherent. I had planned for us a summer of hiking and swimming and reading in the yard together, possibly of visits to the barn to see Riv. I had planned to take pictures and make memories and take comfort in his presence when I missed Alex. Saturday night when I rounded up the other dogs to go to bed, an impatient "Mag, c'mon" escaped my lips, a reminder of how empty our house feels and will always feel. 

Magic was a truly great individual. From a human standpoint, he was kind and sweet and patient and great fun. There was no creature that wasn't safe with him, from small children to Teddy, my cockatiel. Our dwarf rabbit, Danzig, would snuggle confidently between his paws, and Magic wouldn't even bat an eye. He was patient and gentle with every animal he was ever introduced to, and he simply took everything in stride. He sat patiently and calmly while I cried on his shoulder when no one else would listen. He kept me company at night when Alex left for the semester. He jumped in pools to rescue Gus, his 'slow' sibling, from drowning. He let babies pet him and pull at his ears, let our cats rub their faces on his nose and sleep between his legs. He played Sandy in my high school production of "Annie".

From a doggy point of view, he was an amazing hiker, wrestler and swimmer and a phenomenal garbage dog. Over the years he got into every item that could possible be found and eaten, including an entire bag of Halloween candy, a bag of flour, a loaf of unrisen bread, a half pound of M&Ms, a 5lb sack of sugar which he promptly spilled his water dish over, not to mention countless loaves of bread and any other food left out in the open. He figured out how to open every cabinet and drawer in the kitchen, and was only prevented from opening the fridge and oven by their weight. I swear one time he unlatched a baby-latch to get into the garbage can - no mean feat when you lack opposable thumbs. He taught other dogs how to jump up on counters to get food. He loved to sleep on the lounge chair in our living room, even though he knew it was off limits. He never ever played fetch, despite being a Labrador Retriever. The only food he wouldn't touch was popcorn, and even then he'd lick the butter-flavor off the raw kernels if given the chance. He marked his territory regularly and with authority. He was social and loved to play chase. He never once showed true aggression, but expressed a distinct dislike of Siberian Huskies and German Shepherds. He loved snow and was a champion belly-skiier. 

It has taken me almost a week to be able to post this, and even now I'm still not quite sure what to say. I feel like there's something missing from this post, something so significant. 

There are many people in the world who do not believe animals have emotions. Science refuses to address the topic, thus keeping any 'credible' evidence on the subject off the table. Many people speculate over whether or not animals are capable of knowing about their own deaths, or even about their own lives. Even supposed 'dog lovers' refuse to see dogs as much more than pieces of property without desires or preferences of their own. Those of us who are able to know a dog who can teach us as much as Magic taught me about animals are truly lucky, for we don't need to ponder those questions. We already know the answers: dogs are not mindless food-slaves, but thinking, feeling, loving, sentient beings. 

There will be other dogs in my life, I'm sure, but Magic was the first and will never be forgotten. Thanks buddy. I love you.

My answer: It depends on your point of view. And maybe sometimes, the circumstances. 

I myself had been riding for longer than I've been a veg-anything. Well over 15 years. As many know, I have Rivet, who is a horse and who I have ridden. I rode well into my veganism too. Why? Well, when I first went vegan I had not been introduced to the abolitionist school of thought, only the utilitarian arguments. In my opinion, if you subscribe the the utilitarian school of thought, then no, the two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as you are not causing the horse to suffer in any way shape or form, there should be no problem. I don't believe that horses necessarily get zero pleasure out of all rides either, which makes it even less of a problem. 

If you subscribe to the abolitionist view, than no, riding is no more vegan than circuses or zoos. It should be noted that not all vegans believe than animals should not be property, so this question depends on your personal philosophical vegan views.

We must also take into account that the case of the horse is unlike that of most domestic 'pet' animals. Unlike dogs or cats, the principle reason people have horses is to ride them. Horses who are not ridable face an uncertain future, because they're large and expensive and require a lot of upkeep. We live in a culture where people want "bang for their buck" and because their brains are steeped in the idea that horses are meant to be ridden, few 'horse' people are interested in maintaining a horse they cannot or will not ride. This is completely inexcusable. For the mere fact that we cannot sit on their backs, we are willing to forgo years of servitude and mutual affection and ship a beloved friend off to destination unknown. We are willing to forgo friendship and ignore the consequences, and we daily condemn horses to death. Thousands of horses end their lives in slaughter houses, or are 'euthanized' because no one is willing to keep them alive. Their lives are worth something to us only as long as they are useful, despite the fact our relationship to horses bares great similarity to our relationship with dogs. I don't poo-poo the bond between horse and human as Luke from Vegan FAQ does, but I do think our relationship with horses is more one-sided than we'd like to let on. 

Many horses live out their lives in what are essentially glorified cages because that is what people seem to think would be best. Many have limited access to outside spaces, and to other horses. Ironically, the more valuable a horse the more we place him in a situation where his natural needs are not met. He is locked up to protect him, but where we see a nice clean stall with decent ventilation, fit for a human almost(!), he sees a cramped box where his only interaction with his own kind comes from a distance of 5+ feet. In this case, a ride is probably a welcome change of pace, must more pleasurable than doing nothing all day long. Despite the fact that I do believe that our use of horses should come to an end, I think that vegans have failed to consider the fact that horses may actually enjoy rides. I'm not saying it's true, but shouldn't we at least consider it? When one takes a dog bird hunting, one is using the dog, but that doesn't preclude the dog from enjoying the activity. The way the world is today, horses are rarely afforded the space they would enjoy in nature. If the only way we can give this to them is riding, and they enjoy the experience, is that wrong? I'm not talking about riding horses in shows, in races, for money or for fame, putting them in danger for human pleasures that do not matter to horses. I'm talking about an experience that could conceivably be enjoyed by both equine and human, where the horse is allowed to do more or less as he pleases, but where we have to be there to insure his safety. 

Here is where another quandary comes in. Is it more morally offensive to let a horse die than to ride him? Could riding, or participation in riding activities, be something a vegan could be involved in? Let us examine this hypothetical:

I want to rescue horses from a slaughter auction (or a PMU ranch, a racetrack, or whatever). I do not have enough finances to care for the horses on my own, however, there is a therapeutic riding program in the area which would be willing to pay for the care and upkeep for 15 rescued horses, provided that each horse is used a few times a week in therapy sessions. The therapy sessions involve a minimal amount of riding and pose no danger to the horses. The horses would be cared for into old age and would live out their lives at the center. They will not be stalled, but will be allowed to live in a social group. When they grow too old to be ridden, they will still participate in therapeutic ground activities like grooming and lead walking. For the sake of hypothetical, we'll say that while none of them hate the sessions, some of them would rather be hanging out in the field. 

Or how about this hypothetical: 

My horse is high strung and energetic, and lives in a small paddock with 4 other horses. Due to land and monetary constraints, I am unable to move him to a larger paddock where he will be able to fully exercise himself. His behavior has become dangerous to the other horses, and I am being told that if he does not stop we will be evicted, at which point I may no longer be able to maintain him or may have to move him to a stall. I therefor decide that I will take him trail riding three times a week to help burn off some excess energy. During this ride he is allowed to run where it is safe if he so desires. Doing this calms his behavior and enables him to continue living in a social group. 

What do you think? What about other forms of horsey-exploitation that don't involve riding, like halter showing? What about equine-assisted psychotherapy, where the horse is actually the therapist by reading our body language and responding appropriately. 

Alex is staying in DC and will be making regular posts.